Thursday, February 19, 2009

Darwinian Evolution - My Two Cents Worth

I’m the result of a public education system in which Darwinian Evolution was taught as a theoretical option, with heavy leanings towards the assumption that one day it would be proven to be the one and only process whereby all living things came to be; in other words, Darwinian Evolution would eventually be taught as pure scientific fact rather than theory in future science classes. ( English teachers have encouraged me to respect the term “run on sentence” with little success. ) We were given half a moment to consider alternatives to the theory of evolution to include religious explanations for how life came to be on this planet we call Earth; things which could not be considered “scientific” and yet were at least permitted as part of the general discussion.

I noticed a recent ground swell of discussion as the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin was celebrated, or cursed depending on which side of the isle you happen to be seated. I say that tongue in cheek and yet I’d bet dimes to donuts there are weapons scanning equipment at the doors where folks go to express their opinions on this matter; that’s how enflamed the discussions are and have been all the way back to the Scopes “Monkey Trial”.

I even noticed a movie, Flock of Dodos , on the television the other day, a movie which I recorded, not so much because I wished to be “entertained”; more so because it’s part of my education process which is on going and eternal in nature. Perhaps I shouldn’t use inflammatory phrases like “eternal in nature”; but I couldn’t resist pouring some gasoline on an already hot topic, one which has so many of our godless society up in arms.

My purpose for writing on the topic of evolution has little to do with how this so called “pure science of evolution” will be spoon fed to students via the public school systems of today; bearing in mind the influences of the teacher’s unions pull toward a godless society and their vested interest to impose the hoax which we have come to know as “separation of church and state”. I see little hope for the public school system since teaching has taken a back seat to indoctrination; those able to learn how to think for themselves in such an environment do so in spite of the environment.

I wish to put in my “two cents”, mostly in terms of philosophy and logic rather than what is being laid out as “pure science”. If science is the search for truth, regardless of the outcome, regardless of proposed theories or postulation, then science has room for even the most outlandish thought processes. The laws of probability and outcome fall into science, an extension of mathematics, and must include fringe theory as well as irrational conjecture, along with foolish notions or even religious belief. These thought processes, while they remain unscientific, cannot be ignored in the search for scientific truths on the basis of their being “impossible” simply because the percentage of probability is relegated as marginal at best in numbers so insignificant as to be improbable; but not absolute zero.

Think about the simple game of Black Jack, or as some call it, 21, a card game with a set of rules easily understood and with a given set of known variables which determine the odds of winning. Those who understand the odds of winning have a better chance of taking advantage of situations which arise during the ongoing game as odds either improve in their favor or diminish, those odds being tied directly to the remaining cards within the “shoe” of cards. These odds do not predetermine the out-come, they simple invoke percentages based on the mathematics of probability; pure science if ever there was such a thing.

The “house” encourages anyone with money to play (lose that money) while, as was shown in the movie, discourages “card counting”, and the improved odds which make winning against the house a probability rather than a gamble. The invitation to “sit at the table” of discussion when the science of “origins” remains within the “shoe” of possible answers would seem to have a “stacked deck”.

I visited and read many articles these past few days, most of which are quite interesting regardless of my own personal beliefs, beliefs which are based both on my knowledge of pure science and faith based teachings. What I found, and this point was brought out in the movie, Flock of Dodos; as a rule, those folks in the alleged scientific and teaching community, the ones supposedly in search of answers, regardless of whether or not the answers fit the popular model or theory; these folks show an enormous lack of civility or tolerance toward anyone with an opposing view, more especially anyone who even mentions the trigger words, “Intelligent Design”.

Rather than consider the possibility that other explanations for the “origin of species”, a generality to explain all forms of life, regardless of how slim or remote other explanations might be, “evolutionists” have already determined such explanations as having “zero” percentage outcomes and so refuse to consider them at all; hardly scientific methodology and more like, “I own the basketball, it’s my basketball court so you have to listen to me and me alone!”

In an article written to explain the humor and content of the movie, Flock of Dodos, Ker Than, a staff writer for Live Science came to a similar conclusion, “Despite Olson's dismissal of intelligent design in his film, scientists come off looking even worse. During interviews, evolutionists appear stiff, condescending, inarticulate and arrogant.”

I looked up articles which included the term “Intelligent Design” and found links to other terms such as “irreducible complexity”, as eloquently explained by a fellow named, Michael Behe, and the “watchmaker” or teleological arguments of William Paley who was peer of Darwin with opposing views on the origins of life.

Not surprisingly, the evolutionist community and spokespersons for the teachers unions slammed Michael Behe equating his insane notions with something akin to a snake oil vendor pretending to have an elixir with some social redeeming value, the concept of irreducible complexity was pooh-poohed as totally flawed and the self appointed gate keepers of human knowledge dismissed the watchmaker argument without so much as a “get thee behind me”; again, forgive my pouring gasoline on the fire of enraged sophistry.

Now, admittedly, I never heard of “irreducible complexity” until the other day; at least not in those terms. I’d have to add that to my list of interesting concepts which are worth at least more than a cursory glance; much more than the evolutionist crowd is willing to lend it. The same holds true for the basic concepts espoused in William Paley’s “watchmaker” deductions; actually having used this very same process of expression in an article I wrote over a year ago, Things Don’t Just Happen

I enjoy the writings of John Pratt, also linked within the content of, Things Don’t Just Happen, as he explained, in laymen’s terms and some fairly educated terminology, interesting ideas regarding calendars and astronomy. He has plenty of “credentials” to place him well within the scholastic community; however, since he intertwines scientific data with religion his opinions might not be accepted outside of a limited “fan” base; but that is speculation on my part.

He used a line of logic in his article, The Planets Testify of the Creator , a line which requires the reader to accept the laws of mathematical probabilities after having outlined and explained the “set times” of planets as they relate to each other and with the planet Earth; notice I didn’t say possibilities.

“This is the kind of order which argues most strongly that the solar system was created to be a precise timepiece. The atheist can continue to claim that all such alignments are chance coincidences, but such a posture becomes extremely unlikely, and much harder to believe than simply accepting that it was designed.”

I’d have to say the same kind of statement would apply to “irreducible complexity”, at least in the case of the organically driven motor, a biological wonder, which Michael Behe has shown as an example. Whether or not Michael Behe is correct is not the purpose of my reference to his work; however, taking into consideration the mathematical possibilities and probabilities makes his case stronger than simply taking the evolutionist’s alternate explanation that such was the result of an extended period of natural evolution. In the words of an old friend Mitch, who used to sell furniture in the same store along side my father, “What a crock!”; and he wasn’t referring to cheese.

My closing thoughts have little if anything to do with evolution and fall into the category of personal belief and the purpose of human life. Those who consider themselves the byproduct of an evolutionary progression rather than descendants with royal lineage directly linked with the Creator of Heaven and Earth, for you I feel true sadness.

You have no real reason to enjoy mortality, no more so than a stray dog who wanders in, stays to enjoy a meal, sleeps at the foot of the sofa or chases an occasional cat up the tree. You live without the hope of an eternal progression promised to the children of our Father in Heaven; for when life is over, if there is no God, no Grand Designer of Life then there is only a cold grave with a mound of dirt.

There can be no joy living in the United States of America with a government formed and dedicated for a free people with a Declaration of Independence which, as I believe, is an inspired document which our Creator wanted our nation to have, to set it apart from all the other nations, a nation where the fullness of the Gospel could be restored. Our Creator, in whose image we are made, wanted our God given rights to be established via the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to distinguish Rights from entitlements; without such distinction our government would/will become consumed with power and corrupt the very foundations of liberty. Yes, without the possibility of Intelligent Design, much less the probability that our “Watchmaker” took deliberate steps in all that was created, then arguing about how we came to be is pretty much pointless.

No comments: