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.