TWLOHA, evolution, big bang theory

First of all, please check this out: to write love on her arms.
Also, the movement's myspace page.
And, lastly, this music video by Between the Trees.

I just found this and it's made an impact on me. Read the story. Watch the video. Hop on?



Evolution discussion in my biology class today. The theory of evolution as the origin of the species really kind of baffles. There are so many holes in the 'theory' (more on this later) that no one has been able to plausibly fill for me, and it's really discouraging and a little bit insulting to me to think that the sophisticated scientific community would really hold on to this idea. So I'm assuming that there are explanations of which I'm not yet aware. Please let me know. Argue with me. Really.

So let's go through evolution as an explanation for the beginning of life really quick. Okay, so the idea is that there was a piece of organic matter that became an organism that became an organism that became an organism that...etc. to make what we are today, right? Except that original first and second and third and fourth, etc. generation species organism is still here for some reason, even though, according to natural selection, the whole point is that they died off because they were inept (convenient because then we can create this chain of evolution just by looking at what's here). Anyway, if we're all on the same page and there's no dispute so far, I'm going to use the jump from primates (apes) to humans as an example. The idea is that these primates were around but some of them were different than the others (smarter, upstanding, less hairy), and these different ones eventually evolved into humans, yeah? Tell me if I'm wrong. My problem is that being ape and not human didn't become a problem (that is, disadvantageous -- and so by natural selection they would evolve) until there were humans, who came and started taking other species out. So what was the reason for apes becoming humans? And if they did, why are the apes still around? This wouldn't happen on its own, purely for the survival of the species. It wouldn't have been advantageous. Agreed? Which is the only motivation, so to speak, of a species to do or change anything, correct? So there must be some other force coming into play here that is putting its motivations into action. And because this force has, apparently, a unique ability to make things happen, have control, is it not correct to know it is a higher power?
So who, now, is going to tell me that evolution disproves God? Who is going to tell me that they believe in evolution because they don't believe in God? Evolution has always been introduced to me as an alternative to Creationism - the origin of the species story for non-believers. It doesn't seem, to me, that it is a very good one.

And if the primates to human example doesn't work for you, we can talk about wings. Wings are a very complicated piece of anatomy, agreed? There are tissues and organs and it's an entire limb, for crying out loud. So do you think that wings were one sole mutation that occurred and turned a species into flying creatures? I wouldn't say so. I'd say that it would have to happen in a series of mutations, a series of genetic variances that would be adapted and incorporated into the genetic makeup of the species rather than one HUGE ODD MUTATION that was suddenly very advantageous (this bird must have lived forever to be able to reproduce enough to keep these new wing things going in the whole scheme of the population). Right? So if this is happening gradually, what kind of variance that will eventually become wings would be at all advantageous enough to survive in the species? Don't you think that little stubs where wings will, at one point, be would be really awkward and annoying for these future-aves? Don't you think the poor mutant birds would be made fun of at school by the normal, stubless ones? Wouldn't that lower their self-esteem, making them less likely to find mates, and therefore less likely to reproduce, therefore not passing on these would-be wings?
But, needless to say, birds have wings. It happened. Why is that? What kind of force is intervening here and telling would-be birds that, "Hey, I know these stubs here are really annoying right now, but just think! Eventually you'll FLY! Just think of the (great, great, great, great, great...) children!" Because somebody's gotta be saying that if this is how birds happened to become birds. The birds didn't decide to become birds. Who wants stubs? They were content as a land-limited species. They didn't have the power of thinking ahead for their own good like that (WHAT IS THIS TERM?), and even if they did, what's the point in becoming that complex? They were happy enough, yeah?

Another thing: is there anyone here that wants to point out a huge, gaping flaw in the theory of protein transport across cell membranes? or cohesion? Or hydrogen bonds? Or the idea that blood circulates and carries oxygen? None of these are laws (so they are theories), but they're all pretty much considered fact. We've reached a consensus. But I think the reason we've reached such an agreed consensus (redundant) is that no one's really been able to point out some huge fallacy in the theory. They're pretty darn airtight. Why, then, do so many people want to take evolution as truth? Why is there the same blind faith in evolution as I have in Creationism? I have faith in creationism because I'm religious and I believe in God -- not because there's a huge amount of scientific evidence for it. Evolution (I'd like to remind everyone that I mean evolution as a theory for the origin of life), to me so far, cannot be accepted beyond a reasonable doubt at all. There are too many holes to trust it. And so I don't understand why so many people want to trust this theory the same way that they trust that the reason it hurts when my finger gets sliced open is that I have nerve endings.
Stemming from that, if you're going to say, "Well, we just don't know. Science isn't exact. We don't have answers for everything.", then I'm gonna have to say, "Then please don't start off telling me you do. Evolution is not a viable theory. I'm glad we've both reached that conclusion." I'm not going to try to prove Creationism to you. I don't consider it a valid scientific theory. If you want to argue with me, I really won't be able to convince you. It's not relevant to me, as a Christian. I believe it because I'm a Christian. I don't need it to convince me to be a Christian -- there are so many more valid and important things that have done that for me. (And I'd love to talk to you about those.) So my intention here is not to convince everyone that, as far as origin of life goes, creationism is right and evolution is wrong. I'm just trying to understand why evolution is so easily accepted and how it earns its standing as a theory.

So I realize that I'm posting this at great risk of being torn apart (since my whole rambling argument there is pretty easily responded to, though it at least has a basis that I can't, myself, find an explanation for), but I guess that's what I'm asking for, right?



One more thing:
Big Bang Theory: There was nothing, and then BANG, there was something.
Creationism: There was nothing, and then BANG, there was something. God made it happen.
We might not disagree so greatly, after all.



Current music:
the soundtrack for Notre-Dame de Paris
Albatross, The Classic Crime
Words, Between the Trees

Currently reading:
Catch-22, Joseph Heller
The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini