X-Men And The Theory Of Evolution

C H U R C H   R E F O R M   S E R I E S

By Biblicism Institute

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” – Charles Darwin (1872)

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was a misguided effort by a curious mind that has been kept relevant mostly by those who wish to believe that there is no God. That way they can go on living in sin and evade all accountability to their Maker. After all, if they are descended from animals, they can go on acting like them.

Evolution Theory
Evolution as Imagined by Daniel Lee

Without delving into the nitty-gritty of the “theory” itself – which necessitates more faith to accept than to believe that God created everything – we will first tackle one irrefutable fact prevalent in all living things.


Here’s how Webster Dictionary defines Entropy: a process of degradation or running down. Entropy has other meanings in thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and other fields – meanings we are not using here.

Every living organism – including humans – is in a constant state of degradation or deterioration, not evolution. From the moment something comes to be, it already is dying, and will eventually die.


X-Men: Wolverine

The entire living organic system is in a constant fight for survival. Unfortunately, there is nothing in its intrinsic composition powerful enough that would enable it to suppress the inevitable and fateful pull toward its own dissolution or death.

Otherwise, it would divert all of its energy into overcoming said fate by “evolving” out of it, exactly like X-Men’s Wolverine manages to do. Why? Because the survival instinct is the most dominant one. Said evolving characteristic – if it were possible – would in turn be uniformly present in all of creation, and entropy would be nothing but a bad memory.

On the surface, X-Men may appear to favor the theory of evolution, but once pertinent questions are asked, that whole facade crumbles like a butterless cookie, leaving but a handful of apologetics that work in favor of creationism.

1) If, according to evolution, mankind is the end result of animals evolving into a better species – hence the word evolution which Webster defines as “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state” – how come many of the X-Men, like Wolverine, devolve into beasts? Let’s face it, that’s a step back. It’s no longer evolution, but degradation or devolution.

But let’s just say that the X-Men are really in the process of being fully humans, then-

2) The creators of the series are absolutely right in parading these mutants amidst their fully human counterparts. It shows they have a good grasp of what true applied evolution would entail, in terms of evolutionary mutants abiding amongst fully developed humans (minus the fiction). Good story-telling always benefits from a strong dose of common sense, even when the characters are out of this world.

Said common sense when applied to our present reality – where the evolution theory has become the norm – helps raise the most obvious of questions: how come there are no evolutionary dumb-as-rock monkey/man mutants (more or less like Daniel Lee’s photos above and unlike the X-Men of course) running around for real? After all, nature’s revolving cycle never fails. Any farmer will attest to the fact that a fruit tree never produces just one harvest. So where are the subsequent generations of evolutionary mutants?

The proponents of the Evolution Religion would quickly interject that I. it would take millions of years for  evolution to succeed from its point of origin (i.e., from the primordial soup), and that II. evolution is undirected.


Let’s humor them and run with the “theory” that it takes millions of years to actually have mutants running around today.

a) For the sake of argument, let’s get a starting point of say Year 1 Billion.

b) Given the cyclical law of nature, let’s say that the evolutionary leap – again for the sake of argument – starts at its point of origin once every year, instead of every hour or every day or every month, just to make it simple.

c) If every single year, following Year 1 Billion, a different additional leap had started at its point of origin, by the time we would have reached today some form of mutation should now be in progress, because life in its current state is supposedly the result of Year-1-Billion‘s first leap.

Biblicism Institute Leap Chart

As a consequence of the consecutive and additional year-after-year leaps, we definitely should have some real life dumb-as-rock mutants running about acting all monkey-like. Most of these mutants would have already gone through the millions and millions of years needed to almost complete the process or at least a great part of it. Others would either be in their evolutionary infancy or adolescence. So where are they?


According to evolution scientists, the reason there are no mutants around is because the evolutionary leap succeeded only once in bringing about a full cycle of mutation that led up to the appearance of modern humans.

X-Men - Beast

X-Men: Beast

And because evolution is supposedly undirected and random, no one knows when it will whimsically happen again. Amazingly enough, that one-time undirected accident somehow directed itself into the greatest feat in all of nature: man, the most astounding biological and self-aware machine ever constructed. It’s a heck of an undirected direction, wouldn’t you say?

Anyway, if evolution is undirected and random, how did scientists figure out that it only succeeded once? They didn’t. They got caught in a quandary because of the cyclical law of nature. To free themselves from said dilemma, they decided that the evolution process that led up to man has gone down once. How? By theorizing that evolution is “undirected.” That’s all! Basically, they just pulled a rabbit out of a hat. If not, they would have had to account for the lack of mutants in our midst.

But whether they want to ignore it or not, the problem still persists.

If the evolutionary leap were real, it would not have bloomed just once. It would be churning incessantly, year after year, multi-linearly, and would not have been a one-time whimsical, linear, and undirected accident that resulted in our current state of affairs.

Whatever catapulted the first transformation process or evolutionary leap would have been and would still be in continuous operational mode, because everything in nature repeats itself like clockwork. Everything can be observed to possess the same cyclical and rotational function, and everything follows that same archetypal and directional order. In other words, it’s the cyclical law of nature.

A few examples:

i. the sun faithfully rises in the East, and never fails to set in the West – day in and day out;

ii. everything comes to be, lives, and dies – and the cycle faithfully begins again and again;

iii. seasonal changes faithfully occur year after year;

iv. earth faithfully rotates around the sun – again and again;

v. water cycle: ocean -> evaporation+condensation -> precipitation -> infiltration -> distribution -> ocean – and the cycle faithfully begins again and again.

So where is the continuous revolving cycle of evolution? Apparently it’s the only thing in nature that evaded one, pretty smart for an undirected process. It directed itself straight out of a cumbersome law. Such amazing, undirected direction is getting to be a habit.

In reality, the only reason it has no cycle is because evolution “scientists” arbitrarily decided it would be so. Since the cyclical law of nature doesn’t help their theory, it has become irrelevant. After all, evolution is their brainchild, and they control the fictional script.

Now we await their take on how “nature” managed to randomly create over 8 million animal species (not to mention the innumerable number of plant species); but something tells us they’re too cunning to mess with that.

They know they can’t scientifically present 8 million different paths of mutation, given that no one was around millions of years ago to witness the process when it supposedly started, and that no evidence of 8 million paths has been left behind.

Besides, trying to fictionalize 8 million ways the primordial soup has mutated – like they did with the supposed path that led up to man – would send them straight to M.A.D. (Mental Asylum for Dingbats).


God’s creation is not just a wonder to behold, it is a faithful revolving mechanism that we humans can bet the bank on. Its many fine-tuned complexities leave no room for accidental randomness, otherwise there would be chaos.

Imagine one morning we wake up and find out that the sun suddenly got tired of being too far away from the earth, and whimsically decided that it would confound us poor monkey-upgrades by speedily dashing closer to our planet just to make crispy critters out of us; or that the earth had randomly directed itself to rotate clockwise on its axis instead of counter-clockwise (as viewed from Polaris) just to create havoc. If nature worked randomly and undirected like that, we’d be in BIG trouble.

Nothing in God’s creation is fortuitous. Everything is by design. And everything has a direction. That’s what helps us sleep at ease.

“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion,” explains Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards).

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature – the laws of physics – are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company.

“However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

Evolution on the other hand is nothing but a half-baked theory that can’t even make it gracefully within the limited confines of a comic book or a science fiction movie. We say it’s about time it meets its natural friend, entropy. Then there will be room for God-given logic, common sense, reason, and true science.

“Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!” Genesis 1:31

Read Also: Puzzled Scientists

Emoji Monkey Note in the Margin

To all the E-theorists who are commenting, please try your best to intelligently and by design – pun intended – pinpoint the flaws in the article, by providing counterpoints or proofs of actual monkey/man mutants running around, without resorting to vile and unbecoming profanities.

Usually people who resort to such a tactic have no argument, and in this instance we understand you don’t have any. Your inane invectives are really nudging us to believe that some of you are just emerging out of the monkey stage of evolution, while others are still in primordial slime mode. 🙂 We do realize that such a statement would be an insult to normal folks like us creationists, but to you E-theorists we have come to understand that it is not. Go figure.

Anyway, what on earth would possess a human being to believe he’s an animal? That’s beyond any sane comprehension. No wonder many of you E-theorists don’t get the fact that 1) we’re using X-Men as an analogy, utilizing specific and limited aspects of the movie; for example, if someone were to say, “My brother is as big as a ship,” thus limiting the analogy to “big,” then you would reply, “How come you say that, your brother doesn’t have engines or chimneys,” and 2) we’re making use of X-Men fiction to debunk Evolution fiction; unfortunately, it’s too subtle a sarcasm for you. After all, you’re “animals.” Sad indeed. 😦

Read also: Jesus was not a Jew

Read also: How Atheists Do God’s Will

86 thoughts on “X-Men And The Theory Of Evolution

  1. That was very fulfilling to read, I bet that angered the E-theorists. Thank God for people like you, who can argue intelligently, and factually, the things that are facts and those that are just stupid theories, especially something as important as God and the creation of us. I love your wisdom, keep up the good work. God Bless in Jesus name. James


  2. In my view, there is a much bigger picture here – both sides are getting it partly right and partly wrong. There is a whole multiverse out there, it’s not just about Earth life.


  3. 1) Atheist and E-Theorist here: We’re never going to be on the same page: you start with your conclusion, God and the Bible. Even if you don’t accept Evolutionary Theory, try to understand it.

    2) Ethics are invented by Social Groups to enable harmonious living – all higher animals have communal behaviors. No God necessary.

    3) I act better than many Christians, perhaps because I choose to, not because I’m genuflecting to a cosmic ghost.

    4) The Roman Catholic Church is a world leader in evil, deviant behavior. Of all animals, and humans are animals, only Man is capable of such evil toward all creatures. Chimpanzees can be cruel, so maybe it’s a primate thing. Most animals act instinctively and are incapable of evil on human scales. So you have it all wrong.

    5) It doesn’t require faith to accept the theory, just the willingness and ability to accept logic and evidence.

    6) Evolution is undirected – it doesn’t move toward anything. Mankind is not the end result of anything. Any superiority you attribute to us is guided by anthropomorphism – bacteria, insects and fungi are 3 types of life arguably far more successful than we are.

    7) How do you know there are no mutants among us? No creature on earth has a genome identical to any other creature.

    8) I’ve been scrolling through your article from top to bottom, trying to respond. At this point I’m confident that you have no clue about that which you reject.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1) Try to understand Evolution? TRY? Try pretty please. Is that the best you can do?

      2) For the most part, Ethics evolved from God’s commandments. They are just repackaged. For instance, why don’t brothers and sisters have sexual intercourse just like animals do? Because God forbade it in the Bible. Then, the world ran with it.

      3) That’s quite possible. We don’t know you personally to acquiesce 100%. Talk is usually cheap. Besides, Christians never said they were perfect, just saved by the grace of God and working toward perfection, which is the ultimate prize or the end game and not the beginning of it.

      4) I think you should remove the mud from your eyes. The United States Government and its partners Great Britain and Israel are the world’s leaders in evil with all their senseless wars. You have it wrong. As for the Catholic Church, yes they have done horrible things in the past – see our article Israel: the Scourge of Empires – we don’t hide from that fact, we point it out openly so things like that never happen again. They also have other issues they’re dealing with that are also bad, and that’s because the entire Church system is wrong, which again you can read in our various articles such as Church Services Are Not Biblical and Understanding the Duties of Ministry. Again Christians are not perfect, specially when the Church has been hijacked by ‘Leaders’ who should not be ‘Leaders’ in the fist place. How would you feel if someone in your family has done something horrible and everyone in society immediately thinks that you and the rest of your family are capable of similar acts? You would flat out reject that assumption. And yet you paint every single Christian with the same brush. Again take out the evolution mud from your eyes, and think like a compassionate human you say you are and not just pay lip service.

      5) Where is the logic? Where is the evidence? You have given none.

      6) Undirected? Sounds like the perfect made-up excuse to cover the lack of evidence. Everything else in nature is directed. Daytime directs itself towards nighttime. Springtime directs itself toward flourishing time. Birds migrate or direct themselves in their appointed season. Should we go on? Again the revolving mechanism we spoke about. It’s everywhere.

      7) Where are the mutants? Show them to us. We’d love to see one. Again, you can’t produce any proof. You only have ASSUMPTION. And you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME.

      8)TRYING to respond? Sounds like that’s what you did. You TRIED and FAILED.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “Where are the mutants.”
    Red hair results from a mutation in a gene called MC1R.
    Blue eyes and albinos are caused by mutations effecting the HERC2 and OCA2 genes.

    There are actually tons of measurable mutations in the human race alone.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Really? Red hair? Blue eyes? Albinos? Jeez! The gist of the article is about mutants that are either in their infancy or adolescence or halfway or almost to their point of full evolution. In other words, a hybrid-type monkey/man monstrosity that E-theorists call Evolution. And the best you can come up with is Blue Eyes, Red Hair and Albinos? But thanks anyway. You’re just adding strength to our position.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. The first part of your article contains the shortest, and worst definition of theory i’ve ever read, and the whole concept of supposed unbiased writing goes straight downhill from t here. A much more concise and acceptable definition of a scientific theory would be: A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses.

    Liked by 2 people

    • This is a perfect example how scientists manipulate the meaning of things to confuse the public. They refuse to abide by logic and reason. They thereby convolute everything they lay their hands on to confuse and distort in order to better lie and treat the uninformed like idiots. In other words, first they change the meaning of theory to mean what they want it to mean – which meaning has become one of the ‘approved definitions’ of said word because of their unholy influence. It’s like what happened to the word ‘gay’ with its original meaning of ‘merry’ or ‘lively’. Then, they fabricate lies and call them facts because they want to dazzle rich folks with their ‘knowledge’ and ‘discoveries’ so these poor snobs can fund their ‘research’ and pay their salary. Something as simple as ‘show us the mutants’ that are in the process of becoming fully evolved and yet they can’t do it. Instead, they contort their way through a false paradigm and demand we bow to them. Never!

      Liked by 1 person

      • 1) You’re right, it’s “just a theory.” Like the “theory of gravity” and the “germ theory of disease.” And we all know how wrong they are, right?

        2) Look, unless you can acknowledge that the scientific use of the word “theory” is not the same as its colloquial use, then your whole argument is disingenuous. You’re equivocating. You’re lying to your readers. How desperate must you be?


        • 1) “You’re RIGHT.” Yeah! Slowly they’re coming around. Anyway, it’s Newton’s LAW of gravity. Don’t try to morph it into the THEORY of Gravity just so you can bundle it with the THEORY of Evolution. The other theories on Gravity are just that, theories. Germ theory has many detractors such as Antoine Bechamp.

