God can exist without evolution but evolution cannot exist without God. There are far too many errors and gaps in the evolution theory to hold up without the aid of an intelligent designer, and with the intelligent designer present; what need have we for evolution?
To start things off I should make it clear that I don’t feel threatened by evolution (unless we’re talking about being forced to believe it at the barrel of a gun.) I do not see it as a religion shaking theory that will destroy the foundations of my beliefs. Could God have used evolution to create life on the world; sure, why not. My biggest beef with the theory is the close-minded ignorance it’s defenders subscribe to. While watching the Golden Compass, I felt modern science could have been the best fit as the antagonists of the story. Where once the Catholic Church cracked down on anything that disagreed with the misguided beliefs they posed as facts forgetting to hold only to the truths of the Bible, so now do Scientists crack down on anyone who strays from the Science establishments approved line (nicely funded by government cronies.) Don’t think so, keep an eye on any Scientists or Science journal writers who say one nice thing about I.D; their career is quickly over.
Now let’s make it clear, I do not believe that religion should mix with science, religion is based on faith and science based on reason. There is no science in evolution, science takes the facts and tries to come to a conclusion. Evolution takes the theory of evolution and looks for evidence to support it among a slew of evidence that contradicts it. I would also say that Creationism does the same thing, it has the idea of Creationism and tries to prove it. Intelligent Design, however, takes the facts and concludes that all evidence points to some sort of intelligent designer. You don’t have to believe in a religion to believe in intelligent design, agnostics believe in intelligent design. It is the most logical answer to the data around us.
I’m not a biology major so I’m not going to drown myself in a science that I’m not well versed in. I am a Social Science major, ah the soft sciences, constantly looked down on by the hard science establishment and thankfully largely grassroots. By grassroots, i mean still a real science that bases itself on real scientific principals. So instead of attacking evolution for its biological errors, I’ll attack it for it’s errors in human nature’s survival of the fittest. A quick look at a society would tend to support Darwin’s theory that the fittest in a society survive as the most intelligent tend to rise to places of power and prominence. So over time these controllers of our society would continue to gain in power, breed with other intelligent people and lead us towards evolving into a higher life form. One problem, actually a couple, the first being that as people gain prominence in a society, with the exception of kings, they tend to have few or no children whilst failures at life breed like rabbits. To add to that, humans by nature tend to grow mistrustful towards people who show advanced forms of intelligence. From the French Revolution to the Nazi to the ravages of the Khmer Rouge we’ve learned one thing by way of human history; the intelligent successful minority gets killed off. So looking at Darwin’s theory logically we should be getting less and less intelligent as time progresses, however, we are not. Take someone born in 1000 B.C. and someone born in 2008 A.D. and their propensity for knowledge is the same.
Another thing to note, “hard” Scientist’s denounce the Nazi’s eugenics theories, however, they fit perfectly with evolutionary theory.
When I read blogs like yours and other obviously intelligent people that disagree with evolutionary theory I can’t help but feel flabbergasted.
You never state what components of evolutionary theory you disagree with; instead, as is commonly done by those who share your point of view, you attack mainstream science on character. You obviously feel ID advocates are persecuted by the mainstream scientific community, yet you are forgetting that this is how science works. One person proposes an idea, and if the idea is not compelling it is discarded. Yet, I do see ID being used as a cover story by theists who wish to displace evolution, our best theory so far. I am a scientist and I have never seen any compelling evidence of ID; however, I’m interested if it is out there. Unlike the dogmatic creationists- ahem I mean ID proponents, Science is always open to a better theory, I think the crux of the issue is that mainstream science has not been persuaded that ID is a better theory. In the mind of the scientific community, those who are proponents of ID are not chosen for positions or taken seriously on the same merits as those who believe that the earth is the center of the solar system or that the earth is 6,000 years old.
In your blog, you state that you believe evolution must not be taking place since the the most evolutionarily fit individuals are not prospering. Your argument is based on the flawed assumption that Homo sapiens are continuing to evolve in the same self-improving way that other life is. As our technology and social support networks have improved we are no longer part of the bigger teeth, better shell, arms race that defines evolution. When looking for evidence of evolution you will find it far more fruitful to look to our more distant past or to any of the other organisms that share this wonderful planet. I hope you found my rant interesting, if not insightful.
P.S. I feel your attempt to associate proponents of evolution with eugenics is no less offensive, disrespectful and ludicrous than those who attempt to connect all theists with intolerance, holy war and terrorism. Perhaps we should blame nuclear weapons on radiologists, after all the same underlying theory of the atom is at work.
hahaha, I guess you took that from what I wrote on the Dailypaul.
“My biggest beef with the theory is the close-minded ignorance it’s defenders subscribe to.”
Haha, I think the first commenter made your point.
Hi there
Brave man.
I don’t enjoy arguing. I feel such a need to be polite and to make coherent arguments and not take things out of context. Not good traits for arguing with evolutionists. Anyway, good post, good points, and I appreciate your being willing to deal with the whole mess.
Grace and Peace,
Cindy
“Why should anyone listen to what you have to say? By your own admission, you don not know what you’re talking about.”
“why should anyone listen to you when you admit that you’re utterly ignorant of the subject upon which you’ve chosen to post a blogrant about?”
“Blog about what you know, not about what you, by your own admession, are utterly ignorant.”
Oh, I perfectly understand evolution. I have had to study it and I’m not ignorant of biological science but when it comes to the two, hard science and soft; why not use the one where the majority of my learning is from? Why try to argue from a direction that is all too often argued? That countless books have been written on both sides of the position; pointless.
I don’t write to lecture, I write to discuss. Thanks for taking the time to say your piece.
“The Lack of Science in Evolution”
“Now let’s make it clear, I do not believe that religion should mix with science”
“I’m not a biology major so I’m not going to drown myself in a science that I’m not well versed in.”
Why should anyone listen to what you have to say? By your own admission, you don not know what you’re talking about.
Your complete and total ignorance of the thery of evolution screams out with every word you write.
Why don’t you learn something about what you attempt to debumk? Perhaps it’s because you don’t want t “drown” yourself “in a science that” you’re obviously “not well versed in.”
Well, why should anyone listen to you when you admit that you’re utterly ignorant of the subject upon which you’ve chosen to post a blogrant about?
Answer: They shouldn’t.
Blog about what you know, not about what you, by your own admession, are utterly ignorant.