Have you heard of the evolutionary term "convergence"?  It refers to the supposed arrival of multiple biological lineages to the same "body plan" through independent evolutionary histories.  The problem is that the main evidence for evolution is supposed to be the seamless "tree of life" in which body plans ("morphologies") gradually change into what comes next.  When an animal exhibits an organ extremely similar to another supposedly unrelated animal in the evolutionary "tree of life", instead of accepting that it is evidence against the theory of evolution, proponents simply say "it evolved more than once" and give it the name "convergence".

This hilarious handwaving deserves much... um... scrutiny.   Here's a gem from recent Creation Safaris:

In the land of Jabberwocky, a scientist named Niwrad came up with a theory of everything he called Galumph.  With frabjous joy, he investigated all the creatures of the borogoves with his apprentice, Ecallaw.  He found that the Jubjub birds had round eyes and the mome raths, though similar, have square eyes.  That’s because of Galumph, he explained.  The Bandersnatch and Jabberwock, though looking very different, both have round eyes.  “Galumph triumphs again!” Niwrad chortled.  “But how can that be?” burbled Ecallaw with uffish look.  “They are so very different in other respects.”  “Callooh! Callay!” exclaimed Niwrad frumiously.  “'Tis only to demonstrate the power of Galumph.  The former is a case of Parallel Galumph.  This one, a case of Convergent Galumph.  Do you see?  Galumph explains all.  We must away and tell Yelxuh, our mimsy publicist, to announce our scientific triumph to the townspeople!  We have slain the mystery of Jabberwock with Galumph.  Galumph has wiped the brillig from our slithy toves, and given us Enlightenment!”
    Convergence is about as meaningful and convincing an explanation as this.  If God exists, and if it were his intent to show the impossibility of evolution, he could hardly have done a better job than to show both unity and diversity of plants and animals, but with cross-branches linking unrelated lineages with similar traits.  It would simultaneously show a single Creator (instead of polytheism) and the impossibility these complex species and traits had emerged naturally from common ancestry.  As far as the differences between bat species, it is also much more plausible to explain by trait loss rather than by innovative gain of new complex systems.  Yet the Darwinists, intent on their naturalistic world view, have come up with a term like Galumph, called Convergence, to rescue their beliefs from the evidence.  To see the extent of their use of this rescuing device, look at Brett Miller’s partial list of incredible similarities between unrelated creatures in his essay,

The Convergence Concoction.  Like his final cartoon shows, it’s so much easier for lazy scientists to say “It evolved!” than to consider the implications of the evidence.  Another resource on the explanatory flimflam being sold as Convergent Evolution can be found in this article on the Explore Evolution website, section II D.
    It can look impressive to see in scientific papers the amount of detailed work researchers perform to arrive at their Galumph explanations.  How could all these analytical tools like Bayesian analysis, software that generates phylogenetic trees out of genetic inputs, mathematical manipulations, inscrutable jargon, tables, charts and piles of supplemental data be misguided?  How can it be wrong when it feels so right?  But if the conclusion of this bridge over troubled water is “Galumph!  Stuff happens,” it doesn’t matter.  That’s a non-starter as an explanation.  And busy work is not science.  Undoubtedly one could find similar amounts of complex procedures and data manipulation in the textbooks on alchemy and astrology.  Couching the Stuff Happens Law (09/15/2008 commentary) in euphemisms does not produce understanding.
    By failing to include the top-down theories in their roster, they have failed to address the pool of possible explanations.  Regardless, this jabber about Convergence is not an explanation; it’s Jargonwocky masquerading as meaning.

Regarding Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, www.CreationSafaris.com has some great analysis!   It's worth reading every day.

