ICR and AIG Refute BioLogos Old-Earth Argument

In 2010, the BioLogos Foundation published an article titled Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology.1 It was authored by old-Earth geologists Drs. Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth. Scientists from both ICR (The Institute for Creation Research) and AIG (Answers in Genesis) recently refuted the strongest of these arguments from their article.

The BioLogos Foundation is an organization that promotes what it calls "evolutionary creation."2,3 It goes further than other old-Earth "Christianity and science" organizations (such as Reasons to Believe) in that it urges Christians to accept, not just the doctrine of an old Earth, but the doctrine of evolution itself. In essence, BioLogos argues that Christians should accept essentially all the origins claims made by secular scientists and attempt to somehow incorporate those ideas into the Christian faith.

Evolutionists currently invoke the “primeval soup” to expand the “warm little pond” into a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes, polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits, and nucleotides, all poised to self-combine into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic acids.4Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide, and cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the “once upon a pond” story to obtain a blob of protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

Evolution Is Biologically Impossible

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/705312/posts

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 10>50 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 10>80 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 10>45. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10>80 x 10>45 x 10>25 = 10>150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.