Is Evolution true?


I wonder about this often. Sometimes, my thoughts are light, sometimes my thoughts are deep, and I meditate about Evolution. And I read way too much.

First, I do not believe Evolution would change who God is.

But, Evolution does things I do not think a Theory should do.

First, Evolution changes our world view (Religion) without reason. Most evolutionists say that Evolution does not do that. But when you study Evolution, the same evolutionists say that it does.

And maybe many theories change us, but I do not believe Evolution should.

Second, there are two groups of evolutionary scientists. The Cosmologists and the Biologists. Evolutionary biologists just do not write in the same style as the cosmologists. Most of the astro-physicists I read sound like Scientists.

Most of the biologists do not sound like Scientists.

The first group spends much less time arguing against their peers and against God.

And maybe my reading is only anecdotal, but the difference between the two groups is painful for me to read at times.

Have any if you noticed this, or am I the only one?


About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blogging, God, News and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Is Evolution true?

  1. Wayne, as you well know it takes a lot more faith to believe in atheistic evolutionary theory than it does to believe the Bible.
    They don’t want to believe in “first causes” because that means the “G” word.
    They would rather believe as they did in the middle ages that flies were spontaneously generated out of the pile of cow dung.
    Their biggest hurdle of course is where did “life” originate in the first place? Where did the first molecules come from? They love to talk about natural selection providing ever increasing complexity but ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics on dispersal and dissipation of energy.
    Go figure!

  2. Pingback: For my atheist readers | luvsiesous

  3. tildeb says:

    Is evolution true?



    It is an explanatory model that works. It explains how life changes over time and by what mechanisms this change occurs. The evidence in its favour is complete and can be found in multiple lines of inquiry that are mutually supportive. Over time there have been many chances that evolution could have been shown not to be true, to not work, or to be incomplete, or that the mechanisms were not suitable. In each and every case, evolution has successfully passed all these rigorous tests. From this basic understanding of how life changes over time, we have now developed new sciences that also work according to the explanatory model. These new sciences shouldn’t work if the explanatory model of evolution was not accurate.

    Put another way, if evolution is not true, then all – and I mean ALL – of our knowledge adduced from its explanatory model is wrong.

    What does this include?

    Well, the list is very long. It includes the basic premises for genetics implemented through chemistry into practical applications and therapies and technologies (like medicine, for one example). If the model is wrong, then our understanding adduced from it is also wrong and this should show up when we apply the model. But it doesn’t show up. It seems to always work. If it didn’t work then this would have some rather serious consequences.

    How so?

    It means our understanding of all the physical processes involved in how life changes over time is wrong. It means our understanding of geology and paleontology is wrong. It means vulcanism is wrong. It means the tools used for archeology are wrong. It means hydrology is wrong. It means biogeography is wrong. It means crop sciences is wrong. It means earth sciences is wrong. Nuclear medicine is wrong. The entire nuclear industry is wrong. It means animal husbandry is wrong. It means physics is wrong. All of it. Every application, every therapy, and every technology based on this understanding of how all of these processes work is wrong… if the model used to explain how life changes over time is also wrong.


    Because all use the IDENTICAL understanding.

    And if evolution is true and our understanding of why it is true is sound, then the scriptural account is false. There is no middle ground because either our modelling is accurate to inform all of our knowledge demonstrated by everything we have built THAT WORKS on this understanding or our understanding is wrong.

    This is what Wayne is asking you to choose between when he has the notion that evolution might be wrong. He is asking you to choose between creationism or knowledge. One or the other.

    When surrounded by applications, therapies, and technologies that DEMONSTRATES the power of our understanding about how things work, it is lunacy to suggest all of it is wrong. If it is wrong, then where’s the new explanatory model that works better? God did it in mysterious ways?

    Seriously? That’s why you are asking people to cast aside human knowledge accrued by so many people over so much time and demonstrated to work?

