A Tale of Two Pandas and One Creationist

Took the time to break out a chapter from my upcoming book into its own article:


“I was still a young-earth creationist, but I came to realize that evolution could be true, if only the world was old enough. When I finally saw evidence for the true age of the universe, I was ready to accept it.”


Thanks @David_MacMillan! Your opener about the galaxy is really strong.

What is the connection between the pandas and the galaxy?


Thanks David! When will your book be out? @David_MacMillan

1 Like

@David_MacMillan I loved the article. Thanks for writing it. BTW, I had a 1974 Ford LTD. It was a great car. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Galaxy was referencing a prior article about the defining moment when I walked away from creationism; the panda’s thumb and giraffe/okapi business were two examples of the slow trickle of evidence that primed me to see things the way they really are.

Most people progress from YEC to OEC and then to evolutionary creationism. For me, it was different; I started as YEC, then accepted that evolution is possible (though I thought it unlikely), then went straight to evolutionary creationism as soon as I accepted deep time.

Hopefully within a few months!


why do you think that time make so difference?

I had come to accept the validity of evolutionary theory even though I still maintained that the earth is young. I accepted that evolution COULD happen; I just denied that it DID.

So when I realized I was wrong about the age of the universe, there was no further barrier.


im not sure if time is actually a barrier. for instance: many creatures (living fossils) stay basically the same for many millions years (up tp 400 my). so i dont think that time make so difference. also think about this analogy: say that we had a self replicating molecule (like the first replicating molecule on earth). do you think that after millions of years we can get a walking roobt out of that molecule?

If you make enough changes to the meaning of “robot”, then we humans are those walking robots. But, if you stick to the usual meaning of “robot”, then that won’t happen. Evolution isn’t just shaking up a bunch of molecules and seeing what happens.


2 posts were split to a new topic: Of Robots and Men

I may be giving away the farm on this, but I found something delightful while researching for chapter 8 of my book:

All images are still on the AiG website.


What precisely is the point you are making?

The YEC shift in rhetoric (e.g., the definitions of “microevolution”) over the past quarter-century are inadvertently mirrored in some of their graphics.


A post was split to a new topic: Providentialist