I have heard many arguments relating to both evolution and creation yet I still remain very sceptical about the validity of evolution.
I agree this seems more of a language issue than it does a fact issue. For example it has been said that there is “micro evolution” and “macro evolution” to simplify it, Macro evolution is the result of micro evolution over many years.
Let me dissect these two a little. Micro evolution is said to be small genetic changes in a species while macro evolution is said to be a change in species because of micro evolution.
If this is the case then it would be clear that micro evolution is a fact because it is observed even from parent to child. But we are speaking about the validity of macro evolution which is the change of species.
One of my greatest concerns is the lack of real evidence and the use of fabricated evidence. I can understand the point to fill in the gaps where evidence is lacking but it is assumed, much like a maths pattern i.e. 2,…,8…10…12 where we would assume that 4 and 6 are the missing numbers, although we don’t see those numbers we will perhaps write them in to paint a full picture. In the case of macro evolution, it isn’t simple 0 – 12 maths, it is billions of years maths with billions of patterns and in these cases to be able to fill in the huge and multiple gaps with implied “numbers” or “evidence” seems to be impossible yet done so regularly.
Let me explain more, Evolution as a whole is the explanation of “nothing” aka a beginning to the present time. Mankind would agree that logic says there must have been a beginning of everything we see today and an end perhaps in the future or eternity. So if we need to explain the process of a beginning to present space and time or even infinity itself. We can not simply say there was a beginning and here we are today because as humans we need explanations as to how and why? So we use the information around us to create a picture to explain these question to people. Religion and philosophy used to have the monopoly on these stories and while some of them very nice or interesting over years a new more reliable method has risen speedily through the ranks and gained world supremacy in authority over truth in explaining “beginning” to “now” that authority is science. However science in turn has its own flaws and faults much like the old monopolies of religion and philosophy and some extra on top.
All religions and philosophy as well as science suffer with the same major flaws in their explanations: They are man-made and men make mistakes; no one was there to eye-witness these claims (on the contrary actually); perception; limited information; change; limited information.
So with that said we still have to take science with a pinch of salt because if a man observes evidence incorrectly or assumed something in error or the evidence pattern changed over a time period these would be impossible to rely upon.
We then have to look at the history of the “story tellers” and the reliability of the evidence must stand the test of time or leave itself open to the same scrutiny that religion and philosophy did by science itself. For example many of the “evidence” used to verify evolution has been discredited and found to be mistakes or fabrications and forgeries over time. Even though these fake pieces of evidence have been proven fake because there is nothing else to fill the gap they remain used to display a pattern that is assumed but still as evidence ie. Neanderthal man, the only evidence to show Neanderthal man has been limited to a couple of finds both of which were discredited over time, which is why the world gets so excited each time they think they have found another “real” one, because it is still missing. But the pattern gaps still need fillers, so we leave it as it is, also to hide our own shame in being tricked by “respected” scientists who simply were corrupt and misrepresented the evidence they found.
Which takes me back to one of my previous examples of man not only makes mistakes but creates mistakes aka lies in order to help support his stories and fill in gaps as well as progress his career and earn him respect amongst his peers. Sometime you can be so determined on finding evidence that you manipulate other evidence in order to support you or in other cases you can be so one track minded that you can only see the evidence as is fitting into the pattern you want, we’ve all done it.
The title of this blog tackles hoax, which I have touched on a little above but now I will explain the old-time religion part.
Paganism may be claimed pre-dates world religions or at least existed at the same time as other old religions. Paganism as described on the BBC website is this:
Paganism describes a group of contemporary religions based on a reverence for nature. These faiths draw on the traditional religions of indigenous Peoples throughout the world.
But let us take away for one moment the second sentence and check out the first sentence: Paganism describes a group of contemporary religions based on a reverence for nature.
Religions are often based on an external creator ie creationists but for evolutionists the assumption is the opposite, no creator exists and nature has done all the magic. This very much describes Atheist evolutionist who give all credit and glory to nature in reverence to its own creation. You may perhaps even argue that the second sentence was relative in some cases with regard to many old-time pagan practices and festivals still being practiced today.
What you see is nothing new as we may have first amazed at but simply a reawakening of the old pagan beliefs of the past repackaged with the help of modern science. As I explained previously would be unreliable as evidence due to the nature of the evidence, fabrication, errors and changes in it that take place daily in the scientific community, as well as the billions of gaps simply and all too easily being filled by patterns and assumptions that don’t actually add up to evidence but mere explanations much like religion and philosophy. If I was to look at the same piece of evidence as an evolutionist scientist and see something different or find holes in what they see, it wont make this evidence shaky and unreliable for good reason it will mean that I am stupid, which doesn’t make sense as truth has all the answers not part of the answers. Any reasonable doubt should make evidence no longer real evidence but a gap filler and implied evidence, but unfortunately this isn’t the case.
My main concerns regarding the possible evolution hoax or old-time religion are listed below and to good reason:-
We have stunted science – When you believe you have the truth you stop looking for it while perhaps believing the lie, in this case science is being stunted by the possibility that we are so excited we have found an explanation that we would rather remain stagnant and committed to it rather than attempting to discover the truth.
We may be making a huge mistake – If science is incorrect based on the above arguments then we may be misleading people to believe a lie over the truth and if the truth turns out to be one of the religions claims then we will be harming humanity and its existence rather than benefitting it.
We may tamper with the truth – if we are moving lies around and hiding reasonable doubt then we may be covering up truth which in turn stunts humanity and science rather than progressing it.
We may misinterprets patterns and harm the future of humanity – If we have misread patterns of the past because we couldn’t see the previous patterns as we were not there to test or see it then in turn we would use these limited patterns to predict the future and this will lead science down a dangerous future path where we are not only going astray from progress but could harm the future as we wont be able to see how future pattern change simply based upon limited patterns now eg. I assume that the air quality in 1000 years will be worse because of today’s pollution rates but in 100 years time a method to reverse or clean air is a normal part of the world which means in 900 years after that the planet may look very different, bacteria, animals, life as we know it may look very different. Another example of this: if the sea levels fall dramatically over 10 years due to a natural disaster and humans were able to return down below current sea levels considerably then the air would be much thicker at low levels and therefore life may become larger than today because of micro evolution and science may not be ready for this because it assumed it would never happen based upon the patterns of the past. In the case of Noah’s flood one would have automatically taken this into consideration for scientific patterns but at the moment we assume global warming will increase sea levels, so our future is being directed towards these changes.
In China many years ago overpopulation became an issue based on assumptions of previous child rate patterns. However after many years of 1 child families we find there to be a lack of females in China and too many men which wasn’t foreseen in the patterns used to direct choices. What if a disease like Ebola wiped out half of the world’s population over a year? We would be assuming that the world will be over populated in 50 years based upon current patterns and rates and we may direct science in that direction but lacking foresight that in fact we will be severely underpopulated within a year and science should have been using its efforts to that effect.
You can see that assuming patterns of either future or past can be a dangerous game of roulette and chance as is assuming the holes in evolutions explanation can be filled based upon current scientific patterns used to do so.
I hope that this makes some sense, if it doesn’t it may be due to your error in perception (as mentioned earlier) or my error in communication (also man’s error) and speaking about this at more length face to face may have shone more light on it, as you’d expect of explaining evolution also.