Also, regarding the following quote:

Why is knowing God and embracing His sovereignty so important when we're single? We have to keep in mind that we've received this gift of singleness from the pierced hand of the One who bore all of our sins - from unbelief as singles to selfishness as marrieds. We can be like Peter who initially rebuked Jesus for His humiliating, yet glorious, plan of redemption - or we can be like Mary, who came to accept His plan and purposes, and demonstrated it in the costly outpouring of perfume in anticipation of his burial. Confident of the Lord's good plan for our lives, we can emulate Mary and spend our treasures (youth, dreams, desires) to further His purposes on this earth.
More importantly, when we are almost faint under the strain and worry of wondering if singleness is to be forever, we need to be reminded that there is an end to singleness: One day we will be at the wedding feast of the Lamb and we will be His bride. Even if we receive the gift of marriage on this side of heaven, that's not our ultimate goal. It is a shadow and a type of what is planned for eternity and, like all things on this earth, it will have its conclusion in death. Our Father knows the time when earthly gifts will be distributed and when they will be no more; He knows, as well, when the heavenly wedding feast will commence. We can blissfully rest in the knowledge that the future is better than anything we think we've missed now: Jesus is preparing us for the eternal rewards and eternal joys of a future He's told us is too inexpressible for us to understand. For His purposes, and within His covenant to always do us good (Jeremiah 33:40), He has declared for us that being single now and into the foreseeable future is His very best. He desires that we overflow with hope as we trust in him (Romans 15:13) and his sovereignty in this season -- redefining hope from hoping in a particular gift from God to trusting the God of hope unreservedly.  (http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-God-Who-Knows-the-End-of-Your-Singleness)

...the excellent point is made that singles have the UNIQUE opportunity to show to the world the desirability and value of God in the midst of their loneliness and heartache, just as marrieds have the UNIQUE opportunity to show to the world the desirability and value of God in the midst of the stresses of family relationships and needs... just as chronically-ill people have the UNIQUE opportunity to show to the world the desirability and value of God in the midst of their physical pain, just as.... every pain and every life-circumstance carries with it the special and unique opportunity to showcase God's glory and value...   YOU have a unique ability that no one else in the world has ever had or will ever had, in trusting wholeheartedly in God in the midst of your own unique life-situation...   in saying with David (Ps 39:7) "And now, Lord, for what do I wait? My hope is in You."  ...and with Jeremiah (Lam 3:27) "The Lord is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I have hope in Him."

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:3-9)

Here's some hilarious stuff from http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/uds-first-suck-up-to-darwin-contest/#comments , in honor of the 2009 bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial of his publication of "The Origin of Species".   Here are three of the 'odes'... the link has several more.   They're especially funny because they weave in a lot of real evolutionists' rhetoric, and expose some of the irony involved.  The second and third one especially bring out the problems atheism/naturalism/evolutionism has with reductionism and determinism... i.e. whether consciousness, morality, and free will are merely illusions or not.

Darwin lived in age of superstition and squalor yet rose above it to lead humanity into sunlight, into the promised land.

Darwin was abandoned by his mother at the age of three months after the insane King George III ordered the death of all infants named “Charles”, “Chas” or “Chuck”. The King’s daughter saw him floating in a basket amongst the bullrushes, however. His superior persona was obvious even at that age and she adopted him as her own.

Darwin grew into a comely man of great height and uncommon strength. He was known to be able to carry a full-grown cow upon his shoulders. Many respected accounts have him running a four-minute mile over a century before Roger Bannister. And in boots.

Still it is the prowness of his mind, not his body for which he is known.

Science was in a primative and unenlighted state before his birth. There was no telephone, eletric light, or aeroplane.

There was no motor car. Not a single luxury.

Darwin’s then theorized that whales might have descended from bears - swimming bears, that is — and all these things became possible.

The glories of the 20th Century would not have occurred without Charles, Chas, Chuck, Darwin.

Much has been written about Darwin, and much more will be.

It can never be enough.

He was a real man of genius. Charles Darwin, we salute you!

As we approach 200 years since Darwin’s birth, how can we go about gauging his importance to the world? When looking at the role of individuals in history, it can be easy to forget that history moves dialectically. Ideas are not the result of individuals, but material, historical processes. If Darwin had chosen a different profession in his youth, the idea of Evolution would have still emerged as a great force in the world.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t honor and revere Darwin? Absolutely not. Material reality chose Darwin to reveal the truth of evolution. By honoring Darwin, we honor the ultimate material reality. Conveniently, Evolution also molded man so that he needed heroes to look up to. Evolution, amazingly, built in a mechanism by which the idea of Evolution can spread. We can honor Darwin by celebrating him and reading his work. In doing so, we fulfill two important Evolutionary needs: the need for a hero and the need for truth about reality. Truth about reality, of course, helps humans advance as a species. Darwin’s work, by undoing the misguided superstitions that evolved for thousands of years, has done more to help us advance as a species than any other man in modern times

Listen my child and I shall tell you
Of the Prophet and His mighty works

The story begins eons ago,
Indeed in the very beginning

For in the beginning were the particles
And, lo, the particles were in motion

Eons passed
Galaxies formed
stars were born; burned for billions of years and died

And in all this time, the particles knew naught
Of themselves or anything else
There was no knowing, my child, for what can particles in motion know?

But slowly, ever so slowly, some of the burned out star stuff
Began to coalesce around a core and form a small planet

Further eons passed and still there was nothing but particles in motion
That knew nothing, for what can particles in motion know?

But then one day, in a warm pond on this little planet
Some of the particles received a surge of energy and
Formed self-replicating groups of bio particles

But still, the particles knew nothing; for what can particles in motion know?

Further eons passed.

And then, oh day of days, came a descendant
Of that first group of self replicating bio particles from that warm pond
And he looked to the heavens and declared “I know.”

This great and glorious amalgamation of bio particles we call the Prophet
Others call him Darwin.

But alas, Darwin did not really know, as he himself recognized
For what can particles in motion know?

I would call you “best beloved” but we know
That love is not real; it is just a chemical reaction in our brain.

So, I shall say, “one who is the object of
The illusory but nevertheless pleasurable chemical reaction in my brain
That I choose (alas, another illusion) to call love”
That is how we came to know that we do not know
For what can particles in motion know?

Ok, more philosophical/epistemological musings...      Sorry for those of you my esteemed readers who would rather read little tidbits and anecdotes...     But I'll come back to those in a few days, perhaps.

These thoughts were prompted by some discussions from this past week, although they've been percolating for quite a while.  My views on the inspiration/inerrancy of the Scriptures have also been undergoing some modification over the last few months.  I'll have to explain that some time.

For now, enjoy, and although I didn't write it in a very clear way, please feel free to wade in and suggest any of your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions for improvement.

============================

The topic is "science and the Bible", and the question is how to proceed if they seem to contradict.  (It might be helpful to merge these thoughts with Moreland's "four views" from our readings).  Working on the following assumptions:

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God to mankind.

2. Observational/nomological science connects us to the real world that God created, so that by performing experiments and observing the results, we (have the potential ability to) view/interact-with a real physical world, not an "illusion" - i.e. our observations "correspond" with a reality that exists outside of any human observers.

3. All of our interpretations of the Bible are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- between the original autographs and the extant manuscripts and codices
- between the extant codices' symbolic semantic Hebrew/Greek message and our own individual understandings (i.e. "Do I understand the language this manuscript is written in?")
- between the Hebrew/Greek and the English, if we don't know Hebrew/Greek (i.e. the issue of "translations")
- the broad-context questions - e.g. "I know this says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...", but does the word "days" in context refer to literal 24-hour days, or unspecified periods of time?"

4. All of our interpretations of scientific experiments are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- if I read about an experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley) in a textbook rather than performing it myself (with direct sensory observation), I have the same difficulties of textual interpretation as above with Scripture:
- "do I understand the language of this scientific report?"
- "am I grasping the meaning of what the author wrote in broad context?"  (e.g. the word "evolution" has many meanings)
- if I perform the experiment myself, am I 'sure' that I am not performing the experiment incorrectly, or that I am not failing to account for all possible confounding factors? (i.e. experimental error, sensor noise, other confounding factors)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, are our assumptions valid?  (e.g. uniformitarian "annual layer" assumptions for varves, ice cores, tree rings, etc)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, is my model valid to the necessary precision? (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics drastically revised the physical models of the 19th century, allowing greater prediction precision than before)

5. Both our scientific and our Scriptural understandings can be supposed to be "asymptotically convergent", meaning that although they can be "wrong" to various precisions, increasing time and study will bring our beliefs closer to "The Truth".
- e.g. for scientific theories, Einstein's theory of gravity "refined" Newton's, rather than "contradicting" Newton's.  Yet even Einstein's may not be the "exact" way that gravity is described.
- e.g. for scriptural interpretations...

6. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as consistent as possible.  If possible, the set of beliefs that I hold should have no contradictions at all, when all qualifiers and caveats are accounted for.

7. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as "livable" as possible.  This should "include" my own innate sense of what is morally desirable (while recognizing that my own innate conscience may possibly need revision from time to time).
- For example, if my conscience prompts me to treat other people with love and respect, even if they hold wrong beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), then a system of beliefs (such as Christianity) which shows the propriety and rationality (with respect to "the real world", both physical and spiritual) of such love and respect would be preferred over a system of beliefs which provided no rationale for such love of others (and certainly over a system which, for example, provided a rationale for destroying others so that my own 'fitter' genes would predominate/propagate).
- Yet, my conscience is not the end-all, since it might be corrupted.  For example, if I as a white Southern slave-owner of 150 years ago was confronted with compelling evidence from a belief system (such as Biblical Christianity) which I had strong reason to believe was true, I should be able to modify my innate sense of what was right and proper (e.g. from "The negro ought to know his place" to "The negro is my brother as a human, he has just as much dignity as an imagebearer-of-God as I do, and he needs to hear about God's salvation and kingdom just as much as I also need to hear").

 
Holding to these principles and assumptions, we might try to come up with a statement that we all agree upon...  (though I am not too optimistic about this...   such as:
"We agree that it is possible for scripture to 'trump' science, in the sense that:
- After all available scientific and scriptural evidence has been duly considered, it is possible for me:
- to experience and hold to a belief that my particular interpretation of a Scripture passage is directly contradictory to my particular interpretation of observational-scientific experiments and historical-reconstructions-supported-by-observational-scientific-experimental-evidence, and further:
- to experience "sufficient confidence" in a belief that my Scripture-based-belief indicates that the Scientific-theory is wrong, and further:
- to be "correct", "right", "legitimate," and "epistemically-justified," in my subsequent repudiation of a scientific theory based on an interpretation of Scripture that I am sufficiently confident is the correct interpretation (to the requisite level of asymptotic accuracy)."
In shorter words:

"We agree that sometimes it is proper to disbelieve in a scientific theory because of what Scripture says."

Or:

"It is possible to be so convinced that one understands what the Scriptures are saying/implying in a certain passage, that one believes in that interpretation in spite of the fact that scientific theories and evidence contradict that interpretation... and it is possible to be epistemically justified in so doing."

The critique might then arise: how does one know, to start out with, that the scriptures are "correct"/"infallible" in this scientific sense?  If it contradicts the scientific evidence we see around us, why shouldn't we throw it out?

In reply I would ask - "how does one know that ANY repository of truth is "correct" (let's temporarily postpone discussion of "infallible") in a scientific sense?"   And, "if a piece of evidence contradicts my current scientific understanding, do I throw out the "new piece of evidence" as "spurious," or do I revise (possibly drastically) my scientific beliefs to conform to the one new piece of "evidence?"

The basic problem is that theories never make quantum/qualitative jumps to the epistemological status of "scientific fact"... they instead gradually/quantitatively increase in the estimation of the scientific community, and sometimes for reasons other than scientific reasons.   (Cf. Popper, Kuhn, Ruse)

Yet the question of empirical corroboration of scripture-texts is important.  If the Bible consistently claimed things that were demonstrably false today (such as that people rise from the dead all the time, or that the earth is flat and is supported on the back of a giant tortise), we would be wise to reconsider our belief in it.

On the other hand, if the Bible claims things that are historically reasonable (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ca. 2000 years ago in Judea) and subsequently provides adequate ("non-circularly-reasoned") grounds for its own inerrancy, then it might conceivably be justifiable to trust its account of historical events which are accessible only in a limited way by modern scientific reconstructions...

And finally - yet another utterly fascinating issue / article-to-examine:

(taken from  http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/072905/072905h.php , with my comments below)

A recent article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in The New York Times, asserting that “unguided, unplanned” evolution is inconsistent with Catholic faith, should be read with caution warn a number of Catholic scientists and theologians, including the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Most of the experts interviewed said the article can offer a useful alert if taken at a theological level. Evolution, they point out, has sometimes been invoked to justify atheism, as well as immanentism (that God is a vague life force) or deism (that God set the universe in motion and has nothing more to do with it).

To the extent Schönborn’s point is that Christianity cannot accept a universe without an active, personal God, they say, there’s little to dispute.

If taken as a scientific statement, on the other hand, these observers warn that Schönborn’s insistence on seeing “purpose and design” in nature could steer the Catholic church towards creationism in the bitter cultural debate, especially prominent in the United States, between evolution and intelligent design. Doing so, they say, risks overstepping the bounds of the church’s competence, as well as reopening a divide between science and the Catholic church that had seemed largely overcome.

The first and most important facet of this question is the nature of Truth.  Notice how the article said "...if taken at a theological level"  and compared that to "...if taken as a scientific statement."

This is pure postmodern propaganda - the claim that "religious truth" is on a "separate level" from "scientific truth", and that they can contradict each other without much problem at all.  Why are such contradictions not a problem, according to postmodernists?  Well, "religious truth" is merely a cultural paradigm, and should not be "dogmatically" foisted upon others in the world who hold different paradigms anyway, so if "religious truth" ever comes into conflict with real hard science, throw it out the window.

Needless to say, this sentiment is itself "a belief", and so it defeats itself even as it tries to propagate itself throughout the minds of the whole postmodern world.

Almost every word in the above excerpt deserves a multipage analysis, but let me try to focus on the key phrases.  Notice that the core concern is that of "overstepping the bounds of the church’s competence".

Let me be perfectly frank here.  All this verbiage is dancing around the real issue - whether the Bible is true or not.  When the Bible claims (using high-quality hermeneutics with ancient-cultural/authorial-intent understanding) that the world was created in six days directly by God (with no mention or contradictory scientific details to the "abiogenesis"/"common-ancestor"/"mutation-with-natural-selection" evolutionary hypothesis), the competency called into question is NOT that of "the Church," but that of the Bible, and the Author of the Bible.

(If anyone wants to argue with me over the thesis that "scientific" truth is actually on the exact same plane as so-called "religious" truth, go right ahead... I wish you luck in trying to do so without stultifying your own sentences.)

Finally, notice the complaints about "Schönborn’s insistence... the bitter cultural debate... [and] reopening a divide... that had seemed largely overcome."   Thousands, perhaps millions of loyal Roman Catholics have a problem with Schönborn’s insistence... his stubborn, unyielding insistence that the Bible does in fact contradict the majority conclusions of modern uniformitarian science.  What's the problem?  The problem is the strife... the "bitter debate"... the acrimony... the PAIN that comes along with disagreeing with people.  The PAIN of being a member of a minority community that the majority of scientists (who are the elite - the glorified as priests of secularism) will scoff at and mock.  "You believe in the Bible's account of man's origins?  You must be like the flat-earthers and believers in UFOs... You are pathetic... you are stupid."

And let's be honest, friends... this pain is quite real.  The debate now raging in the RCC since the new pope's ascension is very important, because millions of people are now reevaluating their priorities - whether to believe in the account given by men, or the account given by God.