Evolution’s Evolution

1871 editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an apeMore and more of late Evolution and Creationism are making the news once again in America. What both amazes and amuses me is that the current crop of arguers seem to think this is a new thing. It isn’t. The only thing that has changed is which side currently has the legal upper hand in the argument over Evolution vs. Creationism.

What’s most amazing to me is that the Evolutionists act like evolution is accepted fact and that it’s only fringe, “extremist” Christians who believe in- or accept the possibility of Creationism.

Much like the fallacy that the Evolution vs. Creationism is new, the belief that in America evolution is accepted fact and that it’s only fringe, “extremist” Christians who are Creationists is a self-serving fantasy of the Evolutionists. In point of replicable, scientific fact, as of 2012: 46% of Americans believe in the Creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years; 32% believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance, i.e., Intelligent Design; and only 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process. These figures have been largely unchanging over the last 30 years of polling.

Gallup Evolution vs. Creationism Poll - 1982-2012Creationism – Intelligent Design – Evolution from 1982 – 2012

As one can see, within America, the Godless view of Evolution is itself something of a non-survival trait and, hence, an evolutionary dead end. 😉

It must also be noted that Evolution wasn’t even close to the de facto science curriculum in American high schools until the beginning parts of the mid-20th century. Indeed, by 1925 a number of states had passed, and more had introduced, laws outlawing the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and these laws, by and large, weren’t overturned until 1960s. Additionally, since the 1960s and through today, various states have enacted laws, with admittedly mixed results, to bring the teaching of Evolution more in line with the normative viewpoints and beliefs of the American people.

So it’s both amazing and amusing to me the the Evolutionist think this is a new argument and/or that they hold the majority opinion on the matter. If anything, they should be damned glad that they’re allowed to teach it all instead of complaining whenever it sought to teach alternatives to Evolution alongside of it.

~*~

NOTE: For the record, my personal views fall in an odd place between Intelligent Design and Evolution. In other words, I am a soul who has a body and I’m not sold on the idea that the God(s) took any more hand in designing that body other than to ensure that it would evolve into a form that could make the soul’s desires tangible, material, and enactable. Then, I believe that all science is theology.

Related Reading:

World Religions: The Great Faiths Explored & Explained
The Science Book: Everything You Need to Know About the World and How It Works
DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA: EVOLUTION AND THE MEANINGS OF LIFE
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
Fucking History: 52 Lessons You Should Have Learned in School.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

Explaining Atheism

Believing in God(s) is crazy! Just ask any Atheist; they’ll be happy to tell you that doing is contrary to all reason and logic. Their science has the universe explained and doesn’t rely on some “Magical Sky Daddy” for it’s creation.

Atheism
Yeah…And Believing In God(s) Is Crazy?

Yep. The Godless are all about science, reason, and logic – except when they throw out every law of physics currently described by Man in order to explain the creation of the universe. Then they take the absence of God(s) on faith and brook no heresy.

And really? Multiple toroidal dimensions – I think the last count was 11 in order to make their math work – and intersections of dimensional membranes? Really? How is that more than pushing the question back another layer or two instead of answering it?

Reams and reams of paper filled with equations, all predicated upon a particle (graviton) that they can’t even find the other particle (Higgs-Boson) that they think might allow them to eventually figure out to find it, are supposed to be more reason-based and logical than, “So mote it be!”

And Theists are supposedly the crazy ones. 😉

Explaining Atheism is easy; it’s the absolute faith in Nothing. In the old days we simply described it as Nihilism and, if and when their anomie grew problematical, sent them to sanitariums where they could do no harm.

Related Reading:

Jesus > Religion: Why He Is So Much Better Than Trying Harder, Doing More, and Being Good Enough
Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction
The Reason I Jump: The Inner Voice of a Thirteen-Year-Old Boy with Autism
The Cartoon Guide to Physics (Cartoon Guide Series)
Religion: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It Matters

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

Atheists Hate This Book

The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories

The Atheists really hate this book because it scientifically approaches Intelligent Design and the statistical improbability of evolution of cellular life by random chance. This is especially true of Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and their ilk, who are theologically invested in a Godless universe.

But why do these Atheists hate the work of the authors: Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen so much? They hate and despise their work, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, because in it these three scientists show the inherent implausibility of life spontaneously arising from non-life. Atheists like Scott, Meyer, and Dawkins are far more comfortable attacking religions and religious beliefs than they are defending their pet theories and postulates against scientific inquiry.

This book offers an excellent scientific analysis of important data related to the theory of evolution. It is – or should be – a seminal work for the theory of intelligent design since it scientifically critiques the Atheists’ prevailing paradigmatic theories of chemical evolution. It doesn’t so much criticize Darwinism as it does criticize the very underpinning of the initial evolution of life on Earth, something that is a prerequisite for the Darwinian mechanism of evolution to happen.

The volume as a whole is devastating to a relaxed acceptance of current theories of abiogenesis. It is well written, and, though technical, much of the book is within the reach of the informed non-scientist. The book apparently has been well received by many who are working in the field of abiogenesis, such as Dean Kenyon and Robert Shapiro.

James F. Jekel
Dept. of Epidemiology & Public Health
Yale University School of Medicine

Be forewarned though; the authors are distinguished scientists holding advanced degrees in chemistry, materials science, and geochemistry and the book, while very important and quite interesting, is not an easy read by any stretch of the imagination and truly requires a firm grounding in chemistry to fully appreciate.

Related Reading:

Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution: Turn Off the Genes That Are Killing You and Your Waistline
The Evangelical and The Open Theist: Can Open Theism Find Its Place Within the Evangelical Community?
Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation and the Flood
The World's Religions (Plus)
Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis

Tags: | | | | | | | |