Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 7 of 15
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Darwinism’s god of the gaps: Multi-cellular life
Sounds like a simple question, doesn’t it?
After all, if inorganic, lifeless rocks and dirt can decide to one day just up and form a single asexually reproducing self-replicating living cell that is able to eat, eliminate waste, maintain life saving processes, and survive with really no problems in the given “primordial” evolutionary environment (abiogenesis) then it makes perfect sense that the thus magically created and equally magical single cellular organism can decide it wants future generations to become a multi-cellular organisms via even more utterly unexplained evolutionary processes, doesn’t it?
The Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis is the currently accepted model of evolutionary theory. There are some debatable details such as saltation and punctuated equilibrium, but really it all goes back to Lamarkism with the rationalizations of mutation adding information and natural selection sorting the information out. Now, the truth is that mutation cannot infuse new information into the gene, and neither can selection, but that isn’t the point of debate for this question.
The point of this post is that whenever you decide to question the merits of their preposterous theory with a true believer, the Darwinist ALWAYS excludes abiogenesis from the debate. “The origin of the original cell has nothing to do with evolution,” will be his emphatic claim.
Oh? So the origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate over the origin of life?
Okay. Well, that seems to utterly lack any logic whatsoever, but we can go with that assumption. Let’s move the goal post and cherry pick and allow those fallacious parameters to dictate the agenda.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we CAN safely exclude the origin of that first original hypothetical simple cell from the debate — how, then did simple single celled organisms “evolve” into complex multicellular organisms?
That cannot be excluded from the question, also, can it? Or are we actually expected to move the goal post once again? Without moving the goal post, Darwinists simply MUST have an answer for this taking place. The question is, how did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn‘ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals consisting of more than single cells? How did cellular specialization occur?
The Darwinist faithful have an answer. The answer is that “somehow, someway” evolution did it. Yes, dear friends, unknown and unknowable and never, EVER observed or observable magical evolutionary forces performed this supernatural feat using only random chance and time and only –ONLY — naturalistic processes. That is the answer. That is exactly as specific as that answer ever gets, too, without delving into seriously questionable territory.
This is what happens when pure philosophy masquerades as science. While it is safe to have faith in a religious belief that magical events can occur all under the “evolution” umbrella, it cannot pretend to elevate itself to an area so grand as to call itself fact or science. It is pure religion, godless though it may be.
The Bible explains the origin of life in a scientifically consistent manner with both integrity and cogency. By contrast, the more than 200 year old theory of evolution has actually developed more holes since it first captured the popular imagination.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.