If evolution is valid, how could an eyeball develop, let alone two, symmetrical in an even position on a face, and why would it evolve at all if it wasn’t needed before?

This question makes a direct link from “I can’t, personally, think of a way for that to get accomplished,” to “Therefore I have proved a negative: there is no way for that to happen.”

The least effective thing to do when confronted with this sort of query is to accept that “one eye vs two” is the issue. Don’t go there!

It is a matter of faith to require yourself to accept Christian Scripture as holy, inviolate, and direct from GOD to man. Remember that the Bible’s message is that GOD is sovereign and GOD provides grace. If a passage doesn’t involve itself with theology, why does one need to treat it as inviolable? Custom says “Do it” – but does theology?

Yes it’s terrifying to go from accepting a six thousand year old earth that began with two humans ready made, to realize that all of the data GOD planted in the ground for us to dig up says something very very different. One thing that is clear now is that ‘Adam’ lived around 75 thousand years ago, and ‘Eve’ lived very roughly three times longer ago than Adam did.

Yes it’s terrifying to realize that from Adam to Abraham is such a huge stretch of time that even Abraham may not correspond with the details of Genesis. Abraham and the twelve tribes may have been no more than parts of the origin story we read in Genesis. If that idea leads to heartburn of the earth-shattering kind, go ahead and stay with the young earth idea.

[[ Factoid: archaeological digs in the Holy Land do not show any change in pottery styles that one would need to date the conquest of Canaan by invading Israel. This doesn’t prove that Israelites failed to sweep in from the desert, but it means proving that they did is currently impossible. Given the degree of scholarship and coverage to date, ‘current’ is pretty close to ‘permanent’.]]

Please realize one thing. A huge degree of angst can attend the notion that Abraham might be on a par with King Arthur. The legend of King Arthur is one-third as recent as Abraham, yet it’s easy to demonstrate the fellow was amped up in the first half a dozen centuries following his life and death. What do we think we know of him today? Don’t bet on any of it being remotely accurate.

Do you have a scale of angst to go with such a diminishment of Abraham? Turn around, look at the world of science, and understand that they are immune to receiving that kind of angst from you. Why? Because when you insist that your theology is science and should be their science too, they know the difference.

Science, as a “religion,” has a fierce GOD called facts. Every scientist cowers before this GOD because, when his/her interpretations of facts, or (shudder) the  data winds up faulty, their sins will find them out.

Christians are supposed to let their sins find them out, but how many manage to fool their neighbors? – Don’t answer that, because I’m your neighbor. But scientists always get found out for their science-sins. Maybe post-mortem, but always.

Merely finding a scientific statement abhorrent has zero weight when assessing its truth. Call science a religion if you must, but a successful defense of that definition is impossible. That’s one negative that carries its own proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s