The Science Corner- The End of Evolution?

The evolutionist is locked into an intellectual box from which there is no rescue.  Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity — everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms.  Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth.  Thus, in the end the theory of evolution — and the theory of evolution alone — must explain everything about humanity.

This predicament was made clear in a lecture recently given by geneticist Steve Jones at University College London.  Speaking on his chosen topic, “Evolution is Over,” Jones argued that human evolution has reached an end because of changes in human health and human behavior.

This argument stands in stark contrast to those offered by other evolutionists, who now call on humanity to use modern reproductive technologies and techniques designed to enhance the species.  Some go so far as to argue that humans must employ these technologies and direct evolution in order to save the species from itself.

Jones, known for his 2002 book, Y: The Descent of Men.  In that book, Jones argued that males were something of a temporary necessity for the evolutionary process.  He minimized the role of the male to that of providing male gametes.  The male exists to “fecundate” his partner.  That’s it.  Everything else can be done by females, who are going to live longer anyway.

Now, Jones argues that human evolution is at a standstill because one of the crucial engines of evolutionary change, genetic mutation, is stalled.  Jones explained that evolution moves forward by natural selection, mutation, and random change.  Mutation is stalled, at least in part, because fewer older men are having babies.

As The Times [London] explains:

This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”

Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children.

Jones went on to argue that better health and rates of infant survival have also removed some engines of mutation.  Add to that the fact that human populations are now so diverse, with marriage patterns commonly crossing ethnic and racial lines.  As Jones explained, ““Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown.”

Steve Jones offered a public lecture at University College London, but he also offers a larger lesson on the inherent limitations of the evolutionary worldview.  Darwinism has to explain everything — even why some people accept evolutionary theory and others do not.

Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins.  Evolutionists — if consistent — believe that every human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear is simply a feature developed by means of natural selection.

That’s a cold theory, and it just doesn’t make sense to the vast majority of Americans — and it shouldn’t.  The Christian worldview offers a far more satisfying, true, and understandable account of human origins and human existence.

In any event, human evolution is now over.  You heard it from Steve Jones.

(Source: Albert Mohler)


6 comments on “The Science Corner- The End of Evolution?

  1. Well if a geneticist says it, it must be true! Listen, you obviously have little understanding of evolutionary theory and the nuances that perpetuate natural selection, mutation, drift, and extinction. To think that humans are no longer “evolving” is the most grandiose, prideful statement that can be made. Humans are part of the animal kingdom and as such are ALWAYS subject to natural selection. Certainly we can alter the natural flow of selection through pharmaceuticals, etc. but selection still operates.

    People have such a hard time accepting the temporal scope of evolution: we can’t see change in a generation of even a hundred generations…dramatic phenotypic change, in most cases, is a slow and random process that takes thousands of generations to occur. Furthermore, the type of change I think you are referring to is that which causes speciation. That is true: given the human condition as is, speciation is unlikely to occur because of the global gene pool from which we draw. The world is connected and thus, isolation or sympatric speciation chances are arguably nonexistent.

    Not to be a “dooms-dayist” but consider a hypothetical airborne disease so virulent it can kill its human host in a matter of weeks. There is no cure and it spreads rapidly (you know, the stuff of sci-fi fans worldwide). It’s not so crazy, though, when you think about The Plague, Smallpox, and the dreaded Bird Flu. You better believe, if such a thing occurred in the human race there would be a handful of people with a genetic composition that would provide them with a natural guard against the said virus. If no such humans exist, perhaps there is a pocket of the world in which the virus does not travel. Or perhaps there is no genetic mutation to allow for immunity in humans in which case we go extinct. I think you would see very quickly that evolution is still operating in humans, just not in the ways you are thinking of.

    As far as “Science vs. Religion,” I have a couple of points. Religion doesn’t have any trouble accepting science as long as it gives them cell phones, T.V., airplanes, inoculations, and microwaves, but as soon as this same science says something that contradicts Biblical statements, that science has become evil…I’m happy to inform you that the same scrutiny that goes into technological and medical sciences also goes into astronomical, physical and evolutionary sciences. If you find evolution to be a cold device not fit for humans and thus turn to god, that is your choice and I will not argue against faith because I simply can’t. I give you that. However, I find that the mere chance of my life (insurmountably small) is a wonderful opportunity and one that I will take advantage of. I find that the human spirit, evolved as it is, is beautiful and capable of moral actions without the word of god to abide by…evolved morality is enough for me!

    So please, before you go writing blogs about a subject you have little background in or understanding of, do some research and figure out what the real evidence is…don’t simply cite one geneticist and claim victory.



  2. P.E.T,

    Firstly thankyou for your comment. I appreciate your feedback. I will acknowledge that indeed you are correct in your understanding that I am not an expert in all things science and evolution.

    Secondly, I think if you read my post with a little bit more scrutiny you will find that 1) I am simply posting an article that was already written. I also have placed a question mark in the title of my article.

    Thirdly, don’t be so militant and presumptious to claim that I haven’t done any research into this whole evolution debate. I used to believe in the theory but then realised the flaws in it. Darwinian Evolutionists attempt to mock Intelligent Design Scientists as if they have some superior knowledge.

    Personally I get quite annoyed at Evolutionists who walk around with an arrogant attitude claiming evolution is a fact. It is not a fact. Not one transitional species has been found. Yes I agree that there is variation between species. But no, I do not believe that a dog can become a man or more approprately an ape a man. Where are all the inbetween species??

    “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another……Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution….throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms” Bacteriologist Alan H. Linton (or is this guys deemed an idiot also by evolutionists??)

    “Neither fossils nor embryos demonstrate evolutionary relationships, so modern Darwinists construct hypotheses about the past from molecular data found only in living organisms. The only way to construct an evolutionary tree from molecules in living organisms is to assume Darwinism is true and then fit the data into a branching tree pattern. Molecular studies have failed to produce a consistent evolutionary tree, and the moer molecules scientists analyse, the more elusive the tree becomes” Dr. Jonathan Wells

    Irreducible complexity also, for me, shows how ridiculous the idea of evolution is. Again though, you are entitled to your view. I am not going to try and change that. No one was ever won to Christ through an argument. I will however present my belief that there is a God, he is the God of the Bible and we are all made in his image. The Bible also makes clear that each of us has sinned, turned our back on God and gone our own way. As a result each of us deserves Hell and Judgement. God would not be unjust if he were to do that.

    The problem is we think we are inherently good. But the Bible tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” God in His grace and mercy came into His creation as Jesus Christ to die for us. That for those who would believe would not perish or face that judgement but be forgiven and have eternal life rather than eternal condemnation. It is offered to all but accepted by few. For Christ said that only a few would find it. The problem that we men love our sin. We think we are good but that is not true. “There is none good but God” asid Jesus. Thus your theory that men “evolved” moral consciences is absolutley absurd, unfounded and there is not one speck of proof to uphold that claim. “This is the verdict, Light has come into the world but men loved the darkness rather than the light”. It is God who opens our eyes to the truth and I pray He will do yours also. I must be honest in saying that I do fear for the souls of men who die without Christ, for there is no hope in death outside of Jesus. I pray that God will open your eyes to the truth P.E.T. Evolution is widely used by Militant Atheists who want to take away the only hope that many people have in their lives. I’m not saying that is your view. It does not appear to be. But i do think it is just downright evil to take away the hope of the dieing, ill and oppressed. In fact, i would go so far as to say that many evolutionists and militant atheists are “evolving” into the apes that they believe they have come from. Apes that do not care for their fellow mankind but adhere to “survival of the fittest”

    It saddens my soul greatly I must confess.

  3. Reformed Pilgrim,

    Forgive me, I thought you went by Albert Mohler (the author of the article you reposted). I have several points to make concerning your response. First I want to address what you see as the flaws in evolutionary theory.

    Speciation has certainly garnered substantial attention in the I.D. and Creationist camp. As I stated in my last post, speciation is not a line that a species crosses, it is a gradual product of natural selection; it isn’t an occurrence, it is a series of steps. I won’t belabor the point with definitions of allopatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation, rather I will address your concern: how do we know they happen? It is true that we haven’t witnessed a true bacterial speciation as you cite Dr. Linton saying. However, bacteria are not a good proxy for speciation in the way we are discussing it. A plethora of research has gone into the methods for bacterial speciation and the problem with studying such an event, even with the ability to witness thousands of generations, is the problem with all clonal species: DNA recombination (check out Fraser, C. et al. (2007) in Science 35, for example). Recombination removes a substantial portion of genetic difference between parent and offspring and is often cited as evidence for why sexual species outcompeted their asexual cousins. That being said, what evidence do we have for speciation? This is difficult due to the vast periods of time it takes for a species to diverge from its parental lineage. There has been significant research into fruit fly (Drosophila) speciation and with controlled parapatric scenarios and then reintroduced sympatric environments, speciation has been witnessed (if species is defined on whether or not a species DOES mate).

    Whether or not laboratories can induce speciation may as well be a moot point right now. Instead, let’s look at transitional species. You state that no transitional species have been found. I would argue that every fossil ever found represents a transition. We are all transitions from one form to another. Evolution has no intended route, no intended end product, and so, species simply change to fit the changing environment through time. If they are able to adapt, they survive; if they are unable to adapt, they go extinct. There is ample evidence of evolution for almost all genera on Earth today and many that have since gone extinct. Let’s take our own species and look at the relationship of man to modern apes (because we are, after all, an ape). Here’s some, and seriously, this is only naming but a few: beginning in the Miocene we have found an abundance of fossils known as the Dryopithecines, mostly in Asia; Aegyptopithecus is an 18 million year old (mya) hominoid from Egypt; skipping to the Pliocene, there is Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Orrorin tugenensis, arguably near the divergence of humans and chimpanzees; on the human line we have Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Aust. africanus, Aust. robustus, and Aust. boisei; in the Pleistocene our own line emerges with Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus (ergaster), Homo heidelbergensis and antecessor, Homo neanderthalensis and us, Homo sapiens. I work with these fossils and have held them in my hands, knowing intimately the skeletal morphology of humans and other ape species, it is ludicrous to claim these fossils are unrelated and the very accurate dating methods associated with all but a few of these fossils provide a detailed time line and multiple speciation events leading to our own appearance about 200,000 years ago. So as to your argument of no transitional fossils, I certainly hope you see that this is simply not the case for humans or otherwise. I mean, you need to understand that the process of fossilization takes very unique circumstances and the chances that these sediments remain undisturbed for millions of years deteriorates the chances of us finding them. Given these harsh conditions, we archaeologists and paleontologists have performed a tremendous job of reconstructing early life and the evolutionary change surrounding our own appearance.

    As far as the tautological argument you suggest about explaining Darwinism through Darwinism, that is simply unfair and not the case. Evolution is a multifaceted and branched science dealing with anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, ecology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geography, sociology and many others that examine the tenets of evolution through the scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, results and the reporting of these results. The reason that you don’t see a lot flying in the face of the Darwinian approach is that there isn’t much to charge against it beyond: “but you haven’t found this or that fossil” or “you haven’t seen this empirically yet.” True, but that’s science for you, we’re working on it…you can’t get all your answers in a day. Certainly the perfectly trimmed evolutionary tree of our parent’s generation has been reshaped into a bush due to the introduction of cladistics and a formal understanding of genetic similarity and dissimilarity, but this isn’t a critique of evolution, it’s a strength: evolutionary theory has withstood a century and a half of strenuous testing and retesting and has prevailed. Certainly there are aspects that we need to expound upon, explain in greater detail or refresh, but this is nothing new in the sciences, Reformed Pilgrim, this is how the process functions!

    Now, onto your religious statements. I am not trying to be a “militant atheist” out to rid the world of all its hope and instill cold, evolutionary dogma. No. Not me. However, I am tired of people sitting back and taking religious ideology at face value, discounting science when its convenient and living with it when they like it, spouting unfounded theories that are not based anywhere near the scientific realm and demanding they be taught in public schools. People need to understand the nuances of evolution and not commercial phrases like “survival of the fittest,” people need to know that we didn’t evolve from chimpanzees (au contraire, chimps are just as evolved as us…we evolved from a COMMON ancestor). I’m tired of defending the same tired arguments like “irreducible complexity” that have been discounted over and over again: the flagellum can work in its constituent parts just like each part of a mousetrap might work as something entirely different prior to being assembled as a mousetrap.

