This is a commentary posted on a great site by one of my former students and a great friend, Oscar Hyde (the fellow in the picture with the great grin). This is in response to an article he read by an evolutionist. For the whole post, click on the link at the bottom of this post. ...here is Oscar's response to the evolutionary claims (highlighted in yellow). Please read carefully:
There are actually certain creationists who do happen to believe in devolution by natural selection. In fact, natural selection is the greatest idea that Darwin ever presented to the world, because it’s actually evidence for creationism - at least, against evolution.
Now, I’m not committing the same error for which I just corrected Mr Kealey above.
Because it is against evolution.
Let me explain:
#1. I am a creationist, and I do actually believe that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.
#2. I believe that God created original “kinds” of animals. Many people (including some creationists) read this as “species”, but it’s not, partially because it was written over 3000 years before Carolus Linnaeus.
#3. Said original kinds had far more genetic information than today’s animals. As these kinds bred, genetic information was transferred from generation to generation… however, various information was lost in each offspring. This would explain, for example, different types of dog/wolf/dingo/etc. - there was an original dog “type”, which has devolved (by losing information) into the vast range we have today. (Think of inbreeding amongst modern pets, but on a larger scale.)
#4. Now, after the Flood, the animals on the Ark bred, and their descendants moved around. Different groups of descendants had different concentrations of information. Those with the information to survive in that environment did; those who didn’t didn’t (natural selection). But - and here’s the important thing - all the information was originally present.
That’s quite diffent from “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” evolution, where huge amounts of new genetic information are added (unless you think that an amoeba has more genetic information than you do).
Bravo, Oscar!
Read more of Oscar's insight at
http://completegeek.nfshost.com/2006/11/08/what-the-papers-say/#comments
