Warning: This got long. Disclaimer: I have a high school science education. I probably got something wrong. Or at least, not all the way right.
e can file this one under “Kind of Sad, Really.” The “Good Reporters”, and their little Evolution Isn’t Even Logical essay was just sort of depressing. I’m sitting here today, staring outside at gray weather and falling snow. It’s cold and windy and bitter out, and all that gray is just a downer to start with. Then, I have to go and find the “Good Reporters”.
I was tempted to drop a comment at their blog — and I might still — but it strikes me as wasting breath.
Let’s tackle this a bit at a time.
Logic is defined as being reasonable or having sound sense. Evolution is senseless. Evolution leaves a logical person shaking their head, saying, “They can’t possibly believe this,” yet it is taught so dogmatically as truth today. Science interests me. Evolution is not scientific. It is dogma based on theories (often contradictory) that can not be proven. Science is the study of knowledge based on facts and laws.
Let’s rely upon resources of logic and make some observations:
1. The Big Bang
Do you believe your car is the result of an explosion in an automobile factory? If you took the thousands of parts of your car, lined them up in a building, blew the building up with TNT, do you believe when the dust cleared, they will have formed a nice, shiny, brand new, perfectly running automobile? Of course not! That is not reasonable. Do you believe your wristwatch is the result of an explosion in a watch factory? Impossible!
They start with an appeal to logic. I just . . . wow. Blows me away.
This first section here is dealing with the standard “Boeing 747 – Tornado – Junk Yard” argument that you hear from a lot of fundies. They argue that evolution must be an invalid theory because, basically, any given life form on earth is so complex, that it just couldn’t have happened “by accident” — IE, via evolution. This often goes along with the idea that evolution happens “by chance”, and that everything you see on earth is entirely too complex to have just happened. Fundies and ID advocates like to use the eye as an additional example of this — the eye being far too complex to have just evolved, they claim.
Evolution is not a product of “chance” or “accident”. Evolution is driven by a process of natural selection. A given animal’s DNA will mutate or change for some reason — environmental causes such as natural radiation, incorporating viral DNA, the occasional genetic oopsie, things like that. This genetic change may produce an outward physical or behavioral difference, which may or may not give the animal an “edge” or a “flaw”. If the change is an edge in that animal’s environment, then that animal is likelier to survive, reproduce, and pass on the difference to its offspring, which will then also have that edge. This will continue until the edge is commonplace. If the change doesn’t produce anything favorable, or worse, does something bad to the animal in question, then it becomes moot point, or doesn’t get passed on because the animal can’t survive the change. All of this happens, of course, over long periods of time. Primitive primates did not turn into man over night. It took thousands and thousands of years’ worth of little changes that assisted the primate in surviving.
These little changes build up into some really fantastic stuff — like, for example, eyes. TalkOrigins has a brief bit about the complexity of eyes. They also have some not-so-brief bits about eyes if you check under “evolution: biology”.
It also bears pointing out that the Good Reporters begin with the Big Bang Theory, and proceed directly into evolution from there, as though the two are related. Not so much, that. They are two separate theories. Big Bang deals with how the universe was formed. Evolution deals with life on Earth. The Good Reporters say, “Evolutionists tell us that the first living cell was a result of a ‘Big Bang.’”
Well, you know, that’s actually technically correct in a really, hugely round-about way. I mean, if there hadn’t been a Big Bang, there’d be no Earth for the first little living cell to have formed upon. But wow. Talk about having to go over the river and through the woods to get there. That’s really taking the scenic route.
The Good Reporters next ask, “What are the chances of a living cell to be formed by random processes?” When they ask this, I’m left to assume they must be talking about the hypothesis of abiogenesis, which states that, very broadly, the first living molecule was generated from non-living matter. There’s a reason that abiogenesis is a hypothesis, and not a theory. There’s a lot left to prove when it comes to abiogenesis. Of course, it does also show a bit of promise, too. The Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 showed that non-living compounds could change into organic compounds under the proper circumstances. (TalkOrigins about the the Miller-Urey experiment and the rise of life: 1, 2, 3.)
2. Where Did All the People Go?
Evolutionists claim that man is one to 2 million years old. However pendulation expert Thomas R. Malthus discovered human populations have tended to increase geometrically with time. This means that if the time for the population to double itself is called T. Then starting with the initial population of 2 people, after T years there would be 4 people, after 2T years 8 people, after 3T years 16 people, etc. History has been consistent with this. During the time of Christ there were 300 million on earth. In 1650 there were 600 million. In 1850 there 1.2 billion. In 1950 there were 2.4 billion and in 1990 there were about 4.8 billion. This present population indicates that there have been 30 doublings (T) in history. This would carry us back to about 3500 B.C. which was the time of Noah’s flood! Interesting.
Crap. Math. Dude, seriously. I’m an English major. We’ll have to go straight to the experts on this one: Claim CB620: Population Growth. But, innumerate as I am, I see that these numbers don’t seem to include population die-offs like disease or disaster, or accidents, or anything like that.
3. After His Kind
In Genesis 1:12 and 1:21 God said the plants and animals were especially created to only have the ability to reproduce “after his kind.” Evolution tells us that all living things evolved from the SAME cell. Today then, why can’t a horse and a cow have off spring together? Or a chicken and a skunk? Or a human and a monkey? Simply because of the unchangeable law of Biogenesis, that like species reproduce ONLY after their own kind! But when did this start? Can the evolutionist tell us? Somewhere in their evolutionary process this law took effect. HOW? Logic tells us it has always been in effect, like God said.
I had to read this bit a few times. Maybe I’m dense, or maybe the all caps through me off or something, but what the Good Reporters seem to be saying is that God said animals shall only reproduce out of their same â€œkindâ€, and evolution declares that we all arose from one single cell, and because we all came from the same cell, all animals should be able to interbreed. Since they can’t, evolution is wrong, and God is right.
Okay. Apparently one thing these kids haven’t learned is how to construct a cohesive paragraph. Be that as it may, let’s do this one step at a time. Back in the day, several bazillion years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere was such that it allowed a complex chemical reaction to form the building blocks of life. Once the blocks were there, continued atmospheric stress induced further chemical reactions, forging these blocks into the first living cell. (Which, incidentally, probably didn’t resemble anything we might see today. Also, incidentally, if you like the Panspermia theory better, the blocks formed out in space and traveled here via comets. Or something.)
The first living cell did what cells eventually do, and divided. And then divided some more. Then a bunch more. Suddenly, we’ve got whole colonies of cells wandering off and doing various cellular things. Since we’ve got plenty of little separate cells, some of them do one sort of thing, and some of them do another sort, and we start getting little primitive bacteria and amoebas, and viruses, and eventually multicellular critters, and holy crap, life is everywhere.
And it’s all doing different things. Eventually, it’s drifted off and turned into multicellular, complex critters, living in different environments, responding to different pressures and stimuli. Some of them eventually turn into fish and birds and bears and cats and so on. Some of them stayed in the water, and some of them went north and evolved to hunt certain kinds of prey, and live in certain kinds of weather. Some went south and learned to eat different kinds of vegetation and escape from completely different hunters, and so on, and so forth. They changed and changed, over millions of years, until finally, when that skunk and that chicken finally bumped back into each other, not only had they become so tremendously different that they couldn’t interbreed, they didn’t even have the urge to try, because you know, skunks and chickens don’t find each other sexy.
Is it really so difficult to understand the idea that tiny changes over acres and miles and light years of time can change something from one form into another form so different that it’s hardly even the same thing anymore? That’s how fish turned into bears, kids. If you can grasp that idea, then is it so much more difficult to understand that the stimuli that caused fish to turn into bears under one set of circumstances caused fish to turn into giraffes under a completely different set of circumstances?
4. The Silliest Chart in the World
In a science class you’ll find a chart of 10 creatures taking a walk. The one on the right leading the way is modern man. Behind him are 9 manlike, apelike creatures. This is the “Evolution of Man” chart. I thought you might like to know how they came up with man’s 9 “predecessors.”
The list of nine finds presented afterwards is an utter joke. For example, Neanderthal man. Discovered in Germany in 1856. The “find” consisted of a skull and several bones. Because, of course, we haven’t found one single other Neanderthal bone since 1856. We made the whole lot up out of a skull cap and a femur. Dammit. And the Good Reporters caught us. They also mention â€œNebraska Manâ€, and the â€œPiltdown Manâ€, because of course, the Bible doesn’t have any errors in it, nor does it ever contradict itself. Whatever else you may believe, there certainly aren’t a hundred different versions of the Bible, including the King James Bible, which these boys seem to enjoy, and which certainly wasn’t completely rewritten and edited by King James for purely political purposes.
And now I can’t find a picture of the chart the Good Reporters are talking about, but I’m damn about positive that if this chart is still hanging in class rooms today, it does not showcase Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man.
A car and a watch are the designs of master designers and skilled craftsmen, not an explosion. Everybody believes that. However, the simplest living cell is thousands of times more complex than the most complex watch, ear or computer. Your body is made of trillions of these cells. Can a logical person believe that we are the result of some explosion billions of years ago? No, it is not sensible!
And now we’re back to logic. It is, of course, far more logical to believe the book of god, a contradictory book of a contradictory god, rewritten and edited by men over and over again, for numerous reasons like politics or disagreements over what would be â€œcanonâ€ and what wouldn’t. We certainly should not believe in a theory which has been carefully researched, studied, and tested, again and again, and for which we find new supporting evidence nearly daily.
I’m sorry, gentlemen. You’re young, ignorant, and have been brainwashed by your culture to believe in an ancient book rather than the proven facts before your eyes. Even if the Good Reporters read this, they won’t believe it. In fact, they’ll think I’m the same kind of delusional that I think they are. The â€œargumentsâ€ the Good Reporters raise are the exact same arguments all creationists and ID advocates raise, over and over again. Scientists debunk them, over and over again, and do a far better job of it than I have. (Although, I think for a gal with a high school science education, I haven’t done half bad.) No matter how well these creationist arguments are debunked, you can’t convince some people to change their minds.