Our Websites

Survival of the Fittest?

Have You Heard the Tale of the “Birkenhead”?

Evolutionism states that “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.” Yet take a look at this true story and evaluate for yourself the question of what is the right philosophy.

The date was [...]

,

Leave40 Responses to testSurvival of the Fittest?

  1. Jeff Brace February 1, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    No God, No Hope.

  2. Jay Liverstitch February 1, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    CSE says ‘Evolution states that “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.”’

    No, it doesn’t.

    This is a common point of misunderstanding, which leads to some pretty bad arguments against evolution. Evolution makes no claim about “the strongest”, but instead, speaks about the fittest (like the title of your post indicates that you already know). Fitness, in this sense, has almost nothing to do with the survival of any individual, but about a populations ability to produce fertile offspring.

    In humans, amongst many other organisms, it is precisely what you describe in this post that has made us fit. It’s the same reason that many species of bird, when their nest or chicks are threatened by predators, will feign injury, putting themselves in harms way, in order to lead the predator away from the nest. If the desire and willingness of parents to protect their young until those young are old enough to fend for themselves, find a mate, and produce their own young didn’t exist, then our species would no longer be fit at all, or at least, we would have to develop some other mechanism to remain fit.

    Not only is your implied conclusion wrong, but your post actually does more to support the theory of survival of the fittest, than it does to destroy it.

    Jay

  3. andrew Ryan February 1, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    “Evolutionism states that “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.” Yet take a look at this true story and evaluate for yourself the question of what is the right philosophy.”

    Wow, two complete inaccuracies in the space of just a few words.

    Evolution states no such thing. Weaker creatures may well survive over stronger ones due to superior abilities to deal with the terrain they live in. Stronger animals often require much more energy to live, and are therefore more vulnerable to drought conditions.

    The second problem here is that evolution is not a philosophy. Accepting that evolution occurs no more suggests that you approve of it than accepting the existence of the holocaust makes you a Nazi.

  4. andrew Ryan February 1, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    “Now, remember that, according to Evolution, “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.” But these men deliberately chose to drown or be eaten alive by sharks rather than have one woman or child be hurt.”

    The men’s actions is exactly the type of behaviour one would expect to be favoured by evolution. If you protect the children of your species, even at the possible expense of your own life, then your species is more likely to survive, passing on the genes that favour altruistic behaviour. Why is this so hard to understand?

  5. John Bebbington February 1, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    “Now, remember that, according to Evolution, “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.” But these men deliberately chose to drown or be eaten alive by sharks rather than have one woman or child be hurt.”

    “According to Evolution”. What does that mean? Evolution is what evolution does. If you mean that the Theory of Evolution predicts that the muscularly strong survive at the expense of the weak then all you are doing is continuing to demonstrate your ignorance of the theory.

    But back to the story. The way the tale has been written implies that the lifeboats were full of women and children and contained no men. In fact, there were only about 20 women and children on board in total in one boat in which a handful of men had also forced their way on board from the ship before it went down. There were a couple of other lifeboats which contained men only.

    Of the men left aboard the ship (contrary to the story) 3 are reported to have swum unsuccessfully towards the lifeboats while those unfortunates who had not already drowned when part of the ship went down struck out for the shore some 9 miles away being under orders not to head for the lifeboats. These men were disciplined soldiers. They didn’t choose not to swim to the lifeboats but were ordered not to. About 40 men stayed on the portion of the ship which did not sink and were later rescued.

    Contrary to the story none of the men chose to drown nor to be eaten by sharks. Many officers chose to load themselves down with money which resulted in them drowning but every able-bodied man who could swim chose to save themselves by swimming for the shore or grasping onto flotsam from the ship. Those would could not swim or swim well would not have reached the lifeboats anyway.

    But what happened to the rats on the ship? The strongest rats who struck out to swim in the general direction of the shore soon lost strength and drowned but a couple of rats who knew that they were not strong swimmers and would never be able to reach shore decided to get aboard a piece of driftwood where they lay in the sun during the day as the wind and tide took them securely to safety. Once on land they fell in love with each other, got married and had lots of little rats who spent their summer days also lying in the sun. Later that year they ate through the entire grain stores of a local tribe of muscular african farmers who, as a result, soon died of starvation.

    So what has the fable of the rats to do with survival of the fittest? The same as that of the Birkenhead: absolutely nothing.

  6. David Ray February 1, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    In reality, what you’ve provided is an excellent example of evolution in action. But first a correction – as usual, Eric, you present a false characterization of evolutionary theory. What the theory actually proposes is that the organisms in a population that are better at passing on their genes are the successful ones. Check out any textbook about evolution, this is what you’ll find. Its all about getting your genes into the next generation. Very often, yes, the stronger organisms are able to outcompete their weaker brethren. As a result, they get more food or access to more mates, which results in being more successful at passing on their genes. However, it’s also common in nature to see parents sacrifice themselves or put themselves in harm’s way to save their offspring from danger. Won’t a mother bird try to fight off a predator to save her eggs or chicks? Would you want to come between a mother bear and her cubs?

    Evolutionary theory provides a solid explanation for the behavior in the story. If you have already passed on your genes, it’s in your interest to preserve those genes so that they get passed on again. Thus, you are likely to protect your offspring and even the offspring of related individuals and individuals in your social group in dangerous situations. Quoting from your story, “So their wives and babes were loaded into the lifeboats and so escaped.” The story you relate is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict would happen.

  7. Ricky R February 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    And, how does this disprove evolution in any way? It shows how powerful love is(and how unnatural humans are). This one event does not prove in any way evolution never happened. Also Darwin originally said natural selection, some other person said survival of ht fittest. There is a big difference. If the weaker one is more naturally selected, then s/he will love while the less naturally selected stronger one will die.

  8. Corey February 1, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    Eric, please cite where it states that evolution is about “survival of the fittest”.

    Also, note that story of Noah’s Ark and the genocide committed by Moses and his people can be considered as “survival of the fittest”.

  9. rodger klotz February 1, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    Analogy fail.

  10. Billy Joe Grace February 1, 2011 at 9:23 pm #

    Endure hardness as a good soldier. They did as men should.

    God did not design humans to be absent of faith. The evolutionist has faith confused with credulity. He will come up with countless proofs of evolutionary processes, proofs to him based upon what he already believes. Fodder for the willingly ignorant. He disbelieves God and therefore believes a lie. To him the weak must be sacrificed for the strong. It is why we have abortion, feminism, sodomy etc. as common occurrences in our society. “keep abortion safe and legal” “were here, were queer, were gonna rule the world” “I am woman, hear me roar” and on and on their mantras go. All based on a hatred for God and His word, on a love of self, and hatred for there fellow man.

    I don’t believe blindly. I know Him. Mock it, deride it, cuss it, I don’t care, your not going to change me, as I used to believe in evolution. Evolution, while it claims to have the answers for why and how we are here, has no answers, no real testable answers for just where love comes from. Not one shred of a notion as to where thoughts come from. Much less, how we actually got here.

    Tell me prophet Hawkings, why is it that when man behaves contrary to his design there are always negative consequences? If evolution were true, then you should be able to adapt and do what you want and sidestep consequence.Tell me pope Dawkins why you would choose to exercise your faith on that which you cannot prove? You are not the dictator of how we arrived. You make your assumptions, yet you cannot prove them. You oh evolutionist BELIEVE, yet you have no proof, not even to satisfy yourself. Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. It is unbelief that must be repented of, GOD that must be repented toward. Love that must be embraced. There is no greater love than what GOD has displayed for us His creatures. Your belief doesn’t make for reality, but true faith makes for an eternal destiny. God is not obligated to prove Himself to you, so get over it and acknowledge what deep down inside you used to know. Blessed are they which believe and have not seen. Credulity you say? Not in the face of the power of a changed life. Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. And something that evolution just can’t account for.

  11. Stephen Holshouser February 1, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    CSE; sorry about continuing stuff from previous threads all the time. Hope that’s okay… let me know if not.

    John Bebbington (continued from “It all depends” thread),

    “C’mon. Verse 17: “”remember what the apostles foretold”. That doesn’t sound like it was written by Jesus’ sibling, does it? Nor does it sound that it was written within decades of the main event. If he was J’s bro he must have lived to a ripe old age which rather debunks the idea that the apostles lived in fear of their lives.”

    What is an epistle written by one of Jesus’ siblings supposed to sound like? Apparently verse 18 was spoken by the apostles and not Jesus… nothing wrong with that. Jude was just saying that what they foretold was coming to pass. Why would he live to be old if he were Jesus brother? Not every disciple was martyred as far as I know.

    Then you have Peter, Jesus’ close friend and Apostle, who was crucified upside-down.

    “Who says? I know of no contemporary report (that Peter was crucified upside-down), historical or biblical.”

    A quick google search brought up Origen and Tertullian attesting to his martyrdom, though it was in the 2nd century when they said this (about 1900 years closer to the event than us). Margherita Guarducci, Italian scholar, archeologist, and epigrapher said he died on “13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the “dies imperii” of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor wished to blame the Christians.”-Wikipedia However, Jesus’ foretelling Peter’s martyrdom in the Gospel of John is enough for me to believe it happened. John was written after Peter’s death; do you think he would have included that if it didn’t happen that way?
    ____________________________________________

    If you will recall, ALL of the encounters with Jesus were supernatural after His resurrection… He would appear and disappear and then finally went up into the clouds out of sight to return in like manner.

    “i.e. there was no real physical resurrection. That’s not what most of your fellow Christians believe.”

    If anyone at all died for the Lord Jesus, it was precisely because they believed He was the resurrected God-man.

    “Then, by your admission, they were wrong.”

    Now, I didn’t say that. Being the all-powerful, resurrected Son of God, He was not bound by time and space anymore. I don’t know how that works, and don’t need to… But He said and they said that His physical body was raised again. Paul’s meeting of Jesus was just a little different, but still a meeting of Jesus, nonetheless.

    Luke 24:36-43
    And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.
    __________________________________________________

    What, exactly, are you wanting for “historical” evidence of the martyrdom of the eyewitnesses?

    “Other than one of the many James in the NT, there were no recorded martydoms of eyewitnesses.”

    Still, I ask; What would you accept as historical evidence?
    ______________________________________________

    Read the secular writings regarding Jesus and Christianity by Pontius Pilate, Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, Trajan, Hadrian, Josephus, etc… all done at the time of or shortly after Christ’s time on earth.

    “Not one of the above mentioned “Jesus”. 75 years after the crucifixion Pliny hadn’t even heard of christians.”

    They mention “Christ” a lot. Gotta be referring to the Christian’s Jesus.
    _______________________________________________

    Also, read Luke 23:8, Acts 17:6 and 26:26

    “Irrelevant; biblical commentary is not historical evidence.”

    Then you cannot accept any historical writing. The Bible’s transmission, consistency, and preservation exceeds all other ancient writings by far. This little exercise of trying to validate the Bible with external sources is like trying to prove the existence of George Washington by examining an article about him in the Boston news paper of that day… it’s unnecessary, but I’ll humor you.
    ______________________________________________

    Christians were “meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do wicked deeds, never commit fraud, theft, adultery, not to lie nor to deny a trust. . . -Pliny

    “He only discovered that at the time. Before they were brought before him he had no idea who they were or of their origins.”

    Okay, so you’re saying he didn’t know about them before he knew about them? That’s profound… I never really thought of that before. But seriously, though, you can probably find millions of people TODAY that have never heard of Jesus… that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.
    ______________________________________________

    “As my father-in-law used to say to them: “See that gate? Do you want to go through it or over it?””

    Did he ever talk to you like that when you were courting his daughter?
    _______________________________________________

    Read it carefully without your atheistic colored glasses on. What did Matthew and Mark say that Jesus cried immediately before dying in Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37? Answer; they don’t say.

    “‘Crying out loud’ isn’t ’speaking out aloud’.”

    Yes it is.
    Re 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
    Ac 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
    Joh 11:43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
    Mr 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?
    ________________________________________________

    Now, does John say that Jesus’ very last words were “it is finished” in John 19:30? Answer: No. Luke is the only one that says what His last words are in Luke 23:46. A writer leaving out a statement does not mean it was never stated. So, right before Jesus gave up the ghost, He said; “It is finished; which is perfectly consistant with all 4 gospels.

    “‘Father, why have you abandoned me’ followed by ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit’ are not consistent especially when it is your proposition that Jesus claimed to be very God.”

    Ah, but you left out “It is finished” which separates the 2 phrases. His affliction from the Father was over… He had endured all the penalty that His people justly deserved at that point, so He commends His Spirit to God.
    _________________________________________________

    “As to your final paragraph my 6 week-old grandson went home with his parents this morning so I know how you feel. Pip pip.”

    How did they find out you had him? Just teasing… Aren’t those kids a blessing? There is a bumper sticker here in the states that says something like, “If I would have known how much fun grandkids were, I would have had them first!” What do you want your grandson to call you?
    ____________________________________________________

    “All the Christians in Jerusalem would have been Jewish. The jews in Jerusalem died mainly from starvation (which is no respecter of personal beliefs) caused by Vespasian’s sieges. When the sieges were broken the Romans did not ask the defenders their beliefs before putting them to the sword. Afterwards, there was no-one left to record whether any Jewish Christians were slain.”

    It has been a while since I read about 70A.D., but as I recall, there was an initial appearance of the Roman army who had to leave for a time for some reason, which gave the Christians time to escape to the hills. I’m sure you’ll want me to look that up for you, too. This would all be so much easier if you just took my word for it. : )

    John 20:29-31

  12. Duane February 1, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    OK, I’m convinced. All I needed was a completely irrelevant anecdote. But then why be different than your proofs for a young earth? “Hey, folks, there’s a tree out there that’s 4000 years old, just old enough to be here after the Flood!”

  13. Carl M February 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    Evolutionism states that “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.”

    “Evolutionism” states no such thing. There is no requirement for the “strong” to advance at the expense of the “weak”. To suggest such a thing would be dishonest except if done out of ignorance.

    However, if we are to apply “evolutionism” to the question of “women and children first” we can see the advantage of the strategy.

    Women, from a biological perspective, are essential for each single child, yet men can father more than one child simultaneously. Therefor, from a perpetuation of the species perspective, women are more important.

    Children are important to the species as they are the future generation. Present adults may be sacrificed without significant detriment (relatively speaking) and children can continue the future generation.

    A species, culture or social group which protects the main breeders and their offspring are more likely to be successful.

    Of course, the most important point is that a scientific concept should not be used as a moral compass. Scientific theories are descriptive, not proscriptive.

  14. Jack Napper February 2, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Evolutionism states that “The strong survive at the expense of the weak.”

    Of course this is based on the gross misunderstanding that evolution means “Survival of the Fittest”. No Eric, it’s SURVIVAL OF THE FIT.

    Interesting story but it has nothing really to do with evolution as it’s not conscious. I think you were just looking for filler here Eric. I mean when I can find your comedic article “Shifting Sands of Evolution” plastered on all over the interweb all the way back in 2008 (that’s just on page one of the Google results) it’s getting a bit sad.

  15. Mike C February 2, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    This story has exactly nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with chivalry.

    Secondly the theory of evolution says nothing about the survival of the strong over the weak it. It states the fittest organisms survive to put it very simply.

    Lastly evolution does not affect individuals it affects populations.

    Congratulations on turning a tragedy into a straw man.

  16. Ed Snipples February 2, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Well, this article proves one of the two things.

    1.You have no clue on what the theory of evolution states, and have no idea what the term “survival of the fittest” means.
    2.You know exactly what they mean, and you are misrepresenting the theory to sell your products.

    1 makes you ill-informed, and you should study the subject more if you are interested.
    2 makes you a scumbag.

  17. H. Bosma February 2, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Just one word:

    Altruism

  18. rodger klotz February 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    Billy joe Grace,

    I can always tell when a creationist is trying to be condescending to more educated people when they leave comments that sound like they are from the middle ages. “you oh evolutionists…” What are you trying to sound like a prophet? People like you destroy my belife in god.

  19. Duane February 3, 2011 at 12:53 am #

    “Jesus’ foretelling Peter’s martyrdom in the Gospel of John is enough for me to believe it happened. John was written after Peter’s death; do you think he would have included that if it didn’t happen that way?”

    So there’s no possible way the author could have made it up to bolster his story?

    “If you will recall, ALL of the encounters with Jesus were supernatural after His resurrection… He would appear and disappear and then finally went up into the clouds out of sight to return in like manner.

    “i.e. there was no real physical resurrection. That’s not what most of your fellow Christians believe.”

    If anyone at all died for the Lord Jesus, it was precisely because they believed He was the resurrected God-man.

    “Then, by your admission, they were wrong.”

    Now, I didn’t say that. Being the all-powerful, resurrected Son of God, He was not bound by time and space anymore. I don’t know how that works, and don’t need to… But He said and they said that His physical body was raised again. Paul’s meeting of Jesus was just a little different, but still a meeting of Jesus, nonetheless.”

    At this point it becomes fiction. I’m sorry. There is no magic. I’m not going to believe reports of magic from 1900 year old writings.

    “atheistic colored glasses…”

    It’s called reality. We don’t have one verifiable supernatural event in human history. Faith Healers abound but there is not one verified account of faith healing being legitimate. We still have magicians and soothsayers but now we understand them to be entertainment. We still have these today and we know them to be false, why are we to trust 1st-3rd century accounts as being truth? Look how easy it is to create Urban Legends today with events in our lifetime. Walt Disney is kept frozen at Disneyworld. Aliens are kept at Rickenbacker AFB. Cass Elliot choked on a ham sandwich. Richard Gere and the Gerbil. Are we to believe that 1st century Palestine was any different? Look no farther than the Hovinds to see how easily defenders of the faith will lie to defend that faith. People want to believe in woo. The fact that they believe it doesn’t make it true. Knowing what we know about the nature of reality, what seems more likely? The ineffable creator of the universe impregnated a virgin in the middle East to give Himself a body to inhabit. He performed miracles while preaching reform. Was crucified, killed, resurrected, visited his followers then went bodily to heaven. Or, middle Eastern woman gets pregnant by either adultery or rape and lies about it (this was a stoneable offense)(or followers simply made up Virgin birth to attract followers because it was common to Heroes in Greek stories to be born of virgins), this son grows up in an occupied land with much unrest and preaches about reform (Jesus did not create Christianity, Paul did. Jesus was still preaching Jewish Law), he is prosecuted for this civil unrest and his body was stolen by his followers after his death and reports of him visiting people after his death were exaggerations or hallucinations, or outright lies. Vague textual confirmation of “prophecies” written after the fact by writers with agendas are not convincing.

    I’m sorry, but as someone said wrongly earlier in this thread, Faith IS credulity. Those that deny reality for the sake of their fantasy world are the ones that are willingly ignorant. We’ve learned a lot in the past 150 years about how the world works. I don’t expect to have ALL the answers, but I’d much rather live in a world with answers based upon reality than empty assertions based upon interpretations of a 1800-2500 year old text by liars with Jesus-colored glasses.

  20. David McCrea February 4, 2011 at 2:20 am #

    Corey: Does this answer your question?

    “Survival of the fittest”
    Meaning
    The idea that species adapt and change by natural selection with the best suited mutations becoming dominant.

    Origin
    This expression is often attributed to Charles Darwin and, although it appears in the fifth edition of his Origin of Species, 1869, it is attributed to Herbert Spencer:

    “The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the survival of the fittest is more accurate…”

    Spencer had published The principles of biology in 1864. In that he referred to ‘survival of the fittest’ twice:

    “This survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest.”
    “This survival of the fittest… is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’.”

    By ‘fittest’, of course, Spencer and Darwin didn’t have in mind the commonly used meaning of the word now, i.e. the most highly trained and physically energetic. The ‘fittest’ referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

    CONCLUSION: Life spontaneously generated from non-living materials (i.e. all live on Earth evolved over time from the DNA of a rock.) Why can’t atheistic evolutionists just admit they believe this and stop with the silly retorts and denials? All things created had a Creator. End of discussion. Stop over-thinking the issue and trust in Jesus Christ.

  21. Peter Bilmer February 4, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    Very good article CSE!

    Most probably it was Herbert Spencer who first verbalised the phrase “survival of the fittest” in his Principles of Biology, 1864:

    “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

  22. Peter Bilmer February 4, 2011 at 7:42 am #

    @ CSE team,

    oh there are still some very rude comments with bad words.
    With some “interesting” opinions..

    But another question:

    Have you ever thought about an analysis how the mechanisms of evolution were adjusted just right at a specific time to controll the thinking of the people?

  23. John Bebbington February 4, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    Life spontaneously generated from non-living materials (i.e. all live on Earth evolved over time from the DNA of a rock.) Why can’t atheistic evolutionists just admit they believe this and stop with the silly retorts and denials?

    I don’t believe it because rock doesn’t have DNA. Rock is just a bunch of chemicals. DNA is also just a bunch of chemicals. And so is David MacCrea’s pet monkey.

    “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground ………….for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” as it says in the not-so-good book, a book MacCrea now says he doesn’t believe.

    All things created had a Creator.

    Thank you for the truism. I thought creation was the making of something out of nothing which, apparently, is not what God did in the case of dust-formed man.

  24. Jennifer Preston February 4, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Theological research has shown that the bit about Jesus ascending up to heaven wasn’t added until 500 year after Jesus’ death. Originally, the writings just had him going away, as in walking over a hill. And the disciples all expected him to come back in their lifetime. The reason I don’t believe the Bible literally (I do believe Jesus is the Son of God and rose for our sins) is not because of science or evolution or the big bang theory. The reason I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible is because of recent historical and theological research. Genesis was never supposed to be taken literally.

  25. Jack Napper February 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    CONCLUSION: Life spontaneously generated from non-living materials (i.e. all live on Earth evolved over time from the DNA of a rock.)

    Wow what a gross misunderstanding. I really like the part about the rock. Been watching a few too many Hovind seminars I see. Let’s not forget that your conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW with the rest of your commentary.

    I would really like to have a more in-depth discussion about this “life from non-living materials” but I’m sure it will never happen. Perhaps you could tell me which elements on the periodic table are ALIVE.

    Why can’t atheistic evolutionists just admit they believe this and stop with the silly retorts and denials?

    Simply because you think this is what they believe doesn’t make it so. You’ve already shown that you have a rather poor understanding of the subject.

    All things created had a Creator. End of discussion. Stop over-thinking the issue and trust in Jesus Christ.

    Thanks for revealing to us that you are a POE.

  26. Corey February 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    @David McCrea
    As many have pointed out CSE has innacurately used the term “survival of the fitttest” for the story.

    Not all things have a intelligent designer/creator, such as rainbows, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.

  27. Randy Miller February 4, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    One of the first things that attracted me to Kent Hovind’s teachings was his courage in taking on the modern day “priests” and their govt sponsored “religion” of evolution theory.
    He was the guy pointing out that the “emperor has no clothes on” …
    The way evolutionists put their theory in the textbooks and call it a scientific fact is so dishonest, and sooo worthy of being opposed!
    Way to go Kent!
    **
    Darwinistic Evolution is already ON THE WAY OUT.
    It’s outdated.
    It has one foot in the grave.
    It’s loyal adherents may be having trouble accepting it’s demise, but molecular biology – the complexity of cell structure (it’s machine like efficiency), and the information inside DNA are HUGE scientific advances that have catapulted Intelligent Design to a place where it is probably 50 times more relevant than it was just 20 years ago.
    Case in point = Antony Flew …
    The prominent Evolutionary Darwinist who BECAUSE OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES converted to the Intelligent Design camp.
    Case in point = Richard Dawkins (when asked where life on earth came from) said, “perhaps the earth was seeded by Aliens from outer space”.
    Real “scientific” Richard …
    Darwinism is a belief based on faith …
    Especially when it comes to the question of the origin of life.

