From Mother Jones and their columnist, Kevin Drum, a note that evolution is gaining ground slightly as a belief among the unwashed; a strict, God-creation view is slightly declining; and the mixed view is pretty much holding steady over the last few decades.
“I’ll take it.”, says Drum, who evidently approves of the modest gains in evolution belief.
Now, personally I don’t know what to think about the whole cosmological thing, but I have had a few questions about it all, the answers to which seem to me to rule out the usual pro-evolution arguments.
I’ll cut to the chase. Evolution, as a cosmological theory, depends upon positing very long expanses of time. Unimaginably long. I mean, we can’t really imagine 1 million years, it’s just beyond us. Yet far larger figures are bandied about as if there were no way to question whether such postulates are even plausible.
And they are not plausible. The reason we can’t really imagine such long expanses of time is that they are inconsistent with observable rates of change. Think about it this way: I can imagine the earth being around in something like its present form a thousand years from now. Maybe 10,000 years from now. It gets a little dicey when you get up to 100,000 years. A million years? I suppose it’s possible, but that’s many, many times the period between now and the pyramids, which are really old and largely decayed.
The earth is so dynamic and so prone to convulsive events, like earth quakes and volcanoes and powerful storms and all kinds of other forces that tend to deteriorate it, that projecting far, far into the future seems ridiculous. The observable rates of change suggest that the life span of the planet will be measured in tens of thousands of years, maybe a couple hundred thousand, and that’s it. That in turn suggests an earth that is much, much younger than it would have to be in order for the theory of evolution, the cosmological theory, to be true.
Now throw in that all the methods of “dating” objects, such as radiometric dating, are questionable. When they tell you something is 65 million years old or 4.5 billion years old, they could be talking out their ass. Many claim they aren’t, of course. But for present purposes, it’s enough to say that the evidence is not conclusive.
So what that means is this: you see a dinosaur fossil, an intact skeleton, at the museum. They dug it up and pieced it together. They tell you it’s 65 million years old. Not 1 million. Not even 10 million. 65 million.
But based on observable rates of change, there is no such thing as a physical object that will be anything like what it is now in even 65 thousand years, to say nothing of 1 million; and 65 million is just laughable. You can’t even think it. It’s impossible. It’s just like taking one great big mysterious grand “unknown” that explains everything – God – and replacing it with another: unimaginable expanses of time.
So for that reason I reject evolution as a cosmological theory; it may have its other uses and truths to offer, but the origins of the universe are not among them.
Update: They’re dating a human tooth they found in Israel at 400,000 years. The basis? X-rays, CT scans and “…according to the layers of the earth where they were found.” Notice how the article uses the phrase “accepted scientific theories” without indicating who, exactly, accepts them. If true it “…changes the whole picture of evolution.” I’ll say. One more time, too.
Update 2: Here’s what they (scientists, computer models, the usual suspects) say will happen to the earth in a mere 1,000 years. Significant shrinking of land mass, arctic ice, and so on. Yet when it comes to the theory of evolution, they turn around and talk about billions of years behind us, and assume billions of years ahead of us. What nonsense.