Are you derived from a speck?
Found a wonderful polemic piece at MichNews negating the scientism of evolution theory. It is written by a non-scientist, of course. Possibly that’s why I like it so much. Are you ready, dear ex-protozoan?
First of all, evolution is a crock.
Auspicious beginning, isn’t it? 
It takes a lot of faith to believe that I came from an ameba. A lot of faith! (…)
It’s a crazy world we live in. Crazier every day. But one of the craziest notions that ever came down the pike is evolution. Who in his right mind would ever believe that the complicated homo sapien derived from a speck? (…)
Evolution is furthermore an insult to the intelligent brain.
That’s why the world is crazy when the so-called intelligentsia defend this notion called “evolution.” The PhDs do that. The professors do that. The textbook writers and so forth do that. They all get in their clique and stroke one another with this Alice from Wonderland fancy that we all came from a speck.
Then they throw in the Big Bang Whatever. This complicated universe and planet Earth just blew into place. There’s another nuthouse one for you. (…)
…when it comes to evolution, the adherents make us hold to that nonsense as a fact. They press it upon us as evangelists of Darwin. And of course it’s not a fact any more than fairy tales are facts. Evolution is a theory, and an exceptionally wide-eyed foolish one at that. Nevertheless, it is a mere theory as much as tapioca pudding causes Milky Ways is a theory.
So evolution should be taught in Faith Class if it’s going to be put upon the students in public schools. It does not certainly belong in science class. It’s not a science. It’s not a proven fact. Now of course if there is a chapter in science class about theories, then evolution can be presented as a theory as much as Alice in Wonderland can be presented as a theory. But nothing more than a theory.
Yes, the world is crazy. And getting crazier still.
D’accord? Einverstanden? Va bene? All right?—As for myself, I agree. But I’m just a little conservative Christian girl, having not the foggiest idea of real life
Great post, darling
Comment by Juergen Krafzik - January 23, 2006 @ 11:19 am
A few years ago I heard someone say on TV: “I simply don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution!” That’s a powerful statement!
Comment by Michael Meyn - January 23, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
I’ve had an alternate idea that’s been rolling around in my brain for a while. It does seem to me, as a resident philosopher, that if God exists, why would He make the proof or non-proof of His existance possible to determine? I’m not a believer, but it does seem that if God sees fit to remain, as the Catholics have it, as a “necessarily unknowable” source of the Universe. It also seems to me that evolutionary theory is one of those areas of proof that would be pretty much as they are now if God existed- seemingly scientifically explicable, but with constant faint airs of suspicion, doubt, questions. Now, this all assumes a personal Christian God that doesn’t want to prove anything one way or the other: hence the entire notion of faith as the divine healing of the merciful Lord. The questions and doubt are what faith would be for overcoming.
It seems to me that if you are Christian, the entire question is wholly unanswerable from the very beginning by God’s very design, if you will forgive the term.
I also don’t understand how evolution itself is much of a going concern: how does this contradict anything except the most literal interpretation of the bible? Pope Benedict, for instance, has a more metaphorical explanation for evolution and the Big Bang as actual doctrine of Holy Mother the Church. And it goes back in time, as well, to the time the Church caved in to scientific exploration.
As I stated earlier, I’m not a believer, but it appears that Christians have a lot of wiggle room here if they chose to go that route, but that they don’t have to be very concerned about the question to begin with. God is not going to put proof of His existance in a tar pit to be discovered by some damned paleontologist, that’s for sure. And it sure as hell won’t be an astrophysicist.
So that’s the central problem of the question: a universe without a God will look a lot like one that does.
Comment by James Versluys - January 23, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Well, there is no argument in this piece, but only faith and an opinion, because faith is something that needs no reality check. Even Scott Adams came up with a better idea, why evolution is flawed:
1. Evolution is defined as the change in species over time. (Roughly speaking)
2. Einstein proved that time does not pass for an observer who is moving at the speed of light. It’s not just the observer’s perception; it’s his objective reality.
3. Therefore, evolution does not exist for an observer moving at the speed of light.
4. Although no people move at the speed of light, there is nothing special about our perspective except that it is ours.
5. Evolution is not true for all potential observers and therefore it is not completely true.
6. If something is not true for all observers, it is only a point of view.
I find this hilarious and interesting at the same time, because it shows that some people don’t want to see the facts. And Evolution doesn’t deny the existence of an intial intelligent creator, just the hypothesis that “Mankind” is just 5000 years old is bulls***.
Comment by Max - January 24, 2006 @ 7:40 am
Evolution is a theory, based on observed facts, on how humankind came about.
Intelligent design is a theory based on faith on *why* humankind came about. Comparing it to evolution is comparing apples to oranges. And making it part of the science curriculum is like teaching how to make clay pots in a differential calculus course: useful, but unrelated.
Comment by ralphieboy - January 24, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Regarding Adams via Max:
2. Einstein proved that time does not pass for an observer who is moving at the speed of light.
Einstein never proved that. Relativity remains, just like Evolution, a theory supported by observations, and in the case of Relativity, there is much less supporting evidence than exists for Evolution. So why would this Adams fellow blindly accept Relativity, and purport it as fact, then try to use it to bash Evolution as being something “less-worthy” than other theories?
The other “points” made by Adams are also flawed, but my feeling is that these statements were meant to be a philosophical exercise, and not a real criticism of evolution.
Comment by beavercleaver - January 24, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Claudia,
I am responsible for every act of nature, every blade of grass, every thought, everything—
How about lunch on Friday?
Comment by GOD - January 24, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
beaverc,
Scott Adams is the cartoonist who does “Dilbert”, a comic strip dedicated to proving that the Absurd is the dominating force in human society. His statements on Evolution were all terrible tongue-in-cheek.
Comment by ralphieboy - January 24, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Lunch on friday would be fine! I know a very good Italian restaurant in a suburb of Munich. You would like it!
Comment by Claudia V. Heym - January 26, 2006 @ 8:14 am
Well, I don’t know about evolution but I know what I like. If the Evolutionists don’t get back to basics and start humping like troglodites they will be an evolutionary dead end. Keeerist, do you have to be religious in this world to have a Darwinistic ’survival advantage’. Is there an ‘oberlerher’ in the house? Why do paleontologists get good-wood at the slightest evidence of a homonid’s reverence for the dead? hence spirituality, which can lead to religion, a sign the monkeyman is becoming a bonafide Homo Sapien who then evolves into a atheist. And if demographic trends prevail de-evolves into an evolutionary deadend. If I were to take Darwinism at face value I’d say Darwinists are the runts of the Human litter, the ‘batchelor herd’, latter day Boisii. see ya in the tar pits.
Comment by Del Hoeft - January 28, 2006 @ 8:46 pm