The Black Hole in Evolution

Ray's latest post was such a mess that I was not sure if I wanted to even make a post on it. It seems something written by a high schooler, or a high school dropout. The science is wrong at every point, the thoughts are scattered, no topic or question is really address, and it is riddled with fallacies. I'll just write a few thoughts on it.

Firstly, Ray personifies evolution throughout (for the same reason he always uses "look around at creation"):

• evolution had no end in mind...
• when it created all living things...
• it is incredibly intelligent, ...
  
• but it forgot that they would go spinning into space without the law of gravity

Why? For the same reason his brand refers to the scientific theory of evolution as Darwinism: to portray it as a religion, dogmatic, and unscientific. He paints rational folks as deifying evolution and instituting it as our religion. This ties into a later point below.

it forgot that they would go spinning into space without the law of gravity. So it was fortunate for us that gravity just happened to be around to stop that disaster.

And while the scientific theory of cells is "structuring" living things, it forgot that they would go spinning into space without the law of gravity. And while the scientific theory of plate tectonics is "moving" Earth's lithosphere, it "forgot" that they would go spinning into space without the law of gravity.

What is the point of this?

Where did gravity then come from? If evolution had nothing to do with it, who or what created it? "Chance" or "accident" is too bigger leap of blind faith for me. The evolutionist's version of "just believe" isn't good enough. I want verifiable scientific facts.

I will look into obtaining Ray's address and will collect funds to mail him a book on evolution. You can examine it cover to cover and see that evolutionary theory does not address gravity, just as cell theory doesn't, just as plate tectonics theory doesn't. I've studied automata theory, and that didn't address gravity, so it must be invalid? They have nothing to do with one another. But this will tie into the previous point at the end.

Of course your "scientific" answer will be, "We don’t yet know where they came from, but one thing we are sure of, God didn’t create them."

Of course it wouldn't. Two paragraphs above you said that you "want verifiable scientific facts." And yet, your answer to the scientific questions is "God did it," an inherently unscientific, unverifiable assertion. I am perfectly open to the possibility that God created them just as I am to any other explanation, including that the FSM did it. As scientists, though, we don't just grab some non-answer conjecture and say, that's it!

I could give you an answer for it as I could give you an answer for everything. You answer everything with an unproven book with an answer of "God did it." I could just as easily make something up and have that be the answer for anything I don't know.

It was Newton's law of gravitation that showed science that the gravitational constant is in direct proportion to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance apart.

You're a little behind in your science, about two hundred thirty years behind it. Why did he use Newton, though, instead of Einstein?

However, that doesn't explain the nature of gravity. Despite its mystery, the brilliant Newton attributed its origin to the genius of Almighty God. So do I.

To set up an appeal to authority; especially an authority who died a hundred thirty years before Darwin's Origin of Species which proved that gravity was created by biological evolution.


Two drive home the two points of this post, though:

Firstly, his point of personifying the theory of evolution is to portray it as a religion; a deity of sorts. But we rational people don't look at sexual reproduction which "creates life forms" and say, yep, sexual reproduction created gravity and the universe. We recognize it as a biological function which propagates life and, as such, we don't worship it. Similarly, we rational people don't look at evolution which "creates life forms" and say, yep, evolution created gravity and the universe. We recognize it as a biological function which propagates life and, as such, we don't worship it.

If you can be religious and still accept that sexual reproduction "creates life forms," then you can be religious and still accept that evolution "creates life forms." My understanding of science in no way prohibits some deity at the origin of our universe. I don't happen to accept that but, if I did, it wouldn't require me to reject evolution and sexual reproduction any more than it would require me to reject anything else of science. If there was a God, it seems that he created a universe which perpetuates itself through natural processes, such as evolution and sexual reproduction, and keeps itself from spinning into space with natural forces such as gravity.

His attack on evolution is to force religious believers into a false dichotomy of the scientific theory of evolution or the unscientific notion of "God did it."


Secondly, this ALL is from a man who wrote a book called Scientific Facts in the Bible. This is the man who thinks that evolutionary theory teaches that evolution "created gravity" or that light is invisible or any of the countless other ridiculous and completely false things he states about science.

---

Others on this topic:

• Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes
• Of Microbes and Men