Evolution and sugar-free cookies

Yes, I am about to tackle one of the most feared topics in the Western World: C vs. E: the age-old argument whether we were created or whether we were an accidental mix-up within the DNA structure that worked out to be better than before.

Personally, I am for Creative Design, and that is why I mentioned sugar-free cookies.

When someone first ate a cookie baked with a sugar substitute, did that person say the cookie evolved?

I don’t think so.

What they would say is that the baker had created a new kind of cookie. Now, the argument here is that cookies are not living things, so don’t qualify to be discussed within the topic of evolution, and… I agree. So let’s talk about living things- how about dogs?

There are so many, many different breeds of dog, yet they are all dogs, right? So, do all these different breeds represent evolution of the species?  I say no- and I say no because people have purposefully cross-bred dogs (Frankenstein’d them.)  I think even a staunch evolutionist would have to agree that the pug was designed to have that flat face. The breeds we have designed  were created (like how I fit that in there?)  with the intent of them having the features they have. We have even created a liger (an abomination created by mankind that is a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger); certainly we can’t call that “evolution!”

Can we agree evolution is (usually?) considered something that happens by chance, and creation is something that is determined before-hand? If that is acceptable, then we have known occurrences of creationism (dog and cat breeds, ligers, all the different types of flora that are created by cross-pollination) but we only make the assumption of evolution, as stated within that theory.

That’s right- evolution is still a theory. It may be taught and thought to be a fact, but there is no scientific proof- it is assumed. Science battles between the deductive and inductive thinking practices: if we start with a theory about why something exists and try to prove it through observation, that is deductive reasoning. When we observe something and try to figure out what makes it happen, that is inductive reasoning. Science works with both of these reasoning practices. We see different events (such as as a number of different species) and try to induce why there is such a difference. That leads to a theory of why the differences exist, and then we attempt to prove that theory to be valid through being able to recreate that same event in a controlled environment, such as a lab. Consequently, science never really proves anything until the event that is observed can be explained, and that explanation is proven valid by recreating the specific event on demand.

Example: we see things plummet to the ground when we let go of them from a height. We deduce there is a force that pulls these items down, and form the theory of gravity. We then take different items of differing weights and sizes, and from different heights we let them go. They all drop to the ground.

Inductive Process: we observe that things fall, we form a theory why that happens and call it “Gravity.”

Deductive Process: the theory of gravity says anything dropped will fall and we test our theory by dropping things and observe that everything we drop falls.

Ergo- the theory of gravity is now scientifically proven to be a fact.

As far as evolution is concerned, we have observed the different species of life, we have formulated a theory that genetic adaptations (mutations) have occurred which resulted in a specie having a greater ability to survive within it’s given environment. We also must assume that this genetic aberration has happened enough times within that specie, living within that habitat, so that a male and female with the same aberration have been able to find each other, breed and that this specific genetic aberration within both of them is inheritable.

So far, at least as far as I have heard about or read about, this event has not been reenacted within a controlled environment.

What we have been able to do is perform this action through recombinant DNA and cross breeding. That is not evolution, but it is (by definition) creationism.

C’mon… why don’t we call it what it really is- intelligent design.

When it comes down to it, we can not scientifically prove different species exist because of evolution, but we have proven different species can exist through intelligent design.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Name *
Email *