          2)You’re the desperate one going on tangent and throwing red herrings because the whole article is about how there’s no proof of actual monkey/man mutants running around and you can’t provide said proof.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. If you want to argue against science the table stakes are an understanding of the scientific method. The basic definition of terms use is required to have an informed opinion and starts with concepts like “theory”. “an unproved assumption or conjecture” is NOT the scientific definition of the term. This article is just another misguided attempt to apply the second law of thermodynamics to biological systems. A few seconds with Google will reveal the large number of informed rebuttals to this misunderstanding of basic science.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bill, it seems like there’s one common denominator with folks who say they are scientists or at least who pretend they are when they can’t even cure the common cold. They are not making use of common sense. What does thermodynamics have to do with what we posit in the article? You can’t refute any point, so what do you do? You throw a red herring so that folks who really don’t know or understand that big word ‘thermodynamics’ can whimper like a vanquished puppy and say ‘maybe the scientist is right.’ We won’t fall for that kind of scam.


  7. “If according to evolution, mankind is the end result of animals evolving into a better species”

    1) This is a good place to start. This is what is technically known as a straw man–a representation of evolution that is nothing at all like evolution.

    2) Evolution is not moving in a particular direction–there is no such thing as a “better species” there are only populations with individuals better or worse suited to the constantly changing environment. What is good in one situation is bad in another (e.g. traits in a bacterium that help it survive in an environment with anti-biotics are probably not helpful in an environment without anti-biotics, so the distribution of traits [allele frequency] will change as the environment changes).

    3) This is true of the entire article. It constantly misrepresents evolution as it is understood by biologists from beginning to end.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Here we go again.

      1) We love this technique. Scientists get caught in a false paradigm and quickly come up with something they call ‘strawman’ argument. What it is, nobody really knows unless they give you THEIR meaning of it because it might not mean what we know it means – it’s part of their game. They say we evolve from animals and then quickly say ‘that’s a misrepresentation of what we mean to say.’ Jeez, this is getting really tiresome.

      2) ‘Evolution is not moving in a particular direction.’ But somehow, its direction went straight toward creating mankind. Anyway, ‘Evolution is not moving anywhere’. You see, if evolution is not moving in any particular direction how do scientists figure it out? They can’t. So how did they come up with a theory? Lies or to be nice Conjectures. Remember it’s all about money and getting R&D money. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. They’re grease monkeys. LOL. Pun intended. We know what a grease monkey is. We just couldn’t help it. Seriously, if something is good in one situation and bad in another, how did they get a firm ‘theory’ in place? They can’t. It’s called CONFUSION.

      3) See no 1)


      • 1. No scientist says “humans evolved from animals.” Because humans ARE animals. There is abundant evidence that this is so.

        2. You come across a large boulder at the bottom of a mountain. You look up and see smashed trees and gouged earth tracing a path all the way down the side of the mountain. By your logic, that boulder never moved, it was always here at the bottom. Why? Because you didn’t see it roll. That’s pathetic, mate.

        3. Helena is right and you are wrong. But as you are not prepared to even look at the evidence, and would rather call those presenting it liars, then of course you’ll carry on believing that which you wish were true.


        • Again, this is what you’re all good at. The whole article is about how there’s no proof of actual monkey/man mutants running around and instead of providing said proof, you go on tangents throwing red herrings to change the subject.

          1) Our article is causing you to back away from your silly theory of evolution. So, now you’re changing the definition of human to mean animal. Again, you all play fast and loose with definitions of words because there’s no proof.

          2) What’s that got to do with showing us the mutants? Jeez!

          3) What evidence? You don’t have any. Show us the monkey/man mutant monstrosity you call evolution.


  8. Thanks for confirming what I knew in advance.
    Now let me go back to being fooled by scientists who can’t cure the common cold but added 25 years to human life expectancy since the 1960’s.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Longer life expectancy has more to do with improvement in hygiene and technological innovation such as refrigeration which keeps food, esp meat, from spoiling and thereby eliminating a great number of sicknesses and diseases that resulted in death. If science could cure things why is cancer still around? What was the last disease that’s been cured by any scientific/medical discovery? Every sickness is a puzzle these days. The best advancement in medicine has been in trauma care and surgery. Hat off to that. According to many surveys a minimum of 100,000 people a year die in hospitals because of mistakes by doctors and another 100,000 die because of ‘voodoo’ drugs from Big Pharma. These numbers are most likely estimates. They could be much higher.


    • Giovani,

      25 years since the 60’s? Haha. Dream on pal. Who was it that said there are 3 types of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics! Diseases increase unchecked. Trillions of dollars of “scientific research” and not a single cure for disease. In fact the opposite is true. The toxins used to treat disease cause the “need” for more toxins as they contribute to more disease. How many drugs produced by “medical science” have been removed from the market because they killed people? Isn’t true science supposed to immutable? Why in medicine does it change constantly? Because it’s not true science. It’s pseudo science that has it’s roots in the absurd and beyond idiotic theory of evolution. Where’s the transition stages in the fossil record? There are none! Why are there still one celled organisms? Laziness on their part? Why do you evolutionists never tackle the whole plant species thing? Because you’re so busy trying to explain your nutty theory as it relates to us “animals” that to do so would make your evolved brains explode. Foolishness disguised as wisdom.


  9. Hygiene and technological innovation: Proudly brought to you by SCIENCE!
    Like antibiotics, or vaccines (what? are vaccines a scam too?).

    Liked by 1 person

    • We never belittle science. We put in their place those who call themselves scientists but in reality are con artists. You see that’s what you all do. You all distort things just so you can try to make a point. BTW hygiene in the way it’s practiced by most people today has nothing to do with the science aspect of it. It’s common sense applied to your everyday care as of cleanliness that is conducive to your health. It’s a practice as old as humankind, a practice that was not given great importance at a certain juncture in recent history. You might want to research that aspect. And YES, vaccines are a big scam. Better do some research before you inject yourself or your children with these synthetic neurotoxic poisons. There are many great doctors who are speaking out against vaccines. As a matter of fact most doctors surveyed do not vaccinate themselves nor their children. Read this and find out what’s really in vaccines. https://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/60-vaccine-secrets.html


      • 1) Science is self-verifying. Religion is simply self-affirming.
        2) Instead of criticising science and ignoring all the benefits it has given us,
        3) why don’t you tell us just one thing that religion has revealed about the universe. One empirically testable fact. Just one.


        • This is what you’re all good at doing. The whole article is about how there’s no proof of actual monkey/man mutants running around and instead of providing said proof, you go on tangents throwing red herrings to change the subject.

          1) So self-verify the mutants please.

          2) We’re not criticizing science as a whole, but the theory of evolution

          3) The birth, death and resurrection of Christ and the Advent of the Holy Spirit changed the world. From that point on, nothing has been the same. The Holy Spirit is the One inspiring the world forward through all these innovations. Where was all this advancement before Christ? The civilization you’re living in is known as Christian Western Civilization. And while you’re at it show us YOUR empirically testable fact of a monkey/man mutant 🙂


  10. 1) Name one important fact from the bible that advanced mankind. 2) Paul’s first mega-church that brought us the Dark Ages. 3) If God had said don’t poop where you eat and always wash your hands the increased life span due to hygiene wouldn’t have required the germ theory of science to promote it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1) The birth, death and resurrection of Christ and the Advent of the Holy Spirit changed the world. From that point on, nothing has been the same. The Holy Spirit is the One inspiring the world forward. Where was all this advancement before Christ? The civilization you’re living in is known as Christian Western Civilization.

