The camel's nose

by Karen Davis

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued...

Anthony DeLucchi writes:

"it is only evolution that actively promotes a non-diety, it is by and large only evolution which is the more modern of the sciences. The other disciplines have no absolute root of departure. I have no problem with astronomy, biology, mathematics, the physical sciences, anthropology, archaeology or any of the -ologies."

While I'm not sure what he means by "root of departure," how can he (as a creationist) not have a problem with astronomy (the universe is billions of years old, the vast majority of stars do not give "light to the earth" as god intended them to do) or geology (the world is far too old, and too big), or biology - which is founded, rock-solid, on evolution?

It's my belief (my theory, if you will) that evolution is the camel's nose for creationists.