    I appreciate your passion, Reformed, but I get upset when I see people in the public sphere adding to an increasingly misinformed public. That is why I responded to your blog and that is why I hope we can continue to have a healthy debate: ask me questions and I will do my best to clarify them. But please, do not discount the idea that morality is evolved as “absurd” because as soon as you understand that evolution is the driving force for the world as it is, you must also understand that all those little things that make us human are also derived traits and part of this process. Think of it though! All the wondrous things we’ve done as a species coming from natural selection…that’s not cold! Sure it’s random and might be a little unsettling to some people at first, but we’re part of this world at an integral level and must respect it: it’s where we came from and it’s where we’ll return!



  4. P.E.T,

    Thanks for your informative response.

    With regard to yourn response on Fossils; Darwin fretted over the lack of them, paleontologists are still looking for them, but they are often touted as the foundation of evolutionary theory. According to evolutionists, transitional fossils are sparse for a number of reasons: (1) fossils in general only give us a glimpse of the past, (2) punctuated equilibrium may cause geologically “rapid” changes in species, and (3) they aren’t easy to distinguish.

    Fossils do not come with tags telling us when and how the animal was buried, its lifestyle, and if or how it was related to another species. Scientists must make reasonable assumptions based on what they believe about the past and extrapolations from the data. Without an objective source of information, these assumptions are often tied to the subjective evolutionary worldview. Creation scientists, on the other hand, see the fossil record as evidence for both a global Flood and also the amazing diversity of the original created “kinds.”

    Because there are a lack of transitional forms (and the ones found, including “walking whales” and fish, are contentious to say the least), evolutionists must resort to blurring the lines and claiming that since all species are in transition, we should not expect to find “missing links.” Perhaps the reason we do not find true transitional forms is because one created kind does not, cannot, and has never changed into another created kind.

    Myth 6: Apemen and Artistic License
    The pervasive ape-to-human montage that shows an ape-like being on the left slowly becoming a human on the right is so much a part of culture that most anyone can recognize it. So I would hardly say that evolutionists haven’t had a platform to proclaim their theory to the masses. Natural history museums and TV shows give us supposed glimpses into the past and how human ancestors might have looked. Too bad it’s all a sham.

    Fossil apes are difficult to come by, but several species have been found. However, a new ape fossil does not generate as much interest or prestige as one called a “human ancestor,” which is why there is so much focus on how ape fossils tie in to the evolution story. The desire to “fill in the gaps” leads to many false conclusions. For example, some of the supposed “bipedal” characteristics found in fossils are also found in living apes that are not bipedal.

    In fact, imagination, wishful thinking, and presuppositions influence a great deal of the “reconstructions” we find in magazines, textbooks, and on TV. Yes P.E.T I believe we can enjoy the science, but don’t need to be taken in by the fiction. I do not refute the work of science or seek to censor it. My view on it is this. If God is truly real, and my faith in that is clear, and the Bible is to be believed, then there is no argument that a Christian needs to fear. I do not fear the theory of evolution as disproving God or anything like that. For me the evidence for the existence of God suffices. Evolutionists cannot answer for the prophectic words that have since passed that the Old Testament prophets gave. The Bible has been proven to be accurate in its historical recordings and it is the only “religious” book that actually has prophetic words that have come to pass. Prophecies that were accurate so you can’t just turn around and say it was a matter of chance or second guessing. This and more about the Bible is evidence that demands a verdict. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 1:20-25

    “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

    The Christian message may seem foolish to you. The claim that God made the earth, heaven and hell, adam and eve, the flood, miracles, and that Christ, came to die on the cross to reconcile a people to God and rose again on the third day may seem absurd and ignorant. But one thing is clear….the intelligence and “wisdom” of scientists will/is being frustrated. It is being frustrated today and will continue to be so. I’m not frustrated. For i know my redeemer lives. You seem like an honest and sincere individual. I want you to know Jesus and realise the fate of those who die outside of Christ. Just as it is your wish for me to research the facts, it is also mine that you do the same with regards to Christianity. Many arrive at a predetermined conclusion because they don’t want to change their ways and they think that the whole idea of God is a hindrance.

