If evolution is true, why can’t I believe it?

Allow me to preface this by saying that I am not a biologist or a biology major, rather I am merely an observer of a condition I see people walking into: a condition of blind acceptance. I don’t have anything against science. My chosen, personal profession requires a great deal of applied science. But in my profession, in applying the science necessary to do the job, I have noticed that there seems to be something overlooked.

Doing my job requires a lot of problem solving. It requires knowing behaviors that are necessary for proper operation in order to diagnose issues that have arisen. I’m a big believer in evidence, and doing my job well involves actually engaging with what I am working on, understanding  the relationships required for everything to operate.

This is the problem that I see: the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), when applied to the current state of life, has certain requirements that need to be met before it can occur. It requires a specific environment, with specific conditions, a specific amount of time and nothing else. Do you see the problem? If life teaches us anything, the only way for those specifics to be achieved, something has to intervene and establish them, they just don’t appear on their own.

The story goes: once there was this bacteria. Okay, where did it come from?

Well, there was this soup. Okay, where did the ingredients come from?

They want me to accept something by faith that the evidence doesn’t speak to, and I can’t bring myself to that point because of my experience in life.

See, I know what it takes to make a machine. I know how raw materials have to be gathered and processed, how testing has to be done to create an environment where the machine can operate. If the technology doesn’t exist, it has to be invented and tested some more, until the machine is complete and operational. All of the conditions have to be determined, defined, and established, prior to assembly. If, as some well-known proponents have inferred, people are merely machines, intelligent machines at that, then they are pleading to ignorance in regards to the argument that they are putting forth and avoiding the obvious question of, “okay, who built it?” The problem is that by replying, “no one”, they oppose themselves to the logic of the common understanding. It is like walking through the woods and stumbling upon an old, dilapidated house, even though the evidence of how it got there may be long covered over by the growth of the woods, it doesn’t deny the fact that it is there and that common sense tells that someone built it, you might not want to accept that, but does it change the facts of its existence?

A piston is just a piece of metal until it is paired with a connecting rod, attached to a crankshaft, matched with other piston assemblies, given a crankcase, attached to a flywheel, given a lubrication and cooling system, attached to a transmission system, given a fuel and electrical system, a chassis, a body, rolling stock, and finally a driver, then, and only then is it a car that can function in any meaningful sense. The optimal conditions for this to exist necessitates something that GTE cannot account for: a logical, reasoning mind. Like a car cannot exist without a builder or a road to drive on, life, if we want to define ourselves as intelligent machines, automatically requires a designer, and I don’t understand why people fail to see that.



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