      2) Paul did not have a mega church. You probably heard that somewhere and are just regurgitating someone else’s vomit plus Paul died around 67 AD way before the Dark Ages. Jeez, Bill! Anyway, the Dark Ages were not brought about because of Christians or the dead Apostle Paul, but just like the Great Depression in the US, the Dark Ages were a period of economic regression accompanied by intellectual darkness. Basically, when there’s no work, there’s no food on the table, and people don’t have time nor the energy for platitudes. Besides there are those who say the Dark Ages weren’t really that dark. http://bibleontap.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/enlightenment-myth/

      3) In Deutoronomy, God expressly gave instructions for such a situation. But how would you know?


  11. The Paul reference was sarcasm. I was raised in the church. Road to Damascus, First Council of Nicaea (as well as the other 6 Ecumenical Councils) , 4th and 5th Council of Constantinople, the Great Schism, 9 Crusades (now they were fun), the Reformation (skipping the Inquisition), The Enlightenment (where we re-discovered all of the great thinkers the church suppressed – the pre-christian Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese, etc.) to today’s great theologians – Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bill, there’s no question that the Church then and now is replete of so-called Leaders that have done horrible things. If you peruse our blogs, you’ll see that we are not afraid of being critical of many things that happened and are happening. These Leaders have hijacked the Church and are abusing their positions, positions that God never biblically appointed. That’s our mission: to point out the biblical directives and help God’s people to wake up to the crooked ways of some of these ‘Leaders’. God only works through those who really want to serve Him. And that’s what we intend to do. Serve Him with all our might and our heart. No money. No fame. Just the truth.


  12. Demanding that someone show you an example of something that is “partially evolved” demonstrates clearly that you have no idea what the theory of evolution even is, or how it is understood to occur. There is no such thing as “partial evolution.” Evolution is nothing but smooth gradients, and any imagined goal or end point is just an arbitrary point along a gradient. There has never been an organism that “finished” evolving. Read any decent biology textbook, heck even just skim the wikipedia article on evolution, and then you can write about this without making a fool of yourself. And as for this “show me the evidence” nonsense, you’ve dismissed every observable fact about the fossil record, geographic distribution, bacterial evolution which can be observed in real time…you’re clearly not looking for an answer to that question, and no matter what answer is given, you will deny or ignore it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is what we’re talking about. See how convoluted you get in trying not to give a straight answer to a simple question. You can’t prove anything so you invent your own way of how evolution should take place. We love the part about there’s no such thing about partial evolution.

      First, you all said we were slimes that evolved all the way into a monkey which itself evolved into a man. But there was no partial evolution even though the evolution took place partially because ‘smooth gradients’ are themselves partial (it’s called bluffing in Poker). So, if there was no ‘partial evolution’ (we can’t even keep track anymore) the monkey just went poof and there was the monkey into a man. And notice when we ask for evidence what is said. Evidence is “NONSENSE”. So, you throw a red herring to confuse us (they love throwing red herrings) in order for us to look in another direction. And guess what that direction is: bones. Now, you’re grave diggers. 🙂

      And then evolution that could not be observed because there’s no partial evolution suddenly can be observed in bacteria in ‘real time’. But in real time, the other evolution where we want to see the mutant hybrids cannot be observed because it conveniently happens in ‘smooth gradients” which are in reality partial but to them are not really partial.

      This is how messed up your thinking is. And then, on top of that you couldn’t help yourself. You had to sling insults. Apparently, we’re the fools. Unbelievable! We’d need a full time staff to decipher the labyrinthine thinking of you monkey-upgrades. We need a vacation too 🙂


  13. 1) Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

    2) Evolution has the evidence: fossils, genetics, heredity, phylogeny, morphology. Multiple, converging lines of evidence that all lead to the same conclusion and all of which validate the original hypothesis of modification from common descent.

    3) We’re all mutants. Otherwise we’d be clones.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Here we go again.
      1) It’s a fact. It’s a theory. They really can’t make up their mind which way to go.
      2) More red herrings. They can’t prove squat so they flail all over the place: fossils, genetics, yadi, yada, look over here, don’t look over there.
      3) We asked to be shown the mutants and they tell us to look in the mirror. My God, this is not even funny anymore. This is sad. Really sad 😦


      • ANY genetic information not originally taken from your mother or father is a MUTATION. The mapping of teh human genome has shown that there are a few in every human born

        THAT IS IT. That is what a mutation is. What were you expecting?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Songbird, this is more of the same. Playing fast and loose with definitions of words to evade the real question and lack of evidence. No one can show us a ‘mutant’ that is in the process of evolving from monkey to man. If you don’t subscribe to the Evolution Theory with its ‘evolving mutation principles’ that transform one species into another, then OK. Go ahead and run with your definition of mutation within the confines you have described, we’re not fighting you there.


  14. Whaty us also sad, is you you just hand-wave away all the hard, concrete evidence like genetics, the fossil records, morphology and phylogeny. You say you want evidence? It is all there. People here have told you exactly where to find it, and you just close your eyes and say it doesn’t exist. I am sad for you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • More red herrings. “Look over here – Don’t look over there – What we tell you is evidence is what is evidence.” But we want to see the mutants! Simple! YOU CAN’T SHOW THEM TO US. So you say: “Look over there!”


        • OK Joakim, go and grab a mutant that is in the midst of the evolution process of monkey/man. You’d be rich overnight, dude. Do you realize the potential of such a money-making machine? You’d finally prove the Theory of Evolution. You’d be famous. OK, let’s stop dreaming. You can’t get squat.


  15. People who are significantly bigger and smarter than average could be considered mutants as well as various people with heightened senses and other talents.


      • 1) You’re talking about something that doesn’t exist and that the theory of evolution says is impossible.
        2) Do you understand that the X-Men franchise is fiction?


        • Here we go again.
          1) First they posit their theory and when they get caught, they say it’s impossible. YEAH, WE WON!!!!! EVOLUTION THEORY IS FICTION! 🙂 Well, we knew that.
          2) Dude or dudette, did you even read the last paragraph where we say that ETheory “can’t even make it within the confines of a COMIC BOOK or a science FICTION movie”? You see, again, that’s what all you ETheorists do, twist things until you yourselves get all twisted. Boo! 🙂


  16. Evolution is such a joke. Nobody has ever seen a language evolving into another, or people suddenly switching from Navajo to Sumerian. Linguists point to the fossil record and pretend, for example, that French and Romanian are related and have Latin as their common ancestor. So where are the transitional fossils? Also, if language evolution were true, languages would become better gradually. Really, all I can see is languages getting worse. And when languages mutate, what do you get? Ebonics, for example. Is that improvement? I will believe in evolution if my children start speaking Chinese overnight. What a joke.


    • This is not only your gut feeling talking. In computer science, we speak of effective method. In terms of known natural languages, the most effective language for communication is Ancient Greek. Natural languages have become less effective as time has progressed. As I’ve alluded to elsewhere, many of us allow our egos to convince ourselves that our ability to register a wide-ranging vocabulary is a sign of our own intelligence, when it really is not. It is akin to writing a computer program full of unnecessary code. It in no way guarantees that our communication is more effective, far from it!

      Perhaps it is mere coincidence that certain texts are written in the language of Ancient Greek, or perhaps it is not…


      • No, because that would imply that they’re changing. They aren’t. The word theory has a meaning in a scientific context which is different from the way it is often used by nonscientists in an everyday context. This is how the English language works. When you hear someone say “the air is cool” do you assume they mean that word in the exact same way they would if they say “this party is cool”? Of course you don’t. In science, a theory is a well tested and well supported explanation of a body of facts.

        Liked by 1 person

        • A BODY OF FACTS? Then show us the monkey/man mutants in the process of evolving like the article posits. Don’t go around throwing red herrings while ignoring what we posited. That’s all you ETheorists do: play fast and loose with the definitions of words to evade the lack of evidence.


    • Great advice from someone who thinks he’s descended from animals. Like if that’s not in and of itself the greatest embarrassment on earth. Poor soul. God have mercy on you.


  17. Are you arguing that you’re not an animal? Perhaps you are a plant, fungus, virus or maybe a bacteria?

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s rich. The whole article is about how there’s no proof of actual monkey/man mutants running around and yet this is what you do: throw red herrings and go on tangents that have nothing to do with what’s being discussed. This is how silly you’ve become. We can only do this 🙂


  18. 1) The “mutants” you are looking for are extinct. They are called Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Cro-Magnon.
    Your attempt at an argument is the same as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron’s “crockoduck” argument.

    2) The T.E. does not talk about “a better species”, let alone that mankind is the end result of anything. The T.E. says that species mutate, and the mutations that provide them with an advantage to adapt to their environment will lead to the individual from that species surviving and passing on their genes to the next generations.

    3) What you are doing is the definition of a straw-man argument: you are refuting claims that no one but yourself made.

    4) Finally, here are some of the types of “mutants” you’re looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish
    They are not monkey/human “mutants”, but this refutes even your straw-man argument.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1) How convenient! They’re extinct! The evidence that’s not evidence is extinct. “Not guilty, your honor, the evidence is extinct!” 🙂 Or ” Sorry teacher, the extinction ate my homework!” 🙂 Still, poor fellow, you ignore what we posit in the article: the year-after-year leap where evolution should be non-stop. Anyway, that’s what you all do. Run away from facts – extinct that!

      2) See, we’re causing you to run away from your own monkey/man theory. Yay!

      3) Here we go again with the strawman manure. What it is, nobody really knows unless the lot of you gives us your meaning of it lest we use its real meaning only to find out what you mean is not what it should mean. You say we evolve from animals and then quickly say ‘ that’s a misrepresentation of what we mean to say.’ Jeez, this is getting tiresome. And by the way, we had to make the claim, because ETheorists like yourself hide from said claim since you can’t prove it and make up all sorts of excuses like extinction forgetting the revolving mechanism of nature.

      4) These are not mutants. They were DESIGNED that way. PEOPLE LIKE YOU with no proof whatsoever on how they ‘mutated’ put the label of mutants on them so you can keep your ‘theory’ alive. And you call yourselves Scientists? You are soiling the name of real scientists. SHAME ON YOU! It’s like someone who just discovered birds for the first time – and since most other creatures don’t have wings and feet together – he says ‘Look at the wings on this one, it’s a mutant.’ Give it a rest.


  19. Really, please delete it.
    I’m asking you nicely. There’s no reason you can’t politely grant my request.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wow! An Atheist/ETheorist who believes in Satan, but NOT in God! Now we understand where the theory of evolution comes from 🙂 This is fun! The contradictions never end.


  20. Webster’s definition of the word animal also includes “any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.”

    That would include us but hey can you make up your mind what lies to tell about evolution this time?


    • You conveniently OVERLOOKED the word (ANIMALIA) in parenthesis. That is what it’s describing. The Kingdom of Animalia. Again, this is how all of you play fast and loose with the definition of words. Type Animalia anywhere and see what comes up: ANIMAL and click on Animal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animalia&redirect=no Jeez! There’s no end to the pathetic attempts of changing the meaning of words just because you can’t provide any proof of your cockamamy theory. And notice the insults again. We’re the Liars. Boy, give it a rest! ‘Animals’ may include you, but it doesn’t include us. Go back to the jungle if you wish. We’ll continue to build Christian Western Civilization which you seem to be enjoying quite too much 🙂


  21. 1. I think if you are going to use the word entropy in your argument, you need to properly define it. You cannot use a definition that suites you. Entropy itself is a term that was defined by thermodynamics, so it seems very misleading to define it in another context. Mostly because that context does not exist, so you are then creating a definition to suit you. That said, the term that best represents Entropy is chaos, and it really has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you were meaning to imply that the notion “entropy is always increasing” dismisses the possibility of evolution, you are missing a very important piece of information. “Entropy is always increasing in a closed system!” Thankfully, the earth is not a closed system, we have a sun that is providing us with photons and heat.

    2. I think you have a deep misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory. I don’t say that to be purposefully mean or hurtful, I genuinely think you should fully understand the theory if you want to make counter arguments. Much like if I were to make fun of, or belittle Christianity, but admitted to never really reading the bible. You would certainly want me to know the source material before saying anything, correct? I’ll try to address a few of the biggest issues and I see them…

    3. A few people have mentioned this, but there is a significant difference between the word theory in a scientific sense, and in common usage. In every-day life, the word theory is used as a no-so-concrete idea. We see on TV and movies characters who say something to the effect of “my theory is that the butler did it!” In science we would call that a ‘hypothesis,’ an idea that requires rigorous testing. In science, a theory is something that is falsifiable (i.e. there COULD be evidence to the contrary that would disprove it), and has a LOT of evidence to support it. In fact, a ‘theory’ is the ‘highest’ term we can apply to a model. A Law, on the other hand, or more mathematical in nature and can therefore be proven to be true empirically, so they have different aims. Evolution is a theory because the model is so well described, there is so much evidence for it (genetic, fossils, etc), and it has essentially gone through the gauntlet of scientific peer review for over a century and still comes out clean on the other side. I hope that clears up the two definitions of what a ‘theory’ is.

    4. You mention about evolution being directed. This was an idea brought up before Darwin actually, the “ladder of species” I believe it was called. We see living things with more and fewer abilities (cognitive and physical), and so we rate them (ourselves being on top) and we deduce that all beings must be getting better! That is not true. Evolution itself is an undirected process. Changes in a genetic code can lead to a phenotype change (longer arms, shorter beak, etc). These ‘changes’ or mutations occur all the time (most don’t do anything) whenever DNA has to replicate itself. Sometimes though, these changes will have a serious impact on the creature during its development. For those whose mutations make it more difficult to survive, there is a higher chance they will die (evolutionary dead-ends), for those whose mutations give them some advantage, there is a higher chance they will survive and pass on that mutation. There are fossil records of crabs that actually go back and forth on their shell shape based on their environmental pressures. So evolution isn’t directing them to be ‘better’, just better equipped to deal with their current pressures.

    5. Finally, you mention that there is no monkey/man alive today. That is a fair point, but if you look at the theory more closely, you’d find that it actually doesn’t say that we evolved from monkeys. rather, monkey’s and humans have a common ancestor, who was either monkey nor human. So the best we can hope for, from an evolutionary perspective, is finding the steps that take humans from the common ancestor to their current form (a few of which have been mentioned in the comments). These species went extinct because we (humans) were far better equipped to survive (plus a few other reasons that are too lengthy to get into here). If you ask why monkey’s are here today, it’s because we do not live in their habitat, they have evolved to survive in their own environment.

    6. I don’t fully understand the argument that because somethings in nature are cyclical (the seasons, weather patterns), that ALL things are cyclical. Look at human development! Certainly a function of the nature of our beings, but we are progressing instead of, well, not. I just don’t see how those two things are related. Even in the revolution of the earth around the sun (or the moon around the earth), the distance is changing every so slightly, so yes they are cyclical, but not the same!

    7. This isn’t really addressed here, but I don’t see how evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. An all knowing God could have certainly set the universe up in such a way that life would have evolved. Sure the Bible gives a fairly general and non-specific story for how the universe was put together, but how would you explain things like the big bang and complex genetic mutations to desert nomads?? Maybe God was giving the right message at the right time. And personally, I don’t believe that God would ‘cheat’ and suddenly make everything as it is today. I think God, who fine tuned all the laws of the universe so elegantly, would set up the process and let it go. But those are just my thoughts!

    I really hoped I helped to elucidate a few ideas relating to the theory of evolution! I highly recommend looking into it further as it really is an interesting area of science.

    God Bless


    • 1) See, we posited the meaning in which we’re using the word ENTROPY but you don’t like that. You want everyone to use the meaning that would benefit your theory. See, if you can do that to suit your needs, then you figure you’ve won the battle.

      2) You’re backing away from your own theory. Yay! That’s what happens when you get caught with the cookie jar 🙂 See how you compare Evolution with Christianity. Evolution is a RELIGION to you. NOT SCIENCE. Just like we posited in the article.

      3) Again, playing fast and loose with the meaning of words. And this is the icing on the cake: ‘THEORY is THE HIGHEST TERM…’ Theory has become the High Priest of your Religion. Your theory can say no wrong. You don’t need to show us no stinking evidence. You just tell us there’s evidence! We need faith to believe it. Just like we posited in the article. And remember the science community is like the government. Even when something is wrong they will leave it there forever. They will not try to change it even after hundreds of years. That’s because they will look stupid and they need people to cough up money to keep their little scam going which is that scientists are the new gods and they can say and do no wrong.

      4) ‘Evolution is undirected’. But somehow, its direction went straight toward creating mankind. Anyway, if evolution is undirected, how do scientists figure it out? They can’t. So how did they come up with a theory? Lies.

      5) See how you say we’re right about not having monkey/man mutant around. You’re backing away from your cockamamy theory slowly but surely. We’re winning this argument. Still, you’re holding on to ‘the extinction ate my homework’ formula so you can have an excuse for why there’s no evidence around. You posit no evidence for extinction. You just assume it and we just got to take your word for it. Fat chance.

      6) See, you don’t understand the revolving mechanism that takes place everywhere in nature because it doesn’t fit your purpose. In other words, it helps disprove your theory so you’re confused or puzzled. Look at our article: Puzzled Scientists https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/puzzled/

      7) Again see how you are trying to fuse Evolution with Religion. Evolution is not Science. Just like the cockamamy theory of the Big Bang – which no one can prove either – it’s a Religion to you all. It helps eliminate Jesus out of the equation. That’s the whole idea behind it even when you’re paying lip service to God. Otherwise, you would have believed God’s word. But you want to create confusion in our mind. Fat chance. You’re losing.

      You are making a mockery out of science and the lot of you accuse us of said crime. Sad indeed!


  22. The comments coming in are the same old song. A lot of talk that goes around in circle, explains nothing and provides no proof. We know the technique. No wonder the theory of evolution is in big trouble.

    It’s all about conjectures, guesses, words and definitions. Since there’s no proof what else is there gonna be? On top of that so many of these pro-evolution comments are contradictory. They’re cannibalizing each other while denying the fundamentals of their own theory. It’s a mess.

    Whenever something is that convoluted and the law of simplicity is nowhere to be found, you can bet there’s something fishy. On top of that, the gist of the article is not being addressed.

    Besides, you can tell how desperate the E-theorists are getting when they’re mutating Newton’s LAW of gravity into the THEORY of gravity just so they can bundle the THEORY of Evolution with it. Sorry. Not Buying.

    That’s why we have not been posting the latest comments. We want this thread to move the dialogue forward. Rehashing the same old tangents while finding new ways to sling mud is not helping. Write something new, will you?


  23. You seem to be under the impression that we (humans) are some sort of “end goal”, the completion of a cycle, but this isn’t actually true – though the overall process is pretty complex, I think that this point can be illustrated with a simple analogy. Imagine, if you will, that you are walking along a network of paths which branch in many directions and have many destinations – something like a tree’s branches, or the channels formed by water at the delta of a river. Starting from the trunk, or the main channel of the river, you head along the branches (or downstream); at each fork in the path, you choose a direction at random until you eventually reach an end point (a leaf, or the sea). To someone watching, it may look like you headed directly for that particular leaf, but in reality, you could just as easily have ended up at any of the others, if you had made even just one different choice.

    The path of evolution is similar: while it may look to (some of) us as if we’re the “ideal form”, we’re really just the form that we’ve ended up being (for now) after billions of tiny changes that have nudged us in directions more suitable for surviving in the environment we inhabited at the time. Looking at the X-men characters as examples of evolution is misguided because it’s highly unlikely that a real, single mutation would result in such a complete and dramatic change as those characters possess; more likely (and in evidence) are the effects such as those that have already been pointed out in hair/eye colour, height, length of limbs and ability to process certain foods (in fact, the ability to process lactose is a fairly recent development, which is only common amongst certain populations: http://tinyurl.com/26t4rm4). It’s the cumulation of such tiny changes over time that eventually add up to the differences that are observable between species: in fact, every single living thing is one of the “half-evolved” creatures that you are looking for, being at a state somewhere in between what they were and what they will be.


    • This sounds more like old time natural philosophy which is known today as natural science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy Except that this explanation within the confines of modern natural science should have included the design of experiments or controlled experiments, but you don’t provide any because you can’t. Simply put, they don’t exist. Questions:

      1) How do you know we humans are or are not the ideal form? How did you come with that conclusion? Where are the scientific experiments that conclusively proved that we’re heading for a higher state? Where’s your proof that 8 million species are continuing to evolve? You don’t have any. In other words, your philosophical words are pretending to be scientific knowledge when they’re not. They’re like flowers on a coffin, meaningless since they can’t resurrect the dead.

      2) How do you know there’s a network of paths? Any proof? Show us a network of about 8 million paths. http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/874-million-species-on-earth-110823.htm Please, show us scientifically how the mutation chose to go into 8 million different directions. Please pretty please. We’d love to visit you at M.A.D. (Mental Asylum for Dingbats). It’s just convenient to have a ‘network of paths’ which you cunningly scripted to help explain your cockamamy theory. And you call this science? Science fiction is more like it. No one can scientifically present 8 million different paths that exist. Such an IMPOSSIBILITY comes into sharper focus when no one was around millions of years ago to record the process when it supposedly started and when no evidence of millions of paths has been left behind. Your philosophy can only be the product of a vivid imagination. Besides, many new animal species have been recently discovered. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/22/newly-discovered-species-top-10 So whatever theory you’d have come up with would be invalidated by these recent discoveries, especially since close to 86% of species are still unknown. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110824-earths-species-8-7-million-biology-planet-animals-science/ Back to the drawing board it would be.

      3) If you can’t understand the narrow analogy of the X-men that we made, you can’t understand either where we come from and where we’re headed. 🙂

      4) Where’s the scientific proof that every single living thing is half-evolved? Talk is cheap. Why not 3/4 evolved? Or 99% evolved? You arbitrarily assigned a number that is not scientifically proven. Sounds more like you’re looking into a crystal ball. Saying whatever you like is not science my friend. It’s wild guesses.

      5) Lactose intolerance to tolerance is a mutation? Really? You’re definitely grasping at straws. Food intolerance or allergy has been linked to vaccines in many studies. http://www.insidershealth.com/article/vaccines_are_the_major_cause_of_food_allergies/2710 Here’s another study on peanut intolerance caused by vaccine http://www.drpalevsky.com/articles_pages/346_Peanut_Oil_in_Vaccines_Since%20the_1960s.asp According to you peanut tolerance is a mutation too. Jeez, there’s nothing you people won’t stoop to to explain your science fiction. If that’s how you arrived at your conclusion, guess what else you’ve gotten wrong? EVERYTHING. Congratulations you have a Darwin Awards waiting for you since you single-handedly killed – not yourself, we know – the evolution theory with the silliest of arguments. http://www.darwinawards.com/ We’re pretty sure the D.A. people will make an exception or start a new category for such a monumental foul-up.

      6) What else in nature is that random, has that network of paths, and continues to evolve without any direction whatsoever? NOTHING.

      7) Where is the cyclical law of nature in all that? Everything in nature bends to that law except evolution. Was it convenient just to overlook it? Why hasn’t the process that went into 8 million directions started all over again year after year so we can witness some mutation in progress? All of you have run away from that angle? And you know why? Because it doesn’t help your theory so you pretend it’s irrelevant. Your philosophical theory is all conjecture. A meaningless fiction. Just like X-Men.


  24. @B+I…

    You will never win an argument with an “Evolutionist”. The premise for their “Theory” (which apparently is the highest form of Scientific whatever) keeps changing to circumvent evidence or the lack thereof supporting the “Theory”.

    Furthermore, when they speak of Evolution they mean the minor changes that happen during specific periods of distress etc. that lead to minor changes that revert to the mean when the period of distress is over. They also use the fact that a bacteria changes rapidly as proof of “Evolution” when it is not… The bacteria is still a bacteria and will still be a bacteria in a million “evolutions”.

    So… They use the evidence of these MINOR changes as “proof” of evolution… Which is generally understood to be the transition of one species into another… You know – the whole man and monkey had a common ancestor but they got hairy and we invented fire.

    In order for the THEORY to become established there must be EVIDENCE…

    I have yet to see evidence of any form of a “transitory” species – you know, a fossil or something of the “common ancestor” in a form between itself and monkey or man.

    NONE TO BE FOUND… Plenty were provided as evidence and proof but were subsequently proven to be fabrications or (to coin an evolutionary term) “mutations”.

    Unfortunately for those clinging to the Religion of Evolution masquerading as “science” Nature and Natures God abhors mutations and they very rarely become a successful bloodline. White Lions for example are a mutation that has survived, mainly through captive breeding and nature conservation. In the wild, they tend to die from starvation as the food chain can see them coming for miles.


    I require the same proof as you do from this so-called SCIENCE, but in 40 years of asking for proof all I get is the same tired old conjecture, new lies, lame obfuscation and down right vilification.

    At the end of the day The THEORY of EVOLUTION is unprovable as Science and remains a religion. However, those who profess to be wise are made fools, and it is intolerable for the self professing fool to be found out, hence the continual modification, change and generally Orwellian redefinition and “refinement” of said religious belief.


  25. This absolutely creams the eTheorists. Love your angles and how they’re presented. Keep it up.


  26. I would ask this of the e-theorists, as a Christian with a background in engineering and in computer science: what do you mean by “random”? My area of expertise is probability, and I would suggest to you that there is no such thing as “random”. There is simply “complex”. In saying this, I am adhering strictly to scientific and mathematical principles. Those things which we describe as “random” are merely so complex so as to appear “qualitatively” random; any scientist worth his salt knows that they are never actually random. This is essentially what chaos theory describes in classical physics, and can be illustrated by the butterfly effect. Alternatively, we might look at the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics. In either case, we might resort to calculating “probabilities” since, in the absence of a Universal Turing Machine, we can arrive at no definite answer. And what is a Universal Turing Machine if it is not God? (See “Digital Physics”.)

    I am often asked how it is I can be a scientist (particularly a computer scientist) and a Christian. I answer, “because that is the logical conclusion”. When I point to the many eminent scientists who share my convictions, they lay the same charge of idiocy as their doors, despite the fact that their own scientific prowess is of no noteworthiness. They cannot accept that the man who offered us the Big Bang Theory was a Priest of the Roman Catholic Church, for example (“he couldn’t have believed, deep down”, or words to those effect are what I hear in reply).

    Genetics is not a false science. We are encoded in the binary language of machine code, just as a computer program is: but knowing this does not solve for us the mystery of the algorithms we adhere to. We are limited beings. We will never understand them, just as we will never be able to predict with absolute certainty the outcomes of quantum events. The best we can proffer are crude approximations. Consider that we cannot represent higher dimensional objects within a lower dimensional medium; simply put, we cannot create a 3-d object within a 2-d medium. We can only draw a crude approximation of the 3-d object using Cartesian coordinates. This is what I mean by crude approximations.

    We are lower dimensional objects living within a higher dimensional Universe created by God. Our brains are capable of limited computation (limited largely by our paltry working memory’s). I pity (and pray for) those who think they (we) will ever come close to attaining an understanding of God’s miracles. That would be like expecting to your laptop to compute the meaning of life (I expect none of you got the joke).

    Note, finally, that Darwin, flawed as he was, is also oft misquoted or, rather, is misrepresented. Darwin did, at least, note that the environment itself is also subject to “random” change, and that such random change can render genes that had hitherto found their niche to be made redundant, while genes that had previously struggled for survival might then come to the fore (I’m not going to get into Carnegie’/Rockefeller’ later addendum of “survival of the fittest” here). Given that there is no such thing as “random” (and if you think otherwise then I suggest spending some time with probability theory, complexity theory, set theory, and systems theory), we must also conclude that the Universe itself adheres to a set of complex algorithms, just as human genes do. ‘Nothing controversial in that” We call them “Laws of Physics”.

    Now we are at the point where we can start to think about Information Theory, by which we can state that everything in the known Universe can be represented as information. In such a discussion, everything that I have written above is uncontroversial and, indeed, accepted dogma i.e. everything is information and all events are the results of computations in accordance with a set of extant algorithms. If you reject this, then you are rejecting the very principles that brought you the Turing Machine which is enabling you to read this page on a digital display at this very moment. You would be rejecting science in much the same manner as you would accuse a person of faith of rejecting science. I’m sure you wouldn’t do this, and so my question to you is this: Who wrote these algorithms?

    In conclusion, nothing happens by accident. Darwinian natural selection is a sham by virtue of the simple fact that it embraces a concept (“randomness”) that is scientifically illiterate. That genes and the environment play a role in the outcomes of events is beyond dispute, but both are equally subject to God’s plan and this plan can and will never be comprehensible to human beings. Many have tried and have driven themselves into the asylum with their efforts. In the time of Christ, we would have said that they had become possessed by Demons. Now go and look up how an operating system works and what Daemons are; how they relate to the kernel, and so on. Then understand that the human beings who brought you the technology you now use to mock God, sought to know Him better. After you’ve done that, seek Christ and ask him for His forgiveness, because, just like the rest of us, you are sinners (as you know in your hearts), and if you repent and ask him to, He will show you the path to true knowledge.


