Tuesday, May 10, 2005


In reference to the recent reopening of the "evolution creationism" debate in some schools, a liberal blog wondered in oh so many words why anyone would allow anything but evolution to be taught in schools, as, among other things, there was such a strong "scientific consensus" in it's favor.

Again, I found myself writing what I would have liked to post here in the comments section of someone else's blog:

Now, a lot of things have a "scientific consensus": the belief that homosexuality is normal, global warming, and evolution. Incidentally, the similarly incredible theories that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it had scientific consensus in their day. The most blatent abuse of "scientific consensus occured in 1977 when a panel of psychologists voted to remove homosexuality from the list of sexual deviations. Not by evidence, but by consensus. That is not science. Especially now, I think what scientists are forgetting is that science is not about voting, it’s about evidence. Evolution is the same way. The evidence is weak, and the logical assumptions that would have to be true for the theory to work, even weaker (for example, for evolution to be valid, you have to contridict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says basically that every natural system –without intellegent intervention, be it human or divine– eventually moves from order to chaos). To believe in evolution is about as logical as me believing that if I drop a ballpoint pen enough times I will get a space shuttle. I don’t care if every scientist on this planet jumped on the evolution bandwagon, it doesn’t mean the evolution makes any more sense.

And you would say, what about all the “missing-link” evidence for evolution? It’s all been worked backwards. If you believe dogmatically in evolution, like 95% of scientists do, any natural observation you see “proves” evolution. After all, there are many similar species, with one seeming to be less complex than another (a salamander and a lizard, for example). Now, if the only theory scientists have for the origin of species is that of evolution, then they start by assuming that the more complex animal evolved from the less complex one. Then, working the logic backwards, they would then site the existence (or the fossil evidence) of the less complex animal as proof of evolution, stating that it must be the ancestor of the more complex one. Ultimately, if enough scientists follow this logical fallacy, they start believing their own nonsense, and in turn, they make the public believe. How do you think the idea of the earth being the center of the universe came about? Someone figured the earth must be the center, then the greater scientific community pointed to all kinds of “evidence” that it was true, while just ignoring the fact that it was not really logical (but rather driven by dogma, like evolution), and surpressed all evidence to the contrary.

Lastly, how crazy of the theory is creationism really? Don’t worry, most scientifically minded christians don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old. In fact, if you do a small bit of studying, you will see that the bible eludes to this set of species as being the last in a line of creations, each of which were destroyed by some catastrophie (dinosaurs ring a bell?), something that earth's history of periodic mass extinctions seems to show. Additionally, if one thing evolved from another, what are all the fish and other creatures still doing around? If the most fit was going to survive to the exclusion of all others (the less fit) how come we are living on such a diverse planet, stocked with the so-called “less fit” all the way up to the most fit? Most importantly, creationism requires a much more believable logic. Either God created you or he didn’t. You’ve got a 50% chance of being right. For evolution to be logical, every small choice that could have made life more random or more organized has to be put into the equation, making the likelyhood that all those millions of possiblities lined up to reach this point something like 1 in 100 trillion. If I’m going to pick a theory, I’m going to pick that one has a 50% chance of being right, not the one with a 0.000000000001% chance.


Post a Comment

<< Home