Replies

First--evolution removes the need for God in that it is taught that evolution is non-directed (Origin of Species). I believe God's actions all have direction. So, one removes the need for the other--if true.

Now,lets examine some of the "theories" of macro-evolution that are taught in the public schools.

1. Stanley Miller Experiment--he did not realize the facts about amino acids. We now know that amino acids most likely could not have survived the atmospheric conditions of the time.
2. Tree of Life--Darwin's theory suggests that it takes great amounts of time for species to change. He writes "it would not act slowsly by accumulting slight, successive, favorable variationss and that no great or sudden modifications were possible." We now know that there was what is called the "Cambrian Period." This is a time where most animals simply "appear."
3. Ernst Haeckel's "Embryo drawings"--this theory--although proven to be a hoax--is still taught in some books.
4. Missing Links--Darwins concluded that the fossil record did not back up his book "Origin of Species." 150 years later, the fossil record seems to go against his theory more than it did then. Did you realize that there are actually labs in Malaysia that produce faked fossils--designed to "prove" evolution.

Anyways, I could get more into detail about these issues, but there are volumes of books on the subject. I would suggest reading Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator" or other books you will find at Barnes and Noble.

First--evolution removes the need for God in that it is taught that evolution is non-directed (Origin of Species). I believe God's actions all have direction. So, one removes the need for the other--if true.

Only for a very specific and narrowly-defined God. Many people make the mistake of assuming that if a god exists, it must have very specific properties, and if these properties are not reflected in the universe, no gods exist at all. I see this kind of faulty reasoning from some people who argue that there are no gods and from others who assert that a certain scientific theory implies that there are no gods.

Stanley Miller Experiment--he did not realize the facts about amino acids. We now know that amino acids most likely could not have survived the atmospheric conditions of the time.

No bearing on the theory of evolution, since evolution doesn't occur until life already exists.

Tree of Life--Darwin's theory suggests that it takes great amounts of time for species to change. He writes "it would not act slowsly by accumulting slight, successive, favorable variationss and that no great or sudden modifications were possible." We now know that there was what is called the "Cambrian Period." This is a time where most animals simply "appear."

The "Cambrian Period" is commonly brought up by creationists who don't understand that it's already been well addressed. Animals don't simply "appear" as though they arrived fully formed.

Ernst Haeckel's "Embryo drawings"--this theory--although proven to be a hoax--is still taught in some books.

Haeckel's drawings were used in textbooks as an illustration of embryos, not because the textbooks are presenting Haeckel's falsified hypothesis as fact, and not because the drawings are used as evidence for Haeckel's falsified hypothesis. This is a common creationist misconception, but a lack of full understanding hasn't stopped them from trotting out this line.

Missing Links--Darwins concluded that the fossil record did not back up his book "Origin of Species." 150 years later, the fossil record seems to go against his theory more than it did then.

This is simply false, yet I hear it all the time from creationists.

Did you realize that there are actually labs in Malaysia that produce faked fossils--designed to "prove" evolution.

Citation?