Back Issues


Volume 16, Issue 5: Doctrine 101

Cheesy Beginnings

Patch Blakey

I have several things I'd like to cover during this brief window of opportunity. First, I'd like to comment that we should all get a long, hearty, tear-inducing laugh out of the Darwinian concept of evolution. Such a concept of our antecedents is like a cross between Swiss and limburger cheese. There are so many holes in this theory that you couldn't shake even a small, lightweight stick at them all before your arm got tired, and further, the whole idea stinks.

Before I proceed to my next point, I'd like to conduct an experiment in practical probability. This experiment will demonstrate the improbability of Darwinian evolution, or as I call it, Devolution, the forced digression of man to purposelessness. Take a glass jar and fill it one third with table salt. Fill the next third with black pepper. Leave the last third empty, and put the lid on tightly. Begin shaking the jar. When you have successfully shaken the jar so that all of the salt and all of the pepper particles are totally separated as they were when you first began, that will give you the practical probability of Devolution. Keep shaking!
Now, my next point. When I was a child, my mother would serve my siblings and me cottage cheese, cratered like you would your mashed potatoes so you could pour in your gravy. Except, in this instance, she would pour in some pancake syrup. Yep, and we'd have to eat it. In fact, as revolting as it sounds to me now, we loved it then. This was a mix of the dulcet and the savory, a sweet cheese.
Keep shaking!
This leads to my third point. Have you ever considered irreducible complexity? Irreducible complexity points to intelligent design. Michael Behe wrote about it in his book on evolution, Darwin's Black Box. Behe explains irreducible complexity with a common mouse trap. If a mouse trap was evolving over millennia, how would it catch any mice if any single component of its structure were not present? It wouldn't! This means that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex from the get-go. It can't function without all of its minimal components. Or as Credence Clearwater Revival once sang, "99 and a half just won't do."
Change hands and keep shaking!
Now, let's consider a Darwinian view of the evolution of man. Before man evolved into Man, he had to have a precursor to Man, which I'll call Link. Link, in his long period of evolution, finally got hungry, so his flipper evolved over several million years into a hand that even had an opposing thumb which was naturally, yet randomly, selected just for him. But wait, he needed his eyes to evolve, so he could see what he was going to select to consume. Dang! Another couple of million years! But now Link can see and grab, but whoa, there needs to evolve some edible fruit or something. Dirt just doesn't satisfy those hunger cravings. Yep, another couple of million years.
Shake more vigorously! You're slowing down!
Aha! Finally, an apple. Appealing to the eye and good to taste…taste! Oops! Nature forgot about evolving a mouth simultaneously with everything else. Silly nature! Okay, several more million years go by, Link now has a mouth, teeth, tongue and all. Link takes a bite and oh! the rich, succulent, juicy flavor! Link then spits it out because… you guessed it…he hasn't evolved his tummy yet!
Say, you're starting to get some pretty manly shoulders there! Keep shaking!
Oh, all right, I sense the tension building. Some are starting to lose interest. Ta-dah! Link evolves into Man. But we also needed to evolve another "species" simultaneously, Woman. And she had to go through all of the same, exact development as did Man, and she had to be compatible with Man so they could procreate until Man eventually would evolve to that distant, future age when his random collection of meaningless molecules would make him intelligent enough to know that empirical measurements are the only way to know truth. Oh, yeah! And that it's time to start ranting against something called god.
Don't give up yet! We are still in the very early stages of the experiment. Keep shaking!
But let's go back to Junior, that first little tikey born to Man and Woman. He pops into the world, and now he's hungry. In fact, he's screaming his head off for something to eat. Quick, an apple! Whoopsie! No teeth have sprouted in his little mouth yet, and Man is not going to put up with this ruckus for another couple of years. No, siree! How about Woman just giving Junior some "sweet cheese" to nurture him? Yeah! There's an idea! And no teeth are required. "Sweety? Would you mind if Junior just suckled your…heh! You don't have any breasts yet?!! Man, oh Man, is this ever going to be a long eon!"
Okay, now have your wife shake the jar for a while.
My conclusion: the Genesis account of creation provides the only consistent account of our beginnings that isn't cheesy. Science wants to look selectively at evolution as though each component of creation somehow evolved from its precursor. But a cambert didn't evolve from a brie. The entire fermentation process is necessary to make a good cheese. And, like a good cheese, all of creation is irreducibly complex, pointing back to the Triune God who created it all and sustains it all.
Oh! Just because you've finished reading this article, don't stop shaking that jar! I think you're really on to something big there.

Back to top
Back to Table of Contents


 
Copyright © 2012 Credenda/Agenda. All rights reserved.