The Myths and Hoaxes in 21st Century Britain. Part 1: The Theory of Evolution.

A couple of centuries ago, the philosophy of uniformitarianism was gaining in popularity. According to this philosophy, the processes we see happening on earth today are presumed always to have occurred: “the present is the key to the past”.

From this philosophy, developed by Scottish amateur geologist, James Hutton, assumptions about the earth’s past are made – that is, assumptions based on a philosophy and not on scientific evidence.

For example, when a modern geologist sees a massive canyon with a tiny river running through it, he assumes that this tiny river carved out the canyon, and of course, that would have taken millions of years. This assumption is based on a particular philosophy which has become the predominant one and so the assumptions are taken as facts. They aren’t facts, they are assumptions, based on the philosophy that “the present is the key to the past”.

By believing in uniformitarianism, the scientist is presented with a big problem. He has to make the evidence fit the philosophy. So, a tiny river must have carved out the Grand Canyon; mountain ranges must have developed over millions of years by tiny, gradual movements of the earth’s crust.

Evolution Theory came along shortly afterwards. When scientists (natural philosophers) knew that evolution was a fact, they had to fit it into their philosophy of long ages and belief that “the present is the key to the past”

We all know that creatures evolve. A mutation in a bug can produce a resistance to insecticide. With billions of insects, one such mutation is possible; indeed can be expected. Natural selection means that most of the planet has life present, but this is due to fairly simple differences, for example, animals with longer fur survive in colder climates and wingless beetles survive on windy islands, where their now extinct winged predecessors were being blown out to sea. When a really big change occurs, such as a beetle loses its wings, it is still due to a very minor genetic change. The information that says “make wings” stopped working. All the information for wings is still in the beetle’s DNA, so that, if some time in the future these wingless beetles were seen to have sprouted wings, it is only because a mutation caused the gene to be switched on again. No amazing, very gradual, process has happened over millions of years to produce these complex wings. The information was there all along. Just like with the blind cavefish that can see again “after millions of years” when the gene pool is improved with blind cavefish from a separate population.

This is the vital information I wish to relay: that these scientists gave evolution abilities which it does not have. They had to in order to fit evolution into their philosophy. The mistakes were compounded. People were further separated from the truth. The layman became blinded by millions and billions of years and therefore believed that anything is possible given a vast amount of time.

It is, of course, theoretically possible, but so are lots of things, like drawing out all four aces from a thousand decks of cards consecutively. It’s never going to happen, though. The life we see around us is far too complex to have developed by random mutations and natural selection. The genetic information which builds complex structures has been there since the Creation. Mutations only enable creatures to evolve from their created state.

This is why we don’t see real evidence of transitional life forms. I discussed Archaeopteryx on Tom Harris’s blog earlier this month. Archaeopteryx is perhaps the best known alleged transitional fossil, even though it is a fully formed bird with wings, feathers and avian lungs.

The fossil record does not support the Theory of Evolution. It supports an ordered creation – one where relatively minor genetic changes enable animals and plants to adapt to various climates, terrains and diets.

To sum up:

Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist. As natural philosophers started becoming known as “scientists” in the increasingly materialistic 19th Century, they had to incorporate evolution into their philosophy of long ages while simultaneously rejecting the Creator, or at the very least devaluing Him. This necessitated massively overestimating the capability of organisms to evolve. Tragically, this catalogue of errors is now considered to be the truth by most people: people who know little or nothing of where their beliefs come from, but will defend them anyway. 

This entry was posted in Animals, Creationism, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to The Myths and Hoaxes in 21st Century Britain. Part 1: The Theory of Evolution.

  1. Stewart, I might’ve known a Scotsman was to blame for all this evolutionary trouble-making.

    And wasn’t it a Scotsman invented the telly? That’s caused a lot of bother too. ;)

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Richard,

    There have been a tremendous number of great Scots. And then there’s James Hutton!

    I think John Logie Baird was the first man to broadcast television pictures, but his system of rotating wheels was never really adopted. But the lad done well with developing radar and I don’t know what else.

    Just remember – the world would be a far poorer place if nobody had invented Scotland!

  3. Mmmm… I don’t have any problem with Scotswomen; they are rather delightful. I come from the Manchester area and so to my ears the sound of an Edinburgh accent is simply divine.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    I wonder if that’s one of my flags.

    I was hoping someone would talk about evolution. ;)

  5. English Viking says:

    In the words of Edward I, “The hammer of the Scots”, the main problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scottish people.

    Evolution is a ludicrous lie.

  6. faulksd says:

    Evolution certainly is a ludicrous lie which was found in ancient Greek philosophy. However, if the theory didn’t exist, it would be necessary for somebody to invent it, as Voltaire might have said. Without it, there wouldn’t have been the bloodshed that resulted from Marx and Nietszche’s stupid and dehumanising theories.

  7. John Leon says:

    Well, at long last I have read a blog that puts into words what I lack the eloquence to say, well done sir!

  8. len says:

    I think people cling to the myth of evolution (despite the ever growing holes in the theory) because the only alternative(Creation, and thereby accountability to the Creator) is a fact that is unacceptable to fallen man.

  9. Hi Stewart,

    I’m new around here so sorry if I am covering old ground. I am studying biology and geology at the moment so I might be able to help.

    You make various claims that raise some relevant questions;

    Re the Grand Canyon – how do you think it formed?

    For that matter how old do you think the earth and the universe are?

    Catastrophism was rejected by creationists in the early nineteenth century based on the evidence they saw. Not sure why you say everything must now fit into it – it doesn’t we have a much more nuanced view of geology now – we know that catastrophies happen but that everyday forces also play a key role in the geological history.

    Re Arcaheoperyx – paleontologists think it is a great intermediate form precisely becuase it has some bird characters, but it also has none bird characters which you don’t seem to know about – well you don’t mention them anyway – do you want to know what they are?

    Your cavefish story seems to fit in perfectly with my understanding of evolution and genetics – how do you think it doesn’t?

    Finally, please can you clarify this;

    “Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist.”

    Seeing as physics, chemistry, astronomy and cosmology all line up behind biology and geology in the description of the history of the universe are you suggesting that all these disciplines are also wrong? Or do you think they are all part of a conspiracy? Or do you have some other explanation?

    Look forward to your response.

    Kind regards,

    Psi

  10. Your trackback doesn’t seem to be working. My thoughts on your argument are at http://www.spinneyhead.co.uk/archives/2010/09/06/scotlands-creationists-are-devolving/.

  11. len says:

    Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

  12. Hi len,

    You said this;

    “But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.)”

    There are several such;

    Unequal crossing over, chromosome fusion/duplication. Gene duplication. The action of transposons etc.

    Plus several more. Just do something googling.

    So sorry to break it to you but are quite simply just dead wrong on that one I’m afraid – sorry about that. Who on earth told you there was no such thing?

    I’d have a word with them if I were you.

    They are either ignorant of the subject they are telling you about or they are trying to deceive you. Very unpleasant behaviour I’m sure you will agree.

    – – –

    Anyway, still looking forward to the answers to my questions above from Stewart.

    Kind regards,

    Psi

    Regards,

    Psi

  13. Hi Psiloiordinary,

    You are an evolutionist and you are obviously incredibly clever – what with you knowing about science and all. (Myself I’m just an ignorant creationist hill-billy.)

    I’d like to benefit from your expertise.

    I have 1001 apes and I’d like to give them to you for a big experiment.

    If the theory of evolution has any merit to it then I think evolutionary scientists should be able to prove it some time soon. After all that’s proper science isn’t it?

    Now, my question is this: With a laboratory full of apes, do you think that evolutionary scientists can start with those apes and – using only the apes’ genetic material – breed the apes into human beings over a few generations?

    Can evolutionary scientists genetically evolve apes into humans?

    That’s the sort of hard evidence that might convince hill-billies like me to accept evolution and dismiss creation.

    We need some proof for this evolutionary theory.

    If humans did evolve from apes, it should be possible for smartypants 21st century biologists and genetic whizzkids to create [sorry, I meant to say evolve] humans out of apes in the lab.

    I look forward to Richard Dimkins or anybody else ever turning apes into humans.

    Or if that’s too hard, how about just training an ape – which is so genetically similar to a human [but not 100% genetically the same of course!] – to read, write and speak?

    Or how about training an ape to put on a shirt and tie, or make a cup of coffee?

    Until then I think I’ll stick with God.

    As a rational human being, it makes much more logical sense to me to believe in a creator God than to believe in an unproven and unprovable theory of the evolutionary ridiculous.

    It’s actually tragic that so many people are deceived into accepting evolution as scientific fact.

    You know very well that the evidence supports creation.

    You know evolution is full of holes (like polystrate fossils).

    Grow up, get a life and join the human race.

  14. Hi Richard,

    Wow you are really rude aren’t you?

    I haven’t been rude at all.

    Good example you are setting there.

    I suppose I could get all offended and go now but then you would probably take that as some kind of justification for the points you have raised.

    So here we go – your comment in “quotes”.

    “Hi Psiloiordinary,
    You are an evolutionist and you are obviously incredibly clever – what with you knowing about science and all. (Myself I’m just an ignorant creationist hill-billy.)
    I’d like to benefit from your expertise.”

    I think you are trying to some how imply that I am insulting you by you insulting you and pretending that it is the kind of thing I said.

    The only problem with your clever ruse is that it isn’t working – not sure why – but just keep going with it though till I can prove it doesn’t work.

    The next bit is excellent;

    “I have 1001 apes and I’d like to give them to you for a big experiment.
    If the theory of evolution has any merit to it then I think evolutionary scientists should be able to prove it some time soon. After all that’s proper science isn’t it?”

    No. Science works by falsification. Science doesn’t work by proving things in the sense you suggest.

    Now who told you it does? Why would they lie to you about it?

    “Now, my question is this: With a laboratory full of apes, do you think that evolutionary scientists can start with those apes and – using only the apes’ genetic material – breed the apes into human beings over a few generations?
    Can evolutionary scientists genetically evolve apes into humans?”

    No – they can’t fly to Mars in a cucumber sandwich either.

    Let me try to ask you a similar question to try to help you understand how yours comes across;

    Why doesn’t your god change my left foot into a cucumber sandwich then fly me to Mars in it?

    Get my point?

    I am trying to make the point that you should engage with the actual evidence and engage with the claims that science is actually making rather than making up silly things – like I did.

    I am actually genuinely impressed with the next bit which is really very nearly correct;

    “That’s the sort of hard evidence that might convince hill-billies like me to accept evolution and dismiss creation.
    We need some proof for this evolutionary theory.”

    Your own version of events is creation by the christian god who is omnipotent – so why couldn’t he have just designed it so that scientists could just do that experiment you suggested anyway?

    I am serious – he can do anything at all can’t he?

    So that particular test would not work to disprove creationism.

    In fact no test anyone has yet thought of could ever falsify the hypothesis that an omnipotent god just decided to do it that way.

    This is why scientist don’t include gods in their day to day work – even though a great many of them are religious. (Although perhaps the same people who gave you the dud science info might also be telling you that somehow no true christians can be biologists.

    BTW I will be happy for you if I am wrong on this one – just let me know.

    “If humans did evolve from apes, it should be possible for smartypants 21st century biologists and genetic whizzkids to create [sorry, I meant to say evolve] humans out of apes in the lab.”

    No.

    “I look forward to Richard Dimkins or anybody else ever turning apes into humans.”

    Another insult – this really isn’t very christian is it – I think that most christians I know would be pretty ashamed of you by now.

    “Or if that’s too hard, how about just training an ape – which is so genetically similar to a human [but not 100% genetically the same of course!] – to read, write and speak?”

    Cucumber sandwich. Mars.

    “Or how about training an ape to put on a shirt and tie, or make a cup of coffee?”

    ditto

    “Until then I think I’ll stick with God.”

    Again you seem to think it has to be that you can’t accept the science and believe in god at the same time and that simply isn’t true – do some googling and look for yourself.

    “As a rational human being, it makes much more logical sense to me to believe in a creator God”

    You are very welcome to do so.

    ” than to believe in an unproven and unprovable theory of the evolutionary ridiculous.”

    You have yet to address anything of any relevance to evolutionary theory – perhaps the first step might be to learn about it – you might well find you can do both like millions of folks do.

    You might not lose your temper so often then as well.

    “It’s actually tragic that so many people are deceived into accepting evolution as scientific fact.
    You know very well that the evidence supports creation.”

    Please do fire away with this evidence – happy to look at it.

    “You know evolution is full of holes (like polystrate fossils).”

    They were debunked by creationist geologists more than 150 years ago.

    Do you at least know what the arguments are that explain polystrate fossils? If you don’t then how can you honestly say they are wrong?

    “Grow up, get a life and join the human race.”

    Manners maketh the man (or little boy)

    Kindest regards,

    Psi

    PS I think this might make a good blog post.

  15. Let me get this straight…

    You think I should believe what you believe even though you can’t prove what you claim and what you claim has not been observed? I’ll take a raincheck on that!

    I have not said science and faith are incompatible; on the contrary, genuine science backs up belief in creator God. And being a Christian and exercising a sharp wit aren’t incompatible either – particularly where an important truth is at stake.

    As a man of reason I want facts and I want evidence and I want eyewitness testimony. Evolutionary pseudo-science gives me none of this. By contrast the Bible gives me hard facts and irrefutable evidence and eyewitness testimony about God. So I’ll trust in God and hope for Dimkins’ sake that one day he does too.

  16. len says:

    WHY do people still believe in evolution? Why does the scientific world still want to convince us – after 150 years of unsuccessful looking for answers – that evolution is THE theory that explains our existence or is even a FACT?
    Evolution has become a religion, it has its’bible'(the theory) it has its founder(Darwin) its prophets( Dawkins the most prominent) and its followers, who with blind faith cling to the ‘theory’ because the alternative is too frightening .

  17. Belief is for the creationists. I understand that evolution explains the diversity and wonder of life far better- and with masses of proof- than religion, which boils down to “My imaginary friend made it happen, and if you show me anything which proves I’m wrong then you’re obviously lying!”

    Mr. Carvath, there are some very funny Christians (and Jews, Muslims and atheists). Your wit, however, is as dull as a rock.

    Psi,

    I commend you on being so polite to these folks, they certainly don’t deserve it. Keep taking them apart, but they’ve chosen to be ignorant and seem to think that every time you show them why they’re wrong it’s somehow a victory for them. I just drop in occasionally to sample the dimness nowadays.

  18. len says:

    Nothing is more revered in the society of Babylon than the possession of knowledge. But it is not a knowlege of God that drives our universities and powers the planet’s intellectual hunger. It is the understanding of the elements of this doomed creation and all of its component parts that obsesses their study.
    Hypnotized by a creation that is nothing more than temporarily charged particles vibrating in a vacuum of space and time — the evolutionists and the intelligentsia who’ guide’ us (and are brainwashing our children) dictate that this we should elevate, not the Gospel which rescues us from Satan’s grasp.

  19. len says:

    The whole vast structure of modern naturalism(seems to)depend not on positive evidence but simply on a priori metaphysical prejudice…and is devised not to get in facts but to keep out God.
    ( C S Lewis)

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    John Leon,

    Thank you, sir. I do my best.

  21. Stewart Cowan says:

    Len,

    I think people cling to the myth of evolution (despite the ever growing holes in the theory) because the only alternative(Creation, and thereby accountability to the Creator) is a fact that is unacceptable to fallen man.

    I think you are absolutely correct. Evolutionists have to make the evidence fit their theory whether it deserves to or not.

  22. Stewart Cowan says:

    Welcome, psiloiordinary,

    Normal service has been resumed and I am responding to comments.

    Re the Grand Canyon – how do you think it formed?

    During the Flood.

    For that matter how old do you think the earth and the universe are?

    Thouands of years old.

    Catastrophism was rejected by creationists in the early nineteenth century based on the evidence they saw. Not sure why you say everything must now fit into it – it doesn’t we have a much more nuanced view of geology now – we know that catastrophies happen but that everyday forces also play a key role in the geological history.

    Creationists and Christians slowly adopted Darwinism as the disinformation became considered as ‘facts’.

    Re Arcaheoperyx – paleontologists think it is a great intermediate form precisely becuase it has some bird characters, but it also has none bird characters which you don’t seem to know about – well you don’t mention them anyway – do you want to know what they are?

    Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird. How do you think the reptilian lung changed to become an avian lung? It’s rather far-fetched, don’t you think?

    Your cavefish story seems to fit in perfectly with my understanding of evolution and genetics – how do you think it doesn’t?

    I disagree with the timescale.

    Finally, please can you clarify this;

    “Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist.”

    Seeing as physics, chemistry, astronomy and cosmology all line up behind biology and geology in the description of the history of the universe are you suggesting that all these disciplines are also wrong? Or do you think they are all part of a conspiracy? Or do you have some other explanation?

    I think there is conspiracy, for example, the way evolutionists get the funding and the air time and the EU wants to outlaw Creation science as it is assumed to be contrary to its equality agenda.

    If the truth is thousands of years and not billions, then all those disciplines have been severely compromised.

  23. Stewart Cowan says:

    Some good points, Richard. And psiloiordinary, science is based on observation. If it cannot be observed then theories have to be devised. In the case of the TofE, the observations do not support the Theory. Reptilian lung to avian lung by gradual mutation: really? It has never been observed and while theoretically possible, is very highly unlikely. “Millions of years” is covering up a multitude of errors.

  24. Stewart Cowan says:

    Len, Satan is working overtime in these final days. Evolution theory is perhaps his crowning “glory” as he seeks to steal as many souls as he can to share his eternal misery with before Christ returns.

  25. Stewart,

    Ok let’s look at your way of walling yourself off from reality in detail shall we?

    You think Noah’s flood was real and the world is only several thousand years old.

    Your key evidence for this is the way you choose to read the bible – which is very different to the way the vast majority of christians read it. You view all this as part of your identity and you don’t really have to try much to ignore all the other evidence that contradicts your view, instead the act of confabulating, selectively misinterpreting simple english conversation, ducking out on questions that might make you think and your pompous lecturing from a basis of almost peerless ignorance are all part of the experience to you. You actually get a buzz from it, and this just reinforces to you that you must be right.

    A small part of you can occasionally be heard screaming in the quiet hours, but hey no one has everything just right do they (you tell yourself).

    Let’s look at your response to me above in some detail;

    First we get vague claims of “disinformation” with no substance or detail.

    This was my point about a great intermediate fossil;

    “Re Arcaheoperyx – paleontologists think it is a great intermediate form precisely becuase it has some bird characters, but it also has none bird characters which you don’t seem to know about – well you don’t mention them anyway – do you want to know what they are?”

    Your response ignores everything important about my points;

    “Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird.”

    Fascinating. I am sure you did read my points and I am fairly certain you must have understood them, you are not daft and they are very simple points. Yet your brain seems to have blocked them out and you weakly limp around them.

    I am not sure if you actually noticed this. Your view of yourself just reinforces that it doesn’t matter, I suppose.

    Instead you change the subject.

    “How do you think the reptilian lung changed to become an avian lung? It’s rather far-fetched, don’t you think?”

    Now you demand evidence from fossils that we don’t get from fossils (well not very often) i.e. soft tissue. Its a bit like demanding that you need to see a square circle and just shows up your ignorance of geometry.

    We see the same dodging dishonest (probably sub-consciously so; you are brain blind to your own behaviour most likely) approach – ignore the points and make an irrelevant comment from elsewhere in your playbook;

    Me – “Your cavefish story seems to fit in perfectly with my understanding of evolution and genetics – how do you think it doesn’t?”

    You;
    “I disagree with the timescale.”

    Classic.

    My final key point slips off your brain like water off a ducks back;

    Me;
    “Finally, please can you clarify this;
    “Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist.”
    Seeing as physics, chemistry, astronomy and cosmology all line up behind biology and geology in the description of the history of the universe are you suggesting that all these disciplines are also wrong? Or do you think they are all part of a conspiracy? Or do you have some other explanation?”

    You;
    “I think there is conspiracy, for example, the way evolutionists get the funding and the air time and the EU wants to outlaw Creation science as it is assumed to be contrary to its equality agenda.
    If the truth is thousands of years and not billions, then all those disciplines have been severely compromised.”

    QED

    You hammer my points home for me with this;

    “Some good points, Richard. And psiloiordinary, science is based on observation. If it cannot be observed then theories have to be devised. In the case of the TofE, the observations do not support the Theory. Reptilian lung to avian lung by gradual mutation: really? It has never been observed and while theoretically possible, is very highly unlikely. “Millions of years” is covering up a multitude of errors.”

    You have given us great examples of your ability to deny observation with the very points you ignored above – you have also failed to provide any yourself.

    Listen Stewart, you have never seen an oak tree grow from an acorn either. The only reason you don’t throw mud at that idea is because it doesn’t contradict your personal reading of the bible. This is your position beginning and end. This is not science.

    This one simple fact explains all the evidence that you instead carefully nurse, twist and throw about as evidence of a worldwide conspiracy against you. Like a creationist gollum you are hiding in a cave from the sun. In your case this blog is the cave and the light is the truth of reality as revealed by many thousands of scientists around the world and you can’t even admit to yourself that many of them are religious. Instead you rant and rave against atheists and secularists and government and the religious.

    PS the fact that you also appear to think that the world is soon to end means that imho you actually need serious help. I won’t be commenting here anymore as I don’t want to think I might have contributed to your problems.

    The good news for you is that it is possible to break out of the mental cul de sac you find yourself into, you just need to stop making neat little piles of “evidence” and instead have a good long look at yourself.

    PS I have a copy of this ready for my blog – it makes a good case study.

  26. English Viking says:

    Psiloiordiary,

    Wow, you’re really clever. I bet you’ve got a certificate.

  27. Stewart Cowan says:

    psiloiordinary,

    Oh dear! You start dealing with the actual issues a quarter of the way into your post. Btw, the “majority of christians” probably read scripture in view of the TofE hoax.

    There is loads of evidence for a global flood. In fact, it is the best explanation for a large number of the planet’s geological features.

    Some scientists think there was a global flood on Mars. But then, it’s easy to believe this seeing as there aren’t any scriptures which could be reaffirmed.

    Re. Archaeopteryx, it is actually a bird. Okay, it has some features in common with reptiles, but so what? Whales, sharks and Ichthyosaurs have several similarities. But one’s a mammal, one’s a fish and the other’s a reptile.

    Why don’t you admit that, even if Archaeopteryx were a transitional form (I’m not saying it is), there are still countless missing from the fossil record and in the living world.

    It is such a glaringly obvious flaw in the Theory of Evolution – the elephant in the room – yet you cannot see it.

    The remainder of your post sees you disappear further down your own self-indulgent hole by disguising your blindness with clever verbal constructions.

    The blind leadeth the blind and you are a classic case of being led.

    It is odd how humanists and secularists commonly resort to name-calling and accusations of mental illness. Shows how desperate you are to cling onto this ridiculous theory which predates a huge number of important discoveries and inventions, such as DNA and electron microscopes.

    You make a reasonable attempt at using smear tactics, which could convince the weak-minded, but science-wise, your arguments are flawed and empty, and that’s what matters.

    So go on, enjoy yourself, writing about the mental illness of the Creationist, while ignoring the elephant in the room.

  28. Frank Davis says:

    I see. You think evolution can make small changes, but not large changes. But where does the line between small and large get drawn?

    Looking through the comments, I agree there was a flood. We’re currently living in an interglacial period, one of which happens every 100,000 years or so, and only lasts about 10,000 years. A little over 10,000 years ago, a great deal of ice melted, raising the global sea level by several hundred metres (can’t remember exact figure). And that’s a flood. And no doubt it rained plenty during the time the sea level rose.

    Seen from that perspective, our world – the one we know now – only came into ‘existence’ a few thousand years ago. And it’s quite likely to start ceasing to exist any time around now, as the planet slips back into ice age conditions. i.e. there’s quite likely to be an ‘end of the world’.

    All of which makes for agreement of sorts between faith and reason.

    Frank

  29. Stewart Cowan says:

    Welcome Frank,

    (Only first-time comments are moderated to keep out the spammers.)

    But where does the line between small and large get drawn?

    Good question, but I don’t think the line is very far down the evolutionary path before a dead end must necessarily be reached.

    I don’t agree with your timescales, but there is evidence of a global flood – in fact, it is the best explanation for much of the earth’s current geographical features.

    I’ll look forward to the “experts” announcing the dawn of a new ice age and that we must burn all the fossil fuels we can in order to try and warm the planet!

    But yes, I maintain that there is no inconsistency between real science and the Christian faith.

  30. Frank Davis says:

    I don’t think the line is very far down the evolutionary path before a dead end must necessarily be reached.

    I can’t see what this line is between, unless it’s a bit like the options available from a manufacturer of cars. So you can have a range of colours, a range of engine sizes, a convertible, automatic gears, etc.

    I don’t agree with your timescales, but there is evidence of a global flood – in fact, it is the best explanation for much of the earth’s current geographical features.

    The English Channel is believed to have been the result of sea level rise. There is indeed evidence of considerable flooding

    I’ll look forward to the “experts” announcing the dawn of a new ice age and that we must burn all the fossil fuels we can in order to try and warm the planet!

    I won’t be at all surprised if exactly that happens!

    Incidentally, although I accept the idea of evolution, I loathe Darwin’s “war of nature”, which I think was a wholly unnecessary superstition, and which I also think helped cause both world wars. And I thoroughly dislike Richard Dawkins’ attacks on religion. There always seems to be something rather nasty about Darwinists. If I were to be forced to choose to be either a Darwinist or a Creationist, I’d choose the latter – because Creationists aren’t murderous.

    And I think anybody is entitled to believe whatever they like. I just happen to find the idea of evolution almost instantly understandable and explanatory. I adopted the idea the moment I heard of it, aged 6. But other people never accept it. For example my mother never did. And that’s interesting. It’s interesting that people accept some ideas and not others. Some people find it infuriating.

  31. Why psiloiordinary mentions the fact that Stewart Cowan has not observed an acorn growing into an oak I do not know. Is psiloiordinary stupid or something? It’s obviously a sophist argument! It is possible to observe an acorn growing into an oak. (And it is acknowledged that oak seeds grow into oaks, and that oaks sow acorn seed). But it is not possible to observe any of the idiotic nonsense about apes becoming humans which forms the basis of the pseudo-scientific religion of evolution.

  32. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘But it is not possible to observe any of the idiotic nonsense about apes becoming humans’

    Oh but it is. Just not over the course of your lifetime.

    Hi Stewart. I’ve been voting up your comment on TH’s blog about what should have happened to Nick Robinson. It really made me laugh – great stuff. Just voted for it again but pressed the wrong button and voted you down one. Apologies. More of that and less of the stuff that I disagree with.

  33. Stewart Cowan says:

    Frank,

    Sorry for delay in replying.

    That’s a good comparison with minor variations in cars.

    All over the world there is evidence of the Flood, even Australia.

    It’s interesting that you blame Darwinism for both world wars. I think it did play a big part, especially with the Nazis, of course.

    It can be blamed for many things, e.g. Australian Aborigines used to be killed for specimens for museums as “missing links”. Murderers have been quoted as saying that if the TofE is true, then there is no right or wrong. In today’s society, the increasing rejection, even ignorance, of the Christian ethos with its hard work, sexual morality, honesty, compassion, justice, etc. is having a serious effect on everyone. And when people believe there is no reward for sin and no ultimate salvation, then they won’t behave responsibly.

