Kevin: The Bible only claims to be inspired by God, not created by Him. The
universe is God's creation; Christ is His Word. The Bible was written by
men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but these men were not human word
processors, writing under a compulsion they could not control. God in turn
gave the Bible the breath of life just as He did mankind, but the Bible is
not a fourth member of the Trinity. The Bible is meant to inspire and
instruct us, but it is the Holy Spirit that has the authority to save or
Indeed, and if God is showing us through his Creation how he achieved it, then why should we be denying his evidence ?
Similarly, since Christ is God's Word and not the Bible, the veracity of the
literal word of Genesis has no influence on the legitimacy of Christ's
>(c) Its 'fruit' is invariably bad - something which can't be said of any
>other scientific theory.
Kevin: New comments: On the contrary, the germ theory of disease has led to
biological weapons, chemistry has led to gunpowder and other explosives plus
chamical weapons, nuclear physics has led to atomic and thermonuclear
weapons, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Evolution has allowed us to
produce new breeds of domestic animals and plants, it explains how bacteria
become resistent to antibiotics and why in the absence of antibiotics they
do not revert back to a non-resistent state, and it is leading to the
development of unique new protein-based therapeutics. I am surprised at how
naive you are about this.
Especially since Vernon abuses these false premises to conclude what an unbiased mind should conclude. But if the premises are false then how can the conclusion be unbiased ?
>(d) Its validation is based purely on the interpretation of historical
>data - for which a 'common designer' explanation is equally valid.