Sheep and Goats

Category: Evolutionists

  • The Scientist from Iceland

    A scientist from Iceland wrote an article favoring evolution over creation. Before he could log off, Sheepandgoats landed an email on his lap, citing evolution’s fatal flaws. But he countered that evolution had no fatal flaws, only points that had not yet been fully explained!

    Now….how to proceed? Do you tell the scientist that he doesn’t know his own subject, and that you know it better, even though you lack credentials? It depends on your objective. If you want to blow off steam and make yourself feel good, that is exactly what you do. But if you want to have any sort of discussion with the fellow, you don’t go that route.

    …………………………………..

    Dear Scientist from Iceland:

    “Fatal flaws” are in the eye of the beholder. In the field of science, I have a working knowledge. You are the expert, not I. I would not be so presumptuous to think I have qualifications to instruct you on your own turf. What I can say is that evidence garnered so far in support of evolution is unconvincing to me. It is insufficient to override my belief in creation.

    Of course, you might say “that’s because you’re an ignoramus,” which is the answer evolution proponents often give. Or you might, more charitably, say that the problem lies in communication….evolutionists have not properly explained their position and its supporting evidence. This, in fact, is what you did say.

    By the way, when I use the term “you,” please understand that I don’t necessarily mean you personally, but only generically, as in the typical evolution proponent. And I know there is a challenge in describing who’s typical. There is a bell curve, I realize. But I will do my best.

    I have come to view the Bible as a trustworthy, logical whole, and as a source of satisfying answers to vexing questions which are answered nowhere else. Such questions as …why do we grow old and die? and ….why is there suffering and misery? ….are convincingly addressed in the Bible, and intricately linked to the creation account. It’s the strength of these positive things, rather than perceived difficulties with evolution, that accounts for my position. Put the two on a scale, and I see the Bible as weighing more. It’s not that evolution is weightless. Quite the contrary. There is supporting evidence. But the evidence supporting the Bible weighs more, in my view. Put yourself in my place and you can see how such a view would lead to a focus on “fatal” evolution flaws, a project I would never undertake were it possible for the two ideas to co-exist.

    But here is a problem. You are expert in your field. I am expert in mine. I have a working knowledge in your field. But you, I strongly suspect, have not a clue in mine.

    A lawyer ought to be able to argue both sides of a case. I can argue your side. Not as convincingly as you, of course, but I can do it. But you couldn’t begin to argue my side. Apologies if I am wrong, but I doubt I am.

    At any rate, it would be easy to test. Write me succinctly the Bible’s answers to the two questions I posed: why old age and death; why suffering. I’m not saying you have to believe the answers, just make the arguments. Assuming that you can’t, perhaps now you see the problem; the playing field is not level. And it’s your fault. (generic “you,” remember.) I know your side. You don’t know mine. Thus, the “ignorance” quote from Isaac Asimov (in your main paper) is most condescending. (but not atypical of him) And misleading. Because he doesn’t know our reasoning, he assumes there is none.

    Now, two caveats.

    First, the “playing field” only has to be level if you want to “play.” And you may not. I can respect that. After all, I read your article and contacted you. Not the reverse.

    Second, when I say the fault is yours, that is not to imply any deficiency on your part. Your prior e-mail lamented that proponents of evidence for evolution have insufficiently explained their case. That argument is a thousand times more true in the field of religion than in science.

    It’s also not unexpected, by the way. The Bible is full of these type statements:

    I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves…….Acts 20: 29

    For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories……2 Tim 4:3

    Suffice it to say that, if you do not know my position, it is religion’s fault, not yours.

    As to “fatal” flaws, I won’t discuss any, at least for the time being. You know what points I would likely raise, and you have answers to them all. It often boils down to…..is this or that impossible (my view) or simply astronomically unlikely, (yours) though it has nonetheless come to pass since any other outcome has been culled by natural selection.

    Well, okay, here’s one I’ve already written about: http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/06/science_and_sex.html

    Lastly, so as to make my views somewhat more palatable to you, I have no issue with micro-evolution: fruit flies, bacteria, finches, and the like. It is similar to animal husbandry, and has been around forever.