    May I ask you a question? Again I’m sure you have been asked this on more than one occasion. Where did the matter come from that created everything? Where did the energy for the big bang come from? It is folly for one to risk their eternal (think about that word)state on trying to seek knowledge that they will most likely never obtain in their lifetime. Everything must come from somewhere right? Not only that but when one takes into consideration the complexity of our solar system. The perfect alignment of our planet, not too hot, not too cold, shielded from the metorite field of our milkway by its location. The Bible tells me that God set the stars and planets in their place, He aligned the heavens and the earth. Evolutionists can’t. Because of that I cannot accept the theory. I see intricate detail all around me. The human body is a giant molecular machine. Every machine has a creator.

    If you deem me a narrow-minded fool for my stance then so be it. I do not care much for being mocked or deemed ignorant. The Bible tells me the preaching of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing. I do not need to try to convince you that God is real etc. For it is not I, but God who opens peoples eyes to the truth. I simply am to present the truth (yes you will say “your truth” according to postmodern philosophical thought) and let God do the rest.

    Again though thanks for your comment. Its been good and I ahve learnt something new. You should start a blog!!!


  5. Reformed Pilgrim,

    I appreciate you engaging in the debate…it is far more than most do! Again, though, I need to clarify quite a few points on which you are far off track.

    It is true that evolutionary processes occur at different rates depending on the stability of the environment (the driving force of evolutionary change). When the environment changes rapidly, so do species (or they go extinct) and this has, as you point out, been termed “Punctuated Equilibrium” due to the punctuated events that cause change. For a second, assume that evolution DOES occur as I’ve outlined in my previous posts. If a large number of species change over a relatively short amount of time, say 100,000 years, and this occurs 150 million years ago, do you know how difficult it is to uncover a sample size of fossils large enough to satisfy someone of your opinion who doesn’t have a firm foundation in HOW these changes occur? It’s nonexistent. We can only discover what has been preserved, Reformed, you know this! So IF evolution DOES occur, you will never accept the evidence because for you, there isn’t evidence. What you need to realize, though, is that despite the difficulty of recovery, there is a tremendous fossil record for the evolution of animal and plant life as we know it, including humans.

    You facetiously say that there are no “tags” associated with the fossils we find to determine their age and relationship to other fossils. Taken literally, that’s true. However, as I previously stated, evolutionary anthropologists work closely with many other fields to decipher the natural “tags” given fossils. For instance, the sediments in which they are found provide ample evidence of the environment in which they lived (through plant fossils, preserved pollen and spores, as well as the nature of the sediment itself), and the age of the fossil (if volcanic, then K-Ar or Ar-Ar dating can be applied; if associated with organic material and relatively young, then carbon dating; if associated with quartz sands, then OSL might be used; with teeth, ESR might function or U-series dating might apply). Thirty years ago, I would agree that the naming of species and placement in the animal kingdom was done with too much qualitative, descriptive work. However, the fossil itself contains numerous cladistic clues that allow for quantitative placement among related species. For those of you who are unfamiliar with cladistics, it differs from classic Linnaean phylogenies by breaking groups into distinct clades (evoltionarily related groups) based on a quantified study of morphological features (fossil species) and DNA (living species). So in a sense, fossils do have a “tag” associated with them, it just takes multi-disciplinary work to decipher the label.

    This brings me to my next point: we do have objective source information. Again, as I stated in my last post, your attempt to label evolutionary science as suffering from tautological explanations doesn’t hold. Modern genetics, ecology, and specific evolutionary experiments provide an empirical framework from which we are able to accurately reconstruct the past. In other words, we don’t simply excavate and make a story. No. We make PREDICTIONS about what we’ll find and why we’ll find it based on empirical data. This is science, remember? I contrast this with “creation science” which has not provided new information in the last century due to its explanations of natural phenomena through the Bible.

