Evolution vs Creationism……

8 Jan

The Theory of Evolution……


One of the first arguments put forward by Creationists is that evolution is only a theory.  Here, they have demonstrated their ignorance of what the accepted definition of a ‘theory’ actually is:



 noun. pl.  The-or-ries.


  1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
  2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
  3. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
  4. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
  5. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Based on the overwhelming evidence for Darwinian Evolution, I would call it the fact of evolution as the word ‘theory’ appears to give the creationists some doubt with which to work.  Similarly, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is still referred to as a ‘theory’ despite the mathematical proof and its acceptance by all Physicists.  Even Quantum Theory, strange though it may be, has ever disagreed with experiments performed using its illogical mathematics.   Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, 40% of Americans still believe that the world was created in 6 days, that light wasn’t’ created until the fourth day and this all happened a mere 6,000 years ago…….


What is Creationism and what Challenges does it Place on Modern Biology……


Realistically none.  However, creationism first came to the public’s attention in the 1980s as a pseudoscientific challenge to the teaching of evolution in American Schools.  The creationists argued that mainstream science had a part to play but there must have been a preordained plan governing evolution.  Their trump card was something they called ‘Irreducible Complexity’, which argues that the individual structures that make a functioning organ, such as an eye, had no useful purpose when there constituent parts are taken in isolation, the implication being that all parts, of an eye in this example, must have evolved together in order to form a complete, functioning eye.  This, of course, could only be the work of an ‘intelligent designer’ or in their eyes ‘God’Save_your_money


Another often quoted example is that of a hurricane blowing through a scrap yard and a fully operational Boeing 747 appearing at the other end.  This is clearly nonsense and, as from the beginnings of the Wright brothers, evolves through a series of steps until one ends up with a modern passenger jet.  Richard Dawkins’, ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ explains how this process works in evolution in a way that on Dawkins could, simplifying for the biologically challenged amongst us and I thoroughly recommend watching it (it is available on several well known video streaming channels)……


Jessey Creesey

Jessey Creesey

Court Room Drama……


Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Louisiana.


The issue came to a head when religious parents, afraid that their children may learn to think for themselves and realise that there is no god, took a science teacher to court.  They argued that the teaching of evolution should be disallowed on the basis that it was only a ‘theory’ (one supported by mountains of scientific data), and that ‘Irreducible Complexity’ was a theory of equal standing and should be taught in place of evolution.  In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists, 17 state academies of science, and seven other scientific organisations filed amicus briefs which described creation science as being composed of religious tenets [and nonsense. Ed].


After the prosecutions case had been destroyed by real science the court ruled that under the US Constitution:


  1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose.
  2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
  3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion.


However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:


‘We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.’ [and not to further baseless theological claims. Ed].


Since Edwards v. Aguillard there have been many other court cases arguing ‘equal’ teaching time is devoted to their harebrained theories.  One wonders how long it will be before Chemistry and Alchemy share a platform or cooking spells feature in home economics alongside Soufflés.


‘A friend of mine once described the indoctrination of children through educations  as ‘psychological genocide’, this is particularly true of the leaders of the free world, who in my humble opinion are the most tooled up, radicalised and most likely to start religious wars at the drop of a hat, fez or turban’……


7 Responses to “Evolution vs Creationism……”

  1. teddywpreston January 8, 2013 at 11:37 pm #

    Think about it. In a more simplistic term; there are those who look at all the facts and deal with them or those who ignore them all completely. I know there are levels in-between; but they still belong to either set; nonetheless. In either case: a pitiful state of affairs regardless of their level of education. Because it has nothing to do with education and/or knowledge; but how do you use it, or decide to ignore it. Those that posses a great religious faith against all odds are far off; as are the scientists whose sciences is their only temple.

    • Steve Walker January 11, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

      I can understand what you’re saying but religion, of any form, has no basis for belief other than what ‘the book’ or the preacher tells them. I can understand people who feel that there is something other than what our physical reality shows us but the established religions rely on the former. We may just as easily be a huge computer simulation (which has been suggested) but that too, we cannot know. A ‘belief’ I can live with but organised religion I can’t, and don’t understand how people are so easily fooled. They are indoctrinated in childhood and follow blindly into adulthood and the system continues. If religion is real, why have so many religions had to change their position on genesis or the earth being at the center of everything. I could go on but I have generally found that if somebody accepts a religion on ‘faith’ it is impossible to reason with them as it becomes the fall back position.

