That’s not evolution!

Many of my conversations with unbelievers center on their belief in evolution as a fact.  Amazingly, I guess not surprisingly, most have never read Darwin’s work or completely understood what biological evolution encompasses.  As our discussions deepen, there is always a tendency to be condescending to my complete ignorance of what evolution teaches.  I keep silent about my education and experiences in lab, industry, development, research and field work.  I am often told to get educated on evolution before I enter conversations and show my ignorance.  You see, anyone who does not agree that evolution is a fact must not understand it.

 

Usually, these people are not educated about the “facts” of evolution.  They are convinced that evolution never included a fish-like creature turning into amphibians or amphibian-like creatures turning into reptiles; the very thing most design enthusiasts argue against.  They are oblivious that evolution has anything to do with molecules turning into cells, turning into plants and animals, turning into everything else.  All they seem to understand is that change from one species of life to another and even then they have no firm grasp of what makes a species.  When I make the distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution, molecules to man evolution, they snicker and say, “that’s not evolution!”  They are certain that evolution only happens at the species level and this, they think, has nothing to do with humans being related to redwood trees or earthworms.

 

Biological evolution is the idea that nonliving substances and random chemical reactions gave rise to biomolecules like DNA and RNA and even proteins.  None of this has been proven and any biochemist or organic chemist will tell you this is a flight of fantasy.  But, evolutionists (biologists) are fairly ignorant of other sciences so they argue it could happen (they might as well argue that blue whales could sprout wings and fly).  To continue, evolution is the idea that somewhere and at some time, life happened.  Nonliving stuff gave rise to a cell.  Somehow, and no one knows how, this single cell had all the tools to reproduce and so it did.  Natural selection, we are told, caused mutations in the genes of the ancestors of the first cell and this created information (a thing that is impossible or requires miraculous input or intelligent design but evolution will not admit to that).

Changes in information created new off-types which then created new species (whatever those are since biologist cannot agree on the definition of species).  And eventually, a bacterium became an animal and plant cell.  These, in turn, formed multicellular forms like algae and protozoa. The animal line created jellyfish, worms, starfish, fish, amphibians, reptiles and then mammals which formed us.  The plants formed from algae made mosses, lower vascular plants, ferns, palms, evergreens and finally flowering plants.  How do we know this?  We don’t.  Comparative anatomy simply shows that each life form increases in complexity.  It is assumed that what we see today are representatives of what had to have occurred yesterday, in the distant past.

While many scoff at the idea that reptiles had their beginning in a distant relative to the amphibians, according to evolution, these people miss the whole argument entirely.  If amphibians and reptiles shared an ancestor, literally millions of intermediate life forms would be required to separate the two types from that common ancestor.  This is the argument against evolution as a science.  There is no proof either in living things or in the ground as fossils or in some kind of other recorded history that such was the case.  How can one claim that evolution is a fact when the very proof for evolution is missing and only the current living beings exist; each easily classified into a single type.

But I am so often laughed at and told, “that’s not evolution!!”  I agree it is not evolution but a fantasy.

No fossils.  No lab experiments.  No DNA to measure the accuracy of these assumptions. But still, my point is that so many people argue for evolution but do not understand the extent of the assumptions that evolution makes and these without proof; only fairy tale stories of what might have happened.  This is not fact and it is certainly not science.

Biological evolution is not the only theory that depends on such fantasy.  Cosmology, geology, astronomy and even our versions of ancient history fill in the missing blanks with imagination, not science.  Cosmology says an entire universe popped into existence from… nothing.  The universe is held together by materials that are dark and energies that are unseen.  Astronomy explains the solar system, the existence of the sun and planets and moons by and evolution of their own and many astronomically impossible collisions.  It is the best we can do without invoking design.  Geology does the same.  Plate tectonics has no solid evidence and most research betrays this very idea.

Where are we left?  We are free to choose rational and reasonable alternatives to what scientists argue are the facts.  If there is a designer or designers, where is the evidence?  If there is intelligence behind creation, has it revealed itself?  Religion, in my opinion, is all man-made or stolen from revelation that is very difficult to understand.   I accept what science can prove by empirical methods; theories are speculative.  I believe in spiritual things only as I can know the source of such revelations, rejecting man-made additions to the many traditions that shackle free thought.   I want to know the truth so that I am certain to be free of the slavery of scientific and religious bullying that exists in every institution of learning.  It is a lonely journey but well worth the risk.   Having a sane mind and realizing that most folks believe by a blind faith, whether religious or scientific, is a satisfaction sufficient to content me.

The next time you argue with someone over evolution, find out what they actually understand evolution to mean.  You may find they know not what they speak of.  And that makes the discussion useless.