Monday, March 31, 2008
Evolution means the gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.
There are basically two problems with this concept.
Problem #1: Evolution is impossibly improbable
Evolution proposes that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process.
This is basically comparable to someone illiterate attempting to publish books through random trial and error and customer selection. He would buy a printing press, open a bookstore, start printing and make more copies of whatever sold. At first he just arranged his printing type at random, printed and put the results on the shelves. No one bought anything since it was all gibberish. He threw all these failures into the trash bin and continued printing. Eventually, purely by chance, one small booklet actually made sense and in fact became a best seller. So he kept printing more copies of it. Occasionally, there would be some typographical error in the printing; purely by chance, a page would be smudged, a line would be missing. Generally these errors would cause the book to be defective and it would be thrown into the trash, however once in a while a typo would add more meaning to a copy of the book – perhaps a few interesting new sentences. People would ask for more copies of it. The illiterate author would then faithfully reproduce that typo. Gradually entire new books developed through this process of random typographical errors and customer selection. Eventually, the inventory in the book shop had expanded to include tens of millions of titles including novels, plays, poetry, scientific textbooks, history, biography, huge dictionaries and encyclopedias and so on. In fact, these books were actually far more beautiful and profound than books ever written by any human author. All of these were produced by a totally illiterate author through a process of random printing, typos and customer selection over a very long period of time.
Needless to say, such a process is unimaginably unlikely to be successful. It has already been calculated, for example, that the possibility of a monkey typing Hamlet is infinitesimally small.
For more details about this problem, I recommend the book "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner.
The atheistic response to this is as follows: God's origin would be even more improbable than the origin of life. Therefore belief in God resolves nothing.
This response is nonsense since God is eternal. For their argument to be valid, atheists would have to prove that an eternal Creator cannot exist, however of course they can't.
Problem #2: Evolution contradicts the fossil record
Over the past 200 years, paleontologists have very carefully examined the fossil record. If evolution were true, then we should see evidence of billions of intermediary stages between the earliest life and each of today’s living species, along with countless examples of failed organisms that could not reproduce. According to evolutionary theory, we should see a continuous very gradual change in life on earth from its first appearance following the formation of the oceans up to and including the present. (Evolution means "gradual improvement".) Major global catastrophes, if they occur, should result in a major reduction in the complexity of life on earth, not a sudden advancement to more complex forms. What we find instead are distinct eras populated with fully developed ecosystems: the Paleozoic Era, the Mesozoic Era and the Cenozoic Era, each of which seems to appear and disappear abruptly. The problem is not several missing links. The problem is that the overall pattern of the fossils is wrong. This clearly falsifies evolution. (However, it does not in my opinion contradict Judaism.)
It should be pointed out that animal breeding only works within narrow limits. Therefore it has no connection to evolution. Also, the fact that there are similarities between different animals does not prove a genetic relationship any more than similarities between different man made machines proves a genetic relationship. Allegedly vestigial organs really are not. "Poorly designed" animals are really just poorly understood. Bear in mind also that evolutionists have been known to use fraudulent misinformation to promote their beliefs. They also consider anyone who rejects Darwinism to be by definition an incompetent scientist, thereby in effect silencing any dissent within the scientific community.
Saying that evolution has nothing to do with atheism is far from accurate. The publication of "Origin of Species" made atheism respectable, popular and supposedly scientific. Prior to 1859, calling someone an atheist was equivalent to calling him a psychopath.
Darwin has been almost deified by atheists, some of whom celebrate Darwin Day. The Origins of Species is a stupid little book which would ordinarily have been immediately forgotten except for the fact that it promotes atheism. Some atheists treat it like a Bible. The word evolution is used by atheists as a substitute for God (as in "evolution designed", "evolution created", etc.).
Contrary to popular belief, genetics and taxonomy are not in any way based on evolution. In fact, Carl Linnaeus, founder of modern taxonomy, and Gregor Mendel, founder of modern genetics, were both creationists.
One thing extremely important to bear in mind when discussing evolution is that “natural selection” is merely a limiting and not a guiding factor. Natural selection can never reach into DNA and fix it to work better. That would be an example of “intelligent design” which is of course anathema to evolutionists. Rather, what is happening is that every organism, which was formed through pure random chance interaction of chemicals, radiation, etc., allegedly tries it’s hardest to reproduce as much as possible. Then “Nature” comes along and stops it at some point. An animal may die before it can reproduce at all, or it may die after having only one offspring, or after only a few generations, or it may have great survival abilities and overrun the whole planet, as humans have. That is all that natural selection can do. The fittest survive based on the limitations of nature, however the fittest arrive through random chance.
Most scientists are evolutionists although evolution is obviously false. The reason for this is because evolution means that there is no Biblical God, therefore there is no prophesy and therefore scientists are society's most important intellectuals. Therefore a great many scientists believe in evolution.
Many people who are devoutly religious also accept evolution. This includes members of the Roman Catholic Church and modern Orthodox Judaism. I believe that this has happened because of the popular perception, promoted by many scientists, that evolution has been “proven by science” and therefore it is unquestionably true. I would describe such individuals as “Useful Idiots”, in other words naive people cynically being used by atheists for their own selfish purposes. Two of the most prominent people in this category are Professor Kenneth Miller and Rabbi Natan Slifkin. Evolution certainly did not originate with religious people nor is it promoted primarily by religious people.
Some people might question how an ordinary layman such as myself can contradict the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. I am sure that a few hundred years ago, someone could likewise have asked how an ordinary Jew could question the resurrection of Jesus, which was accepted as unquestionable fact by all Western scholars and professors at that time. The answer is that any rational and well-informed person can and should separate the truth from officially endorsed nonsense. Bear in mind that education and official position have nothing to do with morality and honesty.
It is interesting to note, incidentally, that this international scientific statement about evolution seems a little more cautious than some American and British publications on the issue.
Evolution has no basis in science. It contradicts the most elementary principles of probability and paleontology. It certainly has no relationship to exact laboratory sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics. No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for a contribution to evolutionary theory. No new technology or medical treatment is dependent on the theory of evolution. While having great philosophical, theological and political importance, it has no relevance to science. It cannot even be called honest speculation about natural history. Rather, evolution is a fiction based upon a desire to deny God. It is an extremely dangerous fairy tale being fraudulently labeled "science". It has been called a universal acid which destroys tradition. It was one of the primary causes of the Second World War. It might be compared to Marxism, which was also not a science, but instead was a fiction based upon a desire to rob the wealthy. Perhaps not by coincidence, Christopher Hitchens, a great promoter of evolution, is also a former Marxist.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 2:21 PM