Problems with the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution

Flawed argument: “Evolution is a fact.”

Ever since Richard Dawkins penned “The God Delusion,” in which he posited that unguided evolution replaces the need for God, it seems a bandwagon of cheering atheists and agnostics have burst into the streets to declare themselves free from our Creator, His moral accountability, and the purpose and meaning that give us hope in this world.

Sorry, folks, but Richard Dawkins is sorely mistaken. Evolutionary theory falls far short of offering any explanation of the BIG QUESTIONS in life with respect to our origins, meaning, objective morality, purpose, design, and destiny. God (and more specifically, Jesus) gives us those answers and an explanation of why we must all bear our own crosses and how we can better ourselves by following His ways. But beyond that, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has other flaws. It’s recently come under fire at The Royal Society for its explanatory deficiencies.

“That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization [The Royal Society] should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable. Indeed, from our point of view, though presenters ignored, dismissed, or mocked ID [intelligent design], not realizing the number of design-friendly scientists in the audience, the proceedings confirmed something ID advocates, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.”[1]

Evolutionary theorist Gerd Muller noted the lack of an explanation for the following items:[2]

a. Phenotypic complexity – the origins of our ears, eyes, body plans and structures.

b. Phenotypic novelty – the way major orders of mammals came into existence more or less without antecedents, particularly in the Cambrian explosion.

c. Non-gradual forms or modes of transition with abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record.

Jim Shapiro noted the presence of “pre-programmed adaptive capacity,” which animals and humans possess, yet which have always been taken as a given.[3] How did beavers come to build dams or birds build nests or develop wings? How did we develop a consciousness or the desire to be honest, fair, empathetic, unselfish, thankful and forgiving?

Those who endorse unguided evolution often consider themselves naturalists (also known as materialists), thinking that everything in life has a natural, or physical, explanation.

“But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Darwin himself expressed this doubt: “With me,” he said, “the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[4]

Scientism and naturalism cannot explain many aspects of our lives. In a debate with Peter Atkins, William Lane Craig identified five areas where varous truths cannot be proven by science. I have quoted his points below:

“Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math, so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Metaphysical truths, like there are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.

Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.

Aesthetic judgments…cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.

And finally, most remarkably, would be science itself. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points A and B. But that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.”

In summary, we cannot simply adhere to scientism and naturalism as they fail to explain many aspects of our lives that we experience. Accordingly, we must search for other answers that extend beyond the simple and the physical.

Meanwhile, back in the evolution ranch…

Over the years, I’ve seen numerous atheists and agnostics replace God with “evolution,” yet evolution cannot speak to the human experience and it does not offer an explanation of our origins. It merely speaks to the adaptation of already existent life to the environment over time. And we’re not even sure it well explains that! We have too many outstanding questions.

Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged we do not have an adequate explanation of how the first forms of life appeared. He has posited “panspermia,” which is the belief that life on earth originated from microorganisms that came in from outer space. Such a position is based on faith, since we have no scientific support for his assertion. It’s the “anything but God” position, which fails to give our Creator His due.

[1] Anonymous. (2016). Why the Royal Society meeting mattered, in a nutshell.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Platinga, A. (1994). Naturalism defeated. Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.

28 Replies to “Problems with the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution”

  1. Yes, Dawkins “has acknowledged we do not have an adequate explanation of how the first forms of life appeared.” This truth does not negate the fact of evolution. Life emerged (somehow), life evolves (a fact), and the theory of evolution explains that fact. From Darwin to Dawkins, no evolutionary biologist has explained how life emerged, but these biologists HAVE explained how life flourishes and propagates. At one point in Earth’s existence, rabbits didn’t exist. Now they do. Rabbits “arrived” via evolution; they didn’t just appear out of the blue. All life evolves. The only mystery here is why religious apologists (not just Christian apologists) continue to say that evolution doesn’t account for how life emerged. Why do apologists keep returning to this trope again and again? Let me be clear: evolutionary biologists AGREE with Christian apologists—when it comes to this specific point (that nobody knows how life emerged), and yet many apologists STILL say that evolution hasn’t explained how life emerged! THAT’S the mystery here: Why do so many apologists—all apologists?—keep revisiting a point on which evolutionary biologists and apologists are in agreement? Once again (judging from the past, I’m sure this won’t be the last time I type these words): Evolution was NEVER about explaining the origin of life because nobody knows how life emerged.

