So I started to look more at that website which was submitted recently. The Continental Drift article was wrong, but not profoundly stupid. Then I found his article on Evolution.
Buckle-up, we’re going on a trip through the Valley of Derrrp.
150 years ago Chuck Darwin wrote a book about his THEORY that Hashem [god] doesn’t exist and that everything is here, including all living things, by accident.
An ad hominem and complete misrepresentation (likely a complete misunderstanding) of what evolution is about. I could almost end my rebuttal here with just quoting his first sentence.
But to spell it out:
1) "Theory" is not a light term in science (which I’d expect the OP to know since he worked in engineering). Just the opposite. A theory is reserved for an idea which marshals many disparate facts together and explains them under a single idea, which is not an easy thing to do. This is in contrast to how the word “theory” is used colloquially, which is more like a guess. But the “theory of gravity” isn’t a guess. “Plate tectonic theory” isn’t a guess either. They use evidence to make sense of disparate facts - basically the exact opposite of what religion does.
2) “that hashem [god] doesn’t exist” - Evolution says nothing about god. Many even think that god may have used evolution. In fact, in The Origin of Species, god isn’t even mentioned except for a hat-tip to god at the end of the book. What evolution does do, however, in terms of religion, is completely destroy the argument from design. That’s not the same thing as destroying god - it’s just destroying a major argument used to support the god claim. Also, it disputes a literal interpretation of genesis - e.g. plants before the sun, women made from ribs, etc. But it’s not an attack on god. That’s just in the OPs head.
3) “…that everything is here, including all living things, by accident”. Actually, Darwinian evolution is only about living things. It’s not about cosmology. It’s not about the origin of life. It’s about the diversity of life. Secondly, “accident” is a fuzzy term. To clarify: Evolution purports that nature can create design as part of a physical process. That is, species don’t come into existence “by accident” - though they weren’t made with foresight or intent either.
But let’s move on from the many faults in the very first sentence…
You may not think that was his actual purpose but knowing his colleagues that supported his effort and the popularity that he would gain from such an undertaking, I believe it was his foremost motive.
4) So, you think that bc of the support he would later receive from some of his colleagues to publish his book (and that was in part bc Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the same idea and was starting to publish it!), and bc of the popularity he would gain after he published his book, that you can deduce the motivations he had while he researched it for twenty years prior to that, starting when he was fervently religious?!
5) Additionally, have you studied Darwin’s actual biography, or are you just casting aspersions based on laughably weak evidence? Did you know that Darwin originally wanted to be a minister?! Did you know that his wife was a very religious woman? Did you know that he never called himself an atheist, but only an agnostic, and that he himself was very uncomfortable with the tremendous theological implications of his work? (x) Probably not. Instead, you just make shit up like a gossipy girl in the schoolyard.
He came up with such wonderful expressions as natural selection, meaning that nature has some way to just, out of necessity, design itself.
6) Natural selection isn’t just an expression, it’s a very helpful and descriptive term which aptly applies to his theory and is meant to contrast with human selection, aka selective breeding, which he discusses at length.
7) “…nature has some way to just, out of necessity, design itself” - Actually, that’s not what evolution says at all. Nothing is designing itself in evolution. Instead, the environment and natural laws give rise to biological designs, just as they give rise to other magnificent things like waterfalls and mountains. No-one is saying that waterfalls design themselves, and no-one is saying that species do either… that is, except for you, in mischaracterizing ideas you either don’t understand or don’t care to understand.
With the help of mutations that occur in nature, all the species of plants, animals and even human beings just happened. Chuck stated that after about 100 years of gathering fossils, scientists would be able to document the links between the species proving the evolutionary pattern. He also stated that he can explain everything except the eye. The eye was way too complicated and sophisticated to have possibly evolved by natural selection.
8) Darwin didn’t quite say that about the eye. See his words in full, in the section of the Origin titled “organs of extreme perfection and complication”, (Click Here). Furthermore, we now have a very good picture of how eyes have evolved (x), so whether Darwin himself knew doesn’t really matter to me at all. But I guess you’d like to tear down the theory of evolution because Darwin wasn’t able to cover every single aspect of biology, chemistry, and paleontology in his lifetime? Frankly, that’s idiotic.
9) Furthermore, we have a fairly complete picture of how species are related to each-other and evolved over time, a picture developed through paleontology and later confirmed by genetics. (x,x ) And this picture is further fleshed out with new discoveries and studies all the time.
Well, here it is 150 years later and the only thing that has been proven is how stupid scientists, governments and the education system can be. Let’s review what was proposed as a theory and what has actually been proven. First of all, it is so convenient that just about none of Chuck’s theory can be proven. To prove it evolved by accident instead of being created by a Source of infinite intelligence comes down to personal opinion – not scientific verification.
10) As I wrote at the start, evolution doesn’t disprove god, just the argument from design. And creationism. And considering that 99% of species that ever existed went extinct, along with other facts about how and why different species survived, evolved, or died out, it does tend to make the idea of an intelligently created world seem a bit more absurd.
11) Furthermore, science tries to reduce unnecessary variables. If science has an explanation for how things can evolve, and it doesn’t require magic, why on earth would they insert magic into the explanation? The burden of proof is on you to prove that magic was involved if you actually think that.
But, let’s look at what Chuck told us to observe and what the outcome really was. He said: After about 100 years of fossil collection, we will see the connection. Well, after 150 years of fossil collection we have seen no connection. Even worse is the total lack of necessary intermediate stages that were needed to complete the picture.
Yeah, that’s false. See point 9.
As an example, when did we go from cold blooded sea creatures to warm blooded land creatures? Shouldn’t we find million of years of intermediate species making the transition?
12) Not sure why you think this must be particularly difficult? Perhaps bc you don’t realize that there’s been a gradation of how species manage their temperature for a long time and amongst very diverse groups. (x) But in short, producing heat to stabilize our temperature is not terribly difficult. Our organs and cells produce heat from natural metabolic reactions. As for why some species do it more or less than others, it’s usually been suggested that it has to do with fluctuations of temperature in their environment (e.g., the sea is usually a relatively constant temperature, while temperature on land and in the air varies widely just throughout a single day), and bc temperature differences can affect performance in certain situations (i.e. increased heat increases chemical reactions).
Also, have you even bothered to look for articles on this subject? e.g. this one.
Another concern: when did we go from scales and fins to skin with hair? Shouldn’t we find million of years of intermediate species making the transition?
13) Um… yeahh… we do. Fish —> Lizards —> Mammals.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
Again, did you do any research before writing your nonsense? Any at all?!
The biggest thing that was lacking was intelligence.
In some cases, still lacking ;P
But seriously, intelligence has existed for a long time. Human intelligence, however, has existed as long as humans have. (duh!)