"So Let it Be Written... So Let it Be Done"

The life and times of a real, down to earth, nice guy. A relocated New Englander formerly living somewhere north of Boston, but now soaking up the bright sun of southwestern central Florida (aka The Gulf Coast). Welcome to my blog world. Please leave it as clean as it was before you came. Thanks for visiting, BTW please leave a relevant comment so I know you were here. No blog spam, please. (c) MMV-MMXV Court Jester Productions & Bamford Communications

Monday, January 23, 2006

200th post: Evolution Revisited

When I started blogging, in June 2005, my blog went under a different name. For a while I had two blogs, one that was going to be more "controversial" and this one. Soon I discovered that it was hard enough keeping up with one blog let alone two. As this was the only post I ever entered on to the "controversial" blog, I decided to save it and re-post it at another time. The other blog no longer exists.

Earlier this month I posted a list of things about myself that you should know. This was #5 on that list:

I believe evolution is just a theory. It is a scientific impossibility and a load of bull****.

No one has been able to sufficiently prove me wrong with credible evidence and until they do my stance will not change. So here, for your reading consumption is this, the text of that original post. Plus the only original comment left on it, which appears at the end of this post. Any additions to the original post are noted in red.

Much to the chagrin of evolutionists, the debate between evolution v. intelligent design is growing, rapidly. The question is, should Intelligent Design be allowed to be taught in public schools alongside evolution? I did a google search on this topic and found many interesting articles, including this one:

Intelligent design vs. Evolution

Briefly, my view is that these two topics should be allowed to be taught in public schools to allow for balance in a student's education. This despite the fact that I think the theory of evolution is impossible and therefore a load of crap.

For too long the evolutionist camp has had free reign in American schools and universities, thus brainwashing a generation (or more) of students into this narrow, naturalistic worldview without any reasonable alternative. This is not an argument for intelligent design, just a simple fact.

The next bit I mention for the sole purpose of adding context to what I just wrote and background to what follows after.

For two years I had a long and really good e-mail conversation with a friend of mine that I've known since elementary school (thirty years or so but who's counting...), who while growing up Catholic is now an avowed atheist. During the course of this conversation I was forced to do an awful lot of reading about evolution (more than I care to admit) in order to try and understand where my friend was coming from with his arguments, and establish the framework for some of my responses. This conversation/debate has ended, but not in a satisfying way and not by my choice, because it left me with many unanswered questions about the theory of evolution that my research and reading did not cover or the answers given were unsatisfactory.

Some of these questions follow:

1) Even before the cell, how did the chemicals that form a DNA strand come together? What was the cause?

If evolution is correct and all life originated from a single cell then:

2) what did the first cell use for food?
3) what was the impetus for some cells becoming animal cells and some cells becoming plant cells?
4) how did those early cells know what improvements/changes were needed to survive and how to make them?

5) Survival of the fittest is one justification used by evolutionists to describe reasons for an animal species to evolve from one form to another. How does survival of the fittest apply to the many plant species, which are often used as food for animals and can't run away as a form of defense from predators?

6) How did the many kinds of plants make it around the globe, since they can't move on their own?

7) As an evolutionist, how do you justify the Cambrian Explosion?

8) As an evolutionist, how do you justify the billions of different species of animals and the complexity of each species?

9) Since there are billions of different spieces of plants and animals in existence today, there should be a heavily documented fossil record of both plants and animals. If evolution is correct, how do you account for the lack of these transitional forms in the fossil record?

10) A defining charachteristic of humans vs. animals are intangibles such as the display of emotions; the ability to think and reason and the need to love and be loved (for fun let's add compassion, anger, greed, etc.) to name some. How does evolution, which deals with the physical nature of life account for the existence of these intangibles? Things that can not be measured, weighed or broken down into base chemicals and elements? Where did these things come from?

I'm sure I have more questions which I will ask in later posts. Up until this point, however, no evolutionist that I know of or read about can answer any of these questions logically or with any shred of reasonable proof. Yet all evolutionists claim that evolution is a proven fact and all serious scientists know this. However, I can provide names, specialty and university where the degrees were obtained of 50 serious scientists who also do not believe in evolution.

It seems to me that when pressed for answers they don't have, an evolutionist will do one of threee things:

1) avoid the question asked
2) lose interest in the debate
3) make stuff up to fit their worldview that sounds good.(I hope this one isn't true).

Can anyone of the atheistic/naturalistic worldview answer these questions with solid answers that make sense? Is there anyone out there who can meet this challenge?

On September 1, 2005, one comment was left. One intrepid person, whose name has been omitted, gave it a go and attempted to answer some of my questions. For that attempt I applaud him, however his answers are not at all satisfying and leave a lot to be desired. He said:

"While I consider myself an evolutionist, I haven't spent my life studying it, therefore could only offer some off the cuff answers for some of these questions. Incidentally, even though I see evolution as the most probable cause of life's development, I also concede that there are many holes and questions that still need answers, just as there are in the faith of many Christians. Theologians spend their lifetime trying to answer the questions of other theists who have encountered holes in their faith. For me it's the scientific process that I enjoy, rather than being proved right.

Q 5) Actually, fittest is a misnomer. More accurately it means, survival of those that survive. Plants don't need to be able to move to have defences, they can be toxic, or they could grow spikes. So how would a non-intelligent plant know what "defensive" changes needed to be made? And how would it go about making them? They may also have evolved without the required nutritional aspects that certain species of animals need to survive, making their potential as food, 'fruitless'. Again you are assuming intelligence here where there is none.

Q 6) Plants don't move, but seeds do. "And the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind." Sure, seeds do blow in the wind, but what happened to the plants in the meantime - the stage between plant and seed? Which came first, plant or seed? And wouldn't it take a really long time for all of these "evolved" seeds to randomly float about the earth, landing, germanating and producing more seeds?

Q 8) Mutation (In all known cases, mutation causes defect and degeneration. In no recorded case was any "new information" added via mutation.)

Q 9) I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect that by now we should have found every bit of evidence that millions of years of evolution has left for us. We're finding new things all the time. What? We're also still missing an arc. If this arc is missing, how do we know it's missing?

Q 10) The intangibles you mention are not what i'd describe as defining characteristics between humans and animals. In fact, i'd say that animals exhibit all of those intangibles to varying degrees. (Really?) Have you seen the way an elephant behaves when a family member dies? So that elephant can think about, reason out and rationalize the death of a family member, as humans can and do? Many aspects of man's emotions are currently being reduced to chemicals. Which ones? Where is the scientific documentation? What's the chemical for love? I need more of that. How about compassion? I could use more of that, too. Can I buy the chemicals at the store and mix them together myself?

So, I can't answer all your questions, but based on the evidence I have seen, I think the potential for all the questions of evolution to be answered at some point is extremely high. Aaaaaahhh, the eternal optimist...

In fairness to him, I asked him what some of his problems with Christianity were, so that maybe I could help out his understanding. He gave me some questions to ponder, and I have. But his questions and my responses will be a post for another day.


At 23 January, 2006 22:45, Blogger Shelley said...

Personally, I don't believe in evolution. Also, didn't Darwin recant his theories (or something like that) before his death?

At 24 January, 2006 00:52, Blogger An American in Melbourne said...

The beautiful thing about science is that you don't have to 'believe': that's the provence of faith.

With science you can weigh up the evidence. Green (and many creationists) just chooses to weigh it a little (OK a lot) differently than the overwhelming majority of those in the scientific community do.

At 24 January, 2006 07:33, Blogger DaBich said...

I have a question for AG...if you don't "believe" in evolution, then what is the correct term? You _____ evolution?

Green~ Great points here. I've never delved that deep into evolution, just thought it a load of horsecrap. Some of it can make sense, but most of it doesn't, at least, not to me.

I don't believe man will ever find a plausible way to explain the universe. There are always holes somewhere. Until that happens, and I'm sure I'll be long gone, I'll stick with creationism. I'll also concede you the right to disagree :)

At 24 January, 2006 08:26, Blogger An American in Melbourne said...

I understand evolution.

At 24 January, 2006 10:00, Blogger scribe said...

That was quite possibly the most simplistic "poo-pooing" of evolutionary theory I've ever read.

I'd actually like to see what you understand of the theory before you attack it.

At 24 January, 2006 12:52, Blogger DaBich said...

AG ~ You understand it? I understand hate and murder too, doesn't mean I believe in it. ;)

At 24 January, 2006 13:35, Blogger ~Deb said...

I’ve had a debate over worshipping ‘the universe’ vs. ‘God’ with a friend once. We toggled emails back and forth. This is a little different from what you & your friend were bantering about---yet similar…

I always come to this conclusion. Who made the universe to begin with? Intelligent people always go back on science. Who made science in the first place?

(Now this being said, “IN MY BELIEFS ONLY”…so please don’t get offended)

Here’s something I took out of the bible. When people question ‘the universe’ being ‘God’-----I simply back it up with this scripture…

“Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Do you know how its dimensions were determined and who did the surveying? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone and the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? Who defined the boundaries of the sea as it burst from the womb, and as I clothed it with clouds and thick darkness? For I locked it behind barred gates, limiting its shoes. I said, ‘Thus far and no farther will you come. Here your proud waves must stop!’
Have you ever commanded the morning to appear and caused the dawn to rise in the east? Have you ever told the daylight to spread to the ends of the earth, to bring and end to the night’s wickedness? For the features of the earth take shape as the light approaches, and the dawn is robed in red. The light disturbs the haunts of the wicked and it stops the arm that is raised in violence.
Have you explored the springs from which the seas come? Have you walked about and explored their depths? Do you know where the gates of death are located? Have you seen the gates of utter gloom? Do you realize the extent of the earth? Tell me about it if you know! Where does the light come from, and where does the darkness go? Can you take it to its home? Do you know how to get there? But of course you know all this! For you were born before it was all created, and you are so very experienced!
Have you visited the treasuries of the snow? Have you seen where the hail is made and stored? I have reserved it for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war. Where is the path to the origin of light? Where is the home of the east wind?
Who created a channel for the torrents of rain? Who laid out the path for the
lightning? Who makes the rain fall on barren land, in a desert where no one lives? Who sends the rain that satisfies the parched ground and makes the tender grass spring up?
Does the rain have a father? Where does dew come from? Who is the mother of the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens? For the water turns to ice as hard as rock, and the surface of water freezes.
Can you hold back the movements of the stars? Are you able to restrain the Pleiades or Orion? Can you ensure the proper sequence of the seasons or guide the
constellation of the Bear with her cubs across the heavens? Do you know the laws of the universe and how God rules the earth?
Can you shout to the clouds and make it rain? Can you make lightning appear and cause it to strike as you direct it? Who gives intuition and instinct? Who is wise enough to count all the clouds? Who can tilt the water jars of heaven, turning the dry dust to clumps of mud? Can you stalk prey for a lioness and satisfy the young lions’ appetites as they lie in their dens or crouch in the thicket? Who provides food for the ravens when their young cry out to God as they wander about in hunger?”
Job 38:1-39

At 24 January, 2006 14:15, Blogger scribe said...


you don't have to "believe" in those things-they happen with or without your participation.


that passage sounds suspiciously like God's ass-remaing of Job for "daring" to question why He gave his fate over to Satan.

Yeah. That's a compassionate God.


At 24 January, 2006 14:36, Blogger DaBich said...

Scribe~so does Creation happen with or without your participation. Just because one understands something does not mean they believe in it. Just because someone believes in something does not make it happen nor does it make it law for everyone. I respect you and AG's opinion. Am I asking too much of you to respect mine?

At 24 January, 2006 14:42, Blogger scribe said...

I don't care who respects what-it's irrelevant. The word "belief" denotes an acceptance of the existence or possible existence of something. You don't have to BELIEVE in something that is verifiable such as murder. People who accept Biblicla accounts of historical events mis-use that word to a dangerous degree.

At 24 January, 2006 15:20, Blogger lccb144 said...

We do all know that believing in evolution or a "scientific" explanation of creation does not preclude a belief in God.... right? So this isn't an evolution/atheism vs. creationism/christianity argument. I believe Darwin, even at the time of creating his theory, believed in God.

At 24 January, 2006 15:45, Blogger scribe said...


Get out of here now before you star making sense!!!

At 24 January, 2006 17:58, Blogger An American in Melbourne said...

deb - I actually find the bible quite an interesting book (yes,I've read a fair bit of it, though admiedly I skipped over all the "and Zachary begat James who begat Timothy" business), but the pretty poetry that you quote asside, it doesn't actually answer the question, other than to say "I (meaing the god-guy) made the universe because I said I made it".

Incidently, as i read the passage you quoted, it occured to me that the ancient Greeks would have answered Zeus to all those "who defined the boundries of the sea" questions. Ans they would have defended their beliefs just as vigorously as you defend yours. I'm sure they could even quote sacred texts to 'prove' it as well.

At 24 January, 2006 18:03, Blogger An American in Melbourne said...

dabich - you don't believe in murder? I gotta remember this technique. If a crazed madman ever comes lunging at me with a knife, I'll simple tell him that I don't believe in what he's about to do. I'll then close my eyes, smile and open them to see a small pile dust and a glint of steel on the ground afore me.

At 24 January, 2006 18:16, Blogger scribe said...

LOL american

my point exactly.

At 24 January, 2006 20:02, Blogger green said...

Ahh while the cat is away the mice will play...
Did I mean to disturb the hornet's nest with this post? You betcha!!!

shelley: I'm not sure if Darwin did or did not recant his theories before he died. But my guess is not. I think he was hopeful that the "transitional forms" in the fossil record that he assumed were there would bail him out. So it's been about 150 years. Where are the transitional fossils? Statistically, considering the amount of animal species there are, you would think we'd be swimming in these kinds of fossils.

AG: Hebrews 11:1 has the Bible's definition of faith: "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
As I've tried to tell you, my faith is grounded in solid evidence and I've tried to show you this. My faith is a result of this evidence. It is not some abstract thing based on chance and coincidence. Even your worldview requires you to have some amount of faith, whether you admit it or not. Now I have never said that I discount science. That would be silly. Science is meant to tell us the "how" but can't tell us "why".

dabich: I could reference you to many great books that deal with the science behind why evolution is not possible. Email me if you are interested.

AG: you understand evolution because you refuse to believe that there could be an alternate possibility. That's being biased. Before you even say it, no I am not biased. During our discussion I heavily looked into and researched evolution and weighed it vs. my faith and the basis for it. I'll wager you never did any such research or looking into Christianity (other than your bad experience with Catholicism).

scribe: that's exactly the point of this post. To state the case simply without being technical. As I said in the post, I understand more of the theory than I really want to. I could very easily say to you the same with aone word difference: "I'd actually like to see what you understand of the theory before you defend it.

~deb: Certainly I'm not offended and neither should anyone be. Since none of us was around at creation, why not take God's word for it, since He was.

scribe: Job's faith never waivered even considering all of the stuff he went through. Job's strentgh of faith is why God allowed Satan to do all of those things to him. It was Job's "friends" that questioned what was happening to Job.
And why not believe the historical accuracy of the Bible? If we question this then all historical documents must be questioned in similar manner, with equal scrutiny. The Bible is questioned more because the majority of people don't like how it ends, because they do not believe and because it holds people accountable for their moral behavior. The writings of Roman and Greek scholars would be questioned similarly if they had anything to say about the consequences of immorality.

lccb: Darwinism and creationism are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. They are not mutually exclusive, meaning you can't have it both ways. Evolution says that life took it's sweet time randomly developing, while the Genesis account (in the original Hebrew)
points to six twenty four hour days for the entirety of creation.
I think I read somewhere that Darwin, in his early days was going to be a priest, then he took his fateful trip on the Beagle(?) that led to his "Origin of Species", which I think was published in 1853. That trip changed his worldview, obviously.

AG: So where are all of the Zeus worshippers now? Why hasn't the worship of Zeus become the world's largest religion??? And where are their religious texts?? Find 'em & break 'em out so we can see what they say...

See you go off on these tangents about Zeus and murder and artfully avoid answering any questions about the original post...(not the first time you've done this & probably not the last)

At 24 January, 2006 23:03, Blogger Bluez628 said...

A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Harold Fricklestein

At 24 January, 2006 23:33, Blogger An American in Melbourne said...

OK, I'll bite one time only.

"Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (and) "my faith is grounded in solid evidence"

THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN?!? In other words faith IS the evidence of that for which there is no evidence. And your faith is grounded in this evidence? I smell a circular argument here.

"Now I have never said that I discount science."

Um, about every second word out of your mouth is you discounting science (the rest is sports!).

“Since none of us was around at creation, why not take God's word for it”

Perhaps without meaning to, you just summed up the whole of faith based argument: ‘look, we don’t REALLY know what happened and frankly we’ve no evidence for what we believe, so let’s just trust god, ok?’. You probably don’t even see the problem in this.

“And why not believe the historical accuracy of the Bible? If we question this then all historical documents must be questioned in similar manner, with equal scrutiny.”

Again, you’re starting by using your intended outcome (the bible is right) as your assumption. Any high school science teacher (except maybe in Kansas) would fail you if you tried to use such an approach. And as far as holding other documents up for scrutiny: that’s what historians DO. By all means, argue that your book is historically accurate, but don’t just assume.

“They are not mutually exclusive, meaning you can't have it both ways. Evolution says that life took it's sweet time randomly developing, while the Genesis account (in the original Hebrew) points to six twenty four hour days for the entirety of creation.”

I’ll assume this was a typo. And as to the six 24 hour days bit, there are plenty of biblical scholars (yes I acknowledge they exist) that don’t read it quite so literally. lccb was right, LOTS of good wholesome god fearing upright christian people argue for evolution having occurred, while god still being part of the mix. Before you say they’re just on the fringe or whatever, I might point out that of these people is a certain German fellow currently living in Rome.

“Why hasn't the worship of Zeus become the world's largest religion???”

Um, for a while it was. You’re argument sounds like might makes right. ‘We’re the most powerful, therefore our way is the right way’. Which is of course a common enough view for Americans to hold. Another logical flaw: if you are right because you’re the most powerful, then when the Olympian belief was the most influential, they must have been right.

“See you go off on these tangents about Zeus and murder and artfully avoid answering any questions about the original post”

Actually, I was responding to the discussion in the comments, which incidentally, you’re doing too.

Feel free to have the last word.

At 25 January, 2006 05:51, Blogger DaBich said...

OK, before I go hide in my little corner, I'll say this: You all have good points, but I'm still not swayed to evolution. ANd I still don't see how if you understand something you don't believe in, you defend it so vehemently. (AG & Scribe). And if you don't believe in it, then what DO you believe in?

At 25 January, 2006 09:17, Blogger lccb144 said...

You missed my point green: I'm pretty much on the evolution side of the whole debate because of my own beliefs and as I was attached to an archeologist for a few years who I think had to get the concept. He is also a very faithful Christian as I think I am. I don't think believing in evolution somehow discredits my belief in God or my belief in God's awesomeness...

At 25 January, 2006 10:41, Blogger Evil Scribe said...

Blow it out yer pants, Bible-boy!!! Only an idiot belives in creation without a solid methodology!!! God snapped hsi fingers and created us???

I oughtta snap my fingers and create a turd!!!

Oops, too late.

At 25 January, 2006 18:39, Blogger Bhakti said...

I believe the world was created by 'God' with AUM (OM) , the primordial sound. AUM resonates and throbs within every atom. AUM is that which throbs every nucleus within every atom. In the Bible, AUM is known as 'the Word'. AUM and 'the Word' are synonymous.

Now, onto teaching intelligent design and evolution in schools. I am a fourth grade teacher, and I don't believe that EITHER should be taught. Teaching BOTH (in publice schools) would have to introduce the idea of religion. You can't teach intelligent design without teaching something about religion/God. I don't want to 'teach'/preach in school.

Parents should teach their kids what they think; and, ultimately, when a child matures, he or she can make up his or her own mind based on spiritual experience, or book knowledge.

great post!

p.s. Of course, what I have written is my opinion. Thank you for listening.

At 25 January, 2006 22:50, Blogger DaBich said...

bhakti ~ and a good opinion it is...well said!

At 26 January, 2006 11:00, Blogger Evil Scribe said...

yeah, bhakti, good opinion.

does the home let you walk to the end of the street or do you have to supervised by an attendant?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home