    As for morality, see “The Moral Animal” by Robert Wright. Our impulses to be good (or bad), our sense of fairness, and our displays of altruism can be explained by evolution. No supernatural force (“God”) is needed to explain why humans are moral. I haven’t read Patricia Churchland’s recent book, “Conscience: The Origins of Moral Intuition,” but I suspect it’s good.

    Are you sure there’s no science that accounts for aesthetic judgements (to cite just one of William Lane Craig’s five items? See “The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution” by Denis Dutton.

    Finally, to say that biologists and other scientists haven’t figured out everything (nobody knows what caused the Big Bang) is never a reason to question the essential efficacy of science. Sometimes things take time—and they can take more time when superstitions get in the way. Hundreds of years ago “demonic possession” was the explanation for what we know understand to be epilepsy. Today, we know better. This supposed limitation of science reminds me of a great remark from Sam Harris: “I challenge you to think of a question upon which we had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one.” Notice that “however inadequate.” For example, phlogiston was once proposed by 18th-century chemists as an explanation for combustion. Guess what? These chemists (scientists) were later shown to be wrong when it was eventually understood that phlogiston was nothing more than a pseudoscience. So yeah, sure, sometimes scientists get things wrong—and then a new theory (explanation) comes along (when evidence comes along) to explain certain phenomena. Returning to Harris’s remark, notice that he’s asking for the reverse: not a situation where bad or flawed science was replaced by good or accurate science. No. Harris instead is proposing something else. He wants an example of a RELIGIOUS answer as having the best explanatory power for something. In other words, it was a religious answer that replaced something flawed (inadequate) proposed by scientists. We know the response to Harris’s challenge: no religion of any stripe, Christian or otherwise, has ever discovered any truth about the nature of the world or the universe. That’s a fact.


  2. I recently came up with this dilemma: Either evolution is true or it is not. If evolution is true then God is real because only God could have brought single-celled organisms into existence and guided their mutations as they reproduced to become as complicated as human beings. If evolution is false then God is also real because no science could explain Man suddenly coming into being out of dust. Therefore, either way, God is real.


    1. Evolution is true, and there is no evidence that a Supernatural Being is behind it. Also, if you were to take the time to study the subject, you would see there is no guidance “behind” it.

      But why should I continue to leave messages here? The person who hosts this blog won’t post my response just as my long response that I wrote yesterday was never posted. See, to be an apologist is to only allow (apparently) comments that agree with the blog post. To do otherwise, is to invite a disputatious conversation—and the person behind this blog doesn’t want. That’s called intellectual dishonesty.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Mr. Lyons:
        Well, your comment here was allowed. I actually did have that trouble with another blogger. As the Catholic of Honor, I could not possibly not allow posts just because I disagreed with them. That would be against my code.
        Thank you for your comment. You are correct. I have little knowledge on the subject. I did not attack the theory of evolution. My only argument is that, considering that nearly every mutation is bad, as I see it, it seems implausible that any single-celled organism could evolve into something so complicated without God’s intervention. And however the single-celled organization came into being, I think that would also be very implausible if God had not guided it to happen. That said, if this were my only evidence for the existence of God, I probably would not believe in Him. There is much more.


      2. This notion that “every mutation is bad” represents a profound misreading of evolution. You ought to read Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True” to understand why. It’s an accessible book written for the lay reader (that is, it’s not intended for specialists though specialists will certainly enjoy it as well).

        As to your other main point, you insinuate that God guided evolution and that, to quote you, “if this were my only evidence for the existence of God, I probably would not believe in Him.” “Only evidence”? No evidence has ever been provided by anyone in the history of humanity that the evolution of life occurred by way of a guiding force. You say that’s it’s implausible to imagine that evolution of life could occur without the existence of God. Guess what? It happened! And there is no evidence that evolution had a helping hand from a supernatural source. Sure, you BELIEVE there was a helping hand, but there is no evidence to support what you believe.

        I find it forever fascinating that believers either don’t know what evidence means or they think that a long-held earnest belief in something counts for evidence. It does not. For example: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker…” Wait. Stop right there. You “believe”? Okay, fine. You believe what you believe. But what is the evidence to support that belief? There isn’t any. And so it goes with every other religious assertion (not just from Christians) under the sun. Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Mr. Lyons: I mean this with all respect, but there is a lot of evidence supporting my belief in God. There are long apologetics books explaining them. Hundreds of doctors, theologians, and apologists have written long books explaining why we can believe in the existence of God. Yes, there is evidence, sir. If you are interested, I would gladly explain some of it.


      4. Instead of going on at length (we have other things to do with our lives), give me your Top Three. In other words, you may say you have eight or ten or a dozen things that you think serve as evidence for God’s existence. Whatever these other alleged examples of evidence may be, I only want to hear about your three favorites. These would be the ones that you find most persuasive. Have at it.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. The best evidence are our personal spiritual experiences. That’s what brought me back to Jesus after years as a very weak Christian who wasn’t even sure of His resurrection. The next is the evidence we have even extrabiblically from hostile sources concerning the events surrounding His resurrection. The next is the human genome. Anyone who thinks a 3.2 billion-long “lettered” sequence of code just put itself together really isn’t being honest. You wouldn’t think the words of the Bible just fell together or the software in a computer just fell in place, so why believe our DNA code has no coder?


      6. I use ALL CAPS on occasion for emphasis. I’m not shouting. I’m being emphatic.

        “Personal spiritual experiences” has always been weak tea to me because in no other area of life do people carve out an excuse that amounts to saying, “Well, I’m sorry, I really can’t give you any evidence. All I can do is talk about personal experiences I’ve had.” Moments of ecstasy or bliss—choose whatever word you want, even if you’re inclined to write “Barry, no words can describe…”—are events and moments of existence that are happening to YOU. It’s stuff going on in YOUR head. When you go to a church (if you go to a church) and say a “silent prayer,” you’re not talking to anyone. You’re kneeling in silence with clasped hands and you’re THINKING. That’s YOU “talking” to YOU. Nobody is listening to your thoughts. (And what a terrifying thing it would be if a Supernatural Being could read people’s thoughts.) Think whatever you want. Its actions that count in this world.

        As irony would have it, you have to speak and thinking scientifically about your assertion that a Certain Being created things and set things in motion and that this Being exists “out there” or “far away” or whatever word best captures your claim. Think about what you’re doing: To say there is a God is to make a claim about the nature of the Universe—a discovery about the Universe that would be plain for all to see upon the lucid presentation of persuasive evidence. No theist in the history of the world has been able to provide evidence to back up this claim.

        So it’s only fair that I raise the bar, that I bring the nature of this conversation to a higher level where substantive things are discussed instead of feelings. When it comes to this subject, a discussion of feelings is weak. I need the strong stuff. I want to be surprised (and persuaded) by IDEAS. But if you can’t do it because all you have are feelings, well, that’s that and sayonora.

        By the way, the philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville (better known in his native France) wrote a short book called “The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.” The Philadelphia Inquirer called it a “masterpiece of nuanced wisdom” and The New Republic called it “a magnificent achievement.”

        Of course atheists are spiritual. It would be silly to think otherwise.


      7. And Barry – I believe I’ve seen you on Twitter before. This is my (SJ Thomason’s) site.


      8. Very well, sir. The best evidence, I think, is the Resurrection of Christ. Yes, in general one does not trust historical documents that record fantastic events, but I think it is a fair exception. The New Testament is by far the ancient document of which we have the most ancient copies so we can be pretty sure we have 98% of the original four gospels. It is generally agreed that these were written in the 1st century, although some scholars would say it was written in the 2nd. Either way, it is fair to say that very early on Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Although this is rejected by some modern scholars, many ancient writings attribute two of them to Matthew and John, two apostles. Luke’s gospel begins pretty clearly as a history. He says he studied everything from the first as had been handed on by eyewitnesses. According to ancient tradition, Mark got most or all his source for his gospel from Peter who was an eyewitness. The gospels are very specific about the time and place everything happened. Luke describes the enrollment around the birth of Jesus as: “first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.” The apostles said that Jesus rose from the dead. Myths so big do not simply spring up within a century, especially when people are actively being persecuted for such a belief. The apostles would not lie since ten of them died for professing Jesus to be Lord and one was exiled. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that five hundred people saw him at once. No one would make a conspiracy like that or if they did, it would soon get out to be false. The gospels say that the story that got out was that the guards were asleep and while they slept the disciples took the body, but if they were asleep, they would not know by whom the body was taken. It is also very unlikely that all the guards would be asleep at once because I believe the usual punishment was death. He could not have been injured and revived later because the Romans knew what they were doing and the centurion would be executed if someone were to survive crucifixion. Besides, he would be in a terrible state after two days and could not possibly be able to move away the stone in his tomb. That would still not explain how he could fly into the sky and vanish forty days later. Some would argue that it was hallucination, but in that case, all of them (including the five hundred people who saw him at once) would have to have hallucinated the same thing at once. They were not exactly in the mood to be in a suggestive state as Thomas was quite clear that he would not believe unless he put his finger in Jesus’ wounds and thrust his hand into his side. Besides, Jesus ate fish and helped them miraculously with a catch. He also brought bread and started a fire for them to cook it, which a hallucination could not do. Besides, there are many miracles which have happened throughout history which I would be hard pressed explaining by any natural means. I hope this is fairly clear and makes sense.


      9. There is no evidence in the history of the world that any person who was killed came back to life. Here’s an important fact: This notion of a “hero” coming back to life days later after being killed is a theme that has played out in other religions—religions that existed BEFORE the emergence of Christianity. That should tell you something.

        You’ve fallen into the classic trap of circular thinking: The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. Evidence for something has to exist OUTSIDE of the Bible in order for an extraordinary claim like this to be true. If I said to you “Beethoven existed because I have this biography of him,” that would bizarrely miss the point. The evidence for Beethoven’s existence exists outside of the book in the form of manuscripts, letters, journal entries, and newspaper reviews of his performances (and others who performed his music during his time). Ditto the claim that a number of dead people suddenly rose up and walked out of a grave site on a certain day. Is there anything OUTSIDE of the Bible that shows that this claim is true or likely true? Nope.

        The Bible is a work of literature. It’s not a science book and it’s not a work of history. Or as one wag put it in a Twitter meme, “Claiming the Bible is true because it mentions some historical people and places is like saying the Sherlock Holmes stories are true because they contain descriptions of Victorian London.”

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Firstly, I never said I thought the Bible was true because it said it is true. I said it is true because those who wrote it were willing to die for their claim—that Jesus Christ was Lord and rose from the dead. Very few people would die for fiction. Also, they were very unanimous about that belief from very early on. History makes that clear. I don’t mean to seem rude, but I thought I had just explained all that already. As a side note, I’m Catholic so I hold that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equal.
        As for the “dying god myth”, as I have heard people call it, I have heard that before and I understand what would lead you to believe that. However, as J. R. R. Tolkien put it: “We argued [here speaking of a conversation with C. S. Lewis when Lewis was an atheist] that myths are not just well-wrought lies; they are actually real, though dappled, shafts of the divine light falling on human imagination. We believe that the great and universal myth, the dying god who sacrifices himself for the people, shows everyone’s inborn awareness of the need for redemption. As we understand it, the Incarnation was the pivotal point at which myth became history.”


      11. Besides, I note that you asked for the top three pieces of evidence. I only gave you one—mainly because it was too involved. Two others are the many miraculous occurrences that have happened all throughout history even as late as the twentieth century. Another one is the fact that good and evil exist.


      12. There has never been a miracle in the history of the world.

        Terrifically wonderful people have existed and terrifically awful people have existed. Neither has anything to do with the subject at hand (the existence or non-existence of God).

        Also, what about natural disasters? Pandemics, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes? Many millions of people have died through the ages from natural catastrophes alone. I like what Sam Harris said about this: “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.” I made my choice long ago.

        Liked by 1 person

      13. You still have not explained why the apostles would die for their claim if it is all fiction or conspiracy.

        Miracles have existed. One big one was the Miracle at Fátima where the Sun turned different colors and danced around in 1917. Also, all the rain that was going on dried up. That is not ancient history. People say that was a natural phenomenon, but they never explain how three kids, the oldest of whom was ten years old, predicted it to the exact time of day when no one else did after for months they had been receiving apparitions from the Blessed Virgin Mary and messages. Fátima also predicted WW2. Feel free to do the research yourself.

        You say good and bad people have existed, but what makes good and evil if we are all just products of science acting on our evolutionary instincts?

        As for the problem of evil, you are thinking like we think, not like God thinks. It was meant in the beginning for there to be no suffering, but Adam and Eve sinned and forfeited God’s blessing for themselves and for their descendants. We cannot, of course, know the mind of the Almighty and Omniscient entirely. However, for one thing, if God had not allowed sin to enter the world, He could not have made the perfect act of humility for His glory and our salvation in the crucifixion. Another point is that we can all benefit from suffering to become more like Christ. Who knows? Some of the people who have died in these disasters might have gone to heaven when if they had been aloud to live longer might have fallen into mortal sin and gone to hell. God will most certainly never allow suffering unless He can bring greater good out of it. It would be wrong for us to do that, but we are neither all wise, nor all-powerful, nor all-knowing. We can never really know God’s full plan until heaven—how much mercy He has showed us for allowing such catastrophes. You could disagree with God’s decision, but in that case, as C.S. Lewis said, you would be disagreeing with the One from Whom your reasoning comes. In other words, you and I are not God.

        As for saying you “made my choice long ago,” need I remind you that it was you not I who started this discussion?


      14. The stories in the Bible that feature the apostles are STORIES. (No, I’m not shouting. I’m emphasizing.) But you’re still missing the larger point: You’re referencing something in the Bible (the stories of the Apostles) to tell me that that what you’re referencing is true because it’s taken from the Bible. This is classic circular thinking: the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. Circular thinking (for any subject) is no way for anyone to think because it is intellectually irresponsible. As I said to you before, for the supernatural events of the Bible to be true there would have to be historical accounts that exist OUTSIDE of the Bible. No such accounts exist.

        Once again: There has never been a miracle in the history of the world.

        The Fatima story bores me.

        You write: “As for the problem of evil, you are thinking like we think, not like God thinks.” Yes, I’m always referring to the way we humans think. I’m a human. You’re a human. I’m interested in how humans think. The phrase “like God thinks” makes no sense to me. I’m an atheist. This means I don’t believe in the existence of God. Seeing that I don’t believe in the existence of God, writing “like God thinks” is like writing “like Superman thinks.” Sherlock Holmes: a make-believe character. Captain Kirk: a make-believe character. God: a make-believe character.

        Liked by 1 person

      15. Actually, historical and ancient Christian accounts unanimously agree that Christians believed from the first or second century that Jesus rose from the dead and we know that teaching from the twelve apostles. We do not even know of the martyrdoms of most of the apostles from the Bible. Most of that is extra biblical. Besides, according to many ancient Christian writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote history about the life of Christ. Myths do not emerge so fully so quickly when the people who witnessed Christ were still alive.

        I posted two comments in a row by the way. Did you see the one where I replied to the first time you accused me of circular thinking and also the “dying god myth”?

        As for Fatima, you just skipped over that argument without a reply to how a ten-year-old, a nine-year-old, and a seven-year-old would predict such a thing. This is a biblical level miracle which, as I said, predicted WW2. You still have not replied to my argument about good and evil existing.

        My point is, you should not expect One who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, and so forth to think like us who have tiny intellects who have to think with bodies that will go bad after eighty-or-so years. You still have not given any argument for why God’s thinking is most certainly wrong.


      16. I don’t care about what Christians believe. That gets to the heart of the problem. Christians as well as adherents of other religions are always going on about what they BELIEVE. This is not interesting to me—unless the belief is grounded in some evidence. If a paleontologist says, “Well, as far as the behavior of the Tyrannosaurus Rex is concerned, we paleontologists believe…”—and what follows from that belief are things paleontologists know and have pieced together to present a LIKELY answer or explanation for something (in the absence of hard evidence). By contrast, “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of Heaven and Earth” is… empty of meaning and substance. It’s just people uttering what they believe and nothing more. How is that interesting? It isn’t. I believe… I believe… I believe… Zzzzzz. What people believe in the absence of evidence is SO boring and uninteresting.

        As for the idea that World War II was predicted, please give me the name of a revered, well-respected authority on the subject of World War II who said that the coming of the war was foretold because of something that allegedly happened in a Portuguese village. Go head. Find me a name. Stephen Ambrose? John Keegan? Hugh Trevor-Roper? William Shirer? A.J.P. Taylor? Show me the passages or chapters from any of their books that talk about the historical importance of those Fatima children. I’ll wait. To have some fun and play along with this nonsense, why would Mary appear to some child sheep herders instead of showing up at Madison Square Garden, or Times Square, or some place where there are thousands of people in attendance. “Hey, guys! I’m Mary! I just wanted to stop by and say hello! How’s everybody doin’?” The crowed cheers: “Mare-ree! Mare-ree! Mare-ree!”

        As for evil people, why did John Geoghan, a former and now-deceased (murdered) Catholic priest, enjoy raping children? If you want to talk about evil, start there.

        The “Incarnation” is a hilarious idea. Just to be sure I have the definition right, I found this: “a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality.” Yep, that’s fictitious, make-believe nonsense. Some people say this notion of a Trinity is mysterious. Nope. It’s not mysterious. It’s make-believe.

        Once again with circular thinking: If you want to argue that something in the Bible is true—and I’m speaking strictly of supernatural claims—point me to a source that’s NOT the Bible. That’s how you avoid circular thinking. A bunch of corpses walked out of grave and started high-fiving people? Put the Bible down and direct me toward a source that discusses this event.

        People don’t die for a fiction? Wrong. They do it all the time. Well, sure, these people don’t believe what they believe is a fiction. The best way to see the nonsense of religion is to consider the claims of adherents of OTHER religions. Muslims believe that Mohammad flew to Heaven on a horse. Guess what? Horses have never had wings. Did I need to tell you that? I had one Muslim tell me it was a “miracle” that the horse sprouted wings. Huh. Seems to me that it would be easier to accept the fact that horses have never had wings and that there was never a “miraculous” flying horse. But Muslims of the militant and warring kind—many of whom would love to kill you, by the way, for not following the words and deeds of their “prophet”—won’t do that. Now, apply that same thinking to Christian ideas.

        Liked by 1 person

      17. Her name is Mary not “Mare-ree”, sir. I think she made it clear enough that she was giving a real message by making the Sun dance around and all the rain dry up in Fátima, predicted only by three illiterate children. Think about it. As for WW2 being predicted, examine experts on Fátima and they will explain.
        Of course the incarnation is ridiculous. The Omnipotent can do ridiculous things. As for the trinity, as I already said, it really makes sense that the trinity would not make sense as it pertains to the nature of God.
        If the apostles believed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead as you say, but he had not actually done so, the only way I could get around that is that they were all on something pretty strong. I thought I explained that all before. Yes, by the way, secular authorities did agree that the apostles said Christ rose from the dead. Besides, five books in the Bible tell of Christ’s deeds after he was risen and many more mention the Resurrection, not one.
        I know some priests definitely did not follow God, but then, many atheists (Stalin, for instance) were also evil. I do not know what this has to do with the discussion on hand.
        But I give up now if you are just going to call my religion “fictitious” and “make-believe” and “hilarious” rather than responding in a non-sarcastic manner (with all respect, sir). I may come out with more stuff on atheism on my blog. Most of the stuff I have is on Protestantism or else telling my fellow Catholics why common beliefs in Catholicism are wrong based on Catholic teaching. I did one on relativism, but you do not strike me as a relativist.


      18. I’m wondering if you lack a sense of humor. My “mar-ree” was in quotes to indicate a chant that people were yelling. Spelling out words like this is often done when illustrating a particular way people are saying something, in my case, I was creating a fictitious dialogue, a make-believe chant to illustrate a humorous point.

        The “Omnipotent” is ridiculous because there is no evidence that any Omnipotent Being exists.

        Once again, you mention the Bible (“five books”), which means you’re not getting what I wrote. I’ll try again: If you quote the Bible to make a point about something that’s in the Bible, you’re engaging in circular thinking. I’ve explained that circular thinking is a sloppy way to think. It’s not a religious thing. It’s a thinking/arguing thing. Circular thinking is an inherently flawed way to argue.

        It’s difficult to not be sarcastic when I’m confronted with something that’s wacky and nonsensical. Think of it this way. If you or someone else came to me with an argument that Earth is flat or that Earth is only ten thousand years old (or younger!), I am going to SMASH that “argument” to pieces as best I can. Be very clear about what I just wrote: I didn’t say anything about smashing PEOPLE. I’m interested in smashing IDEAS. But in my experience religious people become uncomfortable when they’re beliefs are challenged. I understand—but that doesn’t mean I’m going refrain from wielding my rhetorical ax to destroy what I see as a bad or dumb idea. I can respect people, sure. But I’m not going to respect an IDEA that is unworthy of being respected. For example, there’s no evidence that humans have “souls”: invisible things that whoosh out of our bodies at death—and because there’s no evidence I am going to ridicule the idea of souls. Again, the key word is IDEAS. I’m interested in attacking ideas, not people.

        If you’re interested in going after atheism (good luck with that), feel free to read this essay of mine and then leave a response in the comments section: “The Questions That a Theist Can’t Answer”: —

        I also happened to published just a few days ago a continuation of what I wrote about abortion (in the above piece): “The Religious Objection to Abortion Makes No Sense” —

        And with that, goodnight.

        Liked by 1 person

      19. I apologize. I have a sense of humor, only not when it comes to her. My point about the Bible was that myths do not appear that quickly. Who made them up anyway?
        Also, you were engaging in circular reasoning: There has never been a miracle in history because materialism is true and materialism is true because there has never been a miracle in history. Also, the Bible is fiction because supernatural occurrences never happened and supernatural occurrences never happened because the Bible is fiction. Also, God would not allow evil because the only kind of person is a person who thinks like me and I wouldn’t if I were benevolent, and we know that the only kind of people are people who think like humans because there is no God.
        I do not believe the story about Muhammad, but I definitely think God could do that if he wished. However, I do believe in miracles from other religions. The Oracle at Delphi is a good example. There have been miracles more recently for them as well. I only belief that demons were behind those. I have reasons for that, but it is beside the point. Look at my blog next week for one argument against atheism and another the week afterward for abortion. I will look at your article on questions that religious people cannot answer if I find the time and possibly try to answer them on my own blog.


  3. I’ll grant that your misrepresentation of Dawkins *might* be an honest mistake. Still, Dawkins did not and does not posit panspermia. AFAIR (it’s been a while), even in the heavily edited film version, all he said was that it was a feasable, if unlikely, scenario, still more likely than theistic miracles – which isn’t saying much.

    Also, you claim to have found problems with Darwinian evolution. Yet you can’t name even one argument against it in your post. All you do is say that it doesn’t solve problems it’s not meant to solve.

    When pressed in the comments, you resort to personal experience. You even say it is the best evidence you have. It is literally there.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t take this very seriously. This is a shallow, ignorant and


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: