Evolution, The Secular Holy Grail
March 8, 2009, 20:51
Filed under: Uncategorized


M. Krahn has some good posts about evolution.  This post is not about evolution, it is about intellectual freedom and freedom of speech,  my freedom of  speech, and yours if you hold the same opinions as do I.   

If you have an inward desire to be abused and instantly labeled an uneducated foolish hater,  just question the Theory of Evolution.  It is not necessary to deny  it, just question it, or emphasize the word theory, and, in most circles today,  everything else you have to say on any other subject will be discounted no matter how wise or well formed. 

Why has this become the Shibboleth of intelligent conversation?  Why is it more appropriate to say abortion is good, or God is dead, or republicans should be exterminated?  There is no more egregious faux pas  in the halls of academia than to suggest Evolution may be a dead end street.  One would assume all educated people are 100%  convinced Darwin opened the doors of understanding, but hold on, it just ain’t so! 

I have heavily edited Susan Mazur’s article from Scoops.  It is not for Creationism, don’t take it wrong, these people may or may not be believers in God the Creator as I am, but they are not Darwinists either, read on. 


                                                             THE ALTENBERG 16

                                Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up?

                                             By SUZAN MAZUR

                                   AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY

               BEYOND DARWINSIM

“Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”
Stuart Newman, New York Medical College

              “There has never been a theory of evolution.” – Cytogeneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria, Evolution without Selection

                 “It works by selection of traits produced by random variations in the genes. That’s essentially Darwin’s hypothesis. I think not. . . . There’s                                  something wrong with the theory. It goes deep.” –Jerry Fodor

Here are more things “smart guys” say.

                    ”   He told me that if what is causing change is not selection, then maybe it is some laws of organization, but that “basically I don’t think anybody                    knows how evolution works.”

   “The heritable traits, features of biological organisms – complex or simple – change over time. They change as a function sometimes of variables or other god knows what.”

“But the question that evolutionary theory is about, as opposed to questions about where did life start or something of that sort, the question of evolutionary theory is about when you get these changes in the inheritable structures of organisms – where do they come from? What are the controlling variables? “

”  Darwin doesn’t explain how life begins, “Darwin starts with life. He doesn’t get you to life.”

    So these guys have questions, more than questions, they see the holes in the logic.  All these men are very educated in the field but the article even says they must be careful  to mind their tounges . One more quote. 

     Stanley Salthe, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a PhD in zoology – who says he can’t get published in the mainstream media with his views – largely agrees with Lewontin. But Salthe goes further. 

“Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated . . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen.”

”    But neither will most science blogs report there’s a paradigm shift afoot because they share the same ideology as the corporate media. At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolutionary biology.

      ”  Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middle-brow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers.  ”

So will this be reported or taught or mentioned?  No.  The truth is Darwinism is the anti God.  For now.  What is important is to be anti-God, not to be honest or correct or well educated.  

I am willing to listen to other opinions about most subjects.   If the sources above say there are areas of evolution to be debated, I no longer want to be treated like hill-billy cousin with a second grade education when I weigh in with some of my opinions.  Here  they are.


  • God created life.
  • Each specie is designed for a niche by a loving Creator.
  • Science can not, and should not be expected to explain everything.
  • The wonders of nature show the Glory of God.
  • Jesus to this day holds all things together.
  • Belief in God is not a sign of low IQ.
  • God explained all this and more in His Word, the bible.
  • God created the duck-bill platypus to mess with zoologists who believe in evolution.
  • Man is not evolving, man is devolving further away from God.
  • You do not have to believe this,  the bible says some will not.    

Don’t let anybody tell you the case is closed on evolution,  it really is just a theory.

20 Comments so far
Leave a comment

One of my favorite rant subjects. You made your case quite well.