    I also agree with you – and not with the fundamentalists – that it is nonsense to suppose all was created in literal 24-hour days. The Bible doesn’t insist on this. There is no reason “day” can’t be viewed more broadly, such as an old-timer talking about life “in his day.” Scientists speak of millions, even billions of years, in life’s origin. In general, I have no issue with this.

    I don’t count myself a fundamentalist, nor does the faith I am a part of, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Does this address the points you raised in your e-mail?

    Sheepandgoats

    ………………………………………..

    The scientist from Iceland sent back a nice reply. In true scientific fashion, he dissected my email and addressed it point by point. (his remarks are bold and in italics)

    Dear Sheepandgoats:

    First of all I’d like to say that I respect your approach, and opinions, and think your letter is very well written.

    I’m going to answer each of these points, but would also like to point out that we have now ventured out of my article’s dominion — which was that science and religion are opposite approaches to explaining life and that they can’t be mixed. I usually leave discussions of which one is “better” or “more true” up to scientists that are inclined to do so — but on account of your friendly approach and obvious thought you’ve given to each argument, here is my reply.

    Dear Scientist from Iceland:

    “Fatal flaws” are in the eye of the beholder. In the field of science, I have a working knowledge. You are the expert, not I. I would not be so presumptuous to think I have qualifications to instruct you on your own turf.
    What I can say is that evidence garnered so far in support of evolution is unconvincing to me. It is insufficient to override my belief in creation.

    I respect and relate to that. It’s my exact response to why I don’t believe in a god.

    Of course, you might say “that’s because you’re an ignoramus,” which is the answer evolution proponents often give.

    I’m sorry to hear that — and apologize on behalf of my colleagues.

    Or you might, more charitably, say that the problem lies in communication….evolutionists have not properly explained their position and its supporting evidence. This, in fact, is what you did say.
    By the way, when I use the term “you,” please understand that I don’t necessarily mean you personally, but only generically, as in the typical evolution proponent. And I know there is a challenge in describing who’s typical. There is a bell curve, I realize. But I will do my best.

    Of course — thank you for explicitly pointing that out. Please also consider any such remarks on my behalf the same way, and believe me when I say that nothing I write here is supposed to be insulting. If you feel it is, then it is not intentional and I apologize beforehand.

    I have come to view the Bible as a trustworthy, logical whole, and as a source of satisfying answers to vexing questions which are answered nowhere else. Such questions as …why do we grow old and die? and ….why is there suffering and misery? ….are convincingly addressed in the Bible, and intricately linked to the creation account. It’s the strength of these positive things, rather than perceived difficulties with evolution, that accounts for my position.

    Indeed. I can truthfully say that I at least partially understand your stance. Science, at this point, has no answer to those questions. However, to explain my position — I’m okay with not having all the answers. I accept that scientific knowledge is, and will remain for a very long time, a work in progress. Until then, I will continue using the scientific method to support or disprove what I believe or question — until one day all questions will be answered, or we will have answered the question of whether science can really answer all the questions (more on this further below).

    Put the two on a scale, and I see the Bible as weighing more. It’s not that evolution is weightless. Quite the contrary. There is supporting evidence. But the evidence supporting the Bible weighs more, in my view. Put yourself in my place and you can see how such a view would lead to a focus on “fatal” evolution flaws, a project I would never undertake were it possible for the two ideas to co-exist.

    I’m not sure we share the same definition of “evidence”. Do you mean scientific evidence that godly powers exist, or some kind of different evidence? Or perhaps mainly a lack of evidence on behalf of evolutionists?

    I have a question that might seem strange, one that contains a point that allows the two to co-exist: Considering how little is said about god’s methods of creation in the bible, or other scriptures — don’t you ever consider the possibility that god created evolution? There is nothing to suggest that evolution isn’t part of god’s methods to create humans (except for the story of Adam and Eve, but I gather that you’re not a fundamentalist).
    I’m interested in hearing your take on this; is there something that you feel is wrong or disconcerting about this notion?
    To clear any confusion, I don’t believe this for my obvious agnostic atheist tendencies. But I do, of course, continually reason with myself — and this is a thought I’ve been longing to ask someone religious as I’ve never heard it used as an argument.

