Creationism Has No Chance

Few scientists even discuss creationism because it is so far off the truth map it’s in the absurd. There are many reasons but one is the presence of body parts in we humans that had some function in the past, no longer serve any purpose, but are still there. There is no explanation in creationism for this phenomenon. There is in evolution.

A gene called GULO produces vitamin C. Many kinds of animals have the GULO and do fine without without Vitamin C in their diets. We don’t. We must get Vitamin C in our food. We also have the GULO gene but it was disabled in a random gene mutation. An “intelligent designer” would not give us this gene and then make it worthless.

We also have muscles in our arms that were useful in the past for hanging from trees but have no use today. The same is true for bones in our ankles. These are not the work of an intelligent designer.

Our sinuses drain from the top rather than from the bottom. Those of animals drain properly. Ours makes it likely we get infection when we have colds or encounter pollen.

Evolution has an over arching theory as to the origin of these unless parts of our bodies. Creationist theory, “intelligent design,” does not. The latter is about religion and not about science.

An embarrassing moment for our country was when President W Bush said both evolution and creationism should be taught in our schools. Intelligent Design has been properly labeled religion in court.

38 Responses

  1. Grandma

    Then there is this: if we had descended from the Jews, the genetic information would show that but it doesn’t. And if you, like me, have a bad back it’s because our primate ancestors shifted into bipedalism.

    1. Grandma 6:42 And if you like me have a bad back its because our primate ancestors shifted into bepedialism

      Yeah, our backs have hurt ever since we started walking. I read someone’s theory that walking and running upright allowed our ancestors to move across country faster. They could find more food and outrun some predators.

      1. mark anthony

        I assume that our sinuses drain top down because we walk upright. You may have noticed that most animals are horizontal, not vertical. Gravity and all that. How did we primates manage to “beat” it?

        1. Henry

          With the intelligent atheist design, they’d have our sinuses running down and collecting on our brain rather than running the contamination out through our nostrils. “Great” atheist design.

        2. Jinx II

          Most vertebrates have sinuses, they evolved in order to lighten the weight of the head. Your dog, cat, rabbit etc have sinuses and they have no problem draining since most of it slides down the back of the throat. In fact, Ear Nose and Throat Doc’s and surgeons practice their surgical skills on cute, fluffy bunnies because their sinuses are a lot like ours.

          I suspect certain humans have solid bones in their head, you can tell by their postings.

          1. Jinx II I suspect certain humans have solid bones in their head, you can tell by their postings.
            This retort is among the best we’ve seen here.

            The abuse you put up with here a couple of years ago, Christians wanting your name and age, put in the open what women are up against.

          2. mark anthony

            Obviously, sinuses lighten the load so to speak. Especially in primates where a rather large head stands on top of the critter. Generally speaking our sinuses drain well. Except when they become infected. I wonder if cute little bunnies ever get sinus infections.

          3. Jinx II

            Lol, well thank you Jon, when your up against medival beliefs sarcastic humor is some times best.

          4. Jinx II

            Oops, missed mark anthony, this is the year for sinus infections!!! I always felt sorry for the bunnies, poor little things, post sinus surgery is miserable.

  2. Mike

    I see another atheist has joined the blog today. It’s been awhile, Grandma, since you’ve posted. It’s rather easy to identify atheists. An appropriate phrase that summarizes this is: “By their fruits, you will know them” – Matthew 7:20, talking about false prophets.

    You might be shocked, Jon, but I actually agree with your characterization that George W Bush’s comment was embarrassing, but for a different reason. Evolution is NOT… I repeat…NOT based on science, so your premise is that only evolution should be taught because that is based on scientific principles is ludicrous.

    There has never been a missing link found and any pretenders have been a hoax. There is a lot of what is called “micro evolution”, which is the improvement within a certain species. Darwin’s premise of a “survival of the fittest” led us to the Eugenics movement. It led us to the obvious conclusion that if you take a 6’5″ man who sleeps with another healthy tall women, you are bound to get healthy tall offspring, but that is not evidence for the much larger premise of a “macro evolution” theory – the idea that something came from nothing. Doesn’t work.

    Once again, I will repeat what many have said before me, Evolution was a theory developed by non believers like Jon, who wanted to take God out of the picture in explaining how the world was created. It provides them an excuse to be comfortable in their unbelief.

    Ergo, if you can’t get a person like Jon to even accept the obvious concept of a Creator, then certainly, they would not accept the Bible as “God-breathed”, or the teachings of Christianity. There is no frame of reference in any discussion on the topic of religion. No starting point.

    So, just as age hardens the heart scientifically speaking, an atheists has hardened their heart, spiritually, to the possibilities available to a believer is Christ. “The truth is out there”, as the theme of the X-Files states, but you have to have the courage to believe the truth.

    1. Mike 8:19 an atheist has a hardened heart, spiritually,…

      Ah, yes. The old “hardened heart.” To paraphrase, atheists have something wrong with them. We Christians, however, don’t. We are normal. They are not.

    2. mark anthony

      A bit of advice Mike: do not go to the extreme of claiming that evolution (however it may be defined) is not based on empirical evidence. There is, in fact, a lot of empirical evidence to support Darwin’s theories. To

    3. mark anthony

      Sorry, I was cut off in midi-sentence, The ID folks can also cite facts that don’t comport well with classical Darwinism. And yes, eugenics owes a great deal to Darwinism. No doubt about that.

    4. Grandma

      Oh good grief. I suggest you start your science education by reading up on the evolution of therapsid reptiles while discarding your old, tired, false bogus arguments.

      1. Jinx II

        Grandma has more class and common sense than any of the so called foaming at the mouth christians on this site.

        Her advice “I suggest you start your science education by reading up on the evolution of therapsid reptiles while discarding your old, tired, false bogus arguments.” is excellent.

    5. Mike– There are so many things in life I don’t understand. One is why your posts are exactly like our friend Matt’s. I know Matt is too honest to be an impostor so it just baffles me how you could write exactly like him.

  3. godless

    I have heard the phrase ‘destruction on a biblical scale’ before. I can’t help but think with creationism you would have inbreeding on a biblical scale.

  4. GULO? I’m betting Jon just discovered this when he discovered the article to base his day’s blog. I once heard the radical feminist dual view on evolution and creation. Perhaps it was Gloria Steinem who theorized that women were created by God while men evolved from slime. Well, it was one of the few times she was at least half right.

    For there to be an Adam and Eve, the first humans with souls, there was a creation. Those human-oids that preceded these two, if it is correct to label them as such, were without souls. Adam and Eve committed the first sin, fell out of God’s grace and condemned mankind. Christ redeemed mankind and opened the gates of Heaven.

    Exactly when Adam and Eve were created is undefined and unimportant.

  5. Doug

    Jon, you assert because there is no readily apparent reason for something it proves intelligent design is false. Okay, let’s apply this same principle to evolution.

    There is no readily apparent reason to believe randomness + chance will produce order and and meaning. There’s no readily apparent reason to believe meaningless will produce meaning or disorder will produce order, or the impersonal will produce the personal. Therefore, by your own reasoning, your position is false.

    In fact, since you cannot objectively demonstrate the randomness and chance producing order and meaning, then you accept your evolutionary view upon unprovable presumptions. Put differently, you take your evolutionary starting points by faith. Jon, you’re a religious man who worships at the alter of his own imagination.

    I invite you to repent and believe on the creator God who made heaven and earth.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Gen 1:1

    “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
    Rom 1:21–23

    1. Doug 12:45 There is no apparent reason to believe randomness + chance will produce order and meaning

      That is true and is a weakness of science inquiry. There is an assumption of order and that with randomness things work out toward survival. It has been demonstrated to be true that survival has happened though we cannot be certain there were never other variables unknown at the time that might emerge as influential.

      “Intelligent design” assumes order, rationality and no randomness. That is why it is called “intelligent.” When it is neither intelligent nor rational the case for it evaporates.

        1. Doug 12:56 There is proof of your religion

          It is religion to have witnessed successful evolution not guided by any super natural being? I admit there are things we do not know and that the assumption of order may somehow be proven incorrect at some distant time, but that does not default to a conclusion there is or was a super natural being.

          1. Jon,

            You write, “It is religion to have witnessed successful evolution not guided by any super natural being?” Where have you witnessed this supposed evolution? Not simply mutations within a species, but the evolutionary transformation of one species into another with a completely distinct DNA? You haven’t “witnessed it.” It hasn’t be documented with the scientific method. It has been asserted or postulated. But assertion and proof are not the same. That’s why it’s called, “The Theory of Evolution,” not the fact of evolution.

            You write, “I admit there are things we do not know and that the assumption of order may somehow be proven incorrect at some distant time…” My OP was simply you’re just as much a man of faith as me. You claim to be a free thinker and like to bash religion (and at times religious people) when in fact you’re a religious person yourself, living by faith in your religious fidelity to atheistic evolution.

            You ask, does the possibility of acknowledgement that your “scientific” presumptions might be overthrown at some future day necessarily “default to a conclusion there is or was a super natural being”? That’s a fair question. I would agree with you it does not.

            Rather, to conclude that there is a “super natural being” best comports with the facts we do know and that won’t be overthrown.

            Facts; Jon Lindgren is real. He’s a real man (and a fine example of one). Jon lives his life with a certain level of order and purpose in a world of order that can be known and largely understood via the scientific method. I don’t think you disagree with any of these facts.

            My OP was you’re a religious man living by faith because given the facts above, you don’t merely worship in the “temple” of evolution, you believe something came from nothing, order came from non-order, meaning came from non-meaning, life came from non-life, order came from chaos, intelligence came for non-intelligence, and design came from non-design.

            Given the what is stated above about Jon, what best comports with the facts of Jon? He came from nothing, for no purpose, no reason, no design, and therefore he has no real meaning? Or that Jon is created in the image of a personal God and dwells in a world of design and purpose that can be truly known and understood via scientific method even if it cannot be exhaustively known and understood?

            You and I disagree on the proper answer, but we are both men who live by faith. However, my answer better comports with the facts we do know than yours.

          2. Doug 7:56 Thanks for taking time to write that fine post. We know each other so all is good.

            I actually have no objection to your position that my views are religious. Others have said that often here and it is an interesting twist to the evolution vs creation debate.

            You are correct neither I nor any human watched sea creature evolve into land creature or dinosaurs become birds. So, if we believe the evidence this happened you are free to call that a religious belief. In addition, when we see physical changes in real time that happens to creatures as they adjust to survive change that too can be called a religion. Nothing changes the factual evidence.

            I, myself, have never seen the almighty change or create anything. The only explanation of these things happened seems to me much more like religion than my views. But, to each his own.

          3. Doug


            I’m glad to see your admission to being religious. So the question remains, which religion best comports with the facts.

            If I’ve understood you, your religious dogma says, something came from nothing.

            This categorically fails the scientific method not to mention violates sound logic and reason.

            Jon, you’re not a young man anymore. You have fewer days before than you have behind you. Please repent and return to the One who not only created you but also in Whom you live, move, and have your being.

            “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
            Acts 17:30–31

          4. Doug 10:36 Thanks, Doug. Just a point of clarification.
            I’m glad to see your admission to being religious.

            I did not admit to being religious. I wrote that I did not object when others call me religious. I don’t object because what others call me does not make me either religious or not religious. What others call me or say about me is something I cannot control. Two or three times we had anti abortion picketers parading in front of our house with signs saying “Lindgren is a murderer”. I can’t control what is written about me on picket signs either. I did not go out and tell them I am not a murderer.

          5. Jon, I’ve never called you a murderer and I’m sorry you had to deal with such uncivilized. Why too much incivility in society today, IMHO. I’ve always appreciated your civility even if your actual comments drive me crazy.

            I have called you religious because your your faith in atheistic evolution is grounded upon unprovable presuppositions. Very religious, at least by your definition of religion.

            It is both unscientific and irrational to believe something came from nothing.

      1. mark anthony

        Randomness is a bad choice of words. Chance is preferred. Order out of chaos. Meaning? Is survival all that counts. Is morality, at bottom, any behavior that enhances the chances of survival? Would elaborate but for invalid security message on long posts.

  6. mark anthony

    All that I said was that both sides (the Darwinists and the ID folks) have empirical evidence to support their respective truth claims. That said, I admit that I am not a creationist of the strict observance type.

  7. Vince

    Jon, here is something to consider, and I am guessing that you may already have discussed this before. If there is an intelligent designer we can’t assume to know what the motives of that designer are, so to say that because something that appears to be a poor design must prove there is no designer isn’t really a good basis to eliminate that proposal. It is not necessary to believe that a designer can’t use evolutionary processes to advance life.

    I think it would take great faith to assume that we are here in this place and time by mere happenstance and good luck. And that we are the only species on this planet that has self-awareness to even consider whether we have been placed here by a designer or have beat the odds numerous times over in spite of ourselves. There is evidence of intelligent design in the natural world, fine tuning of the universe as an example, and that it should not be discounted because it may not conform with the outcome we may desire.

    1. mark anthony

      There is a principle in philosophy that goes something like this: an effect must have a cause that is more perfect than the effect itself. So are to assume that “nature” or mere chance was perfect enough to produce a universe as complex as ours (life included). Good question, eh?

    2. mark anthony

      Jon likes to deny that he is “religious” in any sense of the word. And he certainly is right, assuming that we are to define religious as some belief in a Higher Power, a creator. But if you define religious as a belief system that explains everything, then Jon is religious, more religious than those of us who believe differently.

  8. Theistic evolution: One day, two rather hairless apes threw down their bananas and coconuts, stood upright and sang the Hallelujah Chorus.

    “vestigial organs” such as tonsils and appendix have been shown to have a definite function in the immune system. That we can live without them doesn’t mean we are not supposed to have them. We can live without arms, legs, and eyes but you can’t argue the we are better of with them.

Comments are closed.