Monday, February 18, 2008

A respose to, "Evolution and Chance"

Before you read this post, go to, The barefoot Bum's website, here and read his response to an earlier post of mine.

Pastor Rob here to enlighten you all once again.

BTW, I have a new blog just for such festooning and philosophizing. It's at

This way I can keep the two groups straight.

Well, I've got a few minutes here, but once again, you'll find some of your arguments in "post form" over at the other blog, then you can see my responses and so forth...

First of all, I'll address real questions, but where anonymous and slut (gotta love that name) offer nothing but gibberish and name calling, I'll leave them to the school yard of 3rd grade.

So let me hit just one area here that Larry attempted to brush aside a little too quickly. So quick, in fact, I sensed something wrong there.

At this point, before reading further, some of you might want to throw in a few expletives about those @#$#$%$@*& Christians!

Feel better?

Let's continue then.

Larry says: "It's important to understand that before we even begin to discuss the scientific theories that fall under the rubric of "evolution" that the design hypothesis has immense, probably fatal flaws, flaws that were apparent in the 18th century."

He then goes on to talk about how there are a number of design flaws that would indicate the designer was, well, less then stellar at His task.

Forgetting for a moment all the perfectly good things in nature we humans screw up, I want to make sure we bring the point back in focus. The point was that intricate design points to a designer -- not that "only perfect design points to a designer." If that were the criteria then we'd have to assume all American made cars are a result of evolution over millions of years since they all seem to have a million and one flaws. But that isn't the question. The question is, at what point is there too much intricacy for chance or natural selection and even a trillion years to be a legitimate possibility?'

For some of your very well known (former) atheistic colleagues, that point has already been reached.

Astronomer Fred Hoyle had his atheism shaken by the Anthropic Principle and the complexity he saw in life.

Hoyle concluded, and I quote, "a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

While Hoyle was vague about who this super intellect is, he recognized that the fine tuning of the universe requires intelligence.

Time out.

At this point let me share with you all (the readers) a curious reaction I witness time and time again when more than adequately qualified individuals break from the (your) party line.

They immediately get labeled as discredited, loony, secret agents for the religious right (or something to that affect). It just amazes me that your own heroes of old need only step over the line (to the light side) one time and they are immediately thrown to the wolves.

It's a little bit like what I see people doing to Hilary Clinton now that Obama has the lead. Yesterday she was the democratic poster child. Today many seem ready to throw her body in the volcano and sacrifice her to the atheistic, um, well, throw her in the volcano.

I don't want to go down that rabbit trail too much other than to say that emotions seem to play an enormously disproportionate role here.

Just my observation.

Back to the festooning.

Other atheists admit design but then claim there is no designer. They say it all happened by chance (Larry prefers the term, 'natural selection' i.e. 'chance') But how can you seriously suggest this when there is virtually zero probability that all the 100-plus constants (that have to be there for life on planet earth) would be there absence intelligence?

Larry seemed to lean on the numbers angle. So, I assume you are talking about the multiple universe theory here. Am I right?

Or at least something like it.

That theory would assert that there are an infinite number of universes out there and we just happen to live in the one with all the right conditions.

I've heard this many times, but find it to be an incredible leap of faith on par with Steve Martin in his movie, "Leap of Faith."

Essentially, atheists holding to this are saying "given an infinite number of universes, every set of conditions will occur, including the life supporting conditions of our universe.

Larry makes it clear that he stands with those who adhere to this when he says, "It is probably true that, to some extent, the habitability of the Earth is a matter of chance. Solar systems do not evolve as do life forms and are not subject to natural selection. However, there are about 200 billion stars in just our own galaxy, and there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, for a total of 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Just by comparison, if you dealt that many random hands of bridge, you would receive about 10,000,000,000 perfect hands, with 10 of them dealt in perfect order. It's extremely likely that some planet is ideally situated for the development of life, and of course it is precisely on that planet where life would occur."

"Extremely likely"?

"10,000,000,000 perfect hands"?

I address the "likelihood" of this on my blog..,

Let me finish this Guinness Book of World Records length comment first.

There are many problems with the multiple universe explanation. First and foremost is that there is absolutely not even one shred of proof for it. The evidence shows the exact opposite. It's another 'theory' Larry attempts to set forth in a factual manner.

It's perfectly fine for him to believe it and accept it on faith, but ludicrous to set it forth based on it being "extremely likely." For something to be 'extremely likely" there ought to be at least a modicum of evidence for it.

I'll continue. What the 'evidence' does show is that all of finite reality came into existence with the 'Big Bang. Finite reality is exactly what we call the universe. If other 'finite reality' exists, they are beyond our scientific ability to detect. No one has ever observed any evidences that any such universes exist. Larry takes it on faith based on 10,000,000 perfect hands of bridge (<-- by the way, I checked into that a little more thoroughly and, let's just say, you might want to run those numbers again).

In short, the multiple universe is nothing more than a metaphysical concoction-- a fairytale built on blind faith--as detached from reality as Stephen Hawking's "imaginary time."

For more, go to,


Jake & Elwood Blues said...

Let me start this off by saying I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, I am not making a frontal attack, I do not have a hidden agenda, and I am not taking sides, well maybe a little skewed towards Rob. I considered long and hard on whether or not I wanted to jump "into the fray" here and post a response especially since I am, for the most part, only a “recreational” blogger. We may disagree on most, if not all, points made based on religion, but I believe we have similar opinions in other matters, probably closer than you would think at first blush. If you want to post a reply please visit my blog or
Please keep it clean, these are family friendly blogs. : )

skyemaidstone said...

Nicely written post. I don't entirely agree with some of it but a well written argument and a good read. thanks

Derek Hosewood of Homeowner Loans