Wednesday, July 8, 2009

empiricist or hypocrite

Are empirical Atheistic Evolutionists Really Being Empirical When It Comes To Evolution?

empiricism (plural empiricism s)

1. A pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation.

hypocrisy (plural hypocrisies)

  1. The claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions or virtues that one does not actually possess.
Recently, I was watching a nature show on the Science channel that had some beautiful video. There were two hosts. Both believed in evolution and an incredibly old earth. The two were doing field research on some islands, collecting samples. One sample that was taken from the rock was said to possibly contain the origins of life. At the end of the show one scientist , while still on the island, semi-smiling, said that they were going to take the samples back to the lab, where they 'would study them, look at the information and come up with a story... in the end, that's what we do, come up with stories'.

When I heard this I, uncontrollably, laughed aloud. I think I laughed mainly because this is one of my main arguments against evolution. To hear an evolutionist-scientist come right-out, unabashedly, and say it like it was a job description... This is also an argument used by other well known creationists. This quote is right up there with some other quasi-infamous quotes from evolutionists, such as: Evolution is neither proven nor provable, but its alternative, special creation, is unthinkable. and [The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come from nothing. It represents a true miracle... You can see a truly massive list of such quotes at
Now, when I look for evidence for evolution, I look for empirical evidence as well. Good, solid, unquestionable, unintercontradictory, court room kinda evidence. I would think atheists would also like this kind of evidence, because it is a basis for their entire worldview. Unless of course, you choose your worldview because you like its particular benefits. In that case you would probably, like St. Paul said, unrighteousness suppress the truth. Romans 1:18

No doubt you've heard someone somewhere say that unless they can see it or touch it they won't believe it exists. Well, since evolution is an idea and not a thing or person I would like to redefine this qualification. For evolution, the evidence that I think we should require is something that we don't have to propose a story on, something that exists in the present, and is sufficient in number. The evidence I've found for evolution has been less than thrilling. All I see is supposed links like some mollusks and bacteria. At its base evolution is about accidentally mutating beneficial attributes so as to better survive your surroundings. My sisters French Bulldog is evidence in the present of an accidentally and beneficially mutated animal. There are thousands of French Bulldogs and at one time in man's time they didn't exist. Their beneficial attribute? They are very small and hideously cute. On the contrary, they cannot survive more than a day or two without human help. I've heard some scientists say that this is evidence for evolution. I'd say at the best, this is grasping at straws. Their mutations are defects that were spotted by breeders who forced them to breed with other defective dogs.

So where, in nature, are the animals that are evolving? I've seen animals that have amazing natural defenses. Where are the animals with mutations? I've seen the cows with an extra leg. Where are the humans with beneficial mutations? I've seen X-Men and the NBA playoffs.

Probability suggests that in order for an animal with a mutation to pass on its mutation, it must have either a mutation that keeps it from dieing too soon to procreate or be incredibly lucky. The other option for a particular animal to pass down a mutation is for the same mutation to exist in many animals, either recurring through history or by being obtained by many offspring. For example, a rabbit giving birth to bunnies all having 1-inch longer ears or all similar rabbits having a relative that gives birth to a bunny with a 1-inch longer ear. Even though this is probable, I have not seen evidence for this in the wild. I've never seen even one same mutation passed down to all siblings. If this has happened, it is rare. And, the rarity, is a dead giveaway. Animals die from many natural occurrences, not to mention their predators. If you are the next step in the evolution of a species, when you are born, you need to make it all the way from infancy through adolescence all the way to maturity, without dieing in order to pass on that defective gene. But surviving to sexual maturity is not all. You still need to find a mate. Hopefully you can find a mate that has a thing for mutations and your mutation is hidden or attractive. If you actually do find a mate, the next step is impregnation... hopefully it takes. Now for the last piece. Did the faulty DNA transfer to an embryo? Other questions: Does that one embryo make it to birth? Does that one embryo survive the birth or is it still born? Does the father eat it? After all that amazing process, it has to happen a couple million more times and also has to be a beneficial attribute. This seems absurd to me, but that's not my point. My point is that we should see hundreds of mutants running around, mutants with beneficial mutations. I WANT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! and you should to.