    Which brings me nicely on to Dawkins! He gets away with it because of his posh accent and letters after his name. I started reading a couple of his books. I found them tedious because his raison d’etre is obviously destroying the faith of others. He admits this in “The God Delusion”.

    Like you, I believed in the TofE up until 6 years ago (aged 41). I saw how people were using it to violently denounce the teaching of Creationism and using it to denounce Christianity itself and I set about learning more.

    Like fake smoking ‘science’ and taking selective climate data to ‘prove’ whatever you want, I believe the TofE is one of the most important political tools. It is interesting that so many people do not believe the TofE. It’s a minority, but not a tiny one reserved to “swivel-eyed loons” like evolutionists like to imagine.

  34. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Jimbo,

    The TofE is very, very silly in light of discoveries over the past century.

    Are you saying you gave me a net zero for the Nick Robinson comment?

  35. Frank Davis says:

    Well, as you know, I have my own variant Idle Theory of Evolution, which I might call TofE2. What you call TofE is what I call Darwinism, which is a murderous idea, and which Darwin knew was a murderous idea (“It is like confessing a murder,” he said) with it’s perpetual War of Nature.

    TofE2 isn’t (in my view) a murderous idea. It is much nearer, I think, the logic of the letter that Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to Darwin than anything Darwin ever wrote. I would also say that it has its own inherent morality. But nevertheless TofE2 remains a theory of evolution.

    Dawkins is a Darwinist. All Darwinists idolise Darwin, and Dawkins is no exception.
    And I think this is significant, because it fixes on a particular man and his particular idea. And Darwinism, red in tooth and claw, is a very particular idea. And as as far as I am concerned, it is Darwinism that needs to be dismantled and got rid of.

    I seriously doubt that I’ll ever become a Creationist, but I don’t see that everybody must all think exactly the same way about everything. It’s one of the things I loathe about Dawkins, that he just won’t let things be, but sets off to convert the unconverted to his own faith. For in the end, Dawkins’ is as much a faith as any of those he sets out to attack.

  36. Stewart Cowan says:

    You wrote a lot of sense there, Frank. I’ll keep “banging on” about Creationism and hope readers catch on. If the TofE2 relies on “goo-to-you evolution”, it still contradicts the evidence (lack of intermediates) and defies the odds. In my humble opinion!

  37. Frank Davis says:

    I wrote an essay some while ago about the lack of intermediates in the fossil record.

    One would think that, as species slowly and gradually evolved, all the intermediates should appear in the fossil record. But I suggested that the idea of this slow, uniform process of evolution, with species changing slowly, was perhaps wrong – and that instead most evolution took place during population explosions. Over a long period of time there’d be relatively little variation, and then suddenly in a relatively short period of time there’d be a lot. When, as generally happens after a population explosion, the population crashes, the survivors might be many steps different from the ancestral pre-population-explosion type. The fossil record would then show the ancestral types remaining unchanged for long periods of time, and then ‘suddenly’ being replaced by a considerably different type.

    But it’s just a theory! And theories should be taken with a pinch of salt. ;-)

  38. Stewart Cowan says:

    I have read your essay, Frank. I didn’t realise you had studied the subject to this degree. Punctuated equilibrium certainly offers a way out of the problem re. lack of transitionals, which, as you wrote, was a problem for Darwin too. I would say that with the same problem 150 years on, the traditional phyletic gradualism hypothesis must be wrong. I cannot envisage the time when, suddenly and at last, rocks will start proving us wrong on this point by revealing the fossils of a multitude of strange intermediates.

    That said, I also have problems with P.E. as you would expect. You would think that definite transitionals would still have been found and many of the problems associated with phyletic gradualism still remain with this theory.

    Did you get back to Lyme Regis?

  39. Frank Davis says:

    Punctuated Equilibrium never seemed to me to have been formulated into anything more than the observation that in the fossil record, variation (in trilobites, for example) seemed to happen quite suddenly. There was a step change. But they (Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge) didn’t seem to have an explanation of why that might have happened.

    What I set out in my essay was one theory of how that kind of step change might have appeared. The transitional types simply weren’t around for long enough or in sufficient numbers to appear in the fossil record, bearing in mind that 99.99% of living things never get fossilised. Or, if they did appear, they’d be extremely rare.

    But while this explanation is quite good at explaining some sorts of step changes, like the lengthening necks of my giraffes, it doesn’t seem so good at explaining more radical changes, which may have required the accumulation of thousands or even millions of generations of small changes. For example the supposed emergence of marine species onto the land, first as amphibians, and then as reptiles.

    And yes, I did make it back to Lyme Regis, and walked westward along the beach to the place where I’d found the soft shales I’d prised apart with a screwdriver years before. At that place (and in fact all along the coast) the cliffs are gradually being eroded into the sea, and every time you go there it’s different. And when I returned, there were far fewer blocks of shale to break open, and in the ones that I split open I found … almost nothing at all!

  40. Stewart Cowan says:

    I see Frank, you took P.E. a step further by offering this possible explanation yourself. Pity there aren’t more like you on Dawkins’ blog, rather than the ones I used to debate with before I was banned for mentioning the scriptures when somebody asked me questions about them. Do you think that there could have been enough specimens in small populations to achieve your long necks? I think there could possibly have been, but like you say, there are likely limits.

    I’m wondering how/if you can explain the major changes within an evolutionary context?

    How do you feel about the Creationist’s view that sediments were laid far more rapidly than orthodox geologists suggest (or insist)?

  41. Frank Davis says:

    offering this possible explanation yourself.

    Yes, that’s my own idea. It comes of me thinking within the confines of Idle Theory. I don’t really think quite like other evolutionists.

    I’m wondering how/if you can explain the major changes within an evolutionary context?

    Depends what you mean by ‘major’. I think the one that I’ve tended to think about most is the suggestion that marine animals became land animals. I have a hard time imagining how fish could climb out of the water. But it’s not so hard to imagine how arthropods like crabs might have done so: they’ve got legs, after all.

    As for the sediments, I’ve not thought about them much, or studied them. I believe that the dating of rocks is done using the radio-active decay of very slowly decaying isotopes, and is probably pretty solid nuclear physics.

    In general, I guess I’m not inclined to take anyone’s assertions of what happened when as being anything more than a suggestion of what the current consensus of opinion might be. And after the appearance of plate tectonics in my own lifetime, I’m well aware that scientific opinion can change radically very suddenly. When it becomes dogmatic, it sounds to me more like, well, …religion.

    I guess that as far as scriptures go, I see them as interesting historical documents, but ones which we may not fully understand. Biblical interpretation seems to be as much open to radical revision as any scientific theory, with chronologies, etc, being revised. Did you know that Isaac Newton was a biblical scholar (as well as an alchemist), and predicted the End of the World/Last Judgment for some time around 1850? He didn’t get everything right, it seems. I find it fascinating that the man who is arguably the founder of modern physics had these other, secret interests.

  42. Frank Davis says:

    On a slightly different tack, I think we’ve arrived at a very interesting juncture in the history of science. People now accept the teachings of ‘science’ as unquestioningly as they once believed the Church and the Pope 500 years ago. This uncritical attitude breeds corruption now just as it did then. The Climategate scandal is making a lot of people realise that scientists are as much capable of playing fast and loose as anybody else, to feather their own nests. There’s a great deal of bad/corrupt science around these days (and I’m thinking of nearly all antismoking epidemiology). Everything is shaping up very nicely for a collapse of public confidence in science in general, and not just climate or antismoking science. When that happens, everything that people have automatically believed because trusted scientists told them so will fall into doubt. People will no longer know anything with any certainty. It will be a giddy time, and will be in many ways a re-run of the Reformation (except with Science in the place of the Roman Church). I’d expect religions to benefit from a collapse of faith in science. Maybe Creationism might too. Suddenly, there’ll be everything to play for.

  43. Thinker says:

    then if evolution were true! why has man not evolved into a better person, instead of degenerating into something evil, one only needs to look at the world today and see what is happening.
    And no matter what good ideas or programmes he uses to try and make the world better, it simply gets worse.
    I quote: a you boy wrote a letter to God and asked HIm why do You not stop bad things from happening in schools: To which God replied, they have put me out of schools.

  44. Thinker says:

    just found this, makes interesting reading.
    http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_08.htm

  45. Thinker says:

    above reply wrong place sorry

  46. Ken says:

    http://www.globalcommunity.org/wtt/

    I just form opinions by logic. There are stars proven to be million light years away that we can see forming and dying yet creationists tell us the Earth is only 6000 years old. Does not make sense.

  47. Stewart Cowan says:

    Indeed they are and according to our knowledge it took them millions/billions of years to get where they are today, but this relies on the Big Bang being true. If God made the Universe, I don’t think He would have bothered with a Big Bang and an immensely long wait. Psalm 104:2 tells us that He “stretchest out the heavens like a curtain” so it could have been instantaneous, hence no need to wait ages.

  48. scott mc bride says:

    yeah i agree stewart we must wait patiently for the day when jesus comes back and takes us to heaven so am affraid for now we are stuck here untill jesus comes :D

  49. scott mc bride says:

    and if evolution was real why does it say in the bible god mad adam out off dirt and eve from his rib and how do you explain the world existance some people might say the big bang well i believe that to an extent i believe that it was god who created the big bang so thats you r proof
    dont worry stewart im backing you up all the way

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>