[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is the second installment of the series of articles originally published at Examiner.com while I was writing as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. Lightly edited and re-formatted from the original version.] The conjecture of evolution theory Change occurs constantly. It’s impossible to deny. However, the word “evolution” is often used analogous with virtually all “change”. That definition is much too ambiguous. The philosophical theory called evolution describes an ambiguous process by which new life forms allegedly are created if given enough time. I will repeat the question I have invited my biologist friends to answer: Assuming “evolution” is true, how does sexual reproduction create a new genome that alters a creature’s morphology to be different enough from its parents to be called a new animal (or plant)? What magic elixir or ingredient besides time causes or allows for this sort of change (I have somewhat mockingly referred to as shape shifting) to occur? Surely we can all agree that for Archaeopteryx to evolve into another creature or vice versa, there has to be some point in time where the “base” parent animal (stealing terminology from my objected-oriented past) can be differentiated from the “derived” child animal as a fundamentally different organism, correct? Surely some explanation other than sexual reproduction can account for different morphologies in variant organisms derived from DNA? In layman’s terms -- at some point in time, my zoologist friends have got to be able to say the offspring of an Archaeopteryx is … [Read more...]
The “facts” of evolution theory
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This was another article originally published as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner, the first in a short series written shortly before the publication of my book Counterargument for God. The purpose of the series was to explain my alternative to Darwin's theory of natural selection as the best potential explanation for the origin of new species, based on the existing evidence. Although my alternate hypothesis involves a supernatural intelligence capable of designing the universe and life within, it is called iterative creation. Other articles in this series include The conjecture of evolution, Compounded improbabilities, and Iterative creation. This morning an atheist acquaintance on the internet inspired publication of this piece (originally written in 2012) by accusing me of advocating intelligent design as a scientific theory. The reality is that my argument is almost the polar opposite extreme -- iterative creation is a philosophical hypothesis that competes with the philosophy known as "macro" evolution to explain the existing scientific evidence, which consists of DNA analysis, the known fossil record, and comparative anatomy.] The "facts" of evolution This might take a while. The argument from authority, which could also be called the argument of superior intellect, gets old after a while. You don’t have to convince me that you’re smart. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You only need to convince me that you’re right. Then I'll actually believe what you tell me. A new Facebook friend tried to help me, sending a link to … [Read more...]
The illusion of purpose
Would a watchmaker create a watch that can't tell time? What would be the point? After all, another name for a watch is timepiece. Does a watch have a purpose for existing, if it can't measure time, in some form or fashion? Can something be claimed to have a purpose, if that certain person, place, or thing was created by a blind force that has no true purpose in mind? And why am I (once again) asking myself such ridiculous questions? Naturally, I've been reading the work of Richard Dawkins. (I know, I know -- I'm a glutton for punishment. But what else can I say? The ability of clearly intelligent people to say or write remarkably foolish comments never ceases to amaze me.) While skimming through his book The Blind Watchmaker, I stumbled across this masterpiece of muddled thought, on page 9: A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future person in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. Now with that silly little speech fresh in your mind, please watch this brief, fascinating video of a caterpillar allegedly mimicking a snake that a good friend of mine shared on Facebook only this morning. The word … [Read more...]
Your inner parakeet
I love reading books written by Richard Dawkins. Quite ironically, he provides some of the very best material I could ever hope to find for use in discussions with my atheist friends about God and His creation, as well as existential science and evolution theory. It turns out that virtually everything I might ever need for my argument in favor of a supernatural God can be found in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution, simply by following the advice of Dawkins and accepting many of his claims about the theory of evolution on face value. For example, in his book Richard Dawkins claimed that humans share a now-extinct ancestor with the budgerigar (another name for the common parakeet) that lived approximately 310 million years ago, writing that "Every species is a cousin of every other. Any two species are descended from an ancestral species, which split in two." (pg. 254) That would mean every modern living organism must be directly related to every other living organism on earth by descent -- with modifications, of course. Not only is your cousin a chimpanzee, but your slightly more distant cousin is allegedly the cucumber. The most obvious question coming to mind about this idea would seem to be "how?" Now my atheist friends have frequently suggested that I publish the evidence that disproves my cousinship to fruits and vegetables such as cucumbers and turnips so that I might earn fame, fortune, and even to win a Nobel Prize. However, the Nobel Prize does not honor a category for evolutionary biology, making the goal itself … [Read more...]
How did I get here?
The title poses what is known as an existential question -- questions that are much easier asked than answered. Who am I? What happens when we die? Is there a purpose for my life? Existential questions are the sort that you're never completely sure that you've really solved them, until you die. The answers that you decide are most correct will often determine whether or not you believe in God, which may impact many of the life decisions you make. So these are not trivial questions...in fact, they are the most important and difficult questions that we may ever contemplate. How in the hell did I get started writing books that talk about things related to religion and science, when I only received a business degree in college? That's also an excellent question, and an easier riddle to solve because the question itself isn't existential in nature. And this is my answer... I've always loved writing, whether it was source code for computer programs, a short story, or an effort to communicate important thoughts and ideas in concise language through documents I've written. I've always enjoyed tackling difficult problems and then working diligently to solve them. One of my earliest dreams was to become a professional writer one day. However, for the longest time, I was too busy working a full-time job and raising my family to write prose on the side, or to worry much about seeking answers to my existential questions. I had things to do, and people to see. I stayed busy. Then a fateful television interview that was mostly background noise while I worked … [Read more...]
