Questioning the theory of evolution

This video continues to be controversial but questions posed are still not answered satisfactorily (In my opinion) by those who think that evolution has all the answers, for those who are Christians this is reassuring on two accounts; 1. We can re-examine the old statements made by many that the evolution has supposedly made God irrelevant, I say this simply to point out that even if there was a process of evolution through which we may have gone through i.e. from primitive to the more complex this would have to be guided. And as such it does reinforces the notion of the Creator and 2. Proves that what once was accepted as dogma is now being challenged by many who hold relevant qualifications and are not afraid anymore to speak out on the subject. New research only brings new questions, and the idea of Intelligent Design is slowly getting wider approval and acceptance, in the same way that Evolution did some 200 years ago.

Kind regards

Defend the word

  1. Harry

    A couple of things

    Micheal Behe is an evolutionist in the sense he believes man came from ape.

    He also believes the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    As for his irreducible complexity. do the research.

  2. Hi Harry

    It’s good to hear back from you. Thanks for you note, I did do my research thanks for advice, I am very confident that all the objections that I read (number of them) seam to miss the main points; which is, yes there are some simpler organisms which is beside the point, on what Behe is raising here. Mouse trap that he is using is only an example. I am very well aware of the joke that one of the scientist has made about this, i.e. he made it into a tie clip and said “you see you can reduce parts and still get the use out of it”. This is unbelievably short sighted and is not taking into account that this machine exists with 40 something parts total, yes there are parts that are existent elsewhere but what about others that are unique, which is 2/3 of this machine. What you have to remember is that in this particular example there are at least 30 separate unique parts that are not part of any other molecular machinery. Therefore question is as follows “For this to evolve you would not only need “existing” material but also 30 something new parts for this to function. You can’t say I will add one part at the time this just does not work.

    We know from experiments that if one of those is not functioning as it should the whole machine is useless.

    Therefore what is it that gives these instructions and guidance to start producing right parts at the right time, as this sequential development is absolutely necessary (Note that this is like following the blue print instructions) for this machine to work? Second question would be what do you do with the 30 parts that do not exist in other cells and its molecular machinery. Which are vital for this to work?

    It’s news to me that you make a claim that Behe believes in evolution. Please differentiate between the views of the belief on the Earths age and belief in the theory of evolution two are completely separate. Also note that he has publikely stated that he has changed his view few years ago, so maybe your data may be out of date.

    Thank you very much for your kind input.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  3. Harry

    ”I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word “evolution” carries many associations. Usually it means common descent — the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn’t explain the vast differences among species.”

    He goes onto say that itself is not enough. So i assume he means some kind of guided evolution.

    Regardless I meant two different things

    He believes in aincent earth and common descent. Seperately

    That was written in 2007.

    He goes further, like in the video you posted. To raise objections about the cell. I am no good at cell evolution, so I will leave it there.

    • Hi Harry
      Thanks for coming back to me, from what I read and I have selected few more segments that you quote. It looks like he is trying to argue that Yes there is evolutionary process that happens within same species that helps them survive. This adaptation to changes in the environment has been long argued by the proponents of the Intelligent Design.

      As for the old earth as I said, that in itself does not stop people from believing that there is a designer who was original cause of all that exists. Time frame is of no consequence on this particular issue. If you read most of my blog articles you will find that I do agree with Micro evolution (Small changes and within the species themselves) but I have yet to find good evidence for Macro evolution which advocates that one specie can change into new one from which they can not any more reproduce new generation (Can’t inter breed). In other words if two apparent “species” like Horse and Donkey can have next generation offspring we say that are of the same kind and not different.

      Don’t get me wrong I continue to find evolution fascinating especially when one monitors the effects this has on our every day lives, at work, as Business, in our parliament etc. We are talking about universe evolving our ideas and beliefs, and even moral standards which seam to be flexible according to the democratic laws that we have in our society. One could almost argue that the elite that lead our country and the rest of the world can manufacture Evolution of our thoughts and ideas. I have been strongly arguing against this, as it’s open to both abuse and misinformation. Which can be very difficult to spot, once you are being manipulated it’s very difficult to change your mind as one would be unaware that he/she is being mislead and “led up the garden path”.
      I appreciate your input and again thanks for your time.

      Kind regards
      Defend the word

      … A practical difficulty, however, is that one can’t test the theory from fossils. To really test the theory, one has to observe contemporary change in the wild, in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.
      Darwinian Theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.
      Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell — the very basis of life — is staggeringly complex. But doesn’t science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

      A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account for the cell, but I don’t find them persuasive. Instead, I think that the complex systems were designed — purposely arranged by an intelligent agent.

      Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that, say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my idea would be neatly disproved. But I don’t expect that to happen.
      Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don’t want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation.
      Pope John Paul spoke of “theories of evolution.” Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design.
      Dr Behe

  4. Harry

    I have found that, for too long, I used my solid grasp of evolution fundamentals to ‘fight’ fundamentalists. Instead, I relied on my engineering and scientific background to give myself the authority to fight it.

    About a year ago now I began extensive sutdy on peer reviewed topics. Mainly for my own learnding, but to also bring something to the fray in discussions with creationists.

    When an evolutionists, puts aside the notion of evo versus creation and assumes evolution is true, instead of rehashing the same arguments, you go deep into evolution.

    Like I said to a creationist friend of mine, ‘you don’t think people who do degrees in evolution only learn about how to prove you guys wrong do you?’

    Anyway, I have compiled a little table

    Speciation Non-speciation


    Only Macro speciation remains un observed in my experience.

    But since you, like many OEC like to discuss the difference micro and macro. It would be good for you to look up

    ”Ring Species”.

    Ie, proof of observable speciation (albeit micro). Since you said you find evolution fascinating, you should like this anyway, and it should also widen your acceptance.

    As for your flagellum thing, I will repost in a few weeks. I left my New scientists at my university accomodation, but I will dig out an article for you to look at.

  5. Harry

    -by fundamentalist, I mean creationist, no offence meant

    -by peer reviewed topics i meant peer reviewed topics on evolution

    • Hi Harry

      Thanks for that, can I just remind you that I do read about the subject of evolution, otherwise I would not consider it appropriate to talk about anyone about this subject.

      Second I am glad you made comment above about Evolutionist making assumption that Evolution is true . You see, that is precisely where the problem lies, all of this Jiggery-pokery only serves to divert attention away from the real issues, which is that the original assumptions themselves are incorrect.

      It is very sweet of you to call me a fundamentalist; I wish I was one that would make life much simpler, no questions hold just to the faith. But I would hope that by now you can recognize that I like any other intelligent human, continue to question everything.

      But even with your statement on fundamentals, which is also something I would like to argue makes incorrect assumption, we have first to question “What is it that my or for that matter any others enquirers, fundamentals are?”

      I am surprised that this is the criteria you attach to someone who disputes evolution. Considering that there is about and up to 20 something percent of scientist who do not proclaim any faith, yet still have strong reservations about evolution. I am not aware of any example where religion is not part of the discussion that this terminology is used. Therefore I would argue this to be inappropriate and only used as a term to win argument, scare and humiliate others into submission.

      Not to mean to blow my own trumpet but I have never, ever doubted my intelligence or ability to grasp and wrestle with any issues. On top of that I consider it foolishness to fear others when they make claims of superiority, better scientific support and inadequate understanding of the opponents.

      I would strongly argue that these are the comments of someone who is convince of loosing the argument. Which in itself is stupid, because one who is in the pursuit of truth, as Socrates puts it will go wherever that evidence leads them to?

      Lastly my love for human kind, is what drives me, and only for that reason do I bother to spend my time urging people to think for themselves and learn from their own enquiring and most certainly encourage them not just to be fed any old staff.

      Kind regards

      Defend the word

  6. Attacking Darwinism is scientific!

    Why do you not use the word god/gods/deity etc. in this video?
    What is your (obviously superior) theory??????????

    perhaps you are demonstating your/our level of ignorance in 2009?

    Please supply your theistic argument to explain what you/we do not understand.

    I will be amazed if you publish this, since it exposes the weaknesses of ignorance,
    ours of science and
    yours of any conecept of deity.

  7. S McKeown

    Excellent to see that you are discussing evolution.
    It is a pity that you do not have a contrary theory that can be discussed; just take someones version of someones holy book’s version of someones god or other.

    Which one???

    • Hi Stanley

      Thanks very much for your input! You raise some very important issues, well done on your honest and insightful questioning. By the way, I will approve all comments that are not racist, not derogatory to any other people who may have posted comments previously. I deserve right to delete any swear words, comments will be deleted if they are full of religious hate (towards any religion). Any insults towards anyone who may be honestly asking questions and is not pretending to know all the answers will be edited or deleted.

      My second point to answer your previous good point is that we should talk about competing paradigm if there is ever to be paradigm shift. I suppose what you are saying is “it’s easy to criticise others, give us something alternative to consider and then we can apply equal vigour to the examination to that alternative” First of all, can I just suggest that you should not misunderstand me here. I do not oppose “Theory of Evolution” if you read number of posts here you would know what my views are on this. But just for the sake of this argument let me summarise.

      1. I think we should continue to teach theory of evolution in our schools but not exclusively.
      2. I think we should offer alternatives to this theory by saying there are number of scientists who hold somewhat different view by explaining what this is, eg. to say that some may be supporting “Intelligent design” (ID theory). (Remember that this is non religious theory other than saying that there is a strong possibility that some kind of “deity” was involved in creating all that we can observe). I say “non religious” very loosely here as many deists would agree that there is something out there but they would say “we just don’t know what this something is”
      3. We can not pretend that either of these competing paradigms is perfect and need to state that there are problems with both paradigms.
      4. We should note that both are highly controversial especially as both are being used by atheists to disprove existence of God and eliminate the need for God and then there are Deists and religious people who see Intelligent Design as a way of saying that science is not enemy of the religion but can actually help confirm “higher intellect and a designer” who was involved in creating all of life.
      5. We need to move away from being emotional about this subject and use rational arguments to try and exchange hypnotises on the both sides of the world view.

      Honesty about what part “world view philosophy” plays in deciphering available data should be acknowledged and not masked by invoking “higher intellectual power” by simply saying, “most scientists say this or that”. That is playing statistical games and is not that short of “mental bullying”, by forcing opponents to agree with you as otherwise they would be humiliated as “ignorant, fanatical charlatans, fundamentalist fools, and willingly blind ignoramuses”.
      6. By acknowledging the amount of faith we take into consideration this subject on both sides of the argument, we will liberate all observers and show this to be honest scientific contest for the truth. When I say faith, please remember that none of us contains all worldly knowledge, and therefore we have to rely on other scientists and use their data to interpret this and then build on it further. Note that when you have complex theory there are multiply points of failure and should be always extra careful before making statements of any kind. This is why we have pier reviews and only after rigorous checking and testing do we start to accept something to be reliable, likely or probable.

      As for the definition of God and our understanding of him, (I do have degree in theology not that I’m bragging only to reassure you that I have studied other religions and have dedicated most of my time studying Christianity) please feel free to read many posts on this sight, we welcome any comments and will wholeheartedly recommend exchange of views.

      There is no shame in being wrong, as long as we are prepared to learn from our mistakes. (this applays to both you and me equally) There is only shame in rushed and harsh judgements that are not justified. Note that this Blog had not one comment blocked (apart from the very first comment we have ever received, which was a mistake, this was coming to us from a friend, and was administrative error)

      So I would encourage you to continue reading watching and contributing to his Blog if that is what you choose to do, all are welcomed. This Web sight was designed to serve dabble purpose. First to challenge people to be honest about their views, this self examination can help liberate us from brain washing and conditioning we are subjected to daily, through TV, radio, Popular magazines etc. We encourage critical thinking, second reason is to equip and support many Christians who may have suffered crisis of faith, due to many unreasonable, unfunded arguments, which besides being misleading often lack understanding that is needed to grapple with the theological subjects.

      What I mean by this? eg. we have people, like Richard Dawkins who will make unsubstantiated claims (He tends to generalise sometimes) I would argue that his knowledge of Philosophy and especially how we are building our arguments could do with some updating. For example recently he was using Arguments about the “evils of religion” and commenting on some Gnostic gospels (Also known as “Missing gospels”) by using one often advocated by liberal “far” left. Gospel of Thomas, this Gospel was something that Dawkins was saying is accepted by many “modern scholars” and proves his point. However what he was quoting from was from “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” which was rejected by most of those “scholars” that he mentioned in his previous paragraph.

      So what I’m I saying, not that we should be unforgiving, unfair or unfriendly on the contrary. I have two small children and watching them learn is one of the greatest things that has been afforded to me. But stubbornly refusing to acknowledge error, a bit like Homer Simpson (One of my favourite fictional characters) shutting his eyes and ears and shouting from the top of his voice and then saying, “if I don’t know about it it can’t be true” this is contra productive and should be exposed for what it is. Any self defeating / refuting, circular reasoning arguments (both part of the argument where there are only two parts of the argument relaying on each other to be correct in order to prove their point) also need exposing. As Jesus himself sad “Truth will set you free” we are not on the mission to prove our superiority or humiliate anyone only encourage hones search, which we believe will ultimately lead us to God.

      Kind regards

      Defend the word


About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christianity, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, News, Photography, Religion, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Questioning the theory of evolution

  1. Tnelson says:

    There’s good info here. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Keep up the good work mate!

  2. misunderstoodranter says:

    In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

    The reason for this is simple – Behe made a critical error he assumed that the part evolved to do the job that it ended up doing… this is a fundamental flaw in his understanding of theory of evolution.

Comments are closed.