Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Response to '50 Reasons I Reject Evolution' Pt 1 of 5

Recently I was linked to an article with the intriguing title 50 Reasons I Reject Evolutionas you may well guess my initial thought was that it was a pro-Creation apologetic. What I found instead was a great example of how proponents of the Evolutionary Worldview inflict their thinking on the masses.

Despite the fact that the author demonstrates familiarity with several of the arguments between Evolution and Creation the article focuses on sarcasm and intimidation. To be fair, the work is obviously intended more for the entertainment of readers than convincing those who don’t believe in Evolution. This being recognized it’s also important to recognize the abusive handling of uninformed readers.

There are good scientific arguments going on between the two camps, but most of the people I meet have never even spoken with a scientist or read an actual scientific paper. Most average people are encouraged by the mass media, and people like the author of the article to trust blindly in the peer review process of scientific study, which is of course a process most people do not understand.

Since the author is so convinced, and has a basic ability to write in English I presume she could have attempted to produce a more convincing work. The choice to provide sarcasm instead of fact is telling, but simply noting that the author is acting like a jerk would be about as helpful to my readers as his article is to his. It might entertain a few, but it would be abusive to the majority. So I will attempt a response to each of the article’s 50 reasons. I will respond to groups of reasons as required by their presentation in the article.

Sarcasm and the “everyone who’s smart knows” attitude of some people can be intimidating, especially if you are uninformed. I’d like everyone to be informed on the subject, but I’m not so interested in seeing Christ’s Church filled with “Creation Trekkies.” You don’t need to be a scientist or an expert to refute Evolution. Armed with a reasonable familiarity with the Scriptures, you need only remain calm in the face of ridicule and exercise basic logic.

Hopefully this will help some of you respond to like minded comments from the people you come in contact with. The entire response is 11 printed pages. I'm going to post it in several instalments. Here we go;

1.) Because I don’t like the idea that we came from apes… despite that humans are categorically defined and classified as apes.

The context the author uses the word “categorically” in here means that humans are defined, and classified as apes without condition by those who are deciding the classification. In like manner a person who had never heard of electricity might very well categorically define a light bulb as a magical device.

From the limited perspective of such a person they would be confident to do so. All of their analysis would confirm their stance so long as they did not challenge their understanding. My point is, it doesn’t matter what you call something based on your own knowledge, it is what is. A rose by any other name is a rose all the same, as the saying goes. The world is not flat, no matter what one with no knowledge of the shape of the world might proclaim.

Two facts are most worth noting; Evolutionary theory does not claim Humans descended from Apes and Creationists don’t deny Human descent from Apes because of preference.

2.) Because I’m too stupid and/or lazy to open a ******* science book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.

The thousands of Creationist scientists with recognized credentials have surely opened science books. It’s doubtful that entertainment television provides authoritative science training. However, there are many people who subscribe to entertainment television channels and become armed with confidence to speak with supposed authority on various subjects.


3.) Because if I can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be ********.

Beyond feigning ignorance of the Creationist viewpoint, the author commits simple hypocrisy here. Check reaons # 5,6,14,17,20-22,23,24,25,30,31,32,39,45,46,47 and 50 for examples of the author doing what she criticizes here.

4.) Because I don’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.

The context of the author’s usage of “literally” here strongly implies the intended thought is that “virtually 99.9%....” This thought would be closer to reality, but also however be pointless. Natural Selection is a helpful concept but ‘molecules to man Evolution’ only confuses those who study Biology.

5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM ******-*******!!!

It is pretty much normal for human beings to believe what they want despite evidence to the contrary because we tend to want our preferences confirmed.

I myself, prefer to believe things which are actually true over being a fool. One of the comments in the thread below the article I’m responding to had a very funny thought. The person wrote that Big Bang could not be true because that theory says absolutely nothing existed. Then absolutely nothing exploded. This explosion then spewed out everything, which evolved into me.

I may be getting ahead of myself. If you’ve read ahead you’ll know what I mean. The author, who holds to an Evolutionary Worldview, accuses the Creationists of preferring magic over science. However, the Evolutionary Worldview requires firm belief in some pretty nifty magic, without a source of power for this “magic.” Those who hold to it prefer the idea that the light bulb lights it’s self without any electricity.

6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the diversity of living organisms which reproduce with genetic variation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a ******* Tootsie Pop.

Evolution is a pretty loose term. It is used variously as a title for a multitude of concepts. While the author is making a point of mocking Creationists, and Deists, she now defines Evolution using terminology that more closely matches Natural Selection instead of molecules to man Evolution. His point is that there is no Creator God, which is to say the Universe created itself. The views are inseparable and constitute the Evolutionary Worldview.

Not to mention that molecules to man Evolution is completely incompatible with the God described by the Bible.

7.) Because the fossil record doesn’t comprise the remains of every single living thing that ever existed on this 4.5 billion year old planet, even though fossilization is a rare process that only occurs under very specific circumstances.

I wonder if the author could give an explanation as to why she believes the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

With regard to the Fossil Record, and it’s completeness we can refer to the words written in the Pro-Evolution publication National Geographic Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.”

Ref: National Geographic Nov. 2004 Page 25 Article: Was Darwin Wrong? No!

So the author is correct to say that the Fossil Record doesn’t include every single living thing that ever existed – no matter how long one supposes the record has been being produced. The record is so incomplete, inconsistent and incompatible with Evolutionary theory as to be completely unhelpful to those who promote the theory.

8.) Because science has yet to produce any transitional species… except for the magnitudinous numbers of them found in the fossil record which don’t count because… I uh, OOH LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT!!! *runs away*

I wonder of the author could point his readers to even one transitional form. In actuality, there are several candidates but they are highly disputable. There have been many hoaxes which, because of the type of thinking presented in the article I’m responding to, have been, and some continue to be taught in schools.

If Evolutionary theory were correct there would be an unending multitude of transitional forms found, both alive and fossilized. However, the real scientific problem with transitional forms is not that we don’t find them; for by chance maybe none were fossilized, and we have such limited ability to study animals that we are missing them all today. The problem is that by no stretch of even an Evolutionary Worldview proponent’s imagination could there have been enough time for the diversity of life that we observe (with our limited perspective even) today to have evolved, even if Natural Selection were able to produce new information.

For an explanation of this please visit the website of one of the people the author complains about; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain

9.) Because I know nothing about Darwin except that he had a funny beard.

Darwin himself would never have put up what has become of the theory he adopted, and popularized. http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild If the author, or anyone else would like to read more about Charles Darwin they can visit http://creation.com/charles-darwin-questions-and-answers

10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.

I wonder if the author could find a real scientist who would be willing to say that the theory of Evolution perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth. One glaring imperfection is that the theory of Evolution does not explain how life came to be on Earth in the first place.

I wonder if the author could manage to show anyone who has read the Bible where it says the world is flat? Contrasting what the author claims, the Bible declared that the Earth is a sphere floating in space, rotating on it’s axis and orbiting the Sun which is also moving through the Universe which is expanding and made of things we cannot see… thousands of years before the scientific consensus was that the Earth is flat, and sitting on the back of a turtle. Heb 11:3, Psa 104:2, Job 26:7, Isa 40:22, Job 38:12-14, Psa 19:5-6.

Well that's part 1. I'll see if posting these 10 reasons at a time makes sense.

1 comment:

bobfromchicago said...

You're the man!