Personally, I am absolutely convinced that there are no sentient extraterrestrials out there (I’m undecided as to whether or not I think there might be unintelligent life on other planets). I agree with one of the commenters at UD who said,

The problem is that the fall of creation (i.e. the universe’s apparent natural evil/entropy/death) can no longer be attributed solely to man’s willful disobedience of God and will present a severe problem reconciling Christ’s atoning work on the Cross.

I realize that Old Earthers would be pretty much unaffected, because they don’t believe that death began at the fall, but if there were extraterrestrials, that would pretty much rule out my theological position (unless they were immune to death and disease). I have big problems with the idea of a God who would create death and suffering and call it good, though, so I’d have to really do some soul searching.

Even if they did find extraterrestrial life (or it found us), I’d still have no reason to doubt the Resurrection, so I can’t say that I’d stop being a Christian, but it would definitely present me with a theological crisis…

I’m left wondering, however, why? Why, if it is merely an accident, do we have to protect life? The word “precious” presupposes that there is some sentient being that feels that affection or to which the thing described is considered valuable. To whom or what are we duty bound to protect life if there is no God? Ourselves? Well, what if some of us don’t see the need? It makes no sense to me.

Creationists have argued for quite some time that the appendix does, in fact, have a purpose. Now that evolutionary scientists are saying the same thing and it’s getting widespread coverage, you might think you’d get some reflection on the part of evolutionists who have for so long argued that the appendix is vestigial and thus evidence for evolution. Read the article, though, and you’ll find the following jewel of a comment:

The idea “seems by far the most likely” explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. “It makes evolutionary sense.”

I just had to laugh. If it has no function, it’s proof of evolution. If it has a function, it’s proof of evolution. Ah, the predictive power of evolution.

The laws of thermodynamics tell us that the universe had to have a beginning. The 1st Law tells us that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant, and the 2nd tells us that the amount of energy available for work is running out. If the total amount of mass and energy is constant and yet the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot possibly have existed forever, or all usable energy would be gone by now.

Everyone knows you can’t get something from nothing. If there was ever nothing, then there would never be anything. There has to be something outside the universe, i.e. supernatural, that brought it about. That something is God, and God has no beginning and no creator.

Further reading:

William Lane Craig on Divine Eternity (technical)
Who Created God (easy)

After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

Cain married his sister. There was no one else for him to marry, because all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12). But what about the injunction against marrying close relatives? That didn’t come until the time of Moses, some two thousand years later. Since Adam and Eve were created perfect, the effects of sin and decay would not have been so pronounced in the genes of their immediate descendents. By the time of Moses, however, the accumulation of mutations would have made it unwise to marry a close relative.

That’s the short answer. The long answer is here.

So it really makes no sense to say “if evolution is true, why are there still apes?” In fact, it is a well-observed fact that species adapt to their environments. One species may be better suited for a particular environment than another. It doesn’t make any difference which of the species is older. Natural selection allows one species to thrive while the other decreases in number.

A better argument against evolution and for intelligent design, in my opinion, is simply to point out the existence of digital code in living organisms. Everywhere we see digital code in inanimate objects, we immediately attribute it to an intelligent agent. It’s an unmistakable indication of intelligence. Why then, do we say that we absolutely must find a natural cause when we find digital code in living organisms? What is the logic that goes into that way of thinking?

An evolutionist might argue that “flaws” in the design disprove intelligent design, but that’s not true. We cannot discuss why the intelligent designer chose to use a particular code in scientific terms. The “why” question is outside the realm of science and is better left to theologians. For example, forensic science can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a murder (attributing the cause of death to an intelligent agent), but science cannot answer the question of why the murder was committed or why a certain means was used instead of another.

While visiting family in the States, I was able to take a trip to the “controversial” Creation Museum in Florence, KY (near Cincinnati). It was extremely crowded. We waited in line for 45 minutes to get in after a very long drive, but it was well worth the wait! We started off our tour with the planetarium. It was truly awesome. The computer programming was very cool. It was the most exciting part of the museum in my opinion.

The main part of the museum presents a “walk through history,” where the visitor is presented with the Seven C’s of history: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. The animatronics were impressive, and the fact that it was designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director really shows.

I don’t really have anything to add to what people have already said about it. One sad thing, though, is that there have to be armed guards present to prevent hateful people from damaging the property. I could see evidence of vandalism on some of the displays already, even though I visited about a month after the official opening. Tolerance must only be required of Christians. I guess the threat of terrorism due to the concentration of thousands of visitors in one spot makes them necessary, too.

If you’re in the area–and even if you’re not–I highly recommend a visit. You can spend an entire day at the museum. They have a cafeteria and a good-sized park outside. It opens at 10 a.m., so get there early and make sure you can get tickets to the planetarium (apparently they sell out pretty quickly). I got there at 9:50 a.m. and there was already a huge line, but I’d say that the crowds will die down after a few months. If you’re going to stay at a hotel in the area, be sure and check out the Plan Your Visit section of the website and ask the hotel for the Creation Museum rates. My family and I got to stay at a nice hotel for much less than the normal rate.

Even evolutionists should find the museum interesting. It’s so spectacularly done that you can visit and examine the other side of the debate without being bored out of your mind. I’ve even read of some people getting to “debate” with the staff. So what are you waiting for?

“What I have a problem with is how the Answers in Genesis movement twists science — repeatedly taking facts out of context — in order to misrepresent what we scientists do and say. I doubt they do it with deliberate intent to mislead, but leading creation scientists do it unambiguously and quite assiduously in newsletters, blogs and even books. And given the importance of education in general — critical thinking and handling of complex information in a changing world — creation scientists cannot have a directly positive effect on folks’ understanding of science or their skill in handling and critiquing information and messages coming from various sources of authority, whether its the science lab or the pulpit.” (emphasis mine)

Isn’t this telling? If Answers in Genesis is taking facts “out of context,” it should be fairly easy to point out, and if the information that AiG is presenting is, in fact, inaccurate and involves logical fallacies, then what could be a better resource for teaching critical thinking? Students of the university should be taken to the museum in busloads to learn how to think critically. But alas, evolutionists are not concerned for people’s critical thinking skills, they are afraid of people exercising them. Evolution cannot stand up to criticism, and when both theories are presented side by side people can instinctively see which one better fits with the evidence.