Orr calls Dawkins "an enemy of religion" and says he is "is on a
mission to convert." But Orr is apparently not on such a mission,
saying “I’m among those scientists who must part company with him." Orr
calls
The God Delusion "badly flawed" because it "never
squarely faces its opponents." In short, Orr believes that Dawkins
rejects religion too hastily and in too dismissive a fashion, saying,
“You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology
in Dawkins’s book.”

  • Exogenous and Endogenous Retroviruses
    – A somewhat technical discussion of the role of retroviruses in eukaryotes, and how
    they may have been part of the original design of nature, not just junk DNA from an evolutionary process.   

Rather than being added on during evolution by accidental
endogenization of exogenous infectious agents, at least some ERVs must
have been incorporated into the initial design of eukaryotic life.

Obviously, there is no problem understanding that HERVs
have roles in regulating genes (a God-designed function) and causing
disease (due to mutations in HERVs as a result of the Fall). It has
been suggested that HERVs and other transposable elements played a role
in rapid genetic changes that occurred post-Flood to allow humans and
animals to adapt to different environments, as suggested by the AGEing
(altruistic genetic elements) mechanism.5 One article states, “Whether
these repeated sequences [referring to transposable elements] are now
‘junk DNA’ is a complex issue.”4 Biblical creationists do not think
that HERVs are “junk” DNA, but much work needs to be done to gain a
greater understanding of the role of HERVs in the past and present.

Ice flow modeling assumes an ice sheet in equilibrium for millions
of years. So, old age is automatically built into the ice cores.
Deep-sea cores also have oxygen or deuterium isotope fluctuations. Ice
cores are simply wiggle matched to the deep-sea cores, which are simply
dated by correlation to the astronomical theory of the ice ages or the
Milankovitch mechanism, reinforced by radiometric dating of certain key
points, called reference horizons. The whole enterprise is one big exercise in circular reasoning, sometimes called the reinforcement syndrome.  Sadly, it appears that Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe are again
unnecessarily aligned with questionable old age deductions. The
Scriptures—and the evidence—indicate a recent creation.

  • A Short YEC/OEC Discussion on Scripture and Science – While many evolutionists may look at the YEC position and think it anti-science, this interesting discussion about whom you believe and why, is thought provoking.  What do we believe in science that is dogma rather than fact?  If science disagrees with our theological conclusions, does that mean one or the other is always right or wrong?  Certainly science has had to correct itself repeatedly, so we can’t trust it’s conclusions uncritically.  But what self-correcting method does theology have?  And what do you do when some scientific conclusions clearly contradict your theology? 

In other words, I try to interpret the scientific data in light of the
Scriptures. In contrast, your approach, judging from your letter, seems
to be to first accept much current scientific dogma, for which you
apparently have great respect, and then to look for a way to interpret
Scripture to fit. That begs the questions: where in the Scriptures do
you see even a hint of millions/billions of years, and how do you
override the strong indicators of both context and content that Genesis
1–11 are of the literary
genre called narrative history?

I don’t necessarily believe that religion has to always be incompatible
with evolution, but it’s always amusing when unreligious people try to
convince the religious that Darwinism
is highly compatible with
religion. The famous example is of course Eugenie Scott, a signatory of
the Third Humanist Manifesto, who recommends that biology teachers discuss pro-evolution theological viewpoints in public schools.

  • Humans only 94% similar to chimps, not 98.5% – So what’s the difference?  These numbers may sound very much the same, but evolutionarily speaking, this genetic distance of 6% means a much more incredible jump from chimp to man. 

Darwinian evolution simply does not have the population resources to fix that many base pairs of difference (not enough individuals, not enough mutations, not enough time). We could of course try to make appeals to neutral theory, but a neutral scenario would also be hard pressed to account for the fixation of that many nucleotides as well…