Jump to content

Menu

Secular or Christian Bio


Recommended Posts

My youngest daughter will be starting 9th grade in the fall.  I had originally planned to use Apologia Exploring Creation with Biology.  It was a good text for my not-so-interested-in-science older daughter.  My concern now is that she is VERY likely to have a science major in college.  Is Apologia enough?  I wonder if she needs a broader scope-the Creationist viewpoint doesn't allow for any learning about evolution.  We are Christian, but not Creationist and she is well aware of the controversy.  I simply want her to be as well prepared as possible.  Additionally, we have all we need for her to do Apologia.  In an effort to save money (our oldest is starting college-Yikes!), I'd rather supplement that instead of buying an entirely new curriculum.  I'd love to hear suggestions-is supplementing okay? with what? or should I bite the bullet and buy something else (Holt at Oak Meadow?)

Thanks for any thoughts you may have!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern now is that she is VERY likely to have a science major in college.  Is Apologia enough?

 

If Apologia doesn't teach evolution (or teaches that it is wrong), then it is not enough.  Evolution is the organizing principle of modern biology.  Everything centers on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have many friends who have used Apologia Biology and gone into science at secular universities -- nurses, doctors, etc.  Since you have the materials and money is tight, I would contact Apologia to get some input.  Also, look at Redwagon Tutorials and/or DIVE and talk to the instructors for their input.  If I have materials on the shelf, I always try to find a way to make them work before spending more dollars for high school materials.  With a student who is headed for science, you might want to consider going through Apologia Bio at a fast pace and following up with a college course at cc or online.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Since you have the materials and money is tight, I would contact Apologia to get some input.   

 

I don't think we can expect Apologia to say anything other than, go ahead and use our stuff, it will be fine! I mean, what else are they going to say? 

 

I would definitely bite the bullet and buy something new. 

 

We used Miller & Levine (the dragonfly book, but there's a newer edition now). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have many friends who have used Apologia Biology and gone into science at secular universities -- nurses, doctors, etc.

 

Just to point out, while nurses and doctors need to take a lot of science during their training, they are *not* scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to get a standard Biology textbook. You do. Evolution explains everything in Biology; it is the glue that holds it altogether.  If you take it out, you lose the answer to the question, "why?"  And no scientist would want to be unable to answer a question like that!  And you can't just tack it on top because evolution is integrated into every aspect of Biology - cell bio, ecology, population genetics, animal diversity, human anatomy/physiology, all of it.

 

You do not have to get a super new book.  Go back an edition or 2 and you will find them for cheap online.

 

Ruth in NZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kolbe Academy has schedules and other items for Miller Levine Biology. Secular book with extra Christian material. 

 

Right now they have material for the 2006 book but they are supposed to release a homeschool schedule for the newer book by the end of summer. 

 

They schedule virtual labs so you might want to hold onto the Apologia to pull labs from. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We found a used Miller Levine biology (dragonfly cover) for $15. It comes pretty highly recommended around here.

 

I wanted to like the simplicity of Apologia, but halfway through the year I waved the white flag. It was like pulling teeth to get DS through it. He still {really, really} doesn't like biology, but he's actually moving forward now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote "nurses, doctors, etc."  The "etc." meant scientists.  At the same time, I expected  opposition to my suggestion.  Also, I suggested contacting Apologia to get their input on expanding the curriculum in ways that you need.  However, in light of the posts from the scientists on the list, I do think you should spend money on new curriculum.  Put the Apologia materials on the "For Sale" list or give them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some universities will turn away students just for having used Apologia. Not all, but some. The one my kids will most likely attend is one. You list Apologia as one of your books, and you're out. This university is really, really, careful about young Earth Creationists in their science faculty.  Young Earth is junk science, no way around it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about which universities will turn away students who use Apologia. Can anyone here give me more info? I'm not planning to use Apologia, but I'm very curious because I have read that claim here on the boards despite the fact that I know many many homeschoolers IRL who have used Apologia in high school and been accepted to colleges some with scholarships, some for STEM careers. Again, I'm very curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGill university is one.  I went to a presentation a few years ago, and it was mentioned there. It was even mentioned that they were thinking of removing any diploma from anyone having graduated in the Faculty of Science and found to take a Creationist stance. To be fair, they also said it was highly unlikely that they'd be able to do that. (and they don't so far).

 

I know of at least 3 homeschoolers who were turned away because of Apologia, one just this year. 

 

This only applies to the faculty of science. Engineering, Medecine, and everything else is not affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the college rejections based on the creationist viewpoint of the Apologia textbooks or the rigor of the text since it is on the easy side? Or, is the trend now rejections of students using any Christian textbook for science?  If so, then the path for these students would a secular text with add-ins like the Kolbe syllabus that was mentioned, and of course, strong warning to keep quiet about their beliefs at the college level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the college rejections based the creationist viewpoint of the Apologia textbooks or the rigor of the text since it is on the easy side? Or, is the trend now rejections of students using any Christian textbook for science?

 

It is not specifically the Christian but the combination of young earth along with the rejection of teaching of evolution. The facts about evolution that ARE presented in these texts are significantly distorted, and the university considers it not to be a science class for purposes of university admission.

 

Not long ago, in California, there was a suit filed by a coalition of private Christian schools alleging that California was practicing religious discrimination when it would not approve courses taught using BJU or Abeka for satisfying the A-G requirements. They lost the suit -- see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Christian_Schools_International_v._Roman_Stearns for a summary. As I recall, they HAD eventually approved the chemistry/physics courses, but not the biology/earth science ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Kiana.  So, it looks like approved secular biology textbooks for college admissions with the parent teaching anything pertinent to their faith, and no discussion of creationism/creator at the college level, which is nothing new.  When ds took bio at the college level, the prof stated that up front.  Every student knew the ground rules going in.  No surprises.  Of course, that applied to other courses as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kiana is right. It's not religion that is turned away, but the lack of scientific rigor and valid scientific content. As someone mentioned a little higher up, evolution is at the core of Biological Sciences. It cannot be more central that what it is.  You don't teach it, you're not teaching Biology. You're teaching some sort of fake science, but it's not Biology. 

An approach like Kolbe is fine The book is secular, entirely science approved (minus any error that is found in such books once in a while). The religious content is on the side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Kiana.  So, it looks like approved secular biology textbooks for college admissions with the parent teaching anything pertinent to their faith, and no discussion of creationism/creator at the college level, which is nothing new.  When ds took bio at the college level, the prof stated that up front.  Every student knew the ground rules going in.  No surprises.  Of course, that applied to other courses as well.

 

Right. This definitely does not apply to every university, BTW, and some that DO express concern will forget their concerns with a sufficiently high SAT 2 or AP score. However, unless your (your in general, not you specifically) family is strongly YEC, I would be inclined to play it safe and use one of the many secular options available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly, the science she does at home will not affect how well she does in college.

 

IMHO, she needs as much foundational Christian-based science as possible while she's young, so she won't be sucked into the everything-began-as-slime-on-a-rock theory in college. When she gets there, she can read the books and listen to the lectures and do the assignments to get the grade and then move on.

 

There are way too many happy college grads who used Apologia and other textbooks from Christian publishers to buy something else just because Apologia does or does not teach evolution as a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between high school and college I have five years of biology classes, from sweeping overviews to microbio. I honestly find it to be a fluff, nonsense subject that cloaks itself in being useful. The actual hard science involved is quite minimal, and taking focused courses in organic chemistry, microbio, astronomy, etc, with plenty of exposure to species-specific studies, should be more than sufficient for anyone pursuing anything but being a field biologist or a biology teacher. I learned nothing in high school bio, AP bio, or any of my college bio courses that wasn't better explained and more deeply explored in degree-specific classes. I cannot tell you how much more I would have benefitted from physics and chemistry than I did my third year of biology - what a waste.

 

Apologia is absolutely fine. If she is interested in pursuing science I'd highly recommend following up Apologia with more targeted studies. There is a very different course of study needed for a marine field biologist than a lab tech with the CDC, you know?

 

What do you mean by the bolded sentence? You can get a degree in biology, so bio courses can be degree-specific just the same as any other science course.

 

Also, what topics in the field of biology do you feel are better explained in non-biology classes, and what would those 'better' classes be? 

 

Why do you feel sure you would have benefitted more from physics and chemistry? It seems like it would be really hard to tell if classes you didn't take would have been more useful. 

 

I'm really curious as to your thought process, and what you led you to feel so strongly about it. If biology were a person, I'd suspect him of being a bad college boyfriend  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a list of resources I will be using in conjunction with our interest-led science studies for the next 3 years to help DD understand both sides of the evolution debate.  In addition to this resource list, beginning next year we are introducing Christian apologetics as our family Bible study over the next 3 year.  The curricula I will be using for that incorporates logic and presents a case for reasonable faith.

Here’s my list: (Please keep in mind these are from an OE perspective).  You could also start to incorporate some of these as supplemental reading alongside a secular biology text.

  • Darwin’s Dilemma (DVD) - Amazon
  • Signature in the Cell (book) – Amazon
  • Darwin’s Doubt (book) – Amazon
  • Evolution: A Theory in Crisis – Amazon (written by a secular scientist)
  • Good Science, Good Faith – curriculum by Reasons.org (DD will be doing this as an elective)
  • www.godandscience.org
  • www.evolutionnews.org – provides current scientific findings that support a biblical worldview and casts doubt on Darwinian evolution.  Most evidence is cited from secular scientific journals
  • www.reasons.org – type Evolution into the search field and you will get all kinds of articles and podcasts.
  • www.str.org – type Evolution into the search field and you will get all kinds of articles and podcasts. (The one titled Evolution: Dancing on the Titanic is especially good.)
  • www.reasonablefaith.org - type Evolution into the search field and you will get all kinds of articles and podcasts.

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used Apologia for my first three.  I spent the money on it for the first, and then just didn't feel that I could spend more on another program.  I loved so much of it, and felt that for a general Biology book, it worked okay.  We loved the experiments.  But of course the author's views on certain topics drove me nuts.  There really was only a chapter on creationism/evolution though, I think.  (I may be wrong, but that's kind of what I remember.)   I don't believe too much is covered on this in general Biology.  But...

 

We talked a LOT about evolution.  We used those parts in Apologia as a jump-off point on why I believed he was wrong, and what true science is.  We never glossed over those parts.   ANYTHING I believed to be wrong, we discussed it at length.  I almost feel we learned MORE that way as a result.  We had so many interesting discussions during those years of Apologia, picking it apart and separating what appeared to be true science from what was just an already-held conclusion that Wile was trying to back.

 

By the time we got to our 4th and 5th child, we were able to get a new curriculum.  We went with Miller and Levine and I did like that a lot.  We used their online resources almost every day.  But, I did miss the more personal approach you get with Apologia, and Miller and Levine was a lot more work for me to prepare.  Apologia was definitely more homeschool friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CK-12 has a free biology course complete with worksheets, quizzes, tests, and teacher edition. The interactive form links with cool videos. It has online flash cards already made up for the vocab.

 

I got a dragonfly Miller/Levine book cheap as well and let my son compare. He chose the CK-12. We used it this year and it was a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jhat-What did you need to use Miller and Levine?  It's unclear if I can just get the text.  There are workbooks and a teacher's guide.  The teacher's edition is pricey.  Did you just use the textbook? I'm thinking of getting that and using mostly that. with the labs from Apologia because I have everything I need. The Miller and Levine site was confusing, although there were some interesting links on the dragonfly page.

Thanks everyone for your amaznig feedback.  I am always amazed by the depth and thoughtfulness of responses in the hive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jhat-What did you need to use Miller and Levine?  It's unclear if I can just get the text.  There are workbooks and a teacher's guide.  The teacher's edition is pricey.  Did you just use the textbook? I'm thinking of getting that and using mostly that. with the labs from Apologia because I have everything I need. The Miller and Levine site was confusing, although there were some interesting links on the dragonfly page.

Thanks everyone for your amaznig feedback.  I am always amazed by the depth and thoughtfulness of responses in the hive!

 

I think pairing the labs from Apologia will work fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jhat-What did you need to use Miller and Levine? It's unclear if I can just get the text. !

If buying on the used marketplace to save money, get a Dragonfly student book and the teacher's CD.

 

If buying from the publisher, the student book and the teacher online access is plenty, just carefully follow the directions in Dicentra's post. When you pay full price for the student book from the publisher, you can get the teacher's access for free. I would get the current version if you're paying full price from the publisher, but their 'homeschool store' tries to steer you into Dragonfly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have hear this sentiment before - from my brother in law who got his doctorate in some branch of Astro- physics at an Ivy League school. He is now a prof. at a well-known uni, and esteemed researcher on the side (he is occasionally in the news and all).

 

When he told me how he (and apparently the rest of the science factulty at his ivy) viewed biology, I was totally floored!

 

(Edited to add: Not 'floored' in a bad way, the conversation really made me think, and was of great benefit )

 

 

 

I meant what I said. I view overview biology courses to be quite a waste when compared with hard sciences paired with focused studies of systems. One is investigative, methodological science. One is indoctrination into a lens by which a fair number of people want a student to view science. No thanks.

 

ETA - you know, the bad boyfriend analogy fits. The jerk lied to me, fed me a line, and left me with few real answers and a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. It was only in hindsight and with more knowledge and a good helping of wisdom that I got my head on straight and could look at him (the topic) more clearly. What a waste of time I should have been spending on more useful knowledge. One of my SIL's actually did her student teaching for Biology when I was in high school (that was a bit awkward, having my friends be students of my sister in law) and I was shocked at how little she actually applied her experience in the field, especially avian biology, in her classes. The real work to be done with biology was in no way what the Bio 1/2/AP kids were getting in their texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put her into a more mainstream text that teaches the evolution she will be tested on and expected to know in college. I personally favor the Campbell Reece textbooks; older editions are sufficient and can be had cheaply online at Amazon (as long as they are not 20 years old). There really isn't any controversy within the scientific community about the validity of evolution, which is why it is accepted and taught in mainstream science texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually intruding here since my daughter is in 8th grade, not 9th. However, I know that you are the ones that have the hindsight of 8th grade, which I do not. You know what has worked and what hasn't in regard to preparing your 9th grader.

 

I am at a loss about science. I was going to go with Apologia, but heard from several sources that it will not prepare the child for higher levels of science. Although I am Creationist in thinking, I have also been through enough college to know you have to learn a well-rounded view to succeed in any field of science.

 

We already have a microscope and would love experiments and things like that. I'm just so overwhelmed with all that is out there and which curriculum would be best for her to be okay in 9th grade science. English, too, but y'all are discussing science...so...

 

I've thought about getting individual books that cover select topics. The State of Texas requires:

 

Matter and Energy;Atoms; protons; periodic table arrangement; chemical formulas; chemical reactions; diagram flow of energy through living things.

 

I'm not sure if more is required, but I know these are. Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought about getting individual books that cover select topics. The State of Texas requires:

 

Matter and Energy;Atoms; protons; periodic table arrangement; chemical formulas; chemical reactions; diagram flow of energy through living things.

 

I'm not sure if more is required, but I know these are. Any ideas?

Texas doesn't require anything other than that you cover language arts, math and citizenship in a bona fide manner (I'm paraphrasing the law from memory, but the gist of it is that you can do whatever science topics you like in 8th grade). 8th grade is your last shot at doing what ever catches your fancy before you need to start keeping a transcript for colleges. Is there something in particular that your student would love to study?

 

If not, a very standard 8th/9th grade class is Physical Science which covers the basics of Chemistry and Physics. There are several textbooks you could use. Here's a link to a free one:

 

http://www.ck12.org/physical-science/

 

This includes the text, videos and quizzes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chiguirre,

 

Thanks for you post.

 

I went to the TEA website and looked under Assessments for STARR. It shows science under 8th grade, as well as Reading, Math, Social Studies. This is why I thought science was required for 8th grade.

 

Also, I tried to copy it all here, but I couldn't get it to copy. I must be doing something wrong. Anyway, you can go under STARR science resources and it tells you what is expected in all the grades.

 

I realize some may not consider the STARR or TEA options, but I think they are important to at least monitor.

 

Again, thanks for your post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize some may not consider the STARR or TEA options, but I think they are important to at least monitor.

If you want to follow the scope and sequence of Texas public schools, you can buy the Texas edition textbooks for each grade and do those. There are usually lots of used textbooks for sale very reasonably on Amazon. Some school districts will even let you have their old books for free.

 

Another option is the online public school. That will follow the state's scope and sequence. I think it's called Connections Academy, but I'm not sure. There's also Texas Tech's correspondence classes.

 

But honestly, you don't have to do the exact topics that the public schools do, even if you're planning to enroll for 9th grade. High school science textbooks start with the basics and cover their topics thoroughly, so it won't matter if you studied matter and energy or the food web and ecosystems in 8th grade. You do need to study something and if you're planning to enroll, it's probably best to use a textbook and videos to get used to those types of resources rather than living books.

 

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are looking for labs, I found a website with a nice assortment of labs designed to go along with a standard high school class.

 

http://serendip.byrnmawr.edu/sci_ed/waldron

 

In case that link doesn't work it is Hands-on Activities for Teaching Biology to High School or Middle School Students

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former YEC person, I'd say that if your daughter is serious about science, definitely go with a secular textbook for the simple reason that anti-evolutionary books make science boring.  In YEC textbooks you can learn the "whats," like classification systems and the steps in meiosis, but you have to stop dead at the "hows" and the "whys," because the answers are always the same: "God spoke it into being," and "God wanted it that way."  My YEC sister said to me two days ago, while pondering the crazy shape of a hammerhead shark, "What was God thinking?"  There's no way for her to seek answers to how or why the hammerhead got its shape. She can't even ask the questions.  

 

But the "hows" and the "whys" are the really fun and exciting part of science, and if you accept the open-endedness of mainstream science, every question can be asked. Not every question can be answered, but science is always seeking answers like pieces in an endless jigsaw puzzle.  And it means there are lots more puzzles for your daughter to solve if she pursues a science career.

 

The downside of secular textbooks is that they can't (and shouldn't) address the questions of meaning, purpose, value, and dignity that matter to people of faith.  So you have to supply those yourself.

 

There's a huge difference between naturalism as a method and naturalism as a worldview.  Like every other kind of professional, scientists have to use naturalism as their method: in other words, they seek to understand natural phenomena in entirely natural terms, without invoking a supernatural cause.  Just as I wouldn't want a doctor to tell me, "You have diabetes, so you must have sin in your life"; or a banker to say, "Your business is failing because God isn't blessing you," or a meteorologist to announce that "A tornado hit Illinois because God is punishing that wicked state," I don't want a scientist saying either that males have useless nipples because God wanted them that way or that science proves there is no God supervising and loving the creation.  It just isn't their job to say any of these things.  But it also doesn't mean they've embraced the worldview of naturalism, which says that the natural world is all there is.  The same doctor, banker, and meteorologist who might tell me that I have diabetes because my pancreas is malunctioning, or my business is failing because it's in an obscure location, or that a tornado has hit because of a high-pressure air stream, may also believe that God is deeply involved in my life.  Many evolutionists do believe in God.  

 

Once I found satisfying answers to my questions about evolution and I figured out that the truth of the Bible and of the gospel has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth, I've been having a blast exploring the science I wish I'd felt free to explore when I was your daughter's age.  Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former YEC person, I'd say that if your daughter is serious about science, definitely go with a secular textbook for the simple reason that anti-evolutionary books make science boring.  In YEC textbooks you can learn the "whats," like classification systems and the steps in meiosis, but you have to stop dead at the "hows" and the "whys," because the answers are always the same: "God spoke it into being," and "God wanted it that way."  My YEC sister said to me two days ago, while pondering the crazy shape of a hammerhead shark, "What was God thinking?"  There's no way for her to seek answers to how or why the hammerhead got its shape. She can't even ask the questions.  

 

But the "hows" and the "whys" are the really fun and exciting part of science,

In terms of asking hows and whys, I don't understand the difference between asking "why did God's world evolve like this" and "why did God design this particular thing in this particular way."  Both are asked with the assumption that there is more that we can learn, more than we yet understand. 

 

Anyways, I think you are making a mistaken correlation.  In all groups (YEC, OEC, Secular), there may be those who want to investigate these things and those who just let them be. 

 

Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie asks a great question.  On the surface, the only difference between asking how God evolved something and how God designed that thing is the method God used.  But the differences get bigger fast. 

 

For starters, and please understand that I believe the universe and its systems have a loving Designer and a Sustainer who keeps holding it all together, YEC insists that God designed everything directly to be exactly the way it is.  But there’s a loophole: Things that are beautiful and work well are understood as God’s design, but things that seem ugly or broken, like birth defects, are blamed on a cosmic Fall that changed the physical nature of things.  This always bothered me as a YEC because it seemed like inconsistent picking and choosing.

 

Evolutionary creation doesn’t assume that God designed every feature directly, but rather created systems that allow freedom to develop in many directions.  I personally don’t know how much God directly intervenes along the way, but I never knew this as a YEC either, for the reason that I mentioned above:  are the blind, useless eyes of cave fish the result of God’s design, or the result of a cosmic Fall?

 

YEC did not have answers for many other questions.  Besides the blind eyes of the cave fish, some other animals have useless parts, such as nipples on male mammals, and wings on birds that can’t fly.   Why did God design a parasite that eats its host alive from the inside out, one organ at a time?  Where I grew up in Florida, two kinds of snakes have stripes colored red, black, yellow and white:  the coral snake is deadly, while the king snake is harmless.  Why would God design a poisonous snake that’s nearly identical to a harmless snake?  And why would the harmless king live only near the deadly coral?

 

Whereas YEC had no answer for this, evolutionary creation has a great answer:  in the coral snake’s neighborhood, the king’s resemblance makes it unappealing to predators who mistake it for the poisonous near-twin.  The resemblance gives it a survival advantage. Outside the coral’s neighborhood, the resemblance is a disadvantage, because the king’s bright colors make it a conspicuous target, so king snakes don’t venture very far from coral snakes.  God designed the system that lets creatures find their niche and make the most of their surroundings, then change when change becomes necessary.

 

In my understanding, evolutionary creation explicitly removes God from direct responsibility for the details while allowing God to intervene in ways I can’t measure.  As I said earlier, I always implicitly did this before, but without noticing that I was assigning the details I liked to “design†and the ones I didn’t to “the Fall.† Now I don't wonder why God made someone with a cleft palate, even while I know God can bring good out of this person's suffering.  Beyond this, evolutionary creation has turbo-charged my faith, my awe at the power and brilliance of God as creator, my gratitude for the generous provision of all that we need, and my humility before the task of “keeping†and protecting the creation entrusted to us.  

Which brings me back to the original poster's question about her daughter, who's really interested in science.  My oldest son loves biology now thanks to the Campbell and Reece bio textbook that we used two years ago, which he still picks up to read for fun because it invites him into the story of the how and why--not the Ultimate Why, which science can't answer--but the proximate why's and all the puzzles that remain to be solved.

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the problem with the evolution theory is that everything began as slime on a rock. Some of the slime became those cave fish; some became elephants; some became humming birds; some became us. Why?

 

It is much easier for me to believe that God created us all, sometimes for no other reason than to make us ponder who He is.

 

And there are way too many plants and animals that are so intricately designed that they could not possibly have evolved that way for me to think that everything started as slime on a rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to interrupt this thread with a short defense of slime on a rock...

 

March of the Microbes (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/march-of-the-microbes?store=allproducts&keyword=march+of+the+microbes) forever changed my perception of slime on a rock...

 

There's life and change and beauty in that slime....

 

Back to your regularly programmed thread....

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And there are way too many plants and animals that are so intricately designed that they could not possibly have evolved that way for me to think that everything started as slime on a rock.

 

And yet, when we discovered DNA and learned to sequence it, all living things on Earth are related. Remember that Darwin had no idea about DNA. Gregor Mendel was just doing his pea experiments and nobody really understood his scientific papers until several decades later. They figured it out the process by observing nature very closely and they actually got it right. That's astonishing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the problem with the evolution theory is that everything began as slime on a rock. Some of the slime became those cave fish; some became elephants; some became humming birds; some became us. Why?

 

It is much easier for me to believe that God created us all, sometimes for no other reason than to make us ponder who He is.

 

And there are way too many plants and animals that are so intricately designed that they could not possibly have evolved that way for me to think that everything started as slime on a rock.

 

I actually agree with you on this.  Evolution without a creator is too much of a stretch for me for exactly the same reason that you state: the dazzling complexity all around screams out to me that a designer is behind it.  The question is the designer's method.  I love the analogy that Deborah and Loren Haarsma use in their book and videos called Origins: A functioning watch implies a watchmaker who made the watch, but imagine a watchmaker so good that he designed pieces that could assemble themselves into a watch, and then assemble themselves into yet more complex designs.

 

You can check out the first video here:  Or if the link doesn't work, visit http://origins.faithaliveresources.org/#watch_online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, when we discovered DNA and learned to sequence it, all living things on Earth are related. Remember that Darwin had no idea about DNA. Gregor Mendel was just doing his pea experiments and nobody really understood his scientific papers until several decades later. They figured it out the process by observing nature very closely and they actually got it right. That's astonishing!

 

That does not negate the concept of a God Who created everything, including blind fish which didn't need eyes because they were going to live in caves where there was no light. :-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...