Wheaton Students Demand Reinstatement of Hijab-Wearing Professor Who Declared ‘We All Worship Same God’

Hawkins ProtestWHEATON, Ill. — A number of students from a prominent Christian-identified university are demanding that school officials reinstate an associate political science director who posted photos of herself wearing an Islamic hijab, stating that she was doing so to show solidarity with Muslims.

As previously reported, Larycia Hawkins posted to Facebook two photos of herself wearing a hijab last Thursday, and stated in a lengthy explanation that she plans to wear it everywhere she goes during the Advent—including at the Christian college and to church.

“I stand in human solidarity with my Muslim neighbor because we are formed of the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind—a cave in Sterkfontein, South Africa that I had the privilege to descend into to plumb the depths of our common humanity in 2014,” Hawkins wrote.

She said that not only does she have a common ancestry with Muslims, but that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book,” Hawkins asserted. “And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

Hawkins said that wearing the hijab is part of her Christmas worship, and that she is seeking to combat what she perceives to be “Islamophobia” in society.

“As part of my Advent worship, I will wear the hijab to work at Wheaton College, to play in Chi-town, in the airport and on the airplane to my home state that initiated one of the first anti-Sharia laws (read: unconstitutional and Islamophobic), and at church,” she wrote.

  • Connect with Christian News

The professor stated that her wish for the season would be to see a “large-scale movement” of women wearing hijabs in solidarity with Muslims, noting that she even obtained approval from the Council on American-Islamic relations.

Hawkins’ post quickly drew controversy, with some supporting her mission and others expressing concern. As a result, Wheaton officials suspended the professor and placed on review.

“In response to significant questions regarding the theological implications of statements that Associate Professor of Political Science Dr. Larycia Hawkins has made about the relationship of Christianity to Islam, Wheaton College has placed her on administrative leave, pending the full review to which she is entitled as a tenured faculty member,” it said on Tuesday.

Now, Wheaton students are protesting and have launched a petition calling for Hawkins to be reinstated.

“In the midst of a toxic socio-political environment where Muslims are the target of stigmatization, acts of aggression, and proposed policy which targets and alienates them, Dr. Hawkins acted in love and in solidarity to be an example of how Christ would respond,” the petition reads in part.

“There is nothing in Dr. Hawkins’ public statements that goes against the belief in the power and nature of God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit that the Statement of Faith deems as a necessary requirement for affiliation with Wheaton College,” it says.

Over 2,200 supporters have signed the petition, including those not affiliated with the college. But not all students agree with the professor.

“To say we worship the same God is completely not true,” student Nathan Simon told WLS-TV. “And it misrepresents the student body. It misrepresents the institution itself.”

Hawkins had posted a follow-up statement on Sunday holding to her belief that Christian and Muslims worship the same God, sharing articles on the subject published by the Huffington Post and Christianity Today. She remarked that she still loves those who “count [her] apostate for daring to call fellow humans who happen to be Muslim [her] brothers and sisters.”

“In her most recent statement, Dr. Hawkins seems committed to her personal theological stance, as stated in social media posts and subsequent media interviews; she has not yet reconciled her beliefs with the college’s theological position,” Wheaton College officials wrote in an updated statement on Wednesday. “[The review process] will include an assessment of her views related to our Statement of Faith through respectful and fair dialogue on these matters of strategic importance to our institutional identity and mission.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • 201821208 :)

    thereligionofpeace dot com/Pages/In-The-Name-of-Allah dot htm

  • Nidalap

    Ah, youth…

    • Liz Litts

      AH Youth nothin”! They need to choose which God they will serve–Jim Elloitt and Nate Saint would be sadded and ashamed.

      • gizmo23

        All the same God just different paths

        • jr61020

          You could not be any more WRONG in that statement

        • 201821208 :)

          gotquestions dot org/same-God dot html

        • Josey

          There is only one path and Almighty God made that easy to understand, even a child can understand it. God is not the author of confusion, Jesus is the only way, made plain and simple. Believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour and find true life and eternal salvation or believe in your many paths and you will find eternal damnation.

          • gizmo23

            Are Jews damned also?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not repentant ones, of which there are many. We call them Messianic Jews or Jewish Background Believers, similar to Muslim Background Believers in that they all have placed their trust in Christ Jesus. Don’t be mad at me – take it up with He Who said it.

          • gizmo23

            So most of Israel is going to Hell?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Don’t know the answer to that, but I would guess that most of the world is going to Hell, since most of the world does not desire to follow Jesus. There are indications from Scripture, but nothing quantitative, just qualitative.

          • Mike Laborde

            Most of the decendants of Ishmiel are not going to see heaven, but all will meet the One True Creator God when they die.

          • gizmo23

            You can’t be both Jewish and Christian at the same time

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            False. Jewish can be considered a race as well as a religion. So, a person can be racially Jewish and yet Christian.

          • gizmo23

            Jewish is not a race, there is no such thing. They maybe a cultural group but there is no genetic difference. Jewish and Christian our religions

          • afchief

            You are wrong again! The Jews are a race. Most Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. They are still looking for the Messiah to come soon.

            John 14:6 (NASB) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

          • Mike Laborde

            Jesus is a Jew. Look it up in the bible. This is truth.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Jewish is not a race, there is no such thing.”

            Jesus is a Jew, as were most of the early Christian Church. They are Messianic Jews. Moreover, one of the early controversies in the early Church was the question of circumcision.

          • Mike Laborde

            Messianic Jews are Christians. Jesus is a Jew.

          • gizmo23

            The rabbi I know finds the concept insulting. Once you become a Christian you are no longer Jewish

          • Mike Laborde

            Insulting or not. One cannot change their birth nationality. A Jew is still a Jew weather he denies it or not.

          • gizmo23

            What is birth nationally? Being born in a country does not make one a certain religion. Judaism is a faith not a nationality

          • Mike Laborde

            Birth from Jewish parents in the nation of Israel. Birth nationality used to describe what I just wrote. Nation-Israel; Birth-from Jewish parents.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            We don’t care what rabbi feelings are on this site. We care about facts and logic and evidence.

          • gizmo23

            Nice. No point listening to other points of view

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Feelings do not determine truth.

          • gizmo23

            No sense listening to other opinions or thoughts I guess

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Opinions and feelings do not determine truth. If they did, I would be a billionaire traveling the world. 🙂

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          John 14:6.

        • The Last Trump

          Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
          Paths filled with irreconcilable contradictions and completely opposing positions all lead to the same place.
          Sure. Once you believe nothing created everything anything’s game. (Yikes!)

        • afchief

          Wrong!

        • Mike Laborde

          Christianity is exclusive. You have to believe that God sent his only Son down to earth because man needed a Savior. Ahala doesn’t doesn’t fit that description. Jesus is the only way to the Father. All others are counterfeit.

      • Nidalap

        Well, the term ‘young and dumb’ does exist for a reason! 🙂 The youth have ever been easily led. If the parents refuse to do it, folk like this will always be there to pick up the slack…

        • Mike Laborde

          Atheist have been known to invade Christian collages, schools and churches.

  • LaDora

    This is America and we have been targeted by this woman’s people. It is about respect. Wear it anywhere but the school and a background check should be mandatory on all Muslims. I’m tired of being politically correct.

    • gizmo23

      Muslim, Christians, and Jews are all of the same family. Families fight and it gets ugly. Someday the fighting will stop

      • jr61020

        WHAT!! By same family you mean humans? Because that is where the similarities end.

      • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

        Horse feces dude.

      • The Last Trump

        Well, you got two outta three right.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Nice!

      • afchief

        Wrong! You posted this on Charisma also and it is a lie!!! We Christians worship Jesus (John 14:6) and no other.

        Islam is straight from the pits of hell!!!

  • http://www.larryfarlow.com/ Larry Farlow

    Now Wheaton knows who to enroll in the next Christian Theology 101 class.

  • Liz Litts

    The Word of God is not subject to PC–Jesus said , ” I Am THE WAY< The TRUTH and THE LIFE -NO ONE comes to the FATHER but By ME. These apostates need to be prayed for and given the chance to repent–if they will not they need to be expelled.

  • Kevin

    When I attended a Christian college 30 years ago, there was campus drama when a professor pronounced that he thought a homosexual life style was compatible within Christianity. He was given the option to re-think his position and when he did not, he was dismissed from the faculty. The usual campus protesters (calling themselves “The Peace and Justice Committee”) protested and called the administration unfair and narrow minded.It seemed silly that they would want to attend a Christian college but reject Christian doctrine. Ignorance and youth go hand-in-hand. Protesting against an institution’s doctrinal position after signing a document that you agree to follow the institution and its doctrinal positions requires a special kind of stupid.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      I think that the Christian students who protest may be quite ignorant of their faith, and one possible reason may be that they have not spent enough time in good apologetics classes, Biblical and philosophical ones – classes or meeting where they learn how to defend the faith, as required by 1 Peter 3:15. Doubtless, they have heard few good apologetics-laden sermons in most churches as well.

      You are correct that youth and ignorance go hand-in hand, so this is a good teaching opportunity for the college to explain just how it is that the Christian God differs from that of Islam. A theological review of the Nicene Creed is certainly overdue.

      • The Last Trump

        Yes, any student of the Bible who does not know that “Allah” is NOT God the Father, and Jesus, just a prophet, clearly hasn’t read their Bible. or bothered to look into Islam. How embarrassing.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Amen! There are great short reviews of the differences in the major world religions that are easily accessible to non-theologians. Besides, Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross but was Himself substituted for, if I am not mistaken. Well, no crucifixion, no Resurrection. No Resurrection, then, as Paul put it – we are dead in our sins – everything hinges on the Resurrection!

          So, by affirming Islam, a person is actually denying Jesus as Lord.

      • Mike Laborde

        Their minds have been seared to the truth by the devil.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Possibly. But, they could also just be confused in the faith because we have not done a great job of teaching them apologetics – the defense of the faith. But, for them to fall for some sort of religious pluralism is certainly indicative of the influence of the “god of this age.” And, keep in mind, that many, probably most, students at Wheaton have not fallen for such nonsense. It is probably the vocal minority here. So, we may not want to paint with too broad a brush.

    • Kelly Keith Dunn

      Matthew 7:13-14

      “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

  • Brandon Pound

    As if promoting Islam wasn’t bad enough, she is also promoting the lie of macro-evolution. She said “we all descended from the same primordial clay, descendants of the same cradle of humankind…a cave in South Africa.” I’m sorry, but the theory of macro-evolution is not compatible with the book of Genesis. Not at all. It’s so sad to see how far “Christians” are straying from God’s truth in our time.

    • John N

      >’I’m sorry, but the theory of macro-evolution is not compatible with the book of Genesis”

      Well, at least you’ve got that one (partly) right … just leave the ‘macro-‘ out of it.

      • Brandon Pound

        I usually just say “macro” because I feel its important to distinguish between the theory of evolution on a micro and macro scale. It is the macro scale of evolution that is so appallingly incompatible with the Bible. I would love to hear more of what you have to say on this matter.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Indeed, you are 100% correct. Micro-evolution is proven fact – variation within species, or adaptation, what Darwin discovered with the finch beaks and all.

          Macro-evolution is a myth and fairy tale, where a good scientist but poor philosopher, inappropriately extrapolated the fact of variation within species to the delusion of variation across species and confused an un-common Designer with common descent.

          • John N

            So we do forget about all the evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular biology and actual ongoing speciation events seen in the lab and in nature, because the scientists that are wirking on that were and are poor philosophers?

            Right.

            And your evidence for the impossibility of variation across species is … the bible?

          • Mike Laborde

            Simple, isn’t it. Evidence of fossils on mountains from the bottom sea creatures shows evidence of the Noah’s flood era.

          • John N

            Yeah right.

            And of course you can also explain why on these mountain tops we never find any fossils of whales, seals or other extant sea organisms? Or remains of any extant land dwelling organisms? Even not a single bone of a drowned human? And why we find evidence of long time erosion between layers you claim have all been deposited by the flood? Why there are fossilised animal tracks and sand dunes to be found in these layers?

            Noah’s flood era is a myth. There is not a speck of evidence it ever happened.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So we do forget about all the evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular biology and actual ongoing speciation events seen in the lab and in nature, because the scientists that are working on that were and are poor philosophers?”

            Absolutely, John, because as I have proven to you before, you cannot even get off the ground with science until you have accepted certain philosophical foundations that make doing science objectively meaningful or valid. In other words, “Philosophy always buries its undertakers.”

            “And your evidence for the impossibility of variation across species is … the bible?”

            John, why is it that you atheists are always the first to bring up the Bible in the conversations you have with me?!? 🙂 Are you suffering from BDS: Bible Derangement Syndrome? 🙂 Or, are you merely ticked off that this short list of great scientists all believed that the Bible and doing science were fully consistent?

            Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Lister, Pasteur, Babbage,
            Maxwell, Stokes, Riemann, Joule, Linnaeus, Kelvin, Planck, von Braun, etc.

          • John N

            Proven? What? That you are unable to create an argument that has any connection with the real world? That sure is proven.

            Meanwhile I’m still waiting for the evidence of your god you promised to deliver a long time. And remember, World, arguments are NOT evidence.

          • Valri

            Oh good luck with that. I’m still waiting for him to explain why only Christians, and his brand of Christians at that, can claim to have morality. Has he given you his “Jew gassing and keeping slaves are just ice cream flavors under atheism” speech yet?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Proven? What? That you are unable to create an argument that has any connection with the real world? That sure is proven.”

            So, are you really so uneducated that you do not know that in order to get science off of the ground, it takes a philosophical foundation?!? Pretty sure I proved that to you last time, but it would seem you are not “progressing” in your worldview, John.

            “Meanwhile I’m still waiting for the evidence of your god you promised to deliver a long time.”

            I gave you at least 4 proofs, John, with science, logic, and math for evidence – none of which you like because you are a blind faith atheist who has a serious cosmic authority problem. Just because you don’t want to believe in God does not mean He does not exist. 🙂

            “And remember, World, arguments are NOT evidence.”

            Only in John N’s strange little unscholarly world is it true that logic and philosophy do not count as evidence. Based on your poor worldview, you cannot prove that there are no even prime numbers greater than 2 nor the location of other primes, not the vast majority of mathematical theorems that have been proven. This may be why you violate the laws of logic so much – you do not consider them “evidence.” That’s not exactly “rational,” if you get my drift. 🙂

          • John N

            You gave me four ‘proofs’ for the existence of your god? How scientific. I’m afraid your ‘proofs’ were not very convincing, because religious belief worldwide is still declining. Well, if they depend on belief then it is clear were the problem is situated. Science as defined by religious fundamentalists : you first need to have faith to see the evidence needed to support your faith.

            You don’t happen to have any evidence where a-priory belief is not necessary in order to like them?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You gave me four ‘proofs’ for the existence of your god? How scientific.”

            Yes, proofs ARE scientific. We use proofs all the time in the real world – be it in math or physics or engineering. In my PhD dissertation, I proved 4 previously unproven theorems. Weird how my committee signed off on that dissertation, even though those proofs did not meet “John N’s Bizarro Requirements for Evidence.” I guess they didn’t get your memo, John. 🙂

            “religious belief worldwide is still declining.”

            1. Truth is not a popularity contest, John. If it were, then the world would still be flat. 🙂

            2. Christianity continues to grow worldwide, John. Just because you see a decline in the West, don’t extrapolate that worldwide. The past 150 years of cosmological findings have been really bad news for atheists and their much-coveted past eternal universe myth:

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

            In the New York Times, Arno Penzias commented on his discovery –
            the greatest discovery of the 20th century – so:

            “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.”

            “you first need to have faith to see the evidence needed to support your faith.”

            Oh, John, how many times have I schooled you on this?!? (sigh) OK, here goes again (I can give you the Greek exegesis if you still cannot follow this):

            I hear this a lot from those who are not theists, and I am really surprised by it because it is a misunderstanding of the word “faith” in the Bible, which actually would be better translated as “trust.” Christian faith goes like this: you are in need of a serious surgery. You investigate all the best surgeons in that field around the country and pick those you believe to be the top 3. You interview them and decide on the one you believe is the best. On the morning of the surgery, you get to the hospital early to fill out the forms. One of these forms is the authorization for the surgeon to operate on you. When you sign that form, it is then that you have placed your trust (faith) in that surgeon. In Christianity, the Surgeon is Jesus.

            For me, as a former atheist, it took a lot of unsupported faith to believe that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (Big Bang) uncaused by anything and that life sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud (or some variation of this). Those are mega-miracles by comparison with the Creator of a universe filled with 100 billion galaxies raising Someone from the dead. Such a
            “miracle” would be child’s play for Him.

            A good example of blind faith on the atheist side would be when Stephen Hawking, a super-brilliant scientist, said “the universe created itself.” Now, he is convinced that the universe had a beginning (Premise 2 of Kalam), and he knows the logical suicide of a scientist trying to deny Premise 1, so to avoid a Cause for the universe, he has it creating itself – a clear violation of basic logic and metaphysics. So, I guess I would end this by saying that everyone has faith in something – the question is “is that faith misplaced or does it have evidence to support it?”

            “You don’t happen to have any evidence where a-priory belief is not necessary in order to like them?”

            None of the arguments that I provided are based on a priori suppositions: they are all based on that “science-y” stuff you do not care for. Don’t blame me for your cosmic authority problem. 🙂

            “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.” — Professor Thomas Nagel, NYU

          • Brandon Pound

            There just simply isn’t any evidence for variation across species. Macro-evolution isn’t a theory that can be observed at all in real time, because it supposedly takes millions of years. Therefore it cannot be observed, and there is no evidence for it. The fossil record isn’t evidence for macro-evolution. The fossils that have been found can be interpreted in more than one way. Those who believe there must be only naturalistic explanations for everything, choose to see those fossils through that lens. But those open-minded people who recognize the possibility of the supernatural, are able to more properly discern the meaning of such fossils.
            Also, the entire system of dating that is used today is based on assumptions. Assumptions that must be true if the dating methods are to be truly accurate. One of those assumptions is that the decay rate of elements has remained the same throughout all of history. That is a truly poor assumption to make. If that assumption doesn’t hold true, then the entire dating system must be tossed out the window.
            The reason that we all go round and round in this debate is because we see the world with two different lens’. You refuse to accept even the possibility of the supernatural. You believe all things must have a naturalistic explanation. While I rightly understand that many things can be explained naturally, I believe it is the height of arrogant insanity to think that we can try to explain everything naturalistically. You simply can never disprove the existence of the supernatural. And there are mountains of evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired.

          • John N

            Now this is some Gish Galop you are presentingg here. And I see you got your science education from Ken Ham and his likes. Some education that is!

            >’Macro-evolution isn’t a theory that can be observed at all in real time, because it supposedly takes millions of years’

            Wrong. Just one example, check the story of the apple maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella), a species in he mid of diverting into two new species (speciation happening in real time!), dragging with it at least three species of parasites in the same process.

            >’The fossils that have been found can be interpreted in more than one way….’

            Wrong again. The ‘other’ way (a supernatural cause, i.e. your god, placed the fossils there to fool geologists) can of course not be proven, but is absolutely unnecessary – the natural explanation for fossils explains all and is supported by all evidence. By the way, a god deceiving people in order to test their belief – what kind of a deity is that? Oh yes, I see …

            >’Also, the entire system of dating that is used today is based on assumptions. Assumptions that must be true if the dating methods are to be truly accurate. One of those assumptions is that the decay rate of elements has remained the same throughout all of history. That is a truly poor assumption to make’

            Wrong for the third time. That is not an assumption at all. We know the decay rate of elements has not changed significantly in the last two billion years. Check the Oklo Natural reactor.

            >’ You refuse to accept even the possibility of the supernatural. You believe all things must have a naturalistic explanation’

            I will accept the possibility of supernatural explanations once I see any evidence of it. So far, no luck.

            >’And there are mountains of evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired.’

            Well then, it is time those mountains of evidence were presented to the world, by strong preference in a scientific journal passing the peer-review process. I’m waiting.

          • Brandon Pound

            John N- an apple maggot eating some parasites and then morphing into something else is not the same kind of speciation that macro-evolution teaches, i.e. primate into man. Also, I definitely do not believe God is trying to “deceive” anybody with fossils. The fact that you would actually think that, just shows how messed up your heart is towards God. I’m saying that the fossils aren’t as old as secular science teaches, because as I said, the dating methods are inherently flawed, and your circular arguing isn’t going to change that. I’m also saying that the fossils represent something other than what is taught by secular science. They aren’t “missing links” or “pre-humanoids.” They are either simply human, or they’re not. So God didn’t put them there to confuse people. They’re there because those people, or animals, did truly exist. You are simply mistaken, however, about their age and true identity.
            I’m honestly not sure why I’m even responding to you at this point. You are clearly very hostile towards people who see the world differently than you.

          • John N

            >’.. an apple maggot eating some parasites and then morphing into something else is not the same kind of speciation that macro-evolution teaches, i.e. ape into man..

            You clearly did not read what I was saying – or you actually did read it and now started moving the goalposts around. We see the evidence of speciation – what you call macro-evolution – happening before our very eyes, contrary to what you claimed. So you were clearly wrong but do not have the nerve to admit it.

            By the way, no scientist ever stated that any species ‘morphed’ into something else – that is creationist newspeek. And humans are just another species of ape – that must mean you are three times wrong in one sentence!

            >’I’m saying that the fossils aren’t as old as secular science teaches, because as I said, the dating methods are inherently flawed, and your circular arguing isn’t going to change that.’

            If thats is the case, please show me where I use circular arguing in presenting dating methods and I will correct it.

            >’They aren’t “missing links” or “pre-humanoids.” They are either simply human, or they’re not’

            Except for the fact that today’s human fossil collection show such a gradual evolution that creationists can’t make up their mind on which fossils are ‘simply human’ and which are not. Care to give it a try?

            >’You are simply mistaken, however, about their age and true identity.’

            Again, care to give any evidence that I’m mistaken?

            >’You are clearly very hostile towards people who see the world differently than you.’

            Well, I’m a bit hostile towards people who prefer to remain willfully ignorant while pushing their religion as ‘science’ into classrooms.

          • Brandon Pound

            The fossil record can be arranged and interpreted however one chooses to do so. If you accept the traditional Darwinian model of gradual evolution, then that is your choice. I choose to believe in a different model. But the fossils themselves, left on their own, prove nothing either way. Because anybody can arrange and interpret them however they choose. And in regards to the Oklo reactor, your argument is very much circular. You are already presupposing the dating methods to be accurate when you blindly accept the idea that the reactor is 2 billion years old. You are saying that the reactor being 2 billion years old is evidence that decay rates have remained the same. But don’t you see that in accepting that bit of “evidence” you have already pre-supposed the dating methods to be trustworthy? Do you really not see how that piece of “evidence” is based on circular pre-suppositions?
            The fact is, whether you believe this or not, decay rates were quite different on the earth before the flood. The entire earth was different before the flood. The climate was tropical because the whole earth was encompassed by layer of water, like an ocean in the sky which created a greenhouse like effect for the whole planet. All the continents were merged. There was never any rain, because mist sprang up from the ground. Animals grew large, and people lived long. When the flood occurred, the floodgates of heaven opened and the fountains of the deep burst forth. That ocean in the sky fell to the earth, which would drastically alter the earth after that event. God separated the continents, removed the layer of water that had hung far above us in the sky, and since then we get rain from the sky instead of mist from the ground. And now we are much more exposed to harmful UV rays. That is the truth. It can be gathered simply by studying the scriptures.
            Pre-flood fossils can never be accurately dated using the current dating methods. They are always going to be wrong, because the assumption that decay rates have remained the same, is just plain wrong.

          • John N

            >’The fossil record can be arranged and interpreted however one chooses to do so’

            No it can not. The fossil records mostly shows a gradual change in fossils, with some periods of large extinctions and some of accelerated change, exactly like the theory of evolution predicts. The fossil record shows a change from simple, unicellular to more complex multicellular life, with some exceptions as predicted by the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows us that large and small animals existed at all times and lived in the same biotopes. The fossil record shows aquatic organisms occured long before land plants. It shows land animals occured before birds, and birds before whales.

            The fossil record does not show any sign of onetime or even repeated creation and no sign of a onetime global extiction like depicted in the bible. And it does not show the sequence of origination as depicted in Genesis – you know, land plants before all aquatic and flying organisms before all land dwellers etc.

            And the best part of it – this sequence the same everywhere o earth, and totally independent of the use of any dating method you seem to dislike.

            Conclusion: No, you cannot rearrange and interpret the fossil evidence in order to support your creationist view.

            >’And in regards to the Oklo reactor, your argument is very much circular.’

            If you do not trust the dating methods – accepted and used by scientists all over the world – because the resutls don’t fit into your biblical timeframe, all you need to do is to proof the Oklo nuclear reactor is less than six thousand years old. Take into consideration that, to accomplish that, you will have to multiply the current rate of nuclear decay by a factor of at least 300.000. Do try that without melting the earth away. If you’ve done that, you’ve probably earned more than one Noble Prize.

            >’The fact is, whether you believe this or not, decay rates were quite different on the earth before the flood…’

            Nice fairytale you have got there. You forgot to mention the animals were still talking and Adam rode a Triceratops. You can find all that studying the scriptures.

            Until you’ve found any actual evidence (no, the bible is NOT CONSIDERED EVIDENCE) for your flood, please belief what you like. want but don’t try to push your religion as science.

          • Brandon Pound

            “The fossil record does not show any sign of onetime or even repeated creation and no sign of a onetime global extiction like depicted in the bible.”
            Um, what about your so-called Cambrian explosion? And there is tons of evidence for the global flood, but you refuse to consider that possibility. You see the world with a Darwinian lens, so you won’t recognize evidence for the flood. And yes, people can interpret the fossil record differently than you. You sound like some sort of educational Nazi when you say that there is only one way to interpret something.
            Also, I never claimed to know the age of the Earth. I believe the Earth itself could be much much older than merely thousands of years. It is only human history that I believe to be thousands of years old. The Earth could be much older. I am done arguing with you. I know the Truth. I have a personal relationship with Him. He is much more convincing than any earthly scientist.

          • John N

            What about the so-called Cambrian explosion? Just another stupid creationist meme, I’m afraid.

            The so called ‘explosion’ actually lasted 20 to 25 million years. It resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla. There was no creation involved – the ancesters of these organisms were already around in the Precambrium. And of course lots of animal groups like the vertebrates and most of the plant groups occured only much later.

            You keep on saying that there is tons of evidence for the flood. So then, show us this evidence. How do you expect the world to accept any evidence if you keep it a secret?

            I did not say there was only one way to interprete the fossil evidence. I only said you can not ‘rearrange and interprete it however one chooses to do so’. There is no way you can interprete the evidence to support creation. There is no evidence supporting a global flood a few thousand years ago. People have been looking for it for hundreds of years. It has been tried and it does not work.

          • Brandon Pound

            No evidence? They found the ark, bro. Look it up.

          • Brandon Pound

            No evidence? Noah’s ark was found and its location has been known for centuries. But you will not accept that as evidence, will you?

          • John N

            Right. Of course it has been found. In the middle of Kentucky. And it is opening on July 7th next year.

            Unless the weather is too bad, of course.

          • Mike Laborde

            Darwin discovered adaptation, not evolution. Because when the type of food that the birds were eating disappeared, and they began to eat what they had been eating before they adapted , their beaks adapted to the food before the adaptation.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Precisely. That form of adaptation is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. It is a fact, unlike macro-evolution, which is what is commonly meant by the word “evolution.”

          • John N

            I’m afraid you are mixing up things a bit.

            Darwin discovered about 12 new species of finches on the different islands of the Galapagos, all closely related. His explanation (that still stands) is that they evolved from a single ancestor coming from the mainland, therefore speciation occured.

            The research you speak about took place in the nineties and showed us that natural selection sometimes can take place so fast we can actually see it happening.

          • Mike Laborde


            Explanation does not equal actual facts only guessing.

          • John N

            “Explanation” means defining a theory. A theory supported by facts, evidence, observation. The facts being that multiple species of finches exist on the different islands of the Galapagos, all closely related and related to species on the mainland.

            All the facts available can be explained by the theory. No facts have ever been found to falsify the theory – although it could easily have been that way.

            Now what part of this scientific process do you think is ‘only guessing’?

          • Mike Laborde

            And theory meaning your best guess according to your “evidence”, “observation” and “facts”. To be factual you must be able to prove by eye witness things that could have happened in a period of at least 100 to 1000 years. No one was there that long. Theory is your best guess, no matter how many batchlors degrees you have. And yes, other scientist disagree with those findings.

          • John N

            I’m afraid there is no such requirement in the scientific method. Actually eye witness is considered a very unreliable source of evidence. It is so easy to deceive the human eye – magicians do it all the time.

            No, the only requirment for evidence to be of scientific value is that it is testable, thus repeatable. Everybody can check Darwins conclusions by investigating the birds he collected.

            But it is funny to see how by adding the eye witness requirement, you disproved the existence of your own god.

          • Mike Laborde

            Birds are no magicians , wow, the elephant dung is getting deep professor John, LOL.

          • John N

            I see you have no rational argument left. End of the discussion I guess.

          • Mike Laborde

            And you say I don’t have any rationale. Where is your common sense? Your previous statements collide with each other.

          • John N

            Common sense is not always a good advisor, Mike, certainly not on scientific topics. But please show me where my statements collide.

          • Mike Laborde

            So tell me what is the difference between rationale and commonsense is? Picking one definition in one post and doing away with it the next post. That is you, but you deny that . You pick and choose forgetting what you have said in previous post on purpose to fit your purpose of selling your idea. Where every you went to school or higher Ed, they really confused you and screwed you up. And you po po common sense. Now wonder you are headed for enslavement and think that you are headed to utopia.

          • John N

            You mean you don’t know the difference between rational thinking and common sense? Are you for real?

          • Mike Laborde

            I would love to hear your rationale on the explanation of your thought process of using, actually, not using common sense except to try to make your point truth, which in your case is only your anemic truth, and not really truth except where you think it ought to be truth but actually isn’t due to colliding differences of opinion after you throw out the facts. Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.

        • John N

          And I would live to hear what scientific evidence your feeling is based on. In biology there is no such thing as a ‘ theory of macro-evolution’. There is only one theory which excludes all other on the same subject.

          So what does your ‘theory’ actually says? And why would anyone want to differentiate between ‘theories’ based on your holy book?

          • Brandon Pound

            Of course secular biology doesn’t distinguish between the macro and micro forms of evolution. If they did they would only be exposing a clear flaw in their own theories. Your arguments are circular.

          • John N

            By definition, a theory can not contain ‘clear flaws’. It would not be a theory if there were flaws of any kind.

            To repeat the question, what is the evidence your feeling is based on?

        • acontraryview

          How is evolution “appallingly incompatible” with the Bible? The Bible says that God created all living creatures. It doesn’t say how he did that.

          • John N

            The theory of evolution points to all living creatures evolving from probably one single ancestor. No special creation needed.

          • Brandon Pound

            The theory of evolution isn’t compatible with the clear biblical doctrine of original sin. The Bible teaches that death came after sin. Evolution teaches that its a natural part of all life, that everything must die. The real truth is that death is God’s righteous judgment upon his rebellious creatures.

          • John N

            Well, even reality isn’t compatible with the clear biblical doctrine of original sin. We have evidence of dead plants and animals from the beginning of life, long before man appeared – they are called fossils.

    • gizmo23

      We are all desended from Africa. Adam was an African . Genetic science has proven all people desended from somewhere in Central Africa, we all can trace our generics to there

      • Brandon Pound

        The book of Genesis tells us the general location of the garden of Eden, and it was not in Africa. You can choose to believe what you want, but I believe the Bible.

        • gizmo23

          Where does the Bible say that? A global flood would change the entire planet. The garden could have been in what is now California.
          Why do people get upset that Adam and Eve may have been from Africa and may have been black? Genetics say that is very likely

          • Brandon Pound

            Um, in Genesis 2:10-14 actually. The global flood did not change the location of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
            I’m not upset. And I frankly don’t care what the color of Adam and Eve’s skin was. I wouldn’t mind at all if they were black. The Bible doesn’t specify that. But it does specify the location of the garden of Eden.

          • gizmo23

            Those rivers may name been given their names after the flood and may have been different rivers before. I guess we will not know until we pass on and all questions are answered

          • John_33

            Recently, secular scientists think humanity may have come from Asia. The real answer is somewhere in between Africa and Asia.

            livescience (dot) com/20738-primate-fossil-origins-asia.html

          • gizmo23

            I shall look it up

          • John N

            Well, if you take all monkeys and apes in your definition of ‘humanity’ then you might be right. The predecessor of all simians could be found there, according to the article you linked to.

            Homo sapiens, modern man, came out of Africa. All scientific evidence points to that, belief is not required.

          • John_33

            There’s also an alternative theory that modern man came out of multiple regions and not just Africa alone. I don’t have a bone in this fight since they’re wrong either way, but I simply point to the sources where they disagree. I find it interesting that this topic continues to confuse scientists. That’s because they adopted incorrect underlying assumptions and never discarded them.

          • John N

            Is it? No, I rather think that is because new evidence pops up and so hypothesis have to be adapted to incorporate them, or will be dismissed when no longer valid.

            The multiregional origin-hypothesis (not a theory!) which says that H. sapiens originated locally in different regions is less accepted between scientists.

            The recent-out-of-Africa-hypothesis (more precisely recent single-origin hypothesis) is currently accepted as the most probable explanation.

            But I’m afraid both models are contradicting your out-of-Eden fable, which has no evidence whatsoever.

          • John_33

            I was using ‘theory’ in layman’s terms, not scientific terminology. But you are missing my point. The multi-regional hypothesis demonstrates that all science doesn’t point to an African origin. The evidence is conflicting, and that’s because scientists have picked up faulty assumptions. It happens all the time. They will need to fix it before they get closer to the truth.

          • John N

            Well, I’m very curious what that faulty assumptions might be. And why none of the thousands of scientists who are studying antropology hasn’t seen what is so clear to you.

            Let me guess : they haven’t studied the bible like you did?

          • John_33

            Just because thousands have studied the issue doesn’t mean that they are right. In fact, that kind of blind thinking leads to incorrect results and is the antithesis of real science. We don’t really have solid evidence that man came from Africa. It’s simply an assumption based on the fragments of evidence we have, but as I already demonstrated, there’s conflicting evidence on this. So what assumptions are they dealing with that are leading them to incorrect results? That similarities imply direct lineage and ancestry. That man evolved from primates. That man evolved over millions of years. None of these have been proven, but these scientists aren’t considering alternatives when they work. This is nothing new. This has been a real problem in science for thousands of years. There’s a great quote by Nobel-prize-winning scientist Max Planck on this subject:

            “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

            That’s what we have today.

          • John N

            So you start telling us there are competing hypothesis about the way modern humans spread over the earth, and you conclude that therefore we did not evolve from apes?

            So because I don’t know exactly when and where you where born and grew up, that means your parents were not really your parents?

            I’m sorry, but the two are in no way related. We have enough evidence to conclude that Homo sapiens evolved from an ancestral ape, actually is an ape. Maybe you don’t like that – but reality doesn’t always is according your wishes. All alternatives – like special creation – have been investigated and failed the test. And if you think there are alternatives not having been investigated, please come up with the evidence.

            I guess you actually don’t understand what Planck meant with his quote, because if you did you would not have used it here. Planck did have to defend his new ideas against the existing views, just like scientists now still sometimes have to defend the theory of evolution against the old, still-not-dead view of creationism.

          • John_33

            My point was that scientists aren’t even completely sure that modern humans came from Africa. It’s the current theory, but it can be easily overturned. What I find interesting is that you were extremely confident that modern humans came from Africa until I demonstrated that there were alternative theories. Don’t swallow the latest theory just because scientists tell you that they are confident. That’s how the world stayed under the grasp of failed theories like spontaneous generation and geocentrism for more than a thousand years. People bought into whatever the ‘scholars’ and learned men were claiming rather than thinking for themselves.

            Creationism is still alive and well despite attempts to censor it, which is ironic given the claims that scientists have already ‘proved’ that we have descended from primates. Sadly, it’s the exact opposite. They haven’t proven anything, and the most crucial piece of evidence that they need to bolster their case is still the most elusive. Where is the evidence that abiogenesis is true? Darwin’s colleagues told him that he was being disingenuous if he didn’t believe in abiogenesis since that was the logical conclusion of his theory, yet where is it today? Evolutionists run away from trying to prove abiogenesis because they know that they can’t. If evolutionists had real evidence, then they would have presented it already. I’m glad that I can say with complete confidence that evolution’s days are numbered.

          • John N

            That is the reason the out-of-Africa model it is not a ‘theory’ but one out of at least two competing hypothesis.

            Which has no link with the theory of evolution, an explanation for the fact that we have descended from apes. The theory has been challenged by creationists since its first formulation more than 150 years ago and its overturning has been prophesised wince that time. Still the theory stands and has never been healthier, thanks.

            On the other side, creationism has never been a theory but has always been religion. No evidence for it, a lot of evidence against. Even if the theory of evolution might fail, creationism will not be the view replacing it.

          • John_33

            The time that evolution has lasted is not evidence of its authenticity. Other scientific theories, such as geocentrism and spontaneous generation, lasted over 1,500 years as the dominant theories only to be overturned at the last by brave men and overwhelming evidence against them. That doesn’t speak to our scientific prowess. It speaks to our shame that they lasted this long since the evidence and common sense demonstrated that these theories were incorrect. Evolution is the same. We have a large philosophical concept that is masquerading as science.

          • John N

            You are right that it is not. What is evidence of its authenticity is that it is a falisifiable theory, but has never been falsified.

            Geocentrism and spontaneous generation were never scientific theories in the first place, but views based on ‘common sense’. Especially the geocentrist view was heavily defended by the church because it was supported by the bible. Both views were overturned by scientists because the evidence, when properly observed, contradicted them. It can still be considered as proves that science works where religious views do not.

            The theory of evolution can in no way be compared with these two views. It is based on actual evidence, and despite all your effort no creationists has even been able to make a scractch on its surface. But please keep trying.

          • John_33

            Geocentrism and spontaneous generation were indeed scientific theories. They later became superseded by other scientific theories. And yes, you are right that evidence overturned both incorrect theories – that’s my point! Evidence will overturn evolution too, but just like proponents denied the defects of spontaneous generation and geocentrism, proponents for evolution are denying the defects found in the theory.

            In fact, evidence against spontaneous generation was presented as early as the 1600s and 1700s, and it should have tanked the theory back then, but the evidence was rejected as proponents created explanations to justify their belief in it. It wasn’t until 1859 when Louis Pasteur finally killed the theory, but even then, there were still proponents for spontaneous generation into the 1910s. Geocentrism was pretty much the same thing. The case with geocentrism is actually a lesson against evolution since they assumed that geocentrism couldn’t possibly be wrong in the same way that evolutionists accept the theory today without scrutiny it deserves. Today scientists are being censored and/or ostracized if they suggest alternate points of view. Real scientific theories don’t need to rely on censorship to keep them going. They rely on dissemination of the truth, and that is something that evolution is failing at.

          • John N

            Geocentrism and spontaneous generation were views developped by the ancient greeks, long before the scientific method came into use. So they are not scientific theories at all.

            Defenders of these views, like the church, did not use scientific arguments but ‘common sense’ and dogmatic thinking. Exactly like creationists do today to attack the theory of evolution.

            Today’s creationists are not being censorized in any way – if that would have been the case you would not be able to use their webisites to defend them. They are not allowed to present their ideas in science classes, and they are not being taken seriously by scientists, but that is only due to one reason: creationism is religion.

            Until creationists present any testable, falsifiable hypothesis for creation, it will remain religion. Nothing to do with science, nothing to do with thruth.

          • John_33

            Ancient Greeks practiced ancient science. Some of it was incorrect, but they actually produced a lot of good science too, such as determining the circumference of the earth and positing the existence of the atom. They debated whether the universe was heliocentric or geocentric and determined it to be geocentric based on the evidence they had at the time. Although they were started by the Greeks, Geocentrism and spontaneous generation continued well into the 1500s and 1800s respectively. We are talking about modern ‘science’ that continued to hold incorrect theories, and the supporters ostracized or opposed people who disagreed with them.

            Creationists and ID are both being censored in academia and in the classrooms. Dr. Damadian was instrumental in the creation for the MRI, yet he was passed up for the Nobel Prize because of his Creationist views. As for Intelligent Design, it is banned from being taught in the school system and is called a religion even though it is a perfectly valid scientific position. Antony Flew, an ardent atheist, later turned deist before his death because he found that Intelligent Design was the logical conclusion of the evidence we have, and this is what concerns Evolutionists. They are bent on denying the mere supposition that we are intelligently designed because it threatens their worldview, but they can’t hold it back much longer. The evidence is mounting that we are not an accident or a product of random chance.

            As for Creationism, it is falsifiable. If life can be created from nonliving material, then I suggest that Creationism would be false, but if life cannot come from nonliving material, then God must exist as the Source of all life. This is where we are today. In fact, science has led us to the closest we have ever been to completely abolishing atheism once and for all. Abiogenesis is the last position that atheists are relying upon. If Abiogenesis is disproven, then the supernatural is the only possible alternative to life on earth. We live in very exciting times, and this is why evolutionists are so quick to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.

            Please look at the research yourself. You will be amazed at what you will find. Evolution is not what it’s been made out to be. They have been often caught teaching incorrect material as fact, and yet this material continues to crop up into the textbooks. Evolution cannot last. It will be disproven based on the scientific evidence we have. We are incredibly designed.

          • John N

            >’Creationists and ID are both being censored in academia and in ‘the classrooms. Dr. Damadian was instrumental in the creation for the MRI, yet he was passed up for the Nobel Prize because of his Creationist views.’

            And of course you can prove that.

            >’As for Intelligent Design, it is banned from being taught in the school system and is called a religion even though it is a perfectly valid scientific position. ‘

            No, it is not. It is not even a hypothesis. If it was, ID supporters would have to admit that the designer is actually their creator god, showing it to be religion. Cdesign proponentsist, remember.

            >’ The evidence is mounting that we are not an accident or a product of random chance.’

            Well then, where is it? You talk and talk but do not present anything.

            Maybe it is because creationists have been promising this for more than 150 years and but are still looking for it in their bible?

            >’Please look at the research yourself. You will be amazed at what you will find. ‘

            I did. How did you think I came to the conclusion it is all rubbish?

            >’As for Creationism, it is falsifiable. If life can be created from nonliving material, then I suggest that Creationism would be false, but if life cannot come from nonliving material, then God must exist as the Source of all life’

            Live is made of nonliving material – chemical molecules. So consider your ‘theory’ falsified.

            >’in fact, science has led us to the closest we have ever been to completely abolishing atheism once and for all.’

            Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It has nothing to do with science, although science has shown that we do not need any gods.

            >’Abiogenesis is the last position that atheists are relying upon. If Abiogenesis is disproven, then the supernatural is the only possible alternative to life on earth.’

            Well, we do know that once there was no life, and then there was. We know it happened, we know it is possible – we don’t exactly know how – and maybe we’ll never know. Abiogenesis is the only hypothesis currently around to explain that. Creationism can not – if it could it would have done so long time ago.

            >’Please look at the research yourself. You will be amazed at what you will find. ‘

            I did. How did you think I came to the conclusion it is all rubbish?

            >’They have been often caught teaching incorrect material as fact, and yet this material continues to crop up into the textbooks.’

            Of course you don’t mind submitting the evidence for this.

            >’Evolution cannot last. It will be disproven based on the scientific evidence we have.’

            Threats and promisses. That’s al we can expect from creationists – religion after all.

          • John_33

            And of course you can prove that.

            He details it in his book Gifted Mind.

            No, it is not. It is not even a hypothesis. If it was, ID supporters would have to admit that the designer is actually their creator god, showing it to be religion. Cdesign proponentsist, remember.

            True science is about following the evidence no matter where it leads. If that means the inclusion of God, then we should be willing to go down that path.

            Well then, where is it? You talk and talk but do not present anything.

            Maybe it is because creationists have been promising this for more than 150 years and but are still looking for it in their bible?

            The integrated complexity of the universe and its fine tuning, including the amount of carbon and oxygen, are excellent examples. The lack of vestigial organs is also a problem for evolution and points to intelligent design. Evolutionists originally posited that we should have many vestigial organs, but a number of the organs claimed to be vestigial have actually been found to be useful. These are only a few examples of intelligent design that we have discovered recently. The fact that scientists reject it doesn’t make them any less valid. In fact, most valid theories were rejected or hindered before they were finally adopted. A good example is germ theory.

            Live is made of nonliving material – chemical molecules. So consider your ‘theory’ falsified.

            That’s not what I’m talking about. I mean that it is impossible for life to be assembled from nonliving material through natural means – this is what abiogenesis posits. There is no evidence that demonstrates life can come alive from nonliving material.

            Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It has nothing to do with science, although science has shown that we do not need any gods.

            I agree. Atheism has nothing to do with science, but modern science has become infected with scientific materialism and the unswerving belief in abiogenesis without any shred of evidence. Science has not shown that we do not need any gods. That’s atheistic thinking and has nothing to do with science, and it actually contradicts your previous point.

            Well, we do know that once there was no life, and then there was. We know it happened, we know it is possible – we don’t exactly know how – and maybe we’ll never know. Abiogenesis is the only hypothesis currently around to explain that. Creationism can not – if it could it would have done so long time ago.

            Creationism has already explained it – there is a God who made everything we see and He did it supernaturally. There is no evidence out there that disproves it. On the contrary, abiogenesis has not explained it. According to scientists who believe in it today, there was once a mythical lifeform (which we never saw) that once formed (which we have no evidence of) which then reproduced and had genetic mutations (of which we have no fossils), yet we are supposed to believe in this theory and label intelligent design as unscientific. Unbelievable. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

            I did. How did you think I came to the conclusion it is all rubbish? Of course you don’t mind submitting the evidence for this.

            I already explained this before. Ernst Haeckel’s false drawings are still included in textbooks as fact even though they were disproven 100 years ago. He claimed that his drawings were accurate and argued that it demonstrated his theory that embryos started out the same and went through different stages of fish, reptile, bird, etc. before developing into their own creature. Judge for yourself between his drawings and real photographs. It’s obvious that they aren’t the same:

            http://truedino (dot) com/embryo2.jpg

            http://scienceblogs (dot) com/tfk/wp-content/blogs.dir/408/files/2012/04/i-e0ec58fc79b513a470b0a57c7c1de0fe-201006211304.jpg

            Also, many textbooks teach (or have recently taught) incorrectly on vestigial organs. Dr. William Parker in 2009 noted that “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ'” even though it was known to have benefits for years. Why are evolutionists given a free pass to include outright falsehood to support their theory? They need to be held accountable for this. There’s no justification to push unscientific theories in the public schools, yet that’s exactly what evolutionists have been doing.

            www (dot) sciencedaily (dot) com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

            Threats and promisses. That’s al we can expect from creationists – religion after all.

            No threats. I am only commenting based on what I’ve witnessed throughout history. Evolution will fall because it’s unscientific. Maybe it won’t be for another thousand years, but it eventually will.

          • John N

            >’He details it in his book Gifted Mind.’

            There was a lot of controversy about this Nobel Prize. There is no evidence it was not given to him because of his religion.

            >’True science is about following the evidence no matter where it leads. If that means the inclusion of God, then we should be willing to go down that path.’

            Perfect. Then you should have no problem with scientific theories not including your god, since none of them seems to need it.

            >’The integrated complexity of the universe and its fine tuning, including the amount of carbon and oxygen, are excellent examples.’

            Examples of life being fine tuned to their environment. Through natural selection. In short, if the universe would have been any different, life – if possible – would have been different.

            >’The lack of vestigial organs is also a problem for evolution and points to intelligent design.’

            There is no lack of vestigial organs. There is a creationist’ lack of comprehension on what vestigial organs actually are. Vestigial organs are defined as ‘organs that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution’ (Source: Wikipedia). Current usefullness is not part of that definition. Loss of their initial function is, and thus they are evidence of evolution and contradict design.

            >’ In fact, most valid theories were rejected or hindered before they were finally adopted. A good example is germ theory.’

            Which started with a hypothesis. Creationism isn’t even that.

            >’I mean that it is impossible for life to be assembled from nonliving material through natural means’

            Look in the mirror and find out you are still wrong.

            >’Science has not shown that we do not need any gods’

            Then point me a scientific theory that needs any gods.

            >’According to scientists who believe in it today …’

            According to creatonists who believe in it today, there was once a mythical lifeform (which we never saw) that exists forever (which we have no evidence of) which then created individually every lifeform (of which we have no evidence), and on top of, he made it look as everything evolved naturally. They base this believe on a book written by unknown authors 2000 years ago. Yet we are supposed to believe in this religious view and label the theory of evolution as unscientific.

            >’Ernst Haeckel’s false drawings are still included in textbooks as fact even though they were disproven 100 years ago.’

            Show me the textbooks.

            >’He … argued that it demonstrated his theory that embryos started out the same and went through different stages of fish, reptile, bird, etc. before developing into their own creature’

            His ‘theory’ (which it was not – it was a hypothesis) is indeed no longer supported, but if you actually checked the photographs you will see that embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position. Haeckel was not so wrong after all.

            >’Why are evolutionists given a free pass to include outright falsehood to support their theory? They need to be held accountable for this. There’s no justification to push unscientific theories in the public schools, yet that’s exactly what evolutionists have been doing.’

            So do you want science teachers to stop teaching all scientific theories, or just the ones you don’t like? What falsehoods do you think are being taught today? Can you give some evidence? And what is an ‘unscientific theory’?

            There is every reason to teach (not push) scientific theories in science classes, because they are the foundation of science. There is a good reason why not to teach creationism in science classes, because it is founded on religion only.

            >’Evolution will fall because it’s unscientific. Maybe it won’t be for another thousand years, but it eventually will.’

            So I won’t hold my breath then.

          • John_33

            There was a lot of controversy about this Nobel Prize. There is no evidence it was not given to him because his religion.

            He details it in his book. He also notes how Drs. Bloembergen (1981 Nobel prize winner in Physics), Feigelson, and Furchgott all spoke out saying that he deserved the award, yet he was completely passed by.

            Perfect. Then you should have no problem with scientific theories not including your god, since none of them seems to need it.

            That doesn’t address what I said. Intelligent design is a completely valid scientific theory. The existence of God is a valid scientific question, and it should not be banned in the public schools.

            There is no lack of vestigial organs. There is a creationist’ lack of comprehension on what vestigial origins actually are. Vestigial organs are defined as ‘organs that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution’ (Source: Wikipedia). Current usefullness is not part of that definition. Loss of their initial function is, and thus they are evidence of evolution and contradict design.

            Yes, but do you know what’s interesting? The definition has been changed since Darwin’s time. Surprise! Just move the goalpost….and the theory is still valid. See how that works? We went from 86 “vestigial” organs in the 19th century to a mere handful today – and those are still being studied.

            Answersingenesis (dot) org/human-body/vestigial-organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/

            Which started with a hypothesis. Creationism isn’t even that.

            That’s actually part of my point. A valid theory was rejected despite solid evidence for it. So what happens when people point out the deficiencies in evolution? The same thing. What happens when Intelligent Design comes around with valid theories? It’s banned by the courts. It’s not uncommon for good science to be rejected when the establishment dislikes it or feels threatened by it.

            Look in the mirror and find out you are still wrong.

            That has nothing to do with the topic and merely serves to demonstrate that you have no rebuttal to what I’m saying.

            Then point me a scientific theory that needs any gods.

            That’s logically incorrect, but I will oblige. Not with a theory but with a law — the law of biogenesis. Omne vivum ex vivo. All life comes from life. This is the only observable fact that we have ever seen, but abiogenesis opposes this (without evidence) and posits that *some* life comes from nonlife. This is in complete contradiction to Louis Pasteur and every experiment that we have ever done.

            According to creatonists who believe in it today, there was once a mythical lifeform (which we never saw) that exists forever (which we have no evidence of) which then created individually every lifeform (of which we have no evidence), and on top of, he made it look as everything evolved naturally. They base this believe on a book written by unknown authors 2000 years ago. Yet we are supposed to believe in this religious view and label the theory of evolution as unscientific.

            We do have do have evidence for God. Coincidentally, while I think you meant to turn the argument around, all you actually did was compare Creationism to abiogenesis. I don’t think you meant to do that. You also offered no scientific position as to why abiogenesis is correct.

            Show me the textbooks.

            A recent example can be found in Sylvia Mader’s 2010 textbook, Biology.

            Here’s a comparison of Haeckel’s drawings and the drawings found in the textbook:

            www (dot) ideacenter (dot) org/stuff/contentmgr/files/f26ae5905463c8e7be933ba098d0665e/misc/mader_2010.jpg

            His ‘theory’ (which it was not – it was a hypothesis) is indeed no longer supported, but if you actually checked the photographs you will see that embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position. Haeckel was not so wrong after all.

            It’s known as ‘recapitulation theory’ and that is what I’m referring to. Haeckel was indeed wrong and his fraudulent drawings still show up in the textbooks giving a false image of real embryos. They do not undergo any periods. Creatures that more are similar after birth are also similar before birth. That’s all there is to it, but that’s not what Haeckel suggested. He suggested that they go through various ‘fish,’ ‘bird’ stages, and other stages before they reached their intended stage. That’s not what happens at all. He was completely wrong, and yet his fraudulent drawings still show up in the textbooks. It’s pure propaganda.

            So do you want science teachers to stop teaching all scientific theories, or just the ones you don’t like? What falsehoods do you think are being taught today? Can you give some evidence? And what is an ‘unscientific theory’?

            There is every reason to teach (not push) scientific theories in science classes, because they are the foundation of science. There is a good reason why not to teach creationism in science classes, because it is founded on religion only.

            You are demonstrating exactly what I mentioned in my previous reply by giving them a free pass. No I don’t want teachers to stop teaching science. I want scientists and teachers to *actually* teach science – not misinformation that has been disproven 100 years ago. Why are they told that the appendix is vestigial when it’s not? Why are they taught abiogenesis as fact with no alternate theory? Why are they taught Haeckel’s drawings as fact? And why is nobody holding them accountable? Again, it’s another example why evolution will fall. It’s not sustainable.

          • John N

            >’He details it in his book.’

            So your only evidence he was nog given the Nobel Prize because his relion is he said it himself. How convincing.

            >’Intelligent design is a completely valid scientific theory. The existence of God is a valid scientific question, and it should not be banned in the public schools.’

            So then explain it to us. Who was the designer (you seem to cliam it was a god. Which one?), why did he do what he did, why did he do it this way, how did he do it, where and when did he do it. Show us the drawings. Show us the design studios and factories. Was there only one designer or more. How can we differentiate between a designed and an evolved organism….

            So many questions, no answers. You’ve got a lot of work before ID even becomes a hypothesis.

            The existence of any god is a scientific question in the same way the existence of purple unicorns is a scientfic question. There is no reason to believe that any of them exist.

            >’Yes, but do you know what’s interesting? The definition has been changed since Darwin’s time.’

            Did it?

            Darwin’s definition was: “An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other…. [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object.”

            This definition is still quit actual.

            Pointing to Answersingenesis for scientific reference is useless. The bible is not known as a reliable science book.

            >’That has nothing to do with the topic and merely serves to demonstrate that you have no rebuttal to what I’m saying.’

            Your claim was, ‘it is impossible for life to be assembled from nonliving material through natural means’

            So you deny your own body developped from nonliving material through natural means?

            >’That’s actually part of my point. A valid theory was rejected despite solid evidence for it.’

            Last time I looked, the Germ theory of disease was still accepted. That a hypotesis does not receive immediate acceptation when postulated, seems normal to me. You need to collect a lot of evidence before a hypothesis becomes a theory, and a lot of falsification to be done to convine te scientific world. But once a theory, there is little chance that it will be overthrown. The same has happened with the theory of evolution, which was not immediately accepted by everyone. But in the end, a valid theory will prevail.

            >’Not with a theory but with a law — the law of biogenesis’

            The so-called ‘law of biogenesis’ is an observation that all current living things come only from other previous living things through reproduction. It does not oppose abiogenesis, which is probably a one-time event that happened when there was no previous life. And nowhere is there any god included or needed in the explanation.

            >’We do have do have evidence for God’

            Great. Show it.

            >A recent example can be found in Sylvia Mader’s 2010 textbook,Biology.’

            These not Haeckels’ drawings. Try again.

            >’It’s known as ‘recapitulation theory’ and that is what I’m referring to. Hackel was indeed wrong and his fraudulent drawings still show up in the textbooks giving a false image of real embryos.’

            His name was Haeckel, Ernst Haeckel. And you still owe me the evidence.

            >’Creatures that more are similar after birth are also similar before birth. That’s all there is to it, but that’s not what Haeckel suggested.’

            That’s not all there is. Haeckel’s ‘recapitulation theory’ stated that all animals while developping go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. It is largely dismissed, because embryo’s never look like full grown forms of their ancestors. But different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions, looking like embryonal parts of their successors – like pharyngeal arches, which are both present in fish and human embryos, thus providing evidence of common ancestry.

            >’I want scientists and teachers to *actually* teach science – not misinformation that has been disproven 100 years ago.’

            And of course you are the one deciding what “actually” science is – according to your specific religious view.

            >’Why are they told that the appendix is vestigial when it’s not? ‘
            Because until the scientific discussion on its origins are concluded, it is.

            >’Why are they taught abiogenesis as fact with no alternate theory? ‘
            Where is abiogenesis taught as fact? And what are the alternate ‘theories’?

            >Why are they taught Hackel’s drawings as fact?’
            Again, where?

            >Again, it’s another example why evolution will fall. It’s not sustainable.’

            So you give us three so-called evidences why evolution is not sustainable. Actually, abiogenesis is no part of the theory of evolution, so just two. I did not see any evidence on the Haeckel drawings, and on the appendix the jury is still out.

            You’ll have to do better than that to get your god back in science classes, I’m afraid.

          • Brandon Pound

            OH so you mean somewhere in the middle-east? LOL

  • jr61020

    How deceived is this woman.Is this what she is teaching her students?

  • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

    Dumb a s s honky kids.

  • Reason2012

    “She said that not only does she have a common ancestry with Muslims, but that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.”

    Any professing Christian who thinks there are other ways to God besides Christ Jesus is not a Christian – it’s that simple. Muslims claim Jesus is the slave of muhammad.

    “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
    1 John 2:22-23

    “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
    John 14:6

    • davidus

      Most people make the same error like you. They make the conclusion that having the same god leads to the same faith. Thats where you fail. Of course it is the same God.
      The God Abraham choose to follow was understood by the his first followers (the hebraic tribes) as their only one. Others followed and lately the christians did, assuming that Jesus was this very same God. Muslims followed in a similar way, but claiming that the *Jesus is God* part was a hoax. So we have 3 different teachings, but they all are about the same god. Saying this doesnt stand contrary to the obvious point, that each faith believes to know the true way to salvation.

      • Reason2012

        They claim, as you say, that “Jesus is God” is a hoax – that Jesus is not God. They prove they are not following God with that claim but instead are anti-Christ, following a false version of God they are more comfortable with.

        Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”. Anyone else that instead says “Jesus is NOT the way, the truth and the life: people can come to God many ways” is proving they are worshiping a false god, not the God of creation.

        Saying “I’m following God” doesn’t make it true. Doing what God says is what makes it true, not the broad path of “whatever is right to you”. Most people make the same error you are making and most will pay dearly for it and realize how deceived they were.

        “[Jesus said] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
        Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

        Matthew 7:13-15

        Not surprising He warned of false teachers right after speaking of salvation – they’ll teach things like “we’re all worshiping the same God”.

        “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
        1 John 2:22-23

        • davidus

          Ya, Sir, i know the christian point of view 😛 But all 3 religions agree that it is the God of Abraham and the hebraic prophets. Then the jews decided to wait for a messiah. Some of them claimed to be prophets. Some believed a certain guy called Jesus from Nazareth was this Savior, sent from That one God. If you can follow, i hope you see the consistent red line here.
          Later on, several people claimed to understand the nature of this Jesus better than others. When a powerful person (constantin) joined this groups, he decided to have one interpretation and shun all others, so everyone important met and then they declared what they think the nature of this Jesus, sent from That one God is. Still, afterwards, not everyone agreed, (and we are still talking about the the same God!). Some Dude somewhere in the South claimed that this God had sent him a messenger and told him some things which he was happy to share with everyone, even if it was rejected. Some believed him. Some, who didnt understand why God sent this Jesus, switched to his group. Many jews, who still were waiting for a messiah from their God, trusted even in that this guy

          really is talking about their God and had met the messenger (Gabriel). The Guy starts to be successfull gaining political, religious and military power. Still the same God, despite several interpretations and claims what he has done and who he has sent to humanity.
          End of Story.

          Picking up one of this interpretations tells us in which group you fall, which you are free to do.
          But it doesnt deny the point that it is the same God everyone has been argueing about from the then jews, the roman catholics, the sunni muslims, lutherians, shia´s, mennonits, etc…

          • Reason2012

            Yes, the devils know about God of Abraham as well, but they’re still on their way to_hell. Not enough to claim to ‘know’ Him or believe He exists. Many will end up in_hell that claim to “know” Him or “argue about” Him or believe He exists. And so it goes with “there are many ways to God” claim.

          • davidus

            Hey wait, hold your horses…Saying IT IS THE SAME GOD has nothing to do with saying THERE ARE MANY (EQUAL) WAYS TO GOD .
            Sounds similar but even i wouldnt claim the latter..and i didnt.

          • Reason2012

            Then not sure what “error” it is you claim I was making: because the only claim I made was “Any professing Christian who thinks there are other ways to God besides Christ Jesus is not a Christian – it’s that simple.” and you responded with the claim I was making an error “Most people make the same error like you”

            So I guess I wasn’t making an error after all: Any professing Christian who thinks there are other ways to God besides Christ Jesus is not a Christian – it’s that simple.

            Thanks for posting.

          • davidus

            Yes, you are totaly right there. The problem was that it doesnt have anything to do with her claim:
            “She said that not only does she have a common ancestry with Muslims, but that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.”which you citated first. You are welcome. Ahh, you made me write too much xD

          • Reason2012

            You’re not worshiping God when you reject what He’s said and instead have set up a false version of Him – you are instead worshiping a false god that doesn’t exist. Hope this helps.

      • illuvitus

        “but they all are about the same god”

        That “same God” makes contradictory claims and contradictory promises and has a contradictory nature. You even said so yourself, in regard to Jesus. So we clearly have two different deities here, for anyone who is honest.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “Muslims are the target of stigmatization”

    Jihad stigma now, jihad stigma forever.

  • Mark_Trail

    It comes down to whether sharia law is compatible with any Christian faith tradition. Like the homosexual agenda, sharia law strives to usurp God’s authority in matters of faith and morals. One third of the angels thought that was better to not live under God’s authority and not serve humankind and it’s obvious who the Muslims and homosexuals want to write the laws they live under.

    Anarchy is never a good thing; living within the boundaries of at least the minimum of moral order, well understood by all Christians, is a good thing. We don’t get our basic morality from government, or any church; we have it inherent within us, and God gave it to us. Those churches that recognize and defend the right to be right are right. Those that defend the right to be wrong are wrong.

  • John_33

    Ah, they worship the same god, but Christians need to pay the jizya in many Islamic countries…makes perfect sense…

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Excellent point!

  • Joe

    1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
    the man Christ Jesus;

    1Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due
    time.

  • GibbyD

    Allah and Jehovah are not the same God .
    Allah is a moon idol .

  • Pam Nowell

    To be an intimate friend of someone reveals who the other companions are and if Jesus is one. of them.

    There is no faking it. If He is not welcome there, He will say, I never knew you.

  • acontraryview

    “A number of students from a prominent Christian-identified university are demanding”

    A “demand” includes a consequence if the action is not taken. These students are not “demanding” anything. They are showing their support for this professor and requesting she be reinstated. You know, exercising their 1st amendment rights.

  • John Smith

    Wheaton College= Disgusting
    Ignorant
    Hateful & Hated
    Ugly
    Possessed by the devil
    & Much more

  • Mike Laborde

    Christianity and Islam are incompatible. just the books of the Koran run afowell of the tennents of faith of the bible. The Koran also states that Jesus never died on the cross, but went to another town where he recuperated and lived longer. It also states that Jesus was only a profit. Get rid of those students that are protesting.

  • Engineered Reality

    Can’t say I’ve ever seen an example in the bible of Christ embracing a false religion. In fact, he condemned false religions.

  • Rick V.

    With thousands of Christians being killed by muslins, how is it that muslins are the victims?
    Why all the tolerance for the muslims whose feelings are hurt, and no sympathy for the Christians who are killed?

  • Phil Adelphia

    These CLUELESS pseudo intellects have NEVER read their Bible. The God of Israel is NOT allah!!!!!….The God of Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob DOES NOT….I repeat DOES NOT require/demand terror, murder, rape, beheading etal as the foundation of their faith….If all the forementioned atrocities are the Will of allah….What would the Will of satan be?……..The students are obvious haters of Israel….therefore haters of God (I Bless those those that Israel…I curse those that curse Israel)…then haters of Jesus…who btw is a JEW!!!!!!!!……..ZPut down the joints….take your heads out of your arses…and get on board WITH GOD….NOT SATAN!!!!!….When you are left behnd..oyu will know why!!!!!!

  • ccalreds

    Wake up students before it’s to late.

  • DaveL

    So, she thinks we all worship the same God? She should ask the Muslims if they agree with that. In fact, it is because we don’t worship Allah that they practice Jihad against us infidels. Did anyone ever hear Christ promote Jihad against those who did not accept him?

  • DLCraig

    This woman is about as Christian as muhammad’s little donkey. It also appears that students at Christian Colleges are no smarter or prepared to reason than their Christophobic counterparts at other institutions. Makes one wonder why they chose Wheaton in the first place and what they were taught by parents and pastors.

  • j/j

    “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow him; but if Ba’al, then follow him.”

    Woman, if Allah be God, then leave Christ and the LORD, and go follow Allah.
    WE all have a choice ‘between’ TRUTH and ERROR, (not a fusion ‘of’ truth with error).

    ALL WAYS DO NOT LEAD TO GOD!!!!!! STOP THE CONFUSION!!! If you want to go to hell, don’t take others as ignorant as yourself with you.

  • Cligie

    Anyone who believes that the Christian God is the same as the Muslim god should not be allowed to TEACH at a Christian college. Any student who believes that the Christian God is the same as the Muslim god should not be allowed to GRADUATE from a Christian college.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    I don’t understand why denying God’s special creation of man is glossed over as an unimportant part of this woman’s error. While her remarks with respect to who-is-the-god-of-muslims may admit some charitable interpretation, her remarks about the origin of man are indefensible.

  • illuvitus

    Expel the poison now or it will only get worse.

  • Guest

    Wheaton students are idiots, at least these ones are.