  28. Duane February 4, 2011 at 10:35 pm #

    @Peter Bilmer February 4th at 7:42 am

    @ CSE team,

    oh there are still some very rude comments with bad words.
    With some “interesting” opinions..

    But another question:

    Have you ever thought about an analysis how the mechanisms of evolution were adjusted just right at a specific time to controll the thinking of the people?

    Where are you seeing bad words and rude comments? Your beliefs are not above criticism, especially in a forum where the other side’s views are consistantly misrepresented. As to your question, how does Evolution control the thinking of people? Christianity does that, for sure. Christianity is all about controlling people and their thoughts. Check out the next comment.

    It is why we have abortion, feminism, sodomy etc. as common occurrences in our society. “keep abortion safe and legal” “were here, were queer, were gonna rule the world” “I am woman, hear me roar” and on and on their mantras go. All based on a hatred for God and His word, on a love of self, and hatred for there fellow man.

    This is the most offensive missive in this entire blog. This is what I see when I look at Christians and Christianity. Christianity appears to be little more than a justification for bigotry. The Bible is a vile, sexist piece of literature that propounds an outdated, morally bankrupt world view. Now, I understand concern over abortion, but do you really believe women are to be subservient to men and that they are second class citizens? And what difference does it make to you who a person falls in love with? I don’t know why Christians are so concerned about what happens in people’s bedrooms. We’ve had homosexuality for the entire history of life, man and animal kingdom alike. It’s also been open in the culture and society long enough that you shouldn’t be shocked or offended over it. It wasn’t that long ago it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. Soon enough SSM will be accepted as your kind die out. Gender and sexuality are not digital but are based upon a complex array of biological chemical signals at the development stage. Homosexuality is not a fetish, it is an orientation and is well represented throughout the animal kingdom. And I have never heard anyone chant that phrase. All they want is the same rights as the rest of us. Thanks for the comment. I can now dismiss anything that person says from here on out as the ravings of a bigot.

  29. Randy Miller February 4, 2011 at 10:51 pm #

    Concerning the “Tale Of The Birkenhead” …

    I actually agree with the evolutionists on this one.
    IMO the “story” does not make a good case against the survival of the fittest idea.
    IMO this particular analogy is flawed.
    **
    But I am still 100% a Creationist.
    The Word of God is full of power, and wisdom, and knowledge.
    Secularists are missing out when they ignore “the wisdom of the ages” …

  30. Carl M February 6, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    CONCLUSION: Life spontaneously generated from non-living materials (i.e. all live on Earth evolved over time from the DNA of a rock.) Why can’t atheistic evolutionists just admit they believe this and stop with the silly retorts and denials? All things created had a Creator. End of discussion. Stop over-thinking the issue and trust in Jesus Christ.

    You deserve credit for practicing what you preach.

  31. Duane February 6, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    @Jeff Brace January 26th at 11:33 am

    @ Duane, “One of the things I read here often is the justification that Jesus believed it, so it must be true. This means we must call in the credibility of Jesus.”
    I doubt you could find a single reference where Eric or Dr Hovind stated this.
    On the contrary, we stand on the premise that the starting point is the Word of God. Who are we to know the mind of God.

    Understanding the Importance of Creation vs. Evolution
    Dr. Kent Hovind September 14th, 201020 Comments so far

    The theory of evolution, which is taught as a fact in our public school textbooks, tax-supported parks, museums, and public television programs, is actually not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief. I have dedicated my life to help people learn the truth needed to expose evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world. Evolution as it is being taught is dangerous for several reasons (Creation Seminar Part #5).

    1. At stake is the credibility of Jesus. He cited Genesis twenty-five times and said the creation of Adam was “the beginning” (Matthew 19:4). Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites—one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.

    You were saying?

  32. John Bebbington February 7, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    Randy (aren’t we all every few months) wrote:

    Kent Hovind was the guy pointing out that the “emperor has no clothes on” …

    If Kent’s knowledge of tailoring is as weak as his understanding of the ToE he probably thinks that a cross-stitcher is some one who has just dropped his Singer on his toe.

    Kent says that the theory of evolution predicts that dogs can give birth to non-dogs so if you think he is right on that point then you probably think that the design of the emperor’s country suit material was inspired by the invisible skeleton of a herring.

    


    The way evolutionists put their theory in the textbooks and call it a scientific fact is so dishonest, and sooo worthy of being opposed! Way to go Kent!

    Ten years in gaol and a $3,000,000 tax claim coming before the court in the next few weeks. Way to go Kent! Kent searches out incompetent lawyers in the same way he searches out incompetent pseudo-scientists.

    Darwinistic Evolution is already ON THE WAY OUT.

    And has been (according to Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity who have been saying the same thing for the last 150 years) for the last 150 years. Even the Pope understands that this view is no longer supportable. Yeah, I know, he’s only a catholic.

    
…. and the information inside DNA are HUGE scientific advances that have catapulted Intelligent Design to a place where it is probably 50 times more relevant than it was just 20 years ago.

    50 times zero is ???

    


    Case in point = Antony Flew … the prominent Evolutionary Darwinist …

    Sadly, he died last year aged 87.

    who BECAUSE OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES converted to the Intelligent Design camp.

    From Wikipedia: “When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary ….. whether or not he (Flew) has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with “Certainly not”, stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. ”

    Case in point = Richard Dawkins (when asked where life on earth came from) said, “perhaps the earth was seeded by Aliens from outer space”.

    Typical creationist quote-mining. Why don’t you check what he actually said?

  33. Billy Joe Grace February 7, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    People like you destroy my belife in god.

    Dear Mr. Klotz, since I am not a prophet, how is it that I have the power to destroy your “belife” (or is it belief?) in GOD?

    Hay, I got it lets you and me have us a good ole spellin’ bee.

  34. Billy Joe Grace February 7, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    By the way Mr. Klotz, it is only a joke, please do not take offense. We all make mistakes, some more tragic than others. The biggest mistake of all is choosing unbelief. Listen to your GOD given conscience. Eternity is written on your heart as is the law of GOD. We have to be taught otherwise to believe against it. Listen to the truth, the truth shall make you free. Free from the power of sin and death. GOD doesn’t expect you to live a sinless life. He commands all men everywhere to repent of unbelief. He created you to be alive, and wants you to remain that way. The only way out of GOD’s court room alive is to believe Him for what He has already done.

  35. Jack Napper February 7, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    Darwinistic Evolution is already ON THE WAY OUT.
    It’s outdated.
    It has one foot in the grave.

    I’ve been seeing this billboard nonsense for decades. What was that Hitler said about lying?

    It’s loyal adherents may be having trouble accepting it’s demise, but molecular biology – the complexity of cell structure (it’s machine like efficiency), and the information inside DNA are HUGE scientific advances that have catapulted Intelligent Design to a place where it is probably 50 times more relevant than it was just 20 years ago.

    Sorry but all these things actually back up evolution and explain how things actually happen. Really you’re just making an appeal to ignorance here.

    By talking about “the information in DNA” you have revealed your own ignorance. Please define this. I’ve been asking this one for YEARS! Please define information and how it related to BIOLOGY.

    Case in point = Antony Flew …
    The prominent Evolutionary Darwinist who BECAUSE OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES converted to the Intelligent Design camp.

    BIOGRAPHY FAIL

    Case in point = Richard Dawkins (when asked where life on earth came from) said, “perhaps the earth was seeded by Aliens from outer space”.
    Real “scientific” Richard …

    Nice quote mining. This isn’t what he said at all and we have the actual video uploads of EXPELLED. Nice try though. This has to be one of my favorite examples of LYING FOR JESUS.

    Darwinism is a belief based on faith …

    Keep telling yourself and others that. Although you can be proven wrong it’s a great appeal to emotion and ignorance. If you can get it branded as a religion you can get it thrown out of schools. You guys even coined a term for it. EVOLUTIONISM.

    Especially when it comes to the question of the origin of life.

    And this has what to do with Evolutionary Theory? No I don’t mean your EVOLUTIONISM, “let’s throw everything no matter how unrelated and the kitchen sink into it” nonsense

  36. David McCrea February 7, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    So according to atheists, a lobster, a dandelion, a mosquito and an elephant all have a common ancestor. Since you’re willing to bet eternity on this belief, what was their common ancestor? Please be specific.

    Atheists, what sin are you so in love with you refuse to see the truth of Jesus Christ? Don’t hide behind your silly, fabricated religion called evolution. And STOP calling a rainbow and waves ‘creations.’ That’s not what I mean when I say all things created had a Creator and you know it!

    The buttons on your shirt had an intelligent designer, but the atheists would have us believe the universe, the earth, and human beings did not. Nice try but I’m not buying what you’re trying to sell.

  37. David McCrea February 7, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    Carl M:

    Just curious.

    If you were to enter a bookstore desiring to buy Mary Shelley’s book “Frankenstein,” would you tend to look for it in the fiction or non-fiction section?

    Only to an atheist is this a trick question.

  38. Geno Castagnoli February 7, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    Randy Miller claimed:
    HUGE scientific advances that have catapulted Intelligent Design to a place where it is probably 50 times more relevant than it was just 20 years ago.