      Thanks for your comment, it is always good to debate.

      Kind regards

    • Steve Walker January 11, 2013 at 1:36 pm #

      Just a quick PS. If everything we can observe was created by a ‘god’ you are left with the paradox of who ‘made’ god?


      • Teddy W. Preston January 12, 2013 at 3:53 am #

        Everything has a beginning! At least in this system of things. The theory is that G_D did not had one. We got to think outside the box for this one; literally. He was there before the beginning of time. He was the creator of time also. To think that we can conceive in our little brain what he is; is preposterous. Think; man can hardly understand the string theory, specially without math. Math also been one of the many languages of G_D. He is the creator of every thing you see in the Universe and we don’t know how many of these are in existence. {They say we can only see 5% of our Universe. How did they got to that figure/number? The best that I get is a shrug of shoulder for an answer and a mumbling of lip service! http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white } And that,s the best that I can do.

        Religion is a different matter altogether. Their is no religion on this earth that is not pedaling one of their petty doctrines or getting you to buys on one of their “get rich quick skims”. As a matter of fact the Scriptures every times that it mentions “religion” is in a derogatory way. Sigmund Fraud once said “Religion is a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else but in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion. Religion’s eleventh commandment is “Thou shalt not question.”

        With all that been said… The Scriptures [ please notice I did not used the term Bible.] for me is the word of our Creator. But that my friend is different story.

      • Steve Walker January 12, 2013 at 8:39 pm #

        Hi Teddy, I have to confess I am a physicist. Ergo, I could explain why we know what we know and how it came about over the centuries, starting with Copernicus proposing the sun centered solar system, on to Galileo and on and on to Niels Bohr and Einstein. It is truly fascinating if you study it and the numbers do add up. However, I cant’ tell you how the universe began but,as previously pointed out, we could just as easily be a computer simulation as a ‘creation’ of another being. I respect your right to hold your belief but unless you have had a personal moment of revelation cannot understand how you defer creation to a god when there are many ways we may have gotten here…


  2. Teddy W. Preston January 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    Well, I am sorry to say I am just a common “man in the street”. But full of ego (We call that hot air across the pond.). Working on that a the moment. Hey; I grew up with Scientific American in my backpack if that is of any help.

    You forgot to mention Isaac Newton. Any particular reason? He probably was the one who started the whole ball rolling and not Galileo; if you know what I mean (glue: calculus). Isaac; just like Einstein, believed in a Creator. Not judging; I got more faults than the two of them put together.

    I love how the physicist balance their sheets without explaining dark/black matter. Please; let me know as soon as they created in their lab. Maybe CERN #2! And how they explain how the current universe will end in a whimper instead of a cosmic implosion. I am sorry but we get more questions than answers. And the same goes for the Scriptures (This sentence should be underline). . Hey, I respect what the scientist are doing but to say that they got all the answers… It’s just pure ego talking (take it from I guy who knows).

    One last item: “unless you have had a personal moment of revelation” NO, I can’t say that I have. I just marvel at all the creation; that which is in my eyes beautiful and ugly and wonder (here goes my ego again!) what purpose is their in me being here. And like Bertrand Russell said: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. ” Not that I am one; wiser that is.

  3. Teddy W. Preston January 13, 2013 at 11:06 pm #

    Per your email:
    Fair enough Teddy, I’ll stick with knowlege and leave you with the fairies….

    Dr. S. P. W. (Ph.D)

    Dear Dr Stephen P Walker:

    I think a failed to carry my message across. I really was talking about my ego and I wont let yours overshadow mine. Sorry if I ruffle any feather.

    I do not believe in fairies either; sorry.

    It is not my intention to convince you of anything and I have nothing to sell you either.

    Another thing… I do not see much different between the Koran and Mein Kampf. Just in case your were wondering.

    I think I had an advantage over you since I do not have a blog. (Profiling comes to mind.)

    But I can answer one of your question: “Political Ponerology” by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
    I think this book will answer it.

    Teddy W. Preston

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: