Time For Truth

A place to grow in the Grace & Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ

Darwin and Aliens

I found two recent articles to be somewhat related and very insightful. It has become quite popular to characterize conservative Christians as ignorant and gullible because of their firm belief in the essential tenets of historic evangelical conservative Christianity. But it turns out that it is the secularists and theological liberals that are more likely to believe nonsensical, unproven bull excrement.
An article by Mollie Hemingway found here reviews a comprehensive study by Baylor University, entitled “What Americans Really Believe”. She writes…

“…traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.”

So it turns out that evangelical conservative Christians are less likely to believe in irrational myths than so-called progressives and secularists—fascinating, but not surprising. As Ms. Hemingway writes at the end of the article,

“Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can’t see things as they are.””

The other article highlights the often irrational grasping of straws of the so-called scientific community, Which is utterly sold-out on Darwinian evolution. The title of the article is a misnomer, “Why the universe may be teeming with aliens”, as the author argues that it must be the case that life must exist on other planets. After giving some of the reasons (but not even close to exhaustive) of why our planet is perfectly suited for life, leaving out all other planets (though he does not indicate that most of those planets are purely theoretical). He then simply concludes that this must be true, because life arose through the magical fairy dust process of Darwinian evolution, so it must be happening elsewhere. The illogic and unscientific method is astounding. The myth of Darwinism resembles that of aliens.


December 6, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. The universe is vast and the number of solar systems is about equal to the number of grains of sand on earth. If our solar system disappeared it would be like one grain of sand disappearing from the Sahara Desert. If only an extremely tiny fraction of these star systems had planets that could support life, there would still be thousands of these planets. It seems to me life elsewhere in the universe is much more likely than unlikely. Because of the vast distances between stars I doubt we will ever know for sure.

    “He then simply concludes that this must be true, because life arose through the magical fairy dust process of Darwinian evolution, so it must be happening elsewhere.”

    What is God? It’s a magic fairy.

    What is evolution? A scientific explanation of the natural processes that made possible the diversity of life we see today. There’s no magic in science. Magic is a religious idea.

    Are you an evolution denier? If yes, what are your scientific credentials? Or are you only knowledgeable about the worthless subject called theology?

    Comment by bobcu | December 7, 2008

  2. bobcu,

    Here is the form of your argument:
    1.The universe is almost infinetly vast.
    2. Therefore, there must be other life.

    This is completely unscientific. Science requires evidence not mere conjecture.

    I do deny macroevolution, on the grounds that it is bad science. Just as I reject the hypothesis of aliens as based on bad science.

    I find the evidence of an intelligent designer to be absolutely compelling. I also find the evidence for Historic evangelical Christianity to be extremely compelling.

    Thank you for your comment.

    Comment by Adel | December 7, 2008

  3. My idea (shared by many scientists) that the universe is teeming with life, is of course impossible (at this time) to prove. There’s no real evidence for this idea. It’s just speculation. But it does use some logic. We know this planet has life everywhere, even in the most hostile environments. So why shouldn’t there be life in other solar systems? We may never know for sure, but I would be very surprised if this little insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere was the only planet with life.

    I think your intelligent designer, also known as God, (I call it a fairy), is just wishful thinking that couldn’t possibly have any real scientific evidence. But who cares? I’m more interested in your rejection of evolution, or what you call macroevolution because most likely you accept evolution as long as a species doesn’t start looking too different from its ancient ancestors.

    I never in my life met an atheist who rejected the facts of evolution, so obviously people deny evolution for religious reasons. The only alternative to the development of new species from ancient species is the magical creation of each species. A fairy waves its magic wand and poof, a new creature appears out of nothing. Obviously this is a religious idea, so of course atheists don’t believe it, and also a few million theists don’t believe it.

    Biologists know evolution by natural selection is how the world works. They are 100% certain all life on earth shares common ancestors. They know that, after the first simple living cells got a foothold on earth, life very gradually evolved and branched out into millions of different species over a period of more than 3 billion years, and most of those species are now extinct. Biologists are absolutely certain that people, also known as human apes, developed from the same ancient ape species the chimpanzees developed from. They are 100% certain of this fact thanks to DNA analysis. They have the complete genome of both ape species (people and chimps) and they have been comparing DNA sequences of these two ape species and finding tons of evidence that shows beyond any doubt people and chimps share an ancestor.

    Just one of many examples of this evidence from molecular biology: several Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) are found in the exact same locations in the DNA of both people and chimps. When the same identical ERV is found in the exact same location in the DNA of more than one species, the only possible explanation is those ERVs were inherited from the same common ancestor species. There’s numerous examples of this ERV evidence, and there’s tons of other evidence from DNA analysis that confirms the common ancestry we share with chimps and the other modern ape species (gorillas and orangutans).

    Look it up if you don’t believe me. It’s impossible for an educated person to deny the fact that people developed from ancient ape-like creatures.

    Does this proven beyond any doubt fact threaten your religious beliefs? As an atheist who thinks all religions are harmful to the human race, I sure do hope evolution threatens your supernatural ideas.

    Comment by bobcu | December 7, 2008

  4. Thank you for your comments once again bobcu. I still do not find anything you have stated to be compelling in any way, unfortunately. There is no way that in a blog setting you or I would settle such a debate, therefore I will point out some general problems with your position, and point you to full length book treatments that might at least show that their are some deep problems with the theory of evolution. Once you have read those books and are familiar with the positions within those books, then we might be able to have further detailed conversations. Do you have a scientific background? Mine admittedly, is only at the undergraduate level from an Engineering School, but I have studied the issue at some length on my own and some at the Master’s level from a theological/apologetic perspective.

    #1 Atheists are of course inclined to want to believe evolution, as it makes atheism intellectually acceptable. They therefore overlook (consciously or unconsciously) any evidence that might point away from Darwinian evolution. See Thomas Kuhn’s book on the philosophy of Science “The Structure of Scientific Evolution”. Much of the so-called evidence is overblown, some falsified, and nearly all points only to microevolution.

    #2 Evolutionists themselves have been debating for years over the efficacy of their evidence..see especially “Darwin on Trial”

    #3 Your so-called DNA evidence is nothing of the sort. In fact, DNA is very problematic for evolutionists of all stripes. Check out “Darwin’s Black Box”

    #4 The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe is also very valuable for Intelligent Design positions on DNA.

    #5 Your statements on the DNA similarities of humans and apes is entirely fallacious. Check out these blog entries for more:


    Behe, Dembski, and O’Leary are all excellent authors and resources on the topic. If you are in any way open to reading anything that might contradict dearly held beliefs of yours, I would recommend them.

    Your statements also seem to indicate a certain belief that the Christian worldview is harmful to humans. This is simply not true in any way. There have been many who under the name of “Christianity” have done evil things. Evil people use all kinds of good things for their evil purposes. It is the Christian worldview that best understands this.
    Some of the greatest atrocities have occured within secularists states in the last century.
    Thank you once again.

    Comment by Adel | December 7, 2008

  5. Dear Bobcu,

    The problem with intellectuals is that everyone wants to be the smartest guy in the room. While the quest for knowledge is truly a noble endeavor, it is the “love of wisdom” (As previously stated on this BLOG site) that we should desire. Many people ponder our origin. In doing so, they focus on tangible creation – the heavens and the earth, plants, animals and mankind. Personally, I believe an almighty God did, though divine knowledge and will, create these things. What I am more intrigued with, is the wisdom of a creator that would place in mankind the double edged sword of imagination. Imagination can lead us to “create” an infinite number of false beliefs – and yet without it, it would be impossible to believe in God as our creator. Darwin himself once said “I am afraid that I just killed God! I do agree with you that there have been a multitude of problems caused on this earth by ‘religion’. Unfortunately, ‘religion’ is all too often used interchangeably with ‘faith’. I think this interchangeability falls short. To paraphrase CS Lewis in “Mere Christianity”, it is a part of the human condition to be far more likely to want to “be God” than to “believe in God”. I encourage you watch the following link in its entirety. It will take at least 28 minutes. I hope you find it worth while!


    (You will have to cut and paste the link to your browser – my limited intellect prevented me from pasting it as a quick link)

    May God’s blessings be with you!

    Rob S

    Comment by Rob Sayler | December 8, 2008

  6. Rob Sayler, Your website was a video of Ben Stein who was in the movie Expelled. The movie complains about discrimination against “scientists” who invoke Intelligent Design to solve scientific problems. I put the word scientists in quotes because when a scientist invokes Intelligent Design, he’s not doing science. Instead he is preaching. Everyone knows “Intelligent Design” are code words that mean “God”. Invoking Intelligent Design equals invoking God. Well, if some religious person wants to invoke God, that’s fine with me. However, when some scientist wants to invoke God, and when he or she dishonestly uses code words for God (Intelligent Design), I have a big problem with that for many reasons. First there is the dishonesty problem. The scientist is invoking God’s magic tricks while trying to pretend he is being scientific. I have moral values so I can’t tolerate dishonesty, especially when a scientist is being dishonest.

    Another problem is science and religion are two completely different subjects. Scientists (real scientists) look for natural explanations to solve scientific problems. Preachers and/or theologians look for supernatural explanations. Mixing the natural and supernatural (also known as intelligent design magic) is extremely wrong for many reasons. A scientist who invokes intelligent design supernatural magic (God) is saying “I can’t solve this scientific problem. Therefore nobody else alive will ever be able to solve it. Also, future generations will not be able to solve it. So I’m going to give up and just say God-Did-It.” That’s being extremely lazy, and it’s not science. It’s religion. Invoke God in church. In the science lab solve the problem. Don’t run away from it by saying it was God’s magic trick.

    So what to do about a lazy incompetent fake scientist who tries to stick religious ideas where they don’t belong? Most scientists would ignore the person. Other scientists would laugh at him and ridicule him for being so lazy and worthless. The employer of this God-Did-It worthless scientist would have every right to fire him. This is not discrimination. This is all about terminating the employment of a scientist for incompetence.

    I was kind of hoping somebody would respond to the paragraph I wrote earlier that I will repeat below. The reply I’m looking for would be something like this “Thanks bobcu for the information. You’re right. This really is smoking gun proof for the idea we share an ancestor with chimps.”

    Why do I expect this response? Because I think even a creationist is smart enough to accept what thousands of biologists can see with their own eyes. Denying this evidence is equal to claiming the earth is flat. For goodness sake people, how powerful does evidence have to be for you to understand the truth?

    I noticed the name of this blog is “Time for Truth”. Well, I gave you the truth. Are you all going to deny it?

    If you are going to deny the truth about our common ancestry with chimps, what’s your excuse? The denial of this evidence would be equivalent to calling virtually every biologist in the world a liar. Are you sure you want to call thousands of scientists liars? I’m talking about the best scientists in the world who work at places like Harvard and MIT. Do you people think you know more about molecular biology than they do? Are you sure you want to risk disgracing your religion and your country with your denial of what every scientifically literate person knows is a fact?

    One more time my paragraph about ERVs. This is simple stuff. I bet a 10 year could understand it with no problem. Can you people understand it?

    Several different ERVs are located in the genome of both human apes and chimpanzee apes. Each ERV is identical in both species. Each ERV is located in the exact same location in the genome of each species. Since ERVs are inherited (an undeniable fact) the only possible explanation is these ERVs, found in the exact same locations in the DNA of people and chimps, were inherited from a common ancestor of these two species.

    Now please keep in mind this is only an extremely tiny fraction of the massive evidence for evolution from molecular biology, and this massive evidence is growing every single day as biologists continue to compare DNA sequences of different species to accurately determine the evolutionary relationships of the millions of species living today. What I’m saying here is for goodness sake stop being afraid of facts. Science is a wonderful thing. It’s nothing to be afraid of.

    Comment by bobcu | December 8, 2008

  7. bobcu,

    I would first ask you to keep your comments as civil as possible. I will not have very hard working scientists referred to as lazy, nor will I accept insinuations of non-intelligence of those who disagree with you.

    But I would like to comment on two aspects of your comments.

    #1 We clearly have different definitions of science. You do not believe it science unless it is based in philosophical materialism. I on the other hand believe that science is following the evidence and truth wherever it might lead. The problem with a philosophical materialist bias is the tautological and circular reasoning. When you start with the presupposition that there is no God, the conclusion that there is no God follows. We are dealing here with science of singularities not science of regularities, therefore science that concerns itself with origins must not be limited by philosophical materialism.
    There are many thousands of Evangelical Christian scientists who operate in science of regularities never having to deal with this issue, because they do not deal with origins. A philosophical materialist presupposition does not tend to be an issue within those fields.

    #2 As I am not a biologist or a son of a biologist I will simply respond to your point on ERV’s with this quote: “Evolutionists gloss over two important facts when making this argument: First, many retroviruses can infect both humans and apes. The most notable of these is HIV, which is widely believed to have originated as SIV in chimpanzees, but can also infect humans, apes, and monkeys. It is entirely possible, therefore, that humans and apes were independently infected with the same virus. Second, some retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans and apes, and targeted the same location. This seems especially plausible in light of the fact that humans and apes have tens of thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their respective genomes — at least a few of the retroviruses are likely to infect both humans and apes at the same location.”

    The quote is from here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Universal_common_ancestry

    Also I would point you to the book “Icons of Evolution” by Wells. I believe I remember some discussion on these issues.

    #3 It is quite clear that you are simply reading the Dover case and throwing out arguments from the evolutionary side of the issue. You might want to look at some of the full length works that have been published criticizing the so-called evidence and conclusions of a clearly biased judge.

    Comment by Adel | December 8, 2008

  8. I won’t take the time to summarize the article (not to mention the copyright issues), but I will reccomend taking a look at the most recent Christian Research Journal which covers much of this territory, and soes it very well.

    Comment by Craig | December 8, 2008

  9. “I will not have very hard working scientists referred to as lazy”

    If a fake scientist invokes God’s magic tricks to solve a scientific problem, that scientist is hopelessly lazy and incompetent. If you don’t understand that, you don’t even know what science is.

    “Icons of Evolution” by Wells

    This is why you will be scientifically illiterate the rest of your life. You get all your information from professional liars like Wells who has never contributed anything to biology.

    “Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans and apes, and targeted the same location.”

    That’s nonsense and that’s exactly what I would expect a liar to say if he was defending the childish insane nonsense of Genesis. An ERV in the exact same location in the DNA of more than one species is less likely than me winning the lottery and I never buy lottery tickets. By the way, humans ARE apes.

    You people are willfully ignorant and hopeless. You can’t think because religion has permanently destroyed your minds. I give up. Enjoy your magical fantasy world.

    Comment by bobcu | December 8, 2008

  10. “An ERV in the exact same location in the DNA of more than one species is less likely than me winning the lottery and I never buy lottery tickets.”

    But there are ERVs in the exact same location in the DNA of more than one species, and there are countless examples of this. They are there because they were inherited from the same ancestor. Get it? Understand? Can you think?

    Never mind. The willfully ignorant are a waste of time.

    Comment by bobcu | December 8, 2008

  11. bobcu,

    I do not believe anyone has insulted you on this blog, and I have asked you to be more respectful.

    I believe we have presented well reasoned arguments against your positions, and it is you that has engaged in nonsequitor attacks.

    I will therefore kindly ask you not to comment unless you can do so without insulting others.

    Thank you.

    Comment by Adel | December 8, 2008

  12. Why should I comment? What effort have you made to understand anything I have said? Instead of thinking, instead of trying to understand, you go running to your favorite professional liar and you copy and paste lies.

    Please tell me why you and all other creationists are not a complete waste of time?

    To help you understand my frustration with you people, imagine trying to explain to a flat-earther why the earth is not flat. You show him a photo of the earth taken from the moon. The flat-earther then quotes a professional liar for flat planets. The quote says the photo was faked. This is a lot like what you did. You didn’t understand and you made no attempt to understand. You just quoted a liar, not bothering to check his facts, not bothering to read explanations from real scientists.

    Look it. God is just another word for magic. Magic is a childish idea that belongs in the Dark Ages. Are you ever going to join the 21st century, or are you just going to be offended anytime somebody tries to help you understand how the world really works?

    Comment by bobcu | December 8, 2008

  13. By the way, just the existence of creationists is an insult to the integrity and hard work of thousands of biologists and other scientists. The creationist who says “God made people out of nothing” is really saying “All scientists are liars”.

    So who is really doing the insulting here? It’s you and all other people who deny the facts of modern biology.

    Comment by bobcu | December 8, 2008

  14. bobcu,

    I will not return insult for insult, as instructed by my Lord and Savior in the Sermon on the Mount.

    You can insult me, but I will ask you not to insult others on my blog. I will therefore filter out any further comments from you that I find to be insulting of others.

    I think we understand your position much better than you think. Dawkins most recent book (which I have read) does a much better job of explaining your position than you do. I have also read Hitchens book and others, so please do not continue to insult people’s intelligence.

    Have you read any of the Intelligent Design authors that you deem to insult? I would suggest you read a few of them.

    Thank you for coming by my blog and displaying so vividly the anti-intellectual angry rhetoric of the “new atheism” (really there is nothing new, just repackaged).

    Comment by Adel | December 8, 2008

  15. Bobcu,

    So one who says “God made people out of nothing” (I would not limit the statement to people, but feel free) is more ignorant than one who says “nothing made people (read matter, intellegence, information etc.) out of nothing”. You appearanly ignore a number of “real scientists” who call into question the Darwinian orthodoxy inherent in the “scientific community”, as well as those who openly disagree. I could provide you a list so you could insult them as well, but why bother. As with Adel, I find your predictable move to ad hominem attacks is simply representative of those who espouse your positions. Since you obvioulsy have not read anyone who disagrees with you, and would simply label them as a “fake scientist” if you had, what is the point of your comments.

    Since you consider creationists to be “a complete waste of time”, how would you recommend that the enlightened deal with them?

    Comment by Craig | December 8, 2008

  16. I was trying to explain why biologists call our evolutionary relationship with the other ape species a fact. This fact has nothing to do with atheism and it has nothing to do with theism. It’s just a fact, just like our planet’s orbit around the sun is a fact.

    You deny our relationship with the other ape species, despite the extremely powerful and undeniable evidence I tried to explain to you. Why? Of course your problem is your religious beliefs. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods. It’s just science. But the only people who deny these important facts of modern biology are religious people. So it’s fair to point out the obvious. It’s obvious your religion is causing great harm to yourself and to others. Creationists are wasting their lives because they will die without ever understanding how they got here. We are incredibly lucky to be living at the same time scientists are making so many important discoveries, and the creationists just ignore the whole thing. They have no idea what they’re missing.

    If you think evolution = atheism, how do you explain the biologist Ken Miller, or the millions of other religious people in the world who are not afraid to educate themselves. Only the religious extremists deny evolution. Other Christians, especially outside the backward country called America, accept evolution and they understand people are part of nature, related to all other life. Only the extremists, including Christian fundamentalists and Muslim terrorists, deny what every competent biologist knows is a fact.

    “Have you read any of the Intelligent Design authors that you deem to insult?”

    Yes. Probably more than you have. But I don’t call them Intelligent Design authors. I have moral values so I don’t use dishonest code words like “intelligent design”. It would be more accurate to call them MAGIC authors.

    Behind all their fake scientific sounding language, they all have one thing in common. They all believe God made people out of nothing, and they all have not one shred of evidence for this medieval Dark Ages belief.

    I think your complaints about my imaginary insults is just your excuse to not face facts. You have obviously made no effort whatsoever to understand anything I have said.

    I know a waste of time when I see one. So don’t worry. I won’t be bothering you again.

    Comment by bobcu | December 8, 2008

  17. Bob

    Thanks for ignoring my point, as well as allowing your prejudices to determine your response. How is “nothing made something” more plausable than “God made something”. At best “evolution” can account for what happened after “nothing made something” (or noninformation made information if you prefer). Evolution or “science” cannot account for what (nothing) caused the “something”. The best you can offer is “at somepoint we might discover something that might shed some light on the origins of “people” (subject to change or dismissal of course). You criticize God’s magic, yet invoke the magical formula of time+chance. It would seem that had you actually read “more than I have” (a fantastical assertion made with absolutely no evidence save your preconceptions of me based on a couple of short blog responses) of these “magic” authors, that you would actually make some attempt to rebut their positive assertions. Instead you insult them by calling them “MAGIC authors” (sorry that can’t be an insult, you haven’t insulted anyone). You make sweeping generalizations without any sort of “evidence”. So, yes, you are wasting your time. But don’t let me stop you it’s kind of amusing.

    For the record I do not believe that “evolution = atheism”. I have a number of problems with the ststement.
    1. You have not defined evolution
    2. The philisophical/methodological naturalism that undermines most modern evolution is by definition Atheistic.
    3. “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Charles Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” [Dawkins, 1986, p. 6]
    I could go on, but why waste my time.

    Comment by Craig | December 8, 2008

  18. Dear Bob,

    It is fairly certain that after 17 posts on this site relative to this subject, that we aren’t likely to change many minds. Having said that, I have yet to come across anyone who subscribes to evolution as a totally sufficient answer to our existence, who will answer the question – “What came just before the lightening struck the mud puddle?” And if in fact we did originate in this way, from where, did our human characteristics of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control originate? One could argue that each of these characteristics can be found in some instances within the rest of the animal kingdom and yet, in their sum total, they are uniquely human. Why? Have human beings who subscribe to and demonstrate these qualities evolved to a higher state of consciousness? And if so, WHY?

    Rob S

    Comment by Rob Sayler | December 9, 2008

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: