Class Warfare Blog

May 13, 2013

Evolution Hard for “Special” People to Accept

In a recent creationist diatribe, the author got right to the core of his issue:

Darwin persuasively taught that life is the product of blind, meaningless, purposeless churning, making all life, not just human, hardly anything more special or dignified than cosmic refuse. Indeed in a Darwinian worldview, life is cosmic refuse.”

Yep, that’s pretty much correct.

But let me extend the thinking here. When the Earth formed from debris collected by the Sun, the collisions of the rocky material that fused together carried a lot of energy (as all of the “meteor disaster” shows on the Discovery and Science Channels affirm). All of those bombardments resulted in a planet that was effectively a ball of molten (that’s liquid, Bubba) material. Because the Earth was a ball of liquid material, the more dense materials sank through the liquid, which is why the core of the Earth is primarily made of iron and nickel, the densest elements in the planet. But eventually the bombardment stopped and since space is cold the planet slowly cooled and a scum of the lightest materials formed and solidified to form the crust of the Earth. It is from these elements and materials that all of life on the Earth evolved.

Yep, that’s right, . . . (wait for it, wait for it) . . . we are made from the scum of the Earth!

It is always astonishing to me that people who prize humility insist that we were made in God’s image. None of the other animals were, neener, neener, nyah, nyah! We are Special, I tell’s yuh! Why any God would want to look like a human is beyond understanding. (I know, I know, it is a mystery my child.) Why would a god want legs to walk when they can fly? Why would they need a nose to breathe through when they do not have to breathe? Why would they need a penis to pee through when they don’t have to pee? Why would God’s form conform to the needs of a denizen of this planet, when he existed before the planet did. (And do not say, he had to make the planet he created conform to the needs of a being that looks like him, you are just begging the question.)

How is it that so many people insist on the absolute truth of something so clearly not true?

I read an article in the New York Times published in 2002 (New Torah For Modern Minds) in which Jewish scholars admitted that Moses never existed and the Books of Moses were largely made up. Created quite a stir. But in 1879 Robert Ingersoll published a book (Some Mistakes of Moses) in which he stated: “As a matter of fact, it seems to be well settled that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and that they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for hundreds of years.”

So, the Pentateuch is a forgery and now we know that basically none of it is true, let alone divinely inspired truth. Yet, we still have a sizeable portion of the American public who believe otherwise. Even though the truth has been available for over a century, a substitute truth is what is taught and accepted and contradicted right and left by everything we know about this planet.

So, what we have is worship through willful ignorance. Now, isn’t that Special.



  1. I think its passed time we all stopped saying things like “a sizeable portion of the American public” or “half the population”…. call it for what it is: the South. You need a new acronym or something to express the states in play: Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, the Carolina’s, Kentucky, etc. Name and shame. They make the rest of your great country look terrible. Bundle together… now the name?


    Comment by john zande — May 13, 2013 @ 9:40 am | Reply

    • There are more: Missouri, for example, where both of my sisters now live. There is a church on every corner and they all teach the lies. Both of my sisters are fundamentalists, whci can make some discussions uncmfortable. But they humor me. I’m going to Hell, but they humor me.

      There are a lot of closet creationists outside of the South. In the South it is just more obvious. Thankfully, the Republicans have hiched their wagon to the South and maybe all of them will go down together.


      Comment by stephenpruis — May 13, 2013 @ 9:47 am | Reply

      • Sure, but there’s some real benefits in isolating the madness (even if it is a little broader) for the purposes of mockery. Rational America has to take the country back… and you guys do do mockery very well.


        Comment by john zande — May 13, 2013 @ 9:56 am | Reply

        • Mock? Me mock? Surely you mock me sir!

          I am getting good at it, aren’t I?

          You got the erudition down and I do the mocking, like Batman and Robin or Gilbert and Sullivan, or um, Ben and Jerry.


          Comment by stephenpruis — May 13, 2013 @ 10:15 am | Reply

  2. “Indeed in a Darwinian worldview, life is cosmic refuse.”
    And in biblical worldview, humans are God’s refuse. He did banish us from Eden, while letting all other living creatures remain there. So that still makes this misinterpretation of Darwinian argument just a little more flattering.


    Comment by List of X — May 13, 2013 @ 11:02 pm | Reply

  3. Without getting into why a god would or wouldn’t do something, I just wanted to point out that no one has been able to show how the scum actually became living stuff. In fact, many things that would have to have occurred is yet unexplained by evolution theory.

    Now, I’ll admit that it takes faith to believe in an almighty creator that doesn’t show himself to us (in the flesh), but doesn’t it also take some faith to say that life spontaneously appeared?


    Comment by conservative2cents — May 14, 2013 @ 6:57 am | Reply

    • Evolution theory actually addresses only how species change from one into others. It does not address how the whole thing got started. (All theories have limited scope.) If someone wanted to claim that God seeded the primordal oceans with the first single celled organisms, that might pass muster. But “special creation” one way or the other is unprovable. God, or an equally powerful alien, could have made the world and everything in it and all of us with false memories yesterday and how would we be able to know this? We could not, but the flip side is it could not be proven to have been done, either. And, as a concept it is somewhat vacuous. “At some point in time, a miracle occured…,” is just a way to bridge a gap in our understanding and every time we put in something into one of those gaps, new gaps are created, so there will be no end of gaps, but the question becomes can one reasonably expect those gaps to be filled? Already scientists are creating artificial cells and cloning sheep and other animals and there are outcries that only God can create life. If that is true, then the scientists will fail, so what is the harm of letting them try? The harm is they may succeed and then what?


      Comment by stephenpruis — May 14, 2013 @ 7:41 am | Reply

      • If scientists actually produce life from completely dead chemicals, they’ll have really done something. But, if they do, then would that lend credence to the notion that some sort of intelligence is required to produce life, if only that as limited as our own? Or would you say that the fact that we mere humans are able to do it means it could just as likely have happened randomly?


        Comment by conservative2cents — May 14, 2013 @ 10:59 am | Reply

        • It would all depend on the process. If we do it, it is not *all* life we would have created, but a specific one kind. The question, then, is could any life happen without intervention. Nature is largely self organizing. Mountains form themselves, crystal form themselves, snow flakes do, too. Much of the construction of animal bodies is through self-organizing behaviors (protein structures, cell walss, etc. That this planet existed for billions of years, teeming with life, without any intellegent beings anywhere in sight is some indication that life *may* be able to be generated from unliving stuffs. (We still can’t rule out the planet being seeded with life intentionally or unintentionally from without.) So, if we do create a living organism, we must look at whether such a thing could or could not have happened due to quasi-random processes.

          We have not yet broached the topic of how it is a living being can be made of non living particles (atoms, molecules). There is much to learn. I am nowhere near ready to throw in the towel and admit “the fairies did it.”


          Comment by stephenpruis — May 14, 2013 @ 11:10 am | Reply

          • Crystals and snowflakes have structure. But is DNA just the inevitable shape of the chemicals that make it up? In other words, most of the stuff that takes form in the universe is there solely by their mere physical properties. There’s no information in a mountain range or a galaxy. DNA is coded information. It tells matter what to do. A particular set gives us a walrus. A different set gives us an amoeba. DNA never gives us a salt crystal, but it gives us a mechanism to deal with salt. It’s more than chemistry. It is a code. It’s a set of plans.

            Life is more than stuff just falling together the only way it can under given conditions. It’s what makes matter become more than matter. And if it were put here by an advanced alien, then we’d still have the problem of how they came to be. So, we’re still left with either God or chance.

            First, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing existed. Then in a split second, everything came into existence. Later, life began. So far, we agree, right? But, I’m not sure that science can explain the very beginning. Everything came from nothing? What scientific law allows that?

            Maybe it just hasn’t been discovered. Maybe there’s a way for it to have occurred without guidance. So, if someone wants to believe it, I wouldn’t call them crazy. But, it’s not crazy to believe that a god created everything, including life, either. Because something from nothing and making dust able to become aware sounds right up an all powerful being’s alley.

            It smacks of arrogance to completely rule out God from the start. And it seems like less and less a search for truth when one thinks that mockery is the best way to get there.


            Comment by conservative2cents — May 15, 2013 @ 11:17 am | Reply

            • What if science cannot explain the Big Bang? Does that automatically mean it happened magically or could it be that we are not smart enough to figure it out, or there is a barrier to our understanding that we cannot get through.

              Yes, DNA is coded information and we have examples of tons of the stuff and are just learning about the code. There is evidence that DNA has evolved, along with all kinds of other biological chemicals. By extrapolation, if chemicals can evolve a little, they might be able to evolve a lot. The evidence for evolution driving nature is immense. Why would it be there? Probably because it *is* the mechanism by which the changes we see in organisms occurs. In essence, there is nothing so far that hasn’t yielded to inquiry. But modern science is hardly 500 years old, and information is now doubling in less that 30 years. Consequently 30 years from now we will know twice what we know now. If everything we learn backs up evolution theory, then that is a horse we can ride (until we can’t because something better comes along).

              On the other side of this debate is a set of books, written by nobody knows who that are claimed to be accurate but at the same time are riddled with mistakes. The science is clearly of Babylonian vintage and yet the Babylonian names in the book are often misspelled. Much of the other science is incredible in those books.

              This isn’t even a contest.


              Comment by stephenpruis — May 15, 2013 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

              • On the other side are many modern men and women of science who believe in creation. How do you explain them? Delusion? Are they just liars?


                Comment by conservative2cents — May 15, 2013 @ 6:56 pm | Reply

                • You say there are many. Can you name any? Polls show that they are very few and far between and usually from areas of science that are far from those that conflict with the Bible (psychology, medicine, etc.).

                  The Institute for Creation research maintains such a list of scientists which numbers over 3000 (many of whom are dead and did not see modern evidence). A science education group has a much larger list of scientists who accept Evolution Theory but is limited to those whose first name is Steve (or Stephen, Stephanie, Esteban, etc.). They wouldn’t let me add my name to the list as I do npt have a Ph.D.!


                  Comment by stephenpruis — May 16, 2013 @ 7:59 am | Reply

                  • How many would there have to be for me to ask your opinion of why they (scientists, PhDs, etc.) might say they believe in creation?


                    Comment by conservative2cents — May 17, 2013 @ 11:22 am | Reply

                    • The argument is worthless (on both of our parts) as it is an argument from authority. My comment was simply a counter to your comment of how many scientists believe in Creation. Science is not a subject built on authority or belief, it is a matter of process and logic. I am not a biological scientist, but I have seen a tiny fraction of the evidence for Evolution Theory and it is immense. The Creation story is just that, a story, a fable; it was not posited by a scientist or natural philosopher looking to explain the way things were. The Creation story (stories) in Genesis were cobbled together from other myths because the priests of the time were looking for a lever that would provide them with more power. And then this fabulous book of Moses was discovered (the story is actually included in the Bible, by the way). It astonished people with the exception that this wasn’t the whole Pentateuch as it was read three times, out loud in a day. The rest got filled in, again by priests who ended up with a great deal more power than they did before.

                      The Jews have admitted that neither did Moses write those books, nor are they to be taken as history as they were written by committee for other purposes, as it were and at best constitute wisdom literature.

                      So, why are we debating which “story” is true? The made up fable or the painstakingly elucidated story told by Nature itself to thousands upon thousands of scientists, who have shared their thinking/logic as they went along. Why is a suspect book held in such high esteem by Christians that it overwhelms the evidence of God’s creation? People have gone so far as to claim that fossils were created in place by God as a test of our belief. This goes beyond bizarre.


                      Comment by stephenpruis — May 17, 2013 @ 11:52 am

                    • There are scientists who believe the science shows no evidence of the type of evolution that many scientists say is the mechanism by which all life on earth came to be, including the origin of life itself. These guys aren’t looking at the bible. They’re looking at the science. I’ve read some who say that much of evolution theory is in fact not more than philosophy based on ideology.

                      Whoever is right, I think it shows a certain willful blindness (at best) or bad science (at worst, since science is supposed to be a search for truth) to deny EITHER creation or abiogenesis is at least a possibility. Science, by its very nature, cannot account for the supernatural. And that’s fine, as long as it gives the .0001% chance that something other than nature exists. After all, what does the study of plate tectonics have to say about a climber’s will to reach the summit of Everest?

                      Does science account for “will” at all? It seems to me that to view the world as just the place where the inevitable takes place denies that will exists. The fact that I may rush to put myself in harm’s way to save another from harm may just as well be explained by the randomness of the universe from the big bang culminating in the light of the sun bouncing off of the one in danger into my randomly placed eyes, exciting a part of my randomly evolved brain that, for some unknown reason, will allow me to go against the “survival of the fittest” evolutionary failsafe that is supposed to have put me here in the first place. Is that THE truth? How could it be? Have we not had time to have evolved to let each other just die?

                      Where does kindness come from? Is it not possible that it is in us for a purpose, put there ON purpose?


                      Comment by conservative2cents — May 17, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

                    • Yes, science can account for will and a great many other human traits. Again, I think you are missing the point. Scientists follow the data. If they do not and follow their egos or follow false trails they get slapped down by reality. The history of science is replete with examples of scientists who were dead wrong but stubbornly clung to their ideas. They were universally superceded. Scientists who rejected what turned out to be true, again were superceded and their reputations suffered. Scientists have to follow the facts because there is no other successful course. Delusions will always hurt their reputations.

                      “Some who say” evolution is this or that are free to have their own opinions. The question I have is: how informed are those opinions? For example, what evidence is there for special creation? There is none as there cannot be. So, creationists can only point to “gaps” in the fossil record or “gaps” in the data. There are always gaps in the data. For example, everyone accepts that E=mc2 applies for certain events, but how sure are we that the 2 in the formula is exactly 2? You can check this but only to a certain degree. So, you do an experiment and it comes out 2.00 + or – 0.01. Then you do another experiment and it comes out 2.00000 + or – 0.00001. There is no end to this. At some point we stop and say that if it is not 2, then the difference is so small that it is negligible and we move on. So, there are always “gaps” in our knowledge. The question is are those gaps fillable or can one assume that they are so small as to be negligible. Over that last hundred years, the gaps have kept getting filled and more and more gaps become negligible. So, creationists can say neener, neener, neener about the evidence all they want, but it doesn’t disprove Evolution Theory and it doesn’t prove special creation, because . . .

                      . . . *they are not presenting evidence (real evidence) *for* special creation (as I have said, such is impossible) or ral evidence that * contradicts* Evolution Theory*.

                      They just sit off to the side and say things like “well, you can’t explain this” or “you can’t explain that” but they leave out the “yet.” And they do real harm to their own arguments but continuing to use arguments that have been proven false. The ICR even has a web page up of arguments that creationists should no longer used because they have been proven false.


                      Comment by stephenpruis — May 18, 2013 @ 9:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: