Pages: 1 2

Photo credit: L2F1 (Creative Commons)

A highly disparaging reaction to a recent essay of mine perfectly demonstrates the aversion toward commentaries that apply a traditional-Biblical perspective in diagnosing contemporary social and political problems.

Advertisement-content continues below

Here was the first comment logged in response to a recent essay of mine –


The belief in God/s IS a BIZARRE DELUSION and Religion IS a PSYCHOSIS!!!

This brings me to the major source of such hostile reactions – the ‘science’ and mass acceptance of evolution as the primary explanatory foundation for all things.

In my years of personal study and online debate, I’ve learned that if you’re willing to cut through the resistance, intimidation, and mockery exhibited by ‘disciples of evolution,’ it’s not too difficult to uncover the vast amount of unfounded speculation, fantastical thinking, and unproven, inconsistent theory.

One of the major hurdles evolutionary theorists have never been able to clear is the idea that one species can naturally progress into a higher or more advanced life form. This is a premise that simply has never been observed or demonstrated. It’s an unnatural phenomenon that goes against the observed and testable laws of nature (as well as the existing fossil record).

Advertisement-content continues below

This reality was not lost on one of the world’s top chemists, Professor James M. Tour, who has been scrutinized for publicly presenting his doubts and insecurities over the assumptions related to macroevolution within the scientific community –

I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply cannot accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do…Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, ‘The emperor has no clothes!’?

From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution….

I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?

The professional insights provided by Professor Tour are very valuable as much of evolution’s recent theoretical proposals remain fixed on genetics. Specifically, the possibility that chemically-driven genetic changes, rooted in Darwinian presuppositions, provides conclusive validation for Evolution – once and for all! Obviously, Prof. Tour isn’t sold on the idea.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook