Friday, October 19, 2012
Is your understanding of the Universe so complete that you can rule this hypothetical situation out?
Don't knock what you may not understand... this poster doesn't have it quite right, which, of course, is intentional. The idea of something being created from nothing might not make sense, but neither does the existence of God. Where else could something come from but from nothing? There are no other sources. Just because that doesn't make any sense to our (I am so often reminded by Christians) finite minds - ("We just don't understand the mind of God") doesn't make it any less plausible. Take a good look at quantum physics or relativity. Do they make any sense to you? Yet they are true. No scientist worth his salt would rule out the possibility of the implications of this misguided poster. Good scientists don't let their hearts do their thinking for them.
Still need proof for Darwin’s theory? Read on. The fact that new species develop according to adaptation and inheritance is known as the Theory of Selection, whether it be naturally or artificially induced. It was proposed by naturalist Charles Darwin in the mid-1800’s and is known as “Darwinism”. It’s a common misconception that Darwin was the originator of the Theory of Descent. Actually, the idea of the formation of new species by descent was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 50 years earlier and is called “Lamarckism”. It was even suspected by Aristotle. Darwin only explained the descent of organisms by means of Natural Selection, in his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”. In fact, this theory was independently developed by Alfred Wallace at about the same time. Darwin actually put off publishing the results from his observations in his book for 21 years until he was convinced that there was no other explanation possible.
The fact that breeders of dogs, cats, horses, tomatoes or strawberries breed their stock to achieve a desired result – whether the result be a tastier strawberry, a smaller dog or whatever, is proof that the Theory of Selection holds water. You may say that it is only a theory but that doesn’t make it improvable. All scientific ideas and natural laws are backed by theories. The Theory of Selection is a mathematical consequence of the relationship of available space for an organism to exist and the excessive number of organisms competing for that existence. Obviously, some organisms thrive while most others die off. It’s called Survival of the Fittest, or, the struggle for existence. The fittest, according to adaptation and inheritance tend towards survival while the least fit tend towards extinction. Very sensible, is it not? In fact, the seemingly endless variety of organisms, still very much in transitional states today, as can be seen in the existence of rudimentary limbs such as the remnant hind legs of whales, or the now defunct internal organs of many species, including the appendix of man, can only be explained by the Theory of Selection – otherwise it is left to the unfathomable realm of “miracles”.
The Theory of Selection is a self-evident law of nature and requires no further proof any more than you require further proof that more than one breed of dog exists. The fact that people from other parts of the world look differently, or that there are German Shepherds, Chihuahua’s, Beagles and Irish Setters, etc., is all the proof of the Theory of Selection you should require. These breeds, or, sub-species, were intentionally created – bred from a common ancestor of the genus Canis (dog) which was bred from Canis Lupus (wolf). In fact, some breeds of dog are so distantly related that they cannot reproduce together – although they belong to the same genus, they have, through Artificial Selection (selection induced by man, or, intentional breeding) become distinctly separate species. Selection induced by nature is called Natural Selection and works in exactly the same way, only much more slowly.
Darwin also provided proof of another weighty philosophical question when he explained Natural Selection; that is, the question of how arrangements serving a purpose can arise mechanically without causes acting for a purpose. If that sounds a bit convoluted, just stop for a minute and think about it. If you’re at all familiar with some simple math and statistics, you’ll see the logic in it right away. If you still require proof, you either don’t thoroughly understand the theory or are not sufficiently acquainted with the fundamentals of biology – and if that is the case, you really should familiarize yourself before making any judgments on the subject.
I’ll end here with my favorite quotation on ‘obviousness’ as it applies to biology: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.”
Oh, just one more thing... I realize this little essay of mine smacks of sacrilege but that is not my intention at all. Like most of my writings, it was only meant to spark a little controversy; to bring people’s blood to near boiling, get them thinking and get them out of their heads for a bit (contrary to popular belief, I like to have a little fun too!) And unfortunately, like the rest of us, I was not present at The Creation (though I feel I could have given the Creator a few pointers) but alas, the truth is, I have an agreement with God – I don’t tell Him how to create Universes – and He doesn’t tell me how to interpret facts.