Sunday, January 27, 2008

Are You the Descendant of Primordial Ooze?

I am now taking an opportunity to write an article that I first envisioned back in December. The following headline caught my eye, "Study: Evolutionary Change Lets Pregnant Women Stand Upright." You can read the entire article here. In summary, the article discusses how evolution engineered women to have a lower center of gravity so they can stand upright while they are pregnant. Specifically, "There are slight differences between women and men in one lower-back vertebra and a joint in the hip, which allow women to adjust their center of gravity."

What caught my attention was the littering of these key sentences in the article:

(1) "This elegant evolutionary engineering..."
(2) "Evolution has tinkered ... to the point where they can deal with the challenge."
(3) "The back changes appear to have evolved to overcome the cost of walking on two feet.."
(4) "When the researchers looked back at fossil records of human ancestors, including the oldest spines that go back 2 million years to our predecessor Australopithecus, they found a male without the lower-back changes and a female with them."

While I do not hold a degree in a natural sciences field, I am quite certain that evolution is a natural process. Much like erosion, evolution is supposed to operate under some fundamental laws of nature, unaided by intelligence. Considering the lack of intelligence in the evolutionary process, I am surprised that pregnant women can stand on two feet as a result of "evolutionary engineering." Because, while I'm not a natural scientist, I am an engineer and I know engineering involves purposeful design: "skillful or artful contrivance; maneuvering." Furthermore, I did not know that evolution could "tinker." I guess it is now possible for nature to tinker with itself. It's like that one time I went hiking and caught a Douglas Fir carving itself into a beautiful totem pole. What? That doesn't happen?

I also like the third excerpt where evolution stepped in to help women out with those achy feet. I'm sure natural selection really prioritizes those inconveniences it causes by enabling humans to walk on two feet. I can't wait for evolution to compensate me for giving humans superior intellect such that I am expected to use a toilet and sit on those cold seats...perhaps an extra layer of fat in a ring pattern...

In case my sarcasm isn't coming through well enough for you I will get started on how I really feel. Fortunately, the article's author made my point for me in the fourth excerpt. It turns out that even our really, really, really old ancestors (per the article, our earliest human-like ancestors) had this nifty difference between male and female. me out here...if our earliest ancestors already had this key difference between male and female, then when exactly did women evolve to get this back blessing? It couldn't have been before primates evolved into humans because the article clearly states that primates do not have the different back and hip structure. Maybe that's because it has nothing to do with evolution. Maybe all that sophisticated engineering is the result of an intelligent designer.

Keep in mind that this article represents a minute thread in the tangled web of the evolutionary theory. By its very premise, evolution asserts that you are the descendant of primordial ooze. Somehow evolution caused that slime to develop into complex, intelligent people. Every aspect of evolution points to intelligent design; so much so that scientists studying evolution find it difficult to explain the outcomes without relying upon reasoning that is only available in the context of an intelligent being. This leads to one conclusion: we are the result of a creator, not a random artifact of nature. Still skeptical? Here are ten excellent evidences for Creation.


  1. republican? Why elevate political beliefs to religious status? As a conservative, don't you support charity to poor people? If churches and non-profits were funded well, becuase americans love to tithe, then it wouldn't be the government's job to help poor people. But, this is not the case. Benevolence to social programs is not a strong point for republicans. Voting for bush didn't stop abortion either. For issues like this, how can religious conservatives whole-heartedly vote republican. I wish there were republ-icrats. Right on for the ooze talk. Let's hope that someday we can even see a wel developed theory of evolution that includes a chemical pathway from rock-juice to self replicating life forms. Then we can zap it with lightning & see if the theory explodes. Intellegent design over spontaneous generation all the way.

  2. Thank you for your comment.

    This blog is really about more than just "right minded" politics, it also covers religious views. Of course, those views are most closely associated and more likely supported by right wing politics. You are correct in pointing out that Republicans (and voting republican) are not the panacea for religious freedom or for benevolence.

    However, I consider the Democrats' approach of charity-through-government far short of what's needed. Social programs are notorious for failing to aid those in dire need while rewarding those that abuse the system. Furthermore, those social programs come at the expense of higher taxes. Who really benefits? The politicians that receive credit for correcting a great "injustice." The working poor have 16% of their income funding FICA which is a terrible return on their investment, yet we should call this a benefit? There is a lot of talk about the need for social health care, especially amongst the Democrats, but why should we be convinced that won't be equally ineffective?

    There are many non-profits (churches, missions, outreaches) that are well funded by the generosity of conservatives. In my own region, I see that these are the organizations responsible for making a real difference in the community; not the government social programs. These organizations are more effective at helping the needy because they are in the communities and witness the true needs real time. They are not ballooning government programs that have no real insight into the needs of the people. I would gladly surrender money to these organizations over the taxes I pay that "support" Welfare and Medicare.

    Unfortunately, politicians are politicians and are far from perfect. There are many other candidates I would rather see in the running for president right now for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, I do not believe benevolence is the responsibility of the government; rather, it is the government's responsibility not to impede benevolence.

    On the last part of your comment: I'm not worried...there will never be a defensible evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. If only the "scientific" community would be honest.