Posted by: jugglinbob | May 29, 2010

Faithandthelaw’s Blog (again!)

I thought I’d look through some other posts by the above mentioned Blogger.

Oh dear.

There’s a post titled

“Don’t be Deceived: Evolution Can Never Explain the Beginnings of the Universe”

It’s worth reading it in full, but I take no responsibility for any damage caused by throwing something at your screen…

In case you don’t want to risk damaging anything, I’ll summarise.

I hope you are sitting down though as this could be a shock – especially if you liked evolution as much as I did before reading this piece…

Evolution cannot and does not explain how the universe came to be.  It doesn’t explain the complexity of the universe.  It doesn’t even (sob…  sniffle…) bother to explain how life first occurred and so isn’t science!   Whah!  Sob!  Sniffle!  (I need a bosom to cry on if anyone’s available.  No.  Not you.  I was thinking of a female one – but thanx for the offer anyhow…)

How can I carry on?  How did I not see that this proves that evolution is false?  My life is ov… Hang on!  Sorry, say again? It doesn’t do what?  It doesn’t explain things that it didn’t try to?  By the same logic, maybe I should get rid of my car because of it’s lack of ability to microwave pigeons?

Yep that’s right.  Evolution is not a science, as it has no “foundation“.  Hmm…

If overwhelming evidence and support for evolution proves it as fact, someone should be able to supply peer-reviewed, experimental data for the following (after all, evolution can’t begin, let alone complete, unless all four are true). We’ll give a tongue-in-cheek summary of the theory of beginnings and evolution, and then in parentheses give the scientific principle requiring experimental data.

  1. First there was nothing (matter comes from nothing).
  2. And then it exploded (explosions produce order. Mythbusters would have fun with this one).
  3. From the goo, to the zoo (abiogenesis — life comes from non-life. Another one for Mythbusters).
  4. To you (new species evolve from mutations).

Here’s what I said –  Maybe too harsh?  You decide loyal readers (yep – both of you!)

I felt that the information provided in evolutionary data1 DID provide some scientific evidence, but this may be because I actually have some scientific knowledge.  You have shown that you do not by your “tongue-in-cheek summary of the theory of beginnings and evolution”

Let’s take this one by one:

1.First there was nothing (matter comes from nothing).

Yep.  Interesting implied question, but this isn’t evolution though.  Darwinian Evolution is the accumulative non-random selection of random changes, which results in a heritable change in a population.  Talking about the beginning of the universe is outside of the scope of ANY discussion on evolution, and belongs to physics one (or perhaps metaphysics?)

2.And then it exploded (explosions produce order. Mythbusters would have fun with this one). 

Ermm.  See above!

3.From the goo, to the zoo (abiogenesis — life comes from non-life. Another one for Mythbusters). 

And again – see above!  Any form of Darwinian Evolution does not try to explain abiogenesis.  This is possibly a chemistry discussion, but is certainly not evolution.  Evolution explains the diversity of life ONCE IT HAS BEGUN!  The only sorts of people who think that evolution is to do with these three points are the sorts that say “evolution is like a hurricane going through a junk yard and creating a working 747!”  (I realise that this is an Ad Hominem attack, and REALLY hope that you do not equate evolution to chance events as that really is laughable…)

4.To you (new species evolve from mutations).

Woo!  We got there!  Yep!  That’s evolution.  The others – nope!  And wow! the in-depth scientific proof of evolution is so overwhelming now, with fossils, DNA analysis, the distribution of similar life, and even lab work (for example Lenski (try for a primer on how an ID proponent tried to discredit his amazing work).  Evolution has been proved again, and again, and again.  Once presented with the facts (which are easily available online if you bother to look!) I think that it would be difficult for any rational person to disagree. 

However the points 1 to 3 raised are more interesting although science is making inroads into these as well.  There’s a great video here ( which is worth spending an hour watching.

Your whole concept that evolution has no foundation because of the questions still remaining in points 1 to 3 makes no sense whatsoever, especially as evolution has never tried to answer these points!  It has the same validity as me saying that the bible is false because you don’t (nor indeed do I) understand the chemistry needed to formulate the ink it is printed with. 

If you are going to attack evolution as a non-scientific theory, then do so using science, but to set up an elaborate, (and to be honest I think deliberate) straw-man in order to do it is (to me anyhow) both offensive and humorous. 

Maybe I’m being to harsh, and it is indeed the fact that you don’t understand what the scientific theory of evolution is actually about – in which case I apologise, and hope that you now use some of these thoughts to explore evolution in more depth.  It is beautiful, it is amazing.  It’s a fact!

It’s science! 

I’m not sure whether I should continue exploring this idiot/undereducated’s blog – I’m not sure my heart can take the strain!  But it’s fun – and they say you should try to get your heart racing everyday (and I’m trying to cut back on porn…)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: