There is an attempt of late to save the crumbling faith of evolution by redefining it. One of these redefinitions is an attempt to claim that evolution is nothing more than the changing of alleles over time.

If we are clear about what it being spoken about in this redefinition, evolutionists have to deal with the fact that probability is against him. Of course, this has always been a problem; One of many.

In short and simple terms, if we want to deal with the transformation of a cell to a human body, the information that has to be assembled to properly sequence genes is mind boggling. Of course, evolutionists like to break the complexity down into really tiny steps to make it more manageable.

At first glance, this seems (feels) feasible but upon more critical inspection, we see a different story emerge.

In order to keep this simple, one of the (many) problems we come upon is that fact that human bodies have symmetry. We have two eyes. One is a mirror image of the other. How does evolution explain this?

Well, as one evolutionist on this forum attempted to explain, HOX is the answer. But HOX isn't the answer. We're talking about symmetry here, not repetition or specialization. So, what is the answer?

Is it possible through natural processes to form the left eye, then the right, then connect them to the brain through a nerve system, then set up a muscular system for movement and a skull system for support?

Is it possible through natural processes to do the same with each finger, toe, rib, muscle, connective tissue, etc., etc., etc.?

Here is the punch line.

Symmetry is a problem you cannot subdivide.

If you're doing something on the left side, you have to do it on the right as a mirror image. This type of a configuration requires something that cannot occur through natural processes:

Planning.

The fundamental problem still exists with evolution no matter how small you attempt to subdivide the problem. It's about the self-organization of information, which, of course, does not occur through natural processes. Instead, we know that information erodes into its simplest stable form.

So what is the answer?

Intelligence.

As I've stated all along, machines do not self assemble. Despite how widespread a faith is, a faith cannot be confirmed as true by the number of its members. But numbers do indeed make it feel more real, and deception always, at some stage in the process, appeals to emotion.

(How does evolution appeal to emotion? See the quote at the bottom of this post.)

Regardless of how "real" it feels, we cannot disregard these fundamental brick walls that prevent evolution from occurring.

When each of us reach a point that we are mature enough to put our own bias (feelings/emotions) aside, we have to face the fact that order demands intelligence; Human bodies cannot self assemble no matter how much time you give them.

One great irony here is that evolutionists often accuse creationists of doing the very thing they are doing.


Redefining Evolution

Do Amino Acids Self-Assemble Into Proteins?

Drama In the Rocks


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].