Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Ahmadinejad predicts the end of American civilization... | Main | "Tango Mike Mike" »

Wednesday, February 03, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

chuck aka xtnyoda

Well said!

Had to post it.


An interesting observation and astute conclusion. I just happened to come across the wonderful classic film Inherit the Wind last night on TMC and the same thought crossed my mind once again.

If man is descendant from the ape? Then why do we still have apes? In every other example of evolution, the supposed fossil record supposedly demonstrates the transition and evolution of species.

But as it applies to man? We are told...."well this is what happened." Accept it. Father Darwin has spoken.

I think; therefore, I don't think so.

Using morphology and biochemistry (including DNA/RNA) we are indeed a subcategory of fish (fish to reptile to mammal to ...). However, we did not descend from apes. Both apes and humans can trace back their descent to a common non-ape ancestor, after which we diverged.

The bottom line for Catholics and other Christians is that God creates a human soul at the moment of conception. How the sperm and egg got there is not a religious question. Evolution by natural (and kin and sexual) selection is not a problem for Christian theology. The Christian God is supposed to be outside time and omniscient, so creation by natural selection should not present any problems to the believer.

On the other hand, if you are committed to a "Young Earth" and special creation, you have a problem. Catholicism like Orthodox Judaism does not accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, so these positions cannot be Catholic.


I've spent the last two years taking biology, organic chemistry, human anatomy & physiology and now microbiology/cell pathology.

In spite of the strong party line, I see no good evidence of darwinian evolution as presented.

Our micro professor, in discussing microbes on Monday night said that one of the characteristics of life is that it can only come from life.

Evolutionists dance around this, performing mighty ballets and tarantellas without explaining how one can make that statement without asking, "so where did the first life come from?" Primordial goo will just sit there until it is put together into life. Who did the putting together?

Natural selection is another matter, even though scientists are dishonest enough to try to make laymen confused about this and mix it up with darwinian evolution. Natural selection is merely the animal's ability to survive and reproduce under adverse or changing conditions. The animals that survive reproduce. The animals that can't survive don't pass on their genes.

And to the poster above who rejects young earth, may I direct you to . There are plenty of peer reviewed articles on that website that discuss young earth. Maybe you ought not to take catholic and jewish beliefs so easily.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

So…. there is no evidence of evolution? Rather like the existence of your God?


What do you consider evidence, tim?

David Behe, a fellow atheist, doesn't think much of darwinian evolution. Of course, he thinks that an alien race started things going here - that's up for debate. But his reasoning is pretty simple and comprehensive and he has been damned 12 ways to hell by his fellow atheists and darwinian true believers for daring to step outside their tidy little box and wrecking their beautiful theories.


Morphology and biochemistry? You don't say?

So what exactly is that pray tell? Changing the words and terminologies of evidence to supposedly support alternative realities?


He's throwing fancy words around to try and dazzle us with bullshit. Come on, LP, get with the program!!!

tim aka The Godless Heathen

Actually Mommynator, it's more important what YOU consider evidence. My point was that you, and some of the rest commenting, easily dismiss evolution but yet...your God exist say so. I just find that peculiar. I could easily use some of the arguments used here against evolution to point out the nonexistence of a God.

Please keep in mind Mommynator, I respect all you for your beliefs and rarely voice my opinion on posts that relate to religion. I just found it ironic that evolution is so easily dismissed by the same folks who embrace something there is no evidence of, especially in regards to what evidence there is of evolution.

BTW, do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

I guess we all sometimes believe what we want to believe regardless of what the facts are. It doesn’t make anyone a bad person…as long as we don’t try telling each other how wrong the other guy is.


Good post. Philosophically speaking, the TOE (Theory of Evolution) also is often given as a rationale for ditching the idea of essence. Of course, it could be strongly argued that Nominalism gave birth to the TOE and not the other way around.

A great book to read defending classical philosophy against the moderns (who have always needed an extremely mucked up philosophy to justify atheism) is "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser.

BTW, for the record, It's Michael Behe, not David Behe, and he's a Catholic with 9 or more kids, not an atheist. And, yes, he has been damned 12 ways to hell by his non-fellow atheists, who, in the cogency of their "refutations" resemble nothing so much as a bunch of tantruming two year olds.


chuck aka xtnyoda

Evolution is still technically a "theory." Religion is a "belief" system.

There is a difference.

The problem BroKen seems to address is when a person or group starts to treat evolution as a belief system instead of a scientific theory.

Roy Lofquist

This thread, as is usual, has degenerated into a Naturalism vs. Religious Doctrine debate. The essence of the "Intelligent Design" argument is that evolution provides absolutely no credible answer to the question "Whence cometh DNA?". No natural explanation within the known laws of the universe for DNA? Then its origin is by definition supernatural.

ID does not speculate as to the nature of this supernatural force. All it says is that it is mysterious. Materialist explanations don't work.

Richard Dawkins tried to get around the problem in his book "Climbing Mount Impossible" by picturing evolution as akin to a trail spiraling up a mountain. Things happen on the side we can't see. We don't know what happens but somehow some unknown laws of nature are at work on the other side.

Unknown Laws of Nature are by definition supernatural. Now one may point out that we knew nothing about quantum mechanics until we saw some unexplainable things about a hundred years ago. But until we do discover hitherto unknow phenomena evolution is more properly called science fiction.


I'm going to dig out my copy of Darwin's Black Box this weekend to be more accurate.

Don't want to continue making possibly inaccurate arguments.

Not that my actual facts about evolution/natural selection are wrong, just the specifics of the book.


Wow! More comments than I've had in months. Thank you all. Thanks for the link and kind words, Chuck.

To the poster with the google link for a name, I'd say that my question is not about morphology and biochemistry. It's more about the logic and reason. Seems to me that even if we are descendant from fish... we are NOT FISH. We and fish are both vertebrates but not the same kind of vertebrate. Birds might have descended from reptiles... fine. But even so, they are NOT REPTILES. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate your help.

Mr. Lofquist, good stuff. That's why it's so amazing that they will (in their imaginations) allow E.T. to seed the earth with DNA to explain the near instant beginning of life on earth.... but not God. Science Fiction good. Religion BAAAD.

supra kids shoes

I like you on facebook and follow through google reader!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Tip Jar

Plainly Offsetting Costs

Search Brutally Honest

  • Google




Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable