Categorized | News


The new Discovery Channel series LIFE is apparently an awesome triumph of television.  I read an article in Popeater (I cannot in good conscience recommend people go there but I cannot commit plagarism) that led me to the Discovery Channel website.  I was impressed with the little stalk-eyed bug who grows his eye stalks.  Watch the video about the bug at the DC website.

All I can say is: 

Tell me again how chance evolutionary forces caused THAT?  It requires more faith to believe THAT than to believe CREATION.

Watch LIFE tonight (I might pass on the animals eating other animals) and celebrate God’s CREATION!

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”  Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)


  1. Venu says:

    What? You look at an animal that looks foreign to you and use that as the evidence for creationism? I believe in creationism. God created the universe, evolution is a naturally occurring force in the universe. Therefore, God created evolution. But you CANNOT deny evolution through pointing to an animal you do not quite seem to understand.

    For the record, gradual species variation through mutation and meiosis cause changes (over millions upon millions of years) to cause species and trait variation. The extensive fossil records shows how organs and structures in living organisms can adapt to different tasks, or morph for different needs. Evolution is essentially the global theory of Survival of the Fittest. Those with the best characteristics live better, and reproduce the most.

    Creationism and Evolution are NOT mutually exlusive. Evolution is a fact. Creationism is the belief that god created everything. My understanding is that even if god DID create everything on Earth and the Earth was only a few thousand years old, if we jumped in a time machine millions of years into the future, the Earth’s species would have evolutionarily changed because Evolution naturally happens. Therefore, Creationism and Faith can only work through the laws of physics, or state that God circumvented the laws of physics in his actions, but those laws applied to anything outside of god’s abilities. If you are to believe this (which I do), then it can only be reasoned that evolution happened as a byproduct of god’s creation of life in the universe, regardless of what (and where) the first life god created existed.

    • Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

      I do not accept that macroevolution from one group of species to another is supported in the fossil record. I do suggest that the only way adaptations can manifest themselves is through mutations. Heredity cannot produce natural selection. Only mutations can. I cannot look at the remarkable things in the natural world and suggest that it aroise by chance forces. That seems less reasonable than creation. Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six literal days. I agree He did it is six lateral days as He measured time but Einstein’s time dilation effect shows that the measurement of time is relative (hence the name “Theory of Relativity”) thus it is possible that what the scientists measure billions of years is six literal days for the God of the Bible. The Bible even says in II Peter that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. I suggest the laws of physics support creation; it shows a orderly universe created by an orderly God.

      Ultimately, I cannot prove the existence of God or Creation. I don’t want to: Faith is the substance of things UNSEEN. (Heb 11:1) I do suggest in my blog that people should ask the question that the Discovery Channel will not: Were we created? If so who is right? I suggest the Bible is reliable having survived for thousands of years and has some archaeological support. Thus people should turn to Christ Jesus as Lord.

      Finally, one more thing: A review of Revelation suggests that John saw a prophecy of future events 2000 years ago. How did he know the Mark of the Beast could be used to control buying and selling. We see the possibility of that even now which is why I criticized Sen. Graham’s idea for a biometric ID card. It makes it more likely sooner that the Mark of the Beast will occur. Revelation also suggests an asteroid will hit the Earth in the end times: “The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water – the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.” Rev 8:10 (NIV) There was no certain proof of meteorites hitting the earth before 1803 in France. How did John know 1700 years earlier?

      Thanks for coming by and your well-written comment.

      PS: If anyone reads this and is convicted to know more about Jesus Christ, contact me off post at [email protected].

      Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (R). Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. (Of course this is no endorsement of this blogpost or blog by the International Bible Society or Zondervan


      • Venu says:

        Regardless, god’s creation of life resulted in macroevolution, whether intentional or not, because macroevolution is a product of god’s creation of life.

        Essentially, is it hard to believe that mutations and variations can lead to species change? Even minuscule, the definition of species is commonly a set of organisms that can reproduce with one another. Therefore, if variation produced a sub-set of that organism that could no longer mate with the main branch of the organism, yet could still mate within the sub-set, then it would lead to the creation of a new species. Because of this, evolution can lead to the creation of new species. Evolution can already provided for adaption and trait variation. So, because of this, why is it impossible for macroevolution when evolution can create both species variation and trait variation?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!