    Ape Men: Not a Sham
    You state that it is our “desire to ‘fill in the gaps’ that leads [us] to false conclusions.” I agree with you in one respect: when a scientist finds a potentially new fossil, they are excited. However, if they make a claim that it is a new species in the human line, they’re research falls under tremendous peer-reviewed scrutiny and you will see, if you look through the literature of the last 50 years, that many species that were formally named have since been reclassified. This is something that the scientific world benefits from: explanations are not taken at face value. Rather, they are critiqued heavily and only if these explanations can survive this rigorous testing (and all research in the future), are they accepted as the most likely explanation. You have to remember, science has never been about PROVING things, rather it is about NEGATING explanations.

    You state that bipedal characteristics attributed to fossil humans are shared by modern apes…you want to tell me what they are? You got me! For all I know the position of the foramen magnum under the head (instead of toward the back), the forward position of the big toe (as evidenced through fossil evidence and the 3.6 million year old foot prints associated with Australopithecus afarensis at Laetoli, Tanzania (a site I have worked at)), the open shape of the pelvis in both males and females, the angled head of the femur that was reshaped due to the pelvic reshaping, the angle of the knee and the femoral-tibial articulation, the curvature of the lower spine, the ratio of upper to lower limbs and the shortening of the metacarpals and phalanges, are ALL different in humans and the human bipedal lineage as compared to modern apes.

    What about other features in early humans? We have discovered stone tools 2.6 million years old at Gona, Ethiopia. How do you explain ancient artifacts utilized by early human species (this is my personal forte)? What about increasing cranial capacity through time that directly correlates to major shifts in associated behavior? What about early evidence for art and symbolism that dates upwards of 80 thousand years ago? What about cut marks on bones associated with stone tools of animals (evidence that has been objectively corroborated by modern studies of butchery)?

    Religion and Faith:
    As I stated before, I’m not going to argue faith with you. It’s a moot point because, just as you’ve argued with me about objectivity, faith is subjective, different for different people, and I can’t argue with an emotion. What I will say has to do with your specific points. Certainly the Bible has some accurate historical information in it: it was written during and shows evidence of that time period. But so do all other religious texts from around the globe including the Koran, all Hindu and Buddhist texts and many, many others. As far as prophecies go, I would recommend you go back and read the specificity of those prophecies, because unless you are willing to take Nostradamus and Edgar Casey as more modern prophets, I would say that humans want to believe in the occult and it doesn’t take much to show them “evidence.”

    Furthermore, you continually attempt to call me out on evidence that we, as archaeologists and evolutionary biologists, haven’t found YET but then go on to cite your own beliefs founded on assumptions that can, as you will acknowledge, NEVER be proven! Doesn’t this seem like a tremendous double standard? We are avidly working and devoting our lives to understanding the past and you accuse us of making “stories” while you intrinsically believe in 2000 year old (and older!) stories! Just as you wouldn’t like me being a “militant atheist” trying to “convert” you, I don’t appreciate being patronized and told that you will “pray for me” and wish god would open my eyes. You don’t know my background, by I, too, was brought up Christian, know the stories and have had a long road to where I am today. I consider all of my philosophical leanings to be logically sound and have made great efforts to research my options. So when you say that I might “risk the eternal” by stating outright that I do not believe in god, I say that that reasoning is philosophically unsound. Any god that would want me to believe through a dogma of fear, is not a just and loving god and definitely not my god.

    Lastly I will give a brief explanation of the Big Bang. I can get into quantum physics with you if you’d like. We can discuss cosmic expansion, contraction and the nature of mass, time and energy and I can relate to you the current experimentation being done at the Hadron Collider in Europe. Let me know if you want to take the discussion this way, that’s fine. But if you can’t answer the following question, then it’s irrelevant: you want me to explain to you where mass came from because everything comes from something (and I can do my best to answer this), but you have absolutely no problem stating that god came from nowhere and has always existed? Really?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s