| Comments (1) | Biology Outstanding!
For some reason I checked out Conservapedia today. Sort of an amazing artifact, if basically insane. It's like—well, it actually is—they want to create a whole alternate reality where the normal rules of intellectual discourse don't apply. Here's the (somewhat famous) article on the kangaroo:
According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[7] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [8] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.[9] In accordance with their worldviews, a majority of biologists regard evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo.

Uh, yeah. Incidentally, that passage contains links to Baraminology, the study of Biblical kinds. I almost expect there to be a page on the Turtles all the way down theory of cosmology. I was going to try to make a serious argument about this, but it's just laughable.

Incidentally, Mrs. G noted the weird juxtaposition of Pangea and flood theory. Unsurprisingly, there's a footnote pointing to this uh, explanation about how Pangea is compatible with flood theory. In case you're curious, it's that the rate of geologic activity was higher during the flood.


Whether or not God wrote the Bible, (there is disagreement on that point), every faith that believes in a God believes in a creator God.

In fact the actual claim of authorship is rather less than many believe, in the Judaic tradition the Torah is written by Moses, not God. Only the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments are given directly. The interpretation of the Bible in the early Christian church made use of a four layers system of allegory. The literal interpretation was regarded as the least important. The difficulty with Genesis was noted a thousand years before Darwin, the term 'day' is used before the creation of the sun or the setting of the sun and stars in motion.

It follows therefore, that the one solid fact upon which a theology may be based is that the Universe was created by God.

It follows therefore that to study God you should study the Universe.

Science is thus to be preferred to exegesis as the basis for theology, as interpretation of a work of doubtful authorship, however clever, can never be a substitute for objective study of a work of undisputed authorship.

Leave a comment