    • The term random is being used here to describe events that happen without a defined reason, aim or according to a specific pattern. The exact causes of these events do of course adhere to the laws of physics, no one is claiming otherwise. The fact that we may be able to trace back a specific mutation in a specific gamete cell to a specific proton coming from a specific star, all in accord with well understood laws of physics, does not mean that the mutation itself was not random. Or, to put it another way, it does not mean that the specific mutation happened for a defined reason, to produce a specific aim, or in accordance with a specific pattern.

      Given this definition of randomness, that is not in any way scientifically illiterate, natural selection is a completely plausible solution to the question of how species change over time. I would also like to point out that if God is guiding the evolutionary process that would not invalidate the findings of science. Science can’t see that God was the one responsible for causing a given mutation to happen, but what it can see is that certain mutations are more favourable for survival and reproduction than others, and therefore more likely to get passed on to the next generation. So even if God is ultimately responsible for which mutations happened, that still means the process of mutation and selection is responsible for the diversity of species on the planet. It is not a question of All God or No God.


      • 1) There’s nothing RANDOM in nature or in our lives. Case in point, don’t prepare for retirement or your future (i.e., be random about it and don’t have any purposeful design) and see what happens, or better yet turn on your oven and don’t put food in it and see if food will miraculously materialize (i.e., see if the oven will randomly big-bang you some food).

        Everything in life and in God-created nature also has a purpose and a direction, hence not random. Just because you and other pseudo-scientists don’t understand it doesn’t make your “theory” truth. Many people don’t understand how planes fly, yet they still fly them. If you can’t figure something out doesn’t mean that its intrinsic God-created mechanism is not real.

        2) Natural selection is a dud, even Darwin himself was big enough to recognize that.

        “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” – Charles Darwin (1872)

        3) God is in charge of everything. He created it all (the Devil included) to bring about His ultimate plan and purpose, which is to challenge man’s free will and put through the fire unbelievers, atheists, and Christians alike in order to test their zeal for either God and Jesus whom He sent or the lies of the Devil. Otherwise, it’s like saying that your computer (created by someone) is responsible on its own for all the things (marvelous or not) it can do.

        4) If God had used evolution to cause species to evolve into other species, He would have come right out and said it in His word, even if you assume His word to be false – as if God isn’t capable of choosing a few men to write His story while mere mortals rely on historians to do the same. Unfortunately, most folks like you never bother to read God’s word from beginning to end and still hypocritically pass judgment while at the same time strangely believing in fantasies that supposedly occurred billions of years ago (Jeez!) with no then living historians and scientists or proofs to back them up. You’re like an art critic who’s trying to explain to Picasso what his art means when Picasso is telling you otherwise. Or better still, you’re like the devil trying to convince Eve that what God said was not what He meant to say.

        5) If it’s not a question of All God or No God, then what is it? You don’t even know where you stand.

        Stop these gymnastics, will you? You’re making a fool of yourself.


  27. Very interesting blog.
    I am baffled by some of the e-theorist comments here. Although I have to be indulgent since I used to be one of them not so long ago. That being said, I am now awaken and I will say this : everything we have been taught is wrong. period. I mean EVERYTHING. Our world is currently a gigantic illusion driven by satan and its worshippers, rigged with permanent wars, conflicts, divisions which produce its daily outcome of blood for the bloodthirsty aka the pharisaic.
    500 years ago, a bunch of babylonian talmudists (Pythagoras, Kepler, Copernicus to name a few) decided to peddle an incredible fiction into the mind of the (very) naive gentiles : the heliocentric model. 20 generations later, nearly everyone still believes this total nonsense. Because that is a total nonsense when you really think of it. The same nonsense as the e-theory.
    The truth is, and there is no way around it once you rid yourself of a very powerful cognitive dissonance, we live in a Geocentric model, intelligently designed. But wait… isn’t there something similar in the Holy Books ?


  28. The most glaring issue with the theory of evolution, from a scientific perspective, is that it cannot be falsified. Falsification, as posited by Popper, is the gold standard of the scientific method. TE is the only theory in modern science that is given a free pass in this regard. Every other hypothesis that is proposed must be framed in terms which permit attempts at falsification via experimentation.

    This problem is widely acknowledged in the higher echelons of the scientific establishment and, hence, is not widely discussed or alluded to in the presence of the masses. So why do so many eminent scientists accept TE? ‘Because it feels right’. ‘Because there is a lot of anecdotal evidence’. This is not science; it is faith. Science will never be able to test this ‘theory’, just as science cannot test for the existence of God.

    So what is the difference between my faith and the faith we call TE? That could be discussed widely, and at great length, but I will note one difference in particular. I am not taught to convert others to my faith by compulsion. I am not taught to condemn or ridicule those who do not adhere to my beliefs, but rather to love them and pray for them, that they may be forgiven and find the path themselves one day.

    Too few of those who militantly adhere to TE have fully understood what it implies, when taken to its ultimate conclusion. TE basically implies that there is no such thing as morality; that we are within our ‘rights’ to destroy anyone and anything which potentially stands in the way of our future survival, lest the same be done to us; and that, in such a scenario, good is evil and evil is good, to paraphrase Christ. That is not my opinion but an inevitable conclusion that is rarely discussed by eminent scientists for obvious reasons. Darwin himself acknowledged it but prevaricated when challenged on it. If you wish to adopt this faith then I am in no position to stop you. I can only pray for you, that someday you find the strength to turn away from your embrace of evil.


  29. The faith that is known as Evolution Theory is the most brainless, idiotic, senseless doctrine ever propounded by the human brain. Those who adhere to it are giving humanity a bad name. Obviously, they like to wallow in the slime, so they go back to it in their thoughts.


  30. Loved it. Looks like it’s rubbing all E-theorists the wrong way.

    Also couldn’t help but notice that many of the idiot pro-evolution commenters overlook the fact that BI does mention X-men as fiction, and yet they conveniently disregard that part of the article to somehow paint all that is said in it as fiction as well. How pathetic! Grasping at straws.


    • Lou,

      One of the consequences of sins is lack of understanding/judgment/wisdom. The E-theorists can’t see clearly. They don’t get that we’re using fiction to counteract their fiction. It’s too subtle a sarcasm for them. After all, they’re “animals.”

      But in this case many are pretending not to see clearly so as to rub us the wrong way, just like the truth presented herein rubs them the wrong way.

      Their bluff is that we believe X-men is real so as to paint us as stupids, when we are quite clear that the fictional script of the evolution theory cannot even make it gracefully “within the confines of a comic book or a science fiction movie.”

      They’re desperate, so they twist what we say to make themselves look smarter than their “slimy ancestors.” Or rather they’re throwing feces like their monkey-ancestors.

      How sad!


  31. I agree with some comments that mutations did occur but following some algorithm by higher force. All systems in biology follow algorithms and there has to be writer for them. I think mutations are changes but should not be called evolution. Human body follow scientific principles and very intelligently designed with deep systems thinking with some mechanisms to let system breakdown over time. It is without a doubt that God exists after studying human body. Who created God, that’s real mystery.


Comments are closed.