The Religion of Evolution

It’s too bad that Fred Reed is an atheist, because he’s so good at deflating the bogus claims of Darwinists to scientific respectability:

[A]n entertaining way to study the politics is to ask the Evolutionists questions that a scientist would answer (since scientists are not ashamed not to know things), but that an ideologue can’t afford to. They are simple.

(1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no.

(2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no.

(3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no.

(4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.

I once posed these questions in a column on and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully.

Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none–not one–answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.

This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers.

While I’m open to the possibility that our origins are more complicated that most Creationists would feel comfortable admitting (we may not even be the first group of bipeds to rule the planet), I just don’t have enough faith to believe that dead matter suddenly made itself live.

If that isn’t a metaphysical claim, I don’t know what is.


4 responses to “The Religion of Evolution

  1. Evolution proper starts from the first life. It isn’t concerned with how that life got there. This Fred fella doesn’t sound like sharpest Ginzu in the set.

  2. “…we may not even be the first group of bipeds to rule the planet…”

    Who was (or might have been)?
    The nephilim or the fallen? Ruling while we began to be fruitful and multiplied out from Adam and Eve?

  3. Possibly, yes, but before we got out of the garden. The opening verses of Genesis can be interpreted to mean “the Earth was made formless and void.”

    There are places in India, I think, where the ground was melted at some point in the dim, distant past by heat that can only be generated by a nuclear blast.

  4. Hmmm… Hadn’t heard that interpretation before.

    I’ve heard about that area in India.
    Wonder if the fallen and their technology had anything to do with it.
    Or, I read a Christian Fiction novel once where astronauts on the moon found the
    remains of an antideluvian moonbase. The author’s idea was that pre-flood man was much less
    “diluted” than modern man – closer to Adam & Eve’s pure blood-line, and possibly could have
    been much smarter than modern man and quickly developed technology. And all that technology
    was lost/destroyed in the flood.

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