    But here is a problem. You are expert in your field. I am expert in mine. I have a working knowledge in your field. But you, I strongly suspect, have not a clue in mine.
    A lawyer ought to be able to argue both sides of a case. I can argue your side. Not as convincingly as you, of course, but I can do it. But you couldn’t begin to argue my side. Apologies if I am wrong, but I doubt I am.

    Actually — my mother is a christian fundamentalist, and she did indeed try to raise me as one as well. My atheism was not brought about by ignorance of religious scriptures — but was the result of many years of learning and thinking during my childhood, and today still. I went to Sunday school regularly, and to church. As of yet, none of the arguments I’ve heard have been convincing enough to change my mind.
    On the other hand, you’re partially right. Even though I was raised in a christian home — I admit I have not for many years made an effort to study the Bible, Koran or any other religious doctrine. But it isn’t what’s said *in* the Bible that’s my reason for disbelief, please see my next paragraphs.

    At any rate, it would be easy to test. Write me succinctly the Bible’s answers to the two questions I posed: why old age and death; why suffering. I’m not saying you have to believe the answers, just make the arguments.

    Assuming that you can’t, perhaps now you see the problem; the playing field is not level. And it’s your fault. (generic “you,” remember.) I know your side. You don’t know mine. Thus, the “ignorance” quote from Isaac Asimov (in your main paper) is most condescending. (but not atypical of him) And misleading. Because he doesn’t know our reasoning, he assumes there is none.

    I could attempt to answer these questions, but I do not see how this is relevant. The reason that I don’t believe in religious doctrines is not because the arguments aren’t convincing, or that they don’t make sense in their own way. The reason is that there is no way for me to prove or refute their validity. No matter how much sense it makes that suffering is due to original sin — there is no way to find evidence to support it, we can’t investigate the notion. This is what Asimov meant by ignorance: If anyone chooses to decide something without any way to support or disprove it — there is no rational way to make us change our mind, no way that we can embetter our ways or reach new horizons.
    How would you, for example, propose that we decide whether the Bible is the right scripture, or the Koran? While scientists inevitably contradict eachother’s theories and hypotheses, they eventually come to agreements through the gradual accumulation of knowledge/mutually supporting evidence (and thereby enter new domains of disagreement). People of religion always depend on the same unprovable scriptures, and hence, can never come to agreement. How do we know or reason which one is right? We will never be able to, unless there’s some kind of divine intervention. Even though science today doesn’t have all the answers, I can rely on constant development and the possibility that one day it might. And indeed, I am starting repeating myself because this is a difference implied in my article.

    Now, if you ask me why I would want to lead a life of consistent reason aside from what I’ve already mentioned — I can’t answer in a single sentence, but an important point is that I’ve seen what rationality and science can do to better the world. To rid us of witch burnings, or beliefs that the mentally ill are possessed by devils, or creating better medication based on our knowledge of biology, for example. Also, as I noted before — I have no problem with accepting that at this point we can’t answer everything. But there is no logical reason to believe continued scientific research will one day stop providing answers or improving our lives. At this point, I’d like to point out that the theory of evolution was conceived of around 1840, which makes it’s lifespan very short in terms of research, development and substantiation — but I’m sure you realize that.

    Now, two caveats.

    First, the “playing field” only has to be level if you want to “play.” And you may not. I can respect that. After all, I read your article and contacted you. Not the reverse.

    Second, when I say the fault is yours, that is not to imply any deficiency on your part. Your prior e-mail lamented that proponents of evidence for evolution have insufficiently explained their case. That argument is a thousand times more true in the field of religion than in science.

    If I understand you correctly, it seems to me that we are very close to having the same approach to these matters — just on opposite ends.

    It’s also not unexpected, by the way. The Bible is full of these type statements:

    I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves…….Acts 20: 29

    For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories……2 Tim 4:3

    Suffice it to say that, if you do not know my position, it is religion’s fault, not yours.

    Well, I don’t like assuming when it comes to people’s opinions, so

    As to “fatal” flaws, I won’t discuss any, at least for the time being. You know what points I would likely raise, and you have answers to them all. It often boils down to…..is this or that impossible (my view) or simply astronomically unlikely, (yours) though it has nonetheless come to pass since any other outcome has been culled by natural selection.

    Excellent position. Regardless of if I would have had answers to them all — I probably wouldn’t have ventured into those discussions. My argument provided in the article still stands: that religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are uncomparable. The existance of god, at this point in time, is something that can’t be explored through scientific means, and hence — any attempt at arguing it at this point eventually leads nowhere if we restrict ourselves to scientific reasoning.

    Well, okay, here’s one I’ve already written about: http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/06/science_and_sex.html

    Bearing in mind that I’ve acknowledged that scientific knowledge is a work in progress — here is some information that might be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

    [I was a little surprised how quickly he rolled over on this one. I had figured he would have some sort of answer.]

    Lastly, so as to make my views somewhat more palatable to you, I have no issue with micro-evolution: fruit flies, bacteria, finches, and the like. It is similar to animal husbandry, and has been around forever.

    I can understand how the uniqueness of the human species can make one think that we have come to exist differently than fruit flies and bacteria, even though I don’t believe it.

    I also agree with you – and not with the fundamentalists – that it is nonsense to suppose all was created in literal 24-hour days. The Bible doesn’t insist on this. There is no reason “day” can’t be viewed more broadly, such as an old-timer talking about life “in his day.” Scientists speak of millions, even billions of years, in life’s origin. In general, I have no issue with this.

    I don’t count myself a fundamentalist, nor does the faith I am a part of, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    As I’ve noticed, you do like being informed on scientific issues as well as religious ones, so here’s a bit of information: You mentioned mathematicians using the disproving of one hypothesis to prove another. This is possible when we are talking about an hypothesis and it’s null-hypothesis. For example, we state the hypothesis that 1+1=2, then the null-hypothesis is that 1+1 does not equal 2. If we can prove that the null-hypothesis is true, then we have proven that 1+1=2 is not true. This is usually only applicable to very simple hypotheses and not to complex systems such as human existance or the theory of evolution — as they are complex theories built on hundreds or millions of smaller hypotheses and subsystems.

    Does this address the points you raised in your e-mail?

    In part, yes. You have a very sensible approach to these matters and, like I said, I appreciate that. I hope my arguments have come across as well as you conveyed yours. As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter — I try to avoid these discussions. My article on scientific- and religious beliefs was one that I felt compelled to write, not to argue existential issues, or to convince people to take sides, but to point out their differences.
    In final word, I’d like to emphasize that I am not inclined towards trying and convert you to atheism, or to belittle your beliefs. I consider our conversation a general exchange of information between two humans in a complex world.
    Thank you for challenging us, and providing an insight into your world.

    Sincerely,
    -Hrafn Th.

    ……………………………………………

    He liked this exchange and so did I, because both of us were nice and neither of us came to blows. He put the entire conversation on his website, which has better artwork than mine. He also stuck me with the cross and took the cool helix for himself! I told him I too might post the exchange someday when I was too lazy to think of anything new.

    Today’s the day.

    **********************

    The bookstore

  • Charles Darwin – a Letter to Asa Gray

    Two spiritual threads can be traced in the life of Charles Darwin, originator of the natural selection evolution theory. Had those threads turned out differently, one wonders what effect it might have had on science interpretation.

    The first has been dealt with in a previous post. Here is the second:

    In a letter to American colleague Asa Gray, Darwin stated: ….I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.

    Plainly, this statement concerns, not science, but God. His question was spiritual, or at least philosophical: why is there so much misery? How does that square with a God who is supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful?

    Bear in mind that, in younger days, Darwin trained to become a clergyman. This is not to say he was especially devout. Rather, he was undecided as a youth; he didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. Most of us go through such a phase. Some of us never emerge. At any rate, the clergy represented a respectable calling for people who didn’t find a place anywhere else, yet didn’t want to do manual work, which represented a lower social class.

    But why didn’t he know why God permitted suffering? It’s not as if an answer doesn’t exist. If he was familiar with the answer, yet rejected it, that would be one thing. But it’s clear that he had no clue.

    The fault is not his. It is that of the Church, which was charged to make certain truths, or teachings, known, but which failed to discharge that commission, choosing paths more self-serving. You might say that Darwin was spiritually starved.

    Had he known the Bible’s answer regarding misery and suffering, it may be that he, and other active minds of his day, might have put a different spin on discoveries of rocks, fossils, and finches.

    ****************

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Charles Darwin and Annie

    Two spiritual events can be traced in the life of Charles Darwin, originator of the natural selection evolution theory. Had those events turned out differently, one wonders what effect it might have had on science interpretation.

    The first…..the second will be dealt with in another post…..came with the death of Darwin’s favorite child, his daughter Annie. At age 10, the child contracted scarlet fever, and agonized for 6 weeks before dying. Also a casualty was Darwin’s faith in a beneficent Creator. The book Evolution: Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer, tells us that Darwin “lost faith in angels.” That’s an odd expression. Why would it be used?

    They probably told him that God was picking flowers.

    Is there any analogy more slanderous to God than the one in which God is picking flowers? Up there in heaven He has the most beautiful garden imaginable. But it is not enough! He is always on the watch for pretty flowers, the very best, and if He spots one in your garden, He helps himself, even though it may be your only one. Yes, He needs more angels, and if your child is the most pure, the most beautiful, happy, innocent child that can be, well….watch out! He or she may become next new angel. Sappy preachers give this illustration all the time, apparently thinking it gives comfort.

    Not surprisingly, the picking flowers analogy is nowhere found in the Bible. However, a close parallel analogy is found in 2 Samuel, where it is used to make exactly the opposite point: that the flower picker should be executed. The setting is when King David took the pretty wife of one of his subjects, and had that subject killed.

    The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor.  The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle,  but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
    “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”
    David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die!  He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
    Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!                 2 Samuel 12:1-7, NIV

    Now, this analogy appeals to us. This is just. The man is not expected to take comfort that the king stole his wife. No, he deserves execution! So how is it that when we’re told God has done the same, we’re expected to feel all warm and fuzzy?

    Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said that he was not smart enough to lie? His meaning was that if you lie, you have to adjust every subsequent statement to be consistent with that lie, otherwise you will get caught. Telling the truth presents no such challenge.

    The picking flowers analogy is an attempt to cover a lie, and as we have seen, it doesn’t satisfy. The lie is that, when we die, we don’t really die because the soul lives on, going straight to heaven if we’ve been good. Thus, death is a friend. It is a chance for promotion, and we are all happy to see good people promoted.

    In this context, the Bible’s hope of a resurrection is meaningless. (Acts 24:15) How can someone be resurrected if they never actually died?

    Better to tell the truth from the start, and then you don’t have to invent ridiculous stories to cover your tracks. Death is not a friend, it’s an enemy. Nor is it God’s purpose for humans; it came upon us due to rebellion. Nor does it bring us into a new state of consciousness; instead we become nonexistent, and can be likened to unconscious or asleep. Nor does God purpose to leave us in this sad predicament, but he’s taken steps to eliminate death.

    Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—  Rom 5:12

    For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.    1 Cor 15:25

    For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten……Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave,  where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.     Eccles 9:5,10

    After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”
    His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.
    So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead…         John 11:11-14

    (all verses from the New International Version)

    How different history might have been had Darwin known the truth about death. Not just Darwin, of course, but everyone of his time, as well as before and after. Instead, fed a diet of phony pieties….junk food, if you will…..he and others of inquisitive minds searched elsewhere in an attempt to make sense of life.

    [combine with: picking flowers in heaven’s garden]

    *********************

    The bookstore

  • A Fraud that Has to Go

    So we have answers to two of the most pressing questions ever raised. Why is there suffering? and Why do people die? The answers are complete, straightforward, concise… yet not difficult to understand. The only objection one might have is that they are somehow too simple, that we have become too sophisticated, that science has pegged such accounts as stories, not facts. This is why the evolution teaching has to go…it is the one obstacle blocking answers to life’s most puzzling mysteries.

    Now, if evolution was an absolute proven, consistent, can’t-get-around-it fact, then we would all simply have to adjust and tell Adam and Eve to take a hike. But, in fact, it is simply nonsense masquerading as science. There! That ought to make some people mad. But stay with us a bit. Maybe we can partly persuade you. Not completely, of course, but maybe partly.

    Some try to blend the two, religion and evolution. How can one state that there is an ALLpowerful being who could not create the system known as evolution? they ask. The answer is that one cannot state it. He could create such a system. But, it’s the wrong question. The question is not could he, but did he, especially when such an action blows to smithereens the explanations of death and suffering already alluded to.

    When I first came across this thinking 35 years ago, I was staggered that I had found people who actually believed in Adam and Eve! They did not look stupid….well, maybe a few of them, just like everywhere else….. yet all my life I had believed…I had been schooled that way…that only the dumbest of the rednecks didn’t believe in evolution. One fellow in the congregation loaned me a book, a predecessor to today’s Life….How Did It Get Here, By Evolution or Creation. I didn’t like it. I thought it was poorly written and took some cheap shots I did not resolve this subject for a long time. Instead, I decided to shelve it for the time being, since everything else made so much sense.

    Many decisions we make that we think are purely rational are, in fact, tainted with more emotion than we at first recognize. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, because it is not the way I would like things to be…it makes people vulnerable to manipulation. The smarter we are, the worse the manipulation can be, since we convince ourselves that it is our mind, not our emotion, telling us to do this or that. Pride comes into the picture, since we tend to be proud of ideas we have reasoned out for ourselves. Pride ‘hardens’ us in our position. Max Planck, the physicist, said: People think new truths are accepted when the proponents are able to convince the opponents. Instead, the opponents of the truth gradually die, and a new generation comes along who is familiar with the idea.   Isn’t it emotion and pride that’s to blame? 

    The evolution teaching, in both origin and endurance, has strong emotional appeal.

    The clergy have fallen far from what they once were. There was a time when they called all the shots…not just in religious life, but in all life. People deferred to the local minister/priest. If you spoke against them, you did so behind their backs, never openly. They enjoyed the highest status and wide respect. And yet they did nothing but abuse the power they had. Especially in Europe, (where Darwin was from) the Church amassed phenomenal wealth, at the expense of the locals. While the clergy lived in luxury, the people lived in squalor. Many Popes were astoundingly immoral/perverted, not merely by pious religious standards, but by any standards. The clergy brought the inquisition, torturing those who challenged their authority. Any notion of science perceived to threaten their status was firmly crushed: for example Copernicus and later Galileo, stating that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa.

    The clergy were the chief opponents Bible translation, preferring the Bible to be calcified into long-dead languages that no commoners could understand. Early translators were harassed, sometimes tortured and killed. At times, even those possessing  such a Bible were punished. The clergy had good reason to oppose Bible understanding, since the Bible condemned their manner of living…indeed, even the notion of a separate class, who commandeer and make a living off Christian activity, runs counter to the Bible.

    The printing press was their undoing. It gave those who opposed church tyranny a voice. Countless new brands of clergy came into existance. But what better way to cut these guys down to size then to remove the very basis of their authority. If it could be shown that life came about spontaneously, without any divine intervention, then the clergy would become, not the guardians of Ultimate Truth, but the guardians of Children’s Stories and Nonsense.

    This was the emotional appeal of the evolution theory: letting the air out of a pompous, abusive group of people. Of course, this does not prove that evolution is false, only that it is an idea with a strong emotional appeal, something quite apart from its intellectual merits.

    It’s the emotional reasons that must keep the theory firmly in place, because the intellectual merits really aren’t that compelling. And, much evidence that is claimed to support evolution can just as easily support creation. For example:

    Similarity between life forms….limbs, organs, cellular structure, and so forth. This is claimed as evidence of evolution. Why should it be? Lots of manufactured things share similar design. Automobiles, for instance. If you find a prototype that works, you duplicate it again and again, with variations, in other created things. How does that prove evolution?

    Vestigial organs, for example: our appendix, wisdom teeth. These are things we once needed but no longer do, say the evolutionists. Yes, I suppose, but can’t they just as easily be explained in our gradual deteriorating? Having lost perfection, with lifespans plunging from 1000 years to 80, every generation is a little sicker and more fragile then the one before. We can read and accumulate knowledge at a quicker pace then ever before, so human accomplishments increase, but as individuals, every generation is farther from that original perfection.

    Variation within a species, such as the differences in finches that Darwin observed on the islands….changes in colors, feet, beaks & so forth. So? Nobody denies that happens. That’s why people look different in different parts of the world. Take a population, isolate them so they can only breed among themselves, and in time, characteristics emerge that are unique to that population. But they always remain people. The evolutionists would claim that, since Darwin observed changes in generations of finches, it means entirely separate life forms evolve? That is a ridiculous leap of faith, on par with any of the religious ideas it would challenge.

    The fossil record. This is claimed as the most convincing proof of evolution, as if created beings would not leave behind fossils when they died. The record is not at all convincing. We’ve all heard of the missing link between primates and humans. In fact, there are missing links between all species…it is only the vaguest guesswork and wishful thinking that allows any connection between them. For decades, there was a nice chain of pictures showing the so-called evolution of the horse. (it may still be used, as these notions are slow to be discarded, even after they have been demonstrated to be false) It’s now acknowledged that the ancestors are not ancestors at all…they are different animals, a different species, still alive today. The fossil record does not show one species gradually evolving into another, but rather, species that always remains separate and distinct, although there will be variation within them, as in the finches. I wonder what would happen if evolutionists of the distant future found the fossils of a Dinka human (very tall) and a Pygmy human (very short) Would they recognize it as extreme variation within the human family? I am not convinced. I can envision statements that “all the books on human evolution will have to be rewritten…we must re-examine everything we thought was true,” and that the evolution trail would go from very short to very tall creatures or vice versa.

    If a person believes in God, yet is unaware of the Bible’s specific answers on suffering and old age, and if they also are under the impression that evolution is true science (why would anyone not be?), a done deal, then the only reasonable position is to believe God is guiding the evolution process to produce life. But by taking this position, you get the worst of both worlds. It becomes impossible to understand the Bible’s answers to serious questions. And you do not even please true evolutionists, who will sniff that you are a weakling and must use belief in God as a crutch.

    **************************

    The bookstore

  • Science and Sex and Evolution

    My wife was especially amorous last night, up for some steamy romance. Of course, I wanted no part of it, for all my thoughts were of science. Specifically, science and sex and evolution.

    Because if the evolutionists are right, somewhere in our primordial chain, we must have switched from amoeba reproduction (asexual) to bird n bees reproduction (sexual) Somewhere, one blob, or if further along in the chain, one critter, became a guy, and at the same time, another blob or critter became a girl. It must have been at the same time in order to procreate.

    The astute person will have noticed that when gay couples desire children, they always adopt ready-made babies, they do not produce their own.

    The evolutionist folk will tell us that any specific mutation is a one in a googozillian chance. Not very likely at all, yet ……give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, and one of them will eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare! All the dopey monkeys who only scrawl obscenities don’t count, because natural selection ensures that only the good mutations stand. If something seems a little fishy with that argument, never mind. Let it stand for now.

    For we are not dealing with one one-in-a-googozillian mutation, but two, each complementary to the other. It’s no good to have a guy without a girl or a girl without a guy.

    But that’s not all! In fact, we are dealing with three such mutations which must occur at the same time. For the urge to mate also must also be present. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it will happen. It is possible to pick each others’ noses, for instance, but no guy ever bought flowers hoping his sweetheart would give a green light in that regard. (So far as I know)

    How does evolution stand in the face of such nonsense? In spite of scientific endorsement, this is the theory which requires blind faith. Adam and Eve seems dead sober pragmatism in contrast.

     

    **********************

    The bookstore