Evolutionary Creativity – Riiiiiiight

Evolutionary creativity.

Think about that for a moment. Say it aloud. Don’t think about it too hard, you’ll hurt yourself.

I thought I’d heard it all. Evolutionist are always using faith words and phrases:

– “We believe”
– “We think”
– “It’s possible that”
– “The consensus is”
– “Most scientists think”

Then they have the audacity to turn around and tell anyone who raises questions about the theory that it’s a settled matter. That evolution is a fact and not a belief.

Gravity is a fact. The laws of thermodynamics are fact. They can be observed and subject to experimentation which can be measured and repeated. Evolution lays outside the scientific method. It is not falsifiable.

No matter what objections are brought up they are either dismissed out of hand or judged religious because of the person raising the problem. Under no circumstances are they given serious consideration. This is faith not science.

But when I saw the statement, “evolutionary creativity,” I almost laughed out loud. It’s like saying, “accidental intention,” “aimless purpose,” black and white colour.”

What’s funny is that I understand how impossible it is to describe the incredible beauty, variety and complexity without using terms that are reserved for things created by intelligence. So we hear terms like “magnificently engineered,” to describe an accidental process.

It’s like going to a car dealership and being told that the red Ferrari on the lot was put together by blind monkeys.

You have to feel sorry for them. They are boxed in a corner. Everything they see screams intelligent design but they can’t say that. So they come up with the most ridiculous, silly arguments to hold on to their beliefs. Like the Wizard of Oz, they keep yelling into the microphone, “Don’t pay any attention to what those people are saying. We are the great and powerful scientists. They are nobody. They are religious.”

In reality, with all the discoveries in biochemistry, astronomy, geology and paleontology since the time of Darwin, the only thing evolutionists have left is labeling their detractors as “religious.” It’s not only irrational but childish, and shows the poverty of their position.

The theory hangs on like a man on life support. If they didn’t have control of the curriculum in public education and the levers of power in institutions of higher learning it would have died a long time ago.

The patient is brain dead and needs to be put out of its misery. It’s time to pull the plug if science is to have any chance of regaining its integrity and stop the slide into irrationality and intellectual suicide.

“They are religious,” just doesn’t cut it anymore.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and anyone with eyes can see that.


6 thoughts on “Evolutionary Creativity – Riiiiiiight”

  1. The points you made are among the ones I have repeatedly stressed in my blogging over the past 15 years, with the hope that the scientific community will come to their senses, and expand evolutionary theory to include the design hypothesis. I also stress that it’s not to inject religious dogma into academia or science per se, just a valid hypothesis to consider. Actually, the ‘design’ hypothesis is no less viable than Darwin’s totally unguided hypothesis, actually MORE viable based on the data. Thus, both need to be considered.

    The five bullet points you raised are spot on, since the formative aspects of evo theory are tentative and conjectural, rather than ‘hard fact’. As well, comparing evo theory to gravitational theory is a non sequitur, since testing a physical property is far from piecing together historical data, and then attempting to define causative mechanisms by conflating them with short-term observable ‘adaptive’ modifications, which cannot be shown to build novelty, complexity, and radical body plan revisions.

    Nick Matzke published a paper in 2003, which alleges to confirm flagellum evolution by unguided natural causation. As well, Kenneth Miller has published similar essays, disclaiming IC (Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity premise) by faulty logic. He merely singles out the basal structure as existing in another structure (the TTSS), implying that it evolved from it, while totally ignoring the functional complexity of the rotary motor construct.

    But regarding Matzke’s paper (Google ‘Matzke’ and ‘evolution in brownian space’), I have read it, dissected it, and posted regarding its highly conjectural content at a Huffington Post blog back in Sept, 2011. In it, I listed the count of words like “could”, “might”, “may”, “likely”, “perhaps” and a few more, which counted well over 200. Which begs the question: Just how smart are carbon molecules? or could it have been the result of a creative effort …

    Commenter Rabbi420 gave it as hard proof. I disagreed, and provided a rationale regarding. And rather than ‘religion based’, ‘design’ simply follows from deductive logic. And nothing in Matzke’s paper confirms natural causation, a non-empirically testable (falsifiable) hypothesis.


    1. Thanks for your comment. You have obviously given a lot of thought and research to this matter. And carbon molecules must be certified geniuses.


  2. Science can never demonstrate something to be true with complete uncertainty. Even the laws of thermodynamics could be overturned tomorrow by a new observation that contradicts them. The “faith” language you reference is simply an acknowledgement of this fact.

    Yes, any scientific theory could be false in the abstract, but given the current state of knowledge, the basic axioms of evolutionary theory are likely to continue to stand up to investigation.


    1. Any theory can remain the dominant theory if all contrary evidence is suppressed because scientific journals refuse to publish it.

      Evolution, as a theory, is dead. They just won’t pull the plug because the only other option is unacceptable to them.

      That’s not science, that’s dogmatism.


      1. Back during the Kitzmiller V Dover trial; creationists claim journals were refusing to publish their work. They were asked to provide examples of research they thought was being rejected from journals on ideological grounds. They could not since they hadn’t actually submitted any research to said journals in teh first place.


Comments are closed.