Comment by Shawn W

The only people who deny the facts of evolution are people who don’t understand how it works, and who don’t understand the massive evidence for it. Since evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life, and since the evidence for evolution is massive and powerful, and since the only alternative to the science of evolution is a childish belief in supernatural magic, it’s fair to say evolution deniers are equivalent to flat-earthers.

Comment by bobxxxx

“Don’t let anybody tell you the case is closed on evolution, it really is just a theory.”

In one sentence you proved beyond any doubt you’re scientifically illiterate, because you don’t even know what a scientific theory is. Since you’re probably too lazy to look it up, here’s the dictionary definition:

Theory: 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.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution. Those facts have been repeatedly tested for 150 years and evolution has passed every test. Because of the massive and still growing evidence for evolution, the theory is accepted by every competent biologist in the world. The theory of evolution is used to make predictions, and those predictions have always been shown to be correct.

Calling evolution “JUST a theory” is what I would expect somebody to say if he didn’t know what he was talking about. Click my name for more information.

Comment by bobxxxx

For the secularists and liberals in society, the case is always closed…to us.

They’d better hope that the case isn’t closed when they stand before the One they so vehemently deny.

Comment by theoldadam

bobxxxx My educational level is lower than – Stuart Newman, New York Medical College, Antonio Lima-de-Faria,
and Stanley Salthe, I will bet yours is too.
These men question evolution for good reason, please read some of their arguments before you rush to judgement.
When our President said, “I will not follow the failed theories of the past eight years” was he misusing the word theory? I think not read this.
“… It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time” failed theories of the past.

The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Berkshire Community College in Massachusetts recently offered members this interesting class, with the following topics:

The Steady State Theory of the Universe – How did the universe come to be? The Steady State theory, also known as continuous creation, asserted that the universe, through expanding, has no beginning and no end. The discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1965 led most cosmologists to accept the rival theory of the big Bang.

Lamarkism – Is the giraffe’s long neck the result of continuous stretching to reach higher for food? Are traits we practice inheritable? These ideas formed the basis of Lamark’s theory to explain the development of species. Darwin also believed this was possible. Participants examined how the ideas of evolution evolved.

Spontaneous Generation – Can mice be created by placing sweaty underwear and wheat husks in an open jar? Or do maggots develop from the by-products of meat rotting? Scientists have attempted to disprove spontaneous generation since the mid-1600’s. Louis Pasteur finally settled the long dispute with his gooseneck experiment.

The Aether – In the 19th century, it was believed that an invisible material called the aether had to be present in the universe to support the propagation of light. Later experiments by Michelson/Morley and the Theory of Relativity put forth by Albert Einstein showed that the aether was not needed or present.

Medical Fallacies – For over 2,000 years, infection was thought to be due to “vapors,” “miasmas” or the work of malign groups of outsiders. The work of Pasteur and Koch in the 19th century put the theory of infection disease on a solid footing.

Theories are used as valid until something better is provided. that is the point of the article by Susan Mazur, the people mentioned are not becoming creationists by any means, they are seeking alternatives.
Thanks for stopping by and proving my point. This, I repeat, is not a post about evolution, there are better places to have that argument, this is about my right to hold an alternate theory, and to express it.
Please tell the readers I did not pay you to make such a point. Look what you did.
I expressed an opinion, backed by an article from a respected secular source, written by a respected secular journalist. You
Accused me of scientific illiteracy,
Accussed me of laziness.

My turn. And notice how much nicer I am.

How has evolution been tested? It would no longer be a theory.were that true. Please site one “test”.
Are you saying the highly esteemed biologists , who by the way would be more on your side of the argument than mine, are uninformed or perhaps scientifically illiterate? The problems they have with evolution is that they are far more educated in the field and see problems with it.

If I can respect your opinion, and I do not think that on air radio personalities need to be opinion less or perfect, why can I not have an opinion without being attacked?

We did not prove evolution in this post, we proved my post completely.

By the way , I enjoy talk radio, and will listen to your show, and even if I do not agree with what you say, I will respect your right to say it. That is all I’m asking in return.

Comment by willohroots

It amazes me still that the evolutionists get their blood pressure up when you remind them that it’s the “evolutionary theory.” Somewhere along the way they forgot about that.

But enough of that, really. My question is: do you really believe (key word?) that your ancestors swung from trees and ate bananas? Is that really the line you want to graft yourself into?

At the very least, we Creationists have less to loose, even if we are un-educated knuckleheads. At least on the day of judgment we can confidently stand before the Creator and thank Him for calling us His children. The hyper-educated evolutionists can stand before Him and try explaining why they couldn’t see the Truth in front of them.

Believe me, I understand this. I was one of those college-educated evolutionists at one time in my life.

The scientists will continue to climb that mountain of revelation and by the time they reach the top, all the Creationists will be standing there waiting for them and ask: “What took you so long?”

Comment by Joe

Joe, bobxxxx might not believe this, but i read Darwin in college, including The Origin of the Species. Darwin never said we decended from apes. His point was that we have a common ancestor, that we both sprang from the same “branch”. I think Darwin was a gifted naturalist, on a level with Audubon, and the adaptation of the species is fascinating! ADAPTATION.
When Darwin, on his first voyage returned from the Amazon, he praised God, Yes God, for the biodiversity he found there. If you want to be really shocked, read a good biography of Darwin, He went to college to be an Anglican Minister and signed onto biblical inerrancy!
Darwin imported and distributed Asa Grey’s pamphlet on Theistic Evolution! It seems Darwin
himself believed in Intelligent design.
Life was not kind to Darwin, he lost children in their infancy and drifted from his faith.
It seems Believers have no fear of evolution,we can talk about it rationally, but those who believe in Evolution as a religion have quite the fear of God, unfortunately, not a Godly Fear. The mention of the possibility of a Creator puts them into attack mode and ends polite conversation.

Comment by willohroots

Questioner: Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision. What is the Christian view of this theory?

Lewis: If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.

C. S. Lewis, “Answers to Questions on Christianity,” in God in the Dock, pages 52-53.

Comment by Ike

Ike, What an appropriate quote, thanks. If you eep quoting things like that here at willohroots maybe people like joexxxx will find us literate. Or it could be an accident.

Comment by willohroots

I really like the post. And I like the way you comported yourself in the discussion to this point even better. I like to use the big words every so often. It is interesting to note how the evolutionists recoil when someone airs open and honest questions. It is a far from settled question, and they have a lot of gaps that are not answerable to any satisfaction except those of the “true believers” who have faith in evolution.

Comment by jeofurry

To Bobxxxx:
It seems, Bob, that you cherry-picked your definition of “theory” from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Try these definitions – equally as cherry-picked, I might add:

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged –
“The”o*ry\, n.; pl. Theories. [F. th[‘e]orie, L. theoria, Gr. ? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See Theater.]

1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.

Note: “This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.” –Sir W. Hamilton.”

From Random House Dictionary – “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”

Change is built into this universe and seems to be inescapable. It is not static, but it certainly is not purely random. Essential building blocks of life are shared – the way common stem cells form into cells with specific purposes and functions indicates a pattern and order. If you choose to believe that the guiding hand behind this order is a textbook, good for you. Don’t ridicule others who believe the guiding hand is more alive than that.

Comment by Rev Andy Little

Is it me? We seem literate. We seem nice. It is not on our end that dialogue closed. We have the example of Paul on Mars Hill, engaging not condemning, inviting not attacking. We have the greater example of Jesus teaching with authority, not arrogance. I have little doubt that somewhere in joexxxx’s past a church or “religious” person hurt him. The result is a layer of scales applied to the eyes from the inside. Jeff, Andy, Joe, Shawn, God bless you and may you keep speaking the truth in love.

Comment by willohroots

Willohroots, thank you. I’m learning quite a lot from your posts about how to keep speaking the truth with kindness and strength, leaving that door open for a person to walk back through if and when they’re ready.

Comment by Shawn W

(Several of the quotes I can’t read because they’re being cut off, so I can’t respond to it, as I don’t know what it all says, but…)

“Don’t let anybody tell you the case is closed on evolution”
I am a firm believer in evolution, but I agree with this. Ultimately, the case isn’t closed on anthing. There is always more to be discovered, and if there is more to be discovered, then the door shouldn’t be closed. However, when a substantial amount of evidence points towards something in particular, it seems likely that it’s true.

For a lot of the wholes that I myself had thought of, I found that “The Selfish Gene” cleared up a lot.


You should check out “The Selfish Gene”.

Comment by fivthbeatle

I am not a big Dawkins fan, he is mean about guys like me. The Selfish Gene is a further study of natural selection. The fellows quoted in the article by Susan Mazur are all leaning toward self organization. This does not occur in my closet, but they seem to think it occurs in nature. Quite the opposite of chaos theory! Thanks for expressing an opinion without rancor.

Some of the problems I have
Clear crawfish in caves. With out light, how is that an evolutionary factor?
Biodiversity itself, so far, nothing is “fittest’ just fitter.
Symbiotic relationships with exclusivity, such as termites they really do not live on wood.
The explosion of life in the Cambrian period, and the extinction of the Cretaceous, they does not fit in an evolutionary mold.
How did life start? No answer from evolution.
Check out Ben Stein’s movie, No Intelligence allowed.

Comment by willohroots

I will check out Stein’s movie. (I actually went to see him speak 3-4 months ago, or so!) I usually don’t agree with him a lot, so I’m not promising to agree or like it, but I’ll definitely watch it!

“How did life start? No answer from evolution.”
The first couple chapters of The Selfish Gene explain it. I understand that you wouldn’t be fond of him, but sometimes it’s worth knowing what your opposition can put forward.

Comment by fivthbeatle

I have heard dawkins speak on this on Utube and I have read Andrew Brown’s take on it. It really is natural selection, with the unsupported belief that organisms carry changes in genes that are not conducive to survival, along with junk genes.
What is his theory of first life? proteins in a puddle hit with lightning? proteins combining on a crystal?
I still have a problem with natural selection itself, let alone origin of life.
5th beatle,[love it!] could you explain to me how a creature passes down those characteristics that are on the way to being useful, but in the mid stage really have no use. by the way, i have never seen a fossil of one of these. When animals breathed air there was a lung. I understand the lung fish but where were the middle stages? the mid necked giraffe? The fish with no fins, yet?
The wood pecker without the amazing brain sponge would not have lived long enough to reproduce, without the sticky saliva on it’s extra long tongue, without the throat secretions that break down the sticky saliva. how would they develop separately?
How did termites “learn to eat wood? they can not digest it, that is a symbiotic creature that lives no where else. how did they find each other when they can’t live alone?
Look I have a thousand of these. If you are really interested i will put up a separate post,
but there is no end to it. I was a firm believer in evolution until I saw a picture of a clear, no color, crawfish living in a cave. Natural selection does not explain that. It can not. Do you see why?

Comment by willohroots

ive heard that faith is genetic and so many people have it that it makes me wonder if its not an evolutionary advantage.

Comment by graceshaker

Ya, here’s a link to an article about it:


I think that maybe a long time ago it could have possibly been an evolutionary advantage, I doubt that it is nowadays. (In a society where you could be killed for heresy, it would be beneficial to have faith. Now? Not so much a problem..)

Comment by fivthbeatle

I love this article, and i agree with your oppinion.

Don’t let nayone get all Anti-god on you, and stay with what you believe.
We all know everyone has lost faith, and lost love due to science.
Those who hold true to their hearts, their faith, and their love will feel much more full, satisfied, and rewarded by the lives they lead.

Wonderful post.
you have made me smile today.
Thank you

Comment by Cat

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: