I admit it, this is slightly redundant, dealing with the same issues as in my "God in a Pub."   But there is still so much more to say, why not give it a go?

There's all this business about evolution out there, and at risk of immediatly shutting off my reader, let me bluntly point out that I feel most of it is rubbish in the Biblical sense of the word.   I am constantly humored by this or that new development in the the theory of evolution because it reminds me of some atheistic assertions I've heard.   The assertions sound a bit like this:

• Evolution is fact. .  It is based on hard evidence.  It is scientific fact, and those that don't accept that fact are off there rocker and 'backwards   Creation science [here they interject a sneer] merely crams the evidence into the frame of the Bible, a contradictory and unchanging document.  Instead of revising their theory, which true science would demand when new evidence is discovered, they mold the evidence to fit their theory."

Why am I humored?  Well, WHICH theory of evolution is it that is based on hard evidence?   Was it Darwin's explanation of natural selection that we should buy into?   In the 1800s and into the early 1900s, if a person rejected Darwin's theory he would have been branded a fundamentalist.  Of course, Darwin's theory has been thrown out in practise, even if its still given reverent lip service.     The progress of science should never be hindered!   When the fossil evidence was entered in and the Monkey Trial was over, the whole theory had to be revamped.   Poor Darwin did not have an accounting for how evolution happened, so in a short 50 years or so his theory had to be modified to allow for genetics and DNA.  This was the rise of NeoDarwinism.  The accusations of Darrow were based on a premise that had its evidence later discarded.  

But NeoDarwinism is about to be tossed, as well.  The fossil evidence alluded to in the previous paragraph paints a difficult picture for the evolutionary theory.   You know how we're told that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years?  We're often left with the impression that life has been steadily progressing that entire time.  The truth is that the fossil evidence suggests (and if you are an evolutionist, proves) that life actually erupted only about 500 million years ago during the precambrian age.  And it did not erupt into millions of kinds of one-celled creatures, it erupted into large highly developed creatures, some of which we affectionately refer to as the dinosaurs.   The intense difficulty of natural selection and genetic diversity and mutation to account for such a rapid progression led to an entirely NEW theory, called 'punctuated equilibrium.'   This theory suggests that there were long periods of little or no evolution and then there were sudden, rapid, and short spans of great evolutionary change.  Sounds a bit like a throw back to spontaneous generation to me.  If not that, its a nod to the concept that life can come into existence suddenly, although these people would never buy into life created in a mere day.

Now, each two of these three evolutions of evolution have been shown to be devoid of the factual basis that was so arrogantly asserted- by Creation Scientists?  NO!  By the next breed of evolutionists!  Yet proponents of those theories lambasted 'fundamentalists' of the time, while in retrospect it seems clear that even if the fundamentalists were not 'right' scientifically, they were right about the invalidity of the current form the 'fact' of evolution had taken.    I chuckle as I say it, and I mean no real disrespect, but if one doesn't mind, rather than debunking the current form of evolution, I think I'll just wait 30 years and let the next breed of evolutionists do it for me!

In the meantime I will continue to use what actual facts the evolutionists DO actually procure and marvel at how well they fit into the unchanging recounting of a giant flood a long time ago.