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. đŸ˜‰

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:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
12 Major World Religions: The Beliefs, Rituals, and Traditions of Humanity's Most Influential Faiths
Human Communication in Society (4th Edition)
From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books (Voyage of the Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals)
Child Development and Education, Enhanced Pearson eText with Loose-Leaf Version -- Access Card Package (6th Edition)

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. BradleyRoger 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:

Everything You Need to Ace Science in One Big Fat Notebook: The Complete Middle School Study Guide ( (Big Fat Notebooks)
My Path to Atheism
Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Women in Science: 50 Fearless Pioneers Who Changed the World

Tags: | | | | | | | |