    ####
    Geno points out:
    Yeah…. Fifty times zero is still zero.

    ID is nothing more than “creationism in a lab coat.” It’s a religious movement attempting to do an end-run around the Constitution in an effort to get creationism into the classroom.

    Now…if ID REALLY has a properly validated scientific test that has been demonstrated to do what it is claimed to do, let me know. That will never happen because the ID advocates are too busy promoting their beliefs to legislatures, boards of education and local school boards.

  39. Duane February 8, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    @John Bebbington February 4th at 9:26 am

    Life spontaneously generated from non-living materials (i.e. all live on Earth evolved over time from the DNA of a rock.) Why can’t atheistic evolutionists just admit they believe this and stop with the silly retorts and denials?

    I don’t believe it because rock doesn’t have DNA. Rock is just a bunch of chemicals. DNA is also just a bunch of chemicals. And so is David MacCrea’s pet monkey.

    “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground ………….for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” as it says in the not-so-good book, a book MacCrea now says he doesn’t believe.

    All things created had a Creator.

    Thank you for the truism. I thought creation was the making of something out of nothing which, apparently, is not what God did in the case of dust-formed man.

    You can’t be this obtuse. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. None of these are living materials. However, no scientist believes we came from the DNA of a rock. Not that Atheism is actually related to science, but most atheists were once Christians or were raised by and around them, so we have a pretty good idea of how you think. Most Christians have never actually been atheists or around them so they imagine what atheists believe. Generally, you project your ideas on them. For instance, you believe that an All-powerful, All-knowing creative force you’ve anthropomorphised into being a Father, who has a personal relationship with you through an intermediary son, created everything from nothing by willing it into existence through thought and/or words over a period of 6 days. During this period, He created animals from the ground and sea and created Man from the dust of the earth (dirt) and Woman from the rib of the man. Now, instead of actually bothering to understand the accepted consensus scientific explanation, you simply project your version and simply remove the element that powers your explanation (i.e. God), rendering what was already irrational into something absurd. “The Evolutionist believes everything came from nothing and we came spontaneously from rocks,” is just the Creationist explanation minus God. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the other side, at least represent it accurately. To do otherwise is dishonest and does disservice to your own argument. Do you wonder why we keep bringing up Straw Men?

    Readers of this blog obviously have questions, or they wouldn’t be here. However, going to the Hovinds is essentially just looking for confirmation of what you already believe rather than a genuine inquiry. Also, you are going to have to accept that the search for truth is like an investigation. You aren’t going to get all your questions answered with absolute certainty. Only religion asserts absolute certainty, without providing evidence. I would suggest reading actual books by Evolution scientists rather than screeds by apologists. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is excellent.

    @Randy Miller February 4th at 9:31 pm

    One of the first things that attracted me to Kent Hovind’s teachings was his courage in taking on the modern day “priests” and their govt sponsored “religion” of evolution theory.
    He was the guy pointing out that the “emperor has no clothes on” …
    The way evolutionists put their theory in the textbooks and call it a scientific fact is so dishonest, and sooo worthy of being opposed!
    Way to go Kent!
    **
    Darwinistic Evolution is already ON THE WAY OUT.
    It’s outdated.
    It has one foot in the grave.
    It’s loyal adherents may be having trouble accepting it’s demise, but molecular biology – the complexity of cell structure (it’s machine like efficiency), and the information inside DNA are HUGE scientific advances that have catapulted Intelligent Design to a place where it is probably 50 times more relevant than it was just 20 years ago.
    Case in point = Antony Flew …
    The prominent Evolutionary Darwinist who BECAUSE OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES converted to the Intelligent Design camp.
    Case in point = Richard Dawkins (when asked where life on earth came from) said, “perhaps the earth was seeded by Aliens from outer space”.
    Real “scientific” Richard …
    Darwinism is a belief based on faith …
    Especially when it comes to the question of the origin of life.

    Far from this, scientific advances have strengthened “Darwinism”. You should not get your news from apologists and look into the actual scientists. Don’t know much about Flew, but he was a philosopher, not a scientist, and he seems to have went from atheist to deist and I don’t want to speculate into his situation. As to the Dawkins quote, here is another example of the basic dishonesty of the creationists. Dawkins was not asked where life on earth came from, he was Stein asked “whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). ”

    Whether you agree or not, it is wrong to misrepresent the other side to make your argument look better. If you can’t face the truth, then you must not have as good a case as you think you might.

  40. andrew Ryan February 8, 2011 at 5:51 am #

    Kent: “I have dedicated my life to help people learn the truth needed to expose evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler…”

    This is pure falsehood. Hitler rejected evolution just as Kent does. Not only did Hitler put Darwin in his list of banned books, he expressly said that he rejected the idea of species changing and rejected the idea of man coming from ape-like creatures:

    “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi

    “From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk