Wednesday, March 14, 2007

The Origins Debate

I’ve been reading comments in some blogs lately about evolution and creation. I gave a class on the origins debate this past fall and analyzes the philosophical foundations that drive the science behind each side. I posted unreferenced class notes on my blogster blog so that my students could access them easily. I submit links to them here for your perusal.

I’m not currently a scientist, but I was a gifted physics major in college:

http://santiago.blogster.com/qualifications.html

I am a young-earth creationist and I make that clear here:

http://santiago.blogster.com/bias_classroom.html

In an effort to accurately portray the thinking of naturalistic science, I offered the best arguments I could find in favor of macroevolution:

http://santiago.blogster.com/key_evidences_evolution.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/biogeography.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/fossil_record_geology.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/radiometric_dating.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/common_ancestry.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/conclusion_key_evidences.html

There are philosophical foundations for scientific discovery and they intersect Biblical revelations of Christ Himself.

http://santiago.blogster.com/etymology_logic.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/logic_101_scientific_method.html

These same philosophical foundations have been debated for a couple or few millennia and today this debate has provided the presuppositions for the different sides in the origins debate:

http://santiago.blogster.com/presupposition_evolution.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/presupposition_creation.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/presupposition_intelligent.html

There are especially theological implications of the debate:

http://santiago.blogster.com/impact_origins_debate_christian.html

Given the presuppositions, here is my analysis of the naturalistic science from above with the re-evaluation from a creation science perspective:

http://santiago.blogster.com/biogeography_facts.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/rapid_speciation.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/continental_drift_plate.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/geologic_column.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/radiometric_dating_2.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/age_universe.html

As a parenthetical, with respect to the age of the universe, we must answer some quasi-creationist thinking with respect to the age of the universe:

http://santiago.blogster.com/evidence_young_earth.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/old_earth_creationism.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/day-age_theory.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/gap_theory.html

http://santiago.blogster.com/genetic_mutation_origin.html

(By the end of the quarter, I only had time for one loaded class worth of an analysis of genetic mutation.)

I had offered additional materials in the classroom that I didn’t publish in this blog series, but this should give an overview for any who are interested. I encourage you not to simply take what I have here as truth, but to do the research for yourself. I have the references available, but don’t have the time to go back and apply them right now.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home