    The ‘choice’ Wayne thinks is equivalent – either evolution or creationism – is actually so preposterous an alternative that it leaves the land of Ludicrous far behind and travels by warp speed into Delusion and an utter rejection of reason. And this is why the idea of creationism – when measured against incompatible scientific explanations that power our applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time contrarily explained by the model of some supernatural agency of Oogity Boogity intervening by the mechanism of POOF!ism – is so ridiculed by anyone who can reasonably consider these alternatives. Creationism is not reasonable but stands against reason. It stands against our understanding of all of our sciences. It stands against our applications, therapies, and technologies that work.

    Creationism is Denialism. It is denialism of the worst kind because it asks people to put their brains aside and simply believe. It asks people to deny the reality we share and asks us to reject our understanding of it. And this request is made for one reason and one reason only: to make room for an incompatible religious belief. All that costs is not just knowledge about reality but reason itself. This cost is too high for anyone to pay in the name of piety.

    • Wayne says:

      I love your answer.

      I worked doing Paleontology. Faith in Evolution was not necessary. Nor, did I need to deny faith in God. Faith in anything other than my equipment, my brain, and what I was doing was not required.

      Skepticism is healthy. I am amazed that Darwin was able to be a Skeptic and write his tome,

      He was a trained parson.

      According to modern Evolutionary theory, he could not have done that.

      But, he did.


    • Wayne says:

      Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your using fewer ad hominem arguments.

      1. What mechanism created life abiogenesis? What ‘poofism’ do you believe did this?

      2. What mechanism created DNA/RNA? What ‘poofism’ do you believe did this?

      3. What mechanism created the cell wall? What ‘poofism’ do you believe did this?

      4. What mechanism created sexual reproduction? What ‘poofism’ do you believe did this?

      5. What mechanism created multi-cell organisms? What ‘poofism’ do you believe did this?

      6. What mechanism created animal life? What ‘poofism’ do you believe did this?

      Darwinian evolution while ‘cute,’ does not answer these questions. Belief in God, not your ‘poofism’ does answer this.

      The difference in your faith and my faith is simple, I admit I could be wrong; I do not need ad hominems to support my weak faith; I base my faith upon empirical evidence which you refuse to consider; I am fascinated by Cosmology, while you are not fascinated by the resurrection of Jesus; and you redefine everything in an attempt to justify your faith system.

      Sometimes, you make great points, but seldom do you teach me anything new, or better, than what I already know. Maybe that is because I read source documents: The Bible; Darwin; Dawkins; Gould; Weinberg; and so many more.


  4. magnocrat says:

    You must remember evolution was born long ago and it rested on the fossil record and prolonged observation. If you ditch the modern stuff and read Darwin direct you may be surprised.
    The fossil record is there for all to see and has to be explained somehow.
    If you are religious then turn to some form of creationism there is a plentiful supply.
    Whatever you do, like most of us, you have to be comfortable and thats not easy in a fast changing world.

    • Wayne says:

      Thank you for your comment. Thoughtful, and you gave me much to think about.


      • magnocrat says:

        Robert Chambers was a sort of John the Baptist preparing the ground for Darwin.
        When he published Vestiges he was afraid to put his name to it.
        ‘ For it may be asked, if God, as it appears, has chosen to inferior organisms as a generative medium for the production of higher ones , even including ourselves.
        What right have we, his humble creatures to find fault?’
        Robert Chambers
        How differently they wrote and spoke in those days.

      • Wayne says:

        Another great comment.

        True, but we still do not know how much God participated in Creation and how much he left to directed change.

        Do we?

      • tildeb says:

        … and no way to find out so you’ll just make more stuff up.

      • Wayne says:

        If I make stuff up, after exhaustive research, or you make stuff up? Is there much difference in ‘made up arguments?’

        Why can’t we stick to what we do know and figure out what we do not know?

      • magnocrat says:

        Absolutely and we may never no the whole story. Man is very curious he wants to know everything sometimes this attitude anoys me.

      • Wayne says:

        Great insight!

        I struggle with that attitude as well.

        Sometimes, I am happy with a simple answer. Yet, at other times, I struggle because the complex answer is just not good enough.


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 )

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