I went to the Utah museum of natural history last week and saw the following presented as scientific facts.
"Cancer cells have broken the compact established billions of years ago when the first free living, one-celled organisms banded together to form multicelled organisms, to form the republic of cells. The spectacular evolutionary success of those multicelled organisms has always...remained under the threat that some cells would rebel.
Boyce Rensberger
Since Evolution is defined as an "unguided" process, then how could all of these non sentient organisms incapable of communication, band together to form a republic? How do the cancer cells know to rebel? Strangely enough, the Evolutionary community always seems to describe this "unguided" process in terms that suggest guidance, intelligence, or intent.
"Why did sex evolve?"
"Sex evolved because it shuffles the genes of two individuals. This genetics combining leads to variation, the basis of evolution. And sex is a form if insurance. More diverse gene combinations give individuals and populations more tools to respond to change or disease."
What an unsatisfying answer.
1. It's circular. Sex evolved so that it could form the basis of evolution.
2. It implies guidance in a process claimed to be unguided.
3. The notion that two completely unrelated reproductive systems evolved in such a way that both managed to perfectly work together to create offspring seems very far fetched.
4. How does unguided evolution continuously manage to happen in a way that seems guided?
"Flowers evolved in step with their pollinators"
Animal pollinators and their flowers have specially adapted to benefit each other. The flowers provide food -pollen and nectar- for the pollinators. In turn the pollinators spread pollen, ensuring that the flowers can reproduce."
Much like the above, are we really supposed to believe that two species spanning multiple types of organism (plant/animal) somehow, through an unguided process, managed to survive long enough to go through the trial and error process that matched the flower with the pollinator? That these two disparate types of organism that rely on each other for survival somehow evolved for thousands (millions) of generations without having that which they relied on for survival?
I forgot to mention one additional thing.
At this museum, they had a laboratory where scientists (I assume) were working on fossils. One of them was grinding away on a fossil with an air powered Dremel type tool. I couldn't help but wonder what would prevent a scientist from going a little crazy with the grinder and "manufacturing" something new and different? Before anyone starts in on the integrity of evolutionary/Materialist/Naturalist Science, there are still resources available that are using the long debunked finch beaks, moths, and other proven hoaxes as proof of evolution. The history of hoaxes to "prove" evolution goes back a long way, and these hoaxes manage to keep being used long after they've been exposed as hoaxes.
4 comments:
Leftism has infected academia and it has metastasized.
Art,
It's not so much that leftism has infected Science, as Naturalism/Materialism/Darwinism have taken over Science and have ruled any other worldview out regardless of the evidence. Further, this (un)holy trinity have become so entrenched that pointing out the flaws in this (these) worldviews that Science has declared them unfalsifiable. IN essence, throwing the scientific method out the window. None of these can be tested, there is no way to repeat any testing, and they've simply declared that no amount of contrary evidence will be allowed to falsify them.
My problem with this situation, is that they don't see how ironic it is for them to use the language of design, purpose, and guidance, while denying that any of those things play a role.
"Naturalism/Materialism/Darwinism". Are those not manifestations of leftism? I think they are.
I think the relationship between the (un)holy trinity and leftism isn't necessarily a direct one, but I think that the left finds great appeal in any worldview that excludes a personal God who is active in His creation. I think that, if anything, the commitment to the Naturalistic/Materialistic/Evolutionary worldview has driven modern leftism more than it's been a result of it.
Post a Comment