R.C. Sproul - Creationist?

I hope to post something of my own tonight, but I saw this article and thought it was newsworthy.

R.C. Sproul has changed his mind regarding origins and has become a literal six-day creationist.

Story here.

HT: Joe Fleener

Just someone else's thoughts,

Frank

Of Monkeys, Men and Atheists

Many of you have probably heard Dr. Stephen Hawking's famous statement that given enough time, enough monkeys plucking away at typewriters could produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

The implication of this statement is that the mutations necessary for macro evolution to occur is simply a matter of time and opportunity.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has done an excellent job debunking this idea in an article, "When Pigs Fly and Monkeys Type."

In the article, Dr. Schroeder points out that the probability of a monkey hitting a specific key is 1 in 26 (if we posit merely 26 choices, rather than the over 50 keys on most keyboards - my keyboard has 104 keys). The probabality of the monkey hitting the next needed key is also 1 in 26, meaning that the chance of stringing two correct letters together is 1 in 676 (26 x 26). To give you an idea of the enormity of the task of producing the sonnet, I will point out that the probability of a monkey typing something as simple and as short as my name - Frank - is 1 in 11,881,376.

If you continue to figure this out, you will find out that the odds against this are incredible. In an approximately 500 letter sonnet, the number would be more than astronomical. You would have to multiply 26 by itself 500 times. This would come out to a number that would be around 10 to the 700th power (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

To give that some perspective, Dr. Schroeder points out that "the number of basic particles [protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons] in the known universe is 10 to the power 80."

Wow!

I don't know if Dr. Schroeder is a Christian or simply a Theist, but this article is a pretty powerful article.

FWIW, Dr. Schroeder was the man who famous Atheist apologist Antony Flew was supposed to debate the night that Mr. Flew declared that he was no longer an Atheist.

Just someone else's thoughts,

Frank

Charles Spurgeon on Evolution

It is a rare thing for me to link to SharperIron, since I generally assume that anyone who reads A Thinking Man's Thoughts probably already reads SharperIron.

Today's blog entitled, "Spurgeon on the Bible and Darwinism, Part 1" by Doug Kutilek is worth stopping over there for a read. (Doug does not yet have it posted on his own site, so I am linking to the version on SI.)

Charles Spurgeon ministered in a day when Darwinian Evolution was coming to its forefront. To see his comments in the midst of the expansion of evolution were interesting.

I thought this comment was particularly interesting coming from one without the benefit of resources such as the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis.

There are abundant evidences that one creature inclines towards another in certain respects, for all are bound together in a wondrous way which indicates that they are all the product of God’s creative will; but what the advocates of evolution appear to forget is, that there is nowhere to be discovered an actual chain of growth from one creature to another,—there are breaks here and there, and so many missing links that the chain cannot be made complete. There are, naturally enough, many resemblances between them, because they have all been wrought by the one great master-mind of God, yet each one has its own peculiarities.

I assume there is a "Part 2" coming up as well.

Just my thoughts,

Frank

What do they teach at the University of California, San Diego?

Recently I came across an article by the opinion editor of the UCSD (University of California, San Diego) Guardian Online regarding the University of California system move to reject students who have been taught high school science from books that teach Creationism, such as books from A Beka Books and from Bob Jones University Press.

What I found particularly interesting was the lack of understanding displayed by this particular author.

Imagine walking into a college calculus course on the first day only to have the lecture interrupted by a student who rejects the mathematical tenet that 2+2=4. Or watching your study partner struggling with physics assignments because she refuses to acknowledge the law of gravity. Or listen to your roommate creating a ruckus in his history class when he publicly disavows the existence of Nazi concentration camps.

Sound absurd? Sure it is. It goes without saying that to grasp certain subjects at a college level, one must accept the keystones of various disciplines from which all else follows: the syntax of the English language for a writing class; properties of numbers in a math class; or evolution in a biology class.

First of all, she wrongly equates laws of science and math (gravity, 2+2=4) with the theory of evolution.

Second of all, she assumes that to grasp biology, one must accept evolution. Not only is an acceptance of evolution not necessary to grasp biology, it is not even necessary in order to grasp evolution.

A little while later she offers this gem.

When a student’s high school education is so obviously lacking, the University of California is hardly displaying “hostility towards Christianity” (as the suit alleges) in rejecting such courses or such students. It is displaying hostility toward ignorance and closed-mindedness.

Again, it seems that the University of California is hardly displaying enough hostilitiy towards ignorance and closed-mindedness when this lady has been admitted and allowed such a prominent position.

Talk about ignorance - she does not even consider the fact that many times the students educated with the very textbooks in question actually have a better grasp of evolution that the typical student entering college. A lack of acceptance of evolution does not equal a lack of understanding of evolution. In fact, I would say that in many ways the opposite is true, but that is the subject for another post sometime, perhaps.

Talk about closed-mindedness, she is unwilling to even check out the facts regarding what is being taught in these schools, as she so aptly demonstrates with the following comment.

What, then, are these kids being taught,... A few words of Spanish between Bible study and chapel, perhaps?

It seems that if the University of California system is genuinely concerned about the understanding of its students regarding evolution, they could provide a profiency test for the students desiring to enter the school who have been educated using the texts that they are questioning. Of course, a similar test by all incoming freshman may be very revealing.

Just some thoughts.

Frank

File under Education_, Culture_War, Hot_Issues