I came to this realization several years ago and have been thinking about it recently. Staunch Dawinists can look at the astronomical improbability of genetic improvement by chance, at the insufficiency of natural selection as a vehicle to cause it, and at the lack of a fossil record to support it, and still conclude “Well, we’re here, so it must have happened.”
How can so many highly intelligent people ignore the flaws in such reasoning, and simultaneously ignore the contrary evidence, when they would not stand for that approach in any other academic endeavor?
The answer is simple.
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation." -- William Paley, "Natural Theology" (1802)
To put it in simple terms ... If you find a rock in a field somewhere, you would just assume that it's been there for a long time and is the result of a "natural" process. If you find a watch in that same field, you'd be a damn fool to think it evolved as the result of a random, natural process. The complexity of the watch is evidence of a "purpose" that would distinguish it from a rock.
Yes they do exactly that. Then they backfill their pure belief with techno babble to sway the ignorant masses.
I once listened to a speech by Jay Bronowski(sp) called Termites and Telescopes. He argued that if there was a survival need for termites to make radio telescopes they would eventually make them starting with discerning ferrite containing grains of sand and the discovery of the paraboloid. I was an atheist at the time and bought into the whole nonsensical idea.
[[improbability of genetic improvement by chance]]
It’s even worse than that- They claim NEW Non Species Specific genetic information is created by out of thin air- The only thing microevolution can do is work with material that is already present- it is incapable of creating new non species specific information out of thin air. A spider does not have the genetic information that a bat has- and never will because the information is does have is different than the bat’s
Mutations damage information- they don’t lead to new, non species specific information. They alter traits already present- but they can not create new non species specific information- Any information that does get altered does so because the information is already present and species specific- Macrovevolution demands that NEW non species specific information be created (ie a spider evolve echo location and wings in order to evolve into s bat [not that this is an evolution scenario- it’s just an argument to illustrate what would be needed IF it were claimed spiders evolved into bats])
Bacteria ‘evolving the ability to eat nylon’ (nylon, a recent man made material, being something that wasn’t around 1000’s of years ago) is still nothing more than micro evolution- The possibility is there because the bacteria contain species specific information that allows them to be able to digest nylon- turns out the bacteria had the ability right from the start, but the ability was subdued, not functioning, for a long time, and was kickstarted in the presence of an extreme environment where only nylon was available for fuel- Evolutionists loved to use this as an example of Macroevolution, claiming new non species specific information was created- Not true- They always had the Species specific coding for a protein called EEI which has the unique ability to digest small circular proteins- Nylon being modeled after these small circular proteins, but mutations destroyed enough information. that it made this ability dormant- non functioning - no new information was created- mutations simply reactivated information already available and species specific (ie other species do not have this information and never will)
So darwinists claim not just genetic improvement, but also claim NEW non species specific information is created by mutations- and nothing could be further from the truth- infact, species have several built in levels of protection to prevent non species specific information from taking over and destroying the species-
Well...