« Tyrantspeak: Obama Uses "Invest" or "Investment" 18 Times in Press Conf. for Gov't Deficit Spending | Main | Notre Dame Should Disinvite Obama »

Amazing Octopus Fossil Proves Evolution?

Hardly. But, hey, "scientific" Darwin-thumpers need their comforting crutch. Truly free thinkers are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

That's one reason I appreciate the information and approach given in the Biblical worldview. That liberating data calls for wholistic commitment based on objective truth, evidence, and sound reasoning vis-a-vis God, man, and the cosmos.

In other words, if something is not true to the evidence: Don't "believe" it. Not even if it's about "God." Especially if it's about God. Or kings, Presidents, preachers, used-car salemen, journalists, "hard-charging" leaders of ministries, and guys who wear white coats.

This approach is far more scientific -- and humane, by the way -- than what is allowed by the closed-down, reactionary attitude of ideological defenders of materialism disguised as science. Such silly peer pressure.

So don't be surprised when I say from time to time -- as I have said to the lovely, beautiful, and brilliant Nancy -- that I a) reserve the right to reject Christianity if the evidence requires such a decision, and b) that such an approach is utterly Biblical.

You might even call freedom of thought an unalienable right, endowed by the Creator, which, of course, religious and secular tyrants hate.



Brilliant writing. In very few words you have pinpointed one of the most important contrasts between the biblical worldview and naturalism.

Christians are the true "free-thinkers." I love Plantinga's observation that the Christian is free to either accept or reject the Darwinian scenario, depending on the evidence. The atheist, however, has no such option.

For the atheist, Darwinism is the only possible explanation of origins, no matter how silly the evidence is.

In fact (to pick up Jim Stewart's point), I often speculate that if the "scientific" atheist/materialists could devise a basis for materialism which they believed they could very easily put over as scientifically supported, they'd ditch evolution very quickly -- after all, you learn that Charles Darwin himself was really not quite the atheist's dream they portray him as, when you read authoritative, unbiased, information about him; and as Jim suggests, the "evidence" could only be accepted by someone who has a deep, inner need to believe atheism.