Well, after reading over a few articles on my new favorite web site "aswersingenesis.org", I felt compelled to write in. I guess I just like to stir up shit.

In many of your articles, you speak at length about the �presuppositions� of people who believe in evolution. The way I understand it, you mean that some people operate on their belief that man descended from other animals over millions of years and therefore can�t literally believe the Bible. You go to great lengths and make often times reaching arguments to point out holes in evolutionary history and the fossil record as reasons for people to toss off these �presuppositions�. You tell them to look at human history with a more critical eye, and to acknowledge the flaws in this secular thought process. To put it bluntly, I find this train of logic incredibly hypocritical on your part. You�re basically faulting people for operating under the assumption that evolution does exist. You could just as easily be faulted for operating under the assumption that the Bible is the literal truth. You stated in a past column, �If only [Christian professors] would start with the presupposition that God�s Word is true. They would find that they could then correctly interpret the evidence of the present, and also show overwhelmingly that observational science over and over again confirms such interpretations.� With statements such as this, you are falling victim to your own argument. You believe the Bible is the literal truth and therefore reject any evidence to the contrary, and at the same time, you�re faulting people who believe evolution is true and who reject any evidence to the contrary. You continue, �And don�t forget, as Christians, we need to always build our thinking on the Word of the One who has the answers to all of the questions that could ever be asked�the infinite Creator God.� This statement is blatantly false. The Bible, by no stretch of imagination, has all the answers to all questions man could ever ask. Not to poke fun, but I don�t remember reading anywhere in the Bible on how to build a particle accelerator. Furthermore, certain aspects of the Bible just simply defy logic. Take the biblical flood, for example. If Noah had built an ark in which he held two specimens of every animal, as the Bible says, that would have to be a pretty big boat- roughly the size of Rhode Island. By most estimates, there are between 5 and 30 million animal species on the planet today. Even using the conservative estimate of 5 million, over the course of one year, Noah would have needed to gather up roughly 40 thousand animals a day, or basically an animal every two seconds- for an entire YEAR. If you�re telling me that is the literal truth that I should believe, that is a pretty big pill to try and swallow. I also looked at length for an answer as to who Cain married, since the Bible only talks in detail about Adam and Eve having three sons. Your web site offers an explanation, but it is basically an assumption pieced together from other threads found in the bible. The fact remains that the Bible never does explain how (or who) Cain married. The explanation you offer is merely a guess (based on incest) that you have pieced together under the supposition that every human on earth is descended from Adam and Eve- there is no real answer to that question in the Bible. I only bring it up because you are filling in holes to which you have no real answers, and you criticize secular scientists for doing the same thing with the fossil record and evolutionary theory. You are closing your mind off to any contradictory evidence (of which there is a pretty large amount) that doesn�t mesh with what you believe, and you aren�t doing this based on any solid, substantiated evidence whatsoever. The way you state your argument is what is commonly known as a null hypothesis. You operate under the assumption that your view is true simply because you don�t believe there is enough evidence to prove you wrong, rather than formulating your belief on evidence that supports your claim. Politicians use this same technique all the time- rather than explaining why you should vote for them by offering up solutions to poverty, health care, etc, they focus on telling you why you shouldn�t vote for their opponent. I�ve been reading your articles for some time now and have found this basic flaw in virtually every argument you try and make. You readily admit that man is fallible, and it is man who wrote the Bible. While you claim that it is the word of God, in reality, and by your own admission, it is the word of God as interpreted by man. Biblical scholars spend lifetimes mulling over the nuances in the bible and are continuously reinterpreting it. To operate under the assumption that a human interpretation of the Bible is the literal truth while rejecting any and all contrary scientific evidence, flawed as some of it may be, as total fallacy is sadly na�ve on your part. You claim to be trying to teach others how to ask the �right� questions when looking at scientific evidence- that same advice would be just as valuable when looking at the Bible rather than operating under the �presupposition� that everything in it is the literal truth, don�t you agree? I am not advocating one side or the other, but to be honest, at least �secular� scientists attempt to provide scientific evidence to support their claims, and have often changed those views when new evidence comes to light. You on the other hand, simply try and refute their findings because they don�t fit neatly into your idea of the truth. I know as well as anyone that there are problems in the fossil record. Carbon dating is not an exact science- but as least it is based on a proven, repeatable technique that has been shown on many occasions to provide a somewhat accurate indication of something�s age. Your argument on the other hand, has none of these merits. �It is written in a book, therefore it must be true.� I think your message would be better served by trying to find real evidence to support your claim rather than manipulating scientific findings to neatly fill in the gaps left by the Bible. Of course, this is merely a suggestion.

0 comments from the peanut gallery