Friday, January 2, 2009

I finished reading Peeps tonight. It did keep me turning pages until the end, but I was feeling quite run-down by the references to evolution on every single page. Granted, the story itself wouldn't have worked very well had it not been based on that theory, but come on. I did have to chuckle when I hit a particular sentence in the next-to-last chapter: "This was why peeps had been created." Interesting that through the entire book, evolution is given credit for everything, and then he makes the statement that the parasite had been "created."

OK, I get that the dude is not actually a scientist, that this is a novel and all. But in every book I've ever read on evolution--that is, books written from an evolutionary standpoint--at some point the author says something about traits or organisms being created or designed. They always "slip" somewhere along the line. Even the king of evolutionists, the man himself, Richard Dawkins, does this. In his preface, no less, in The Blind Watchmaker. Here are his words:

"It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe."

I'm wondering, what evolutionary benefit would that provide? (Ironic, eh, Dr. D, that humans would evolve to want to believe in God and find it hard to swallow a life of meaninglessness and no afterlife? Yet, you as an evolutionist find it hard to swallow the existence of God, even though He created you.)

I could go on for hours listing examples of evolutionists, expecially Dawkins, referring to design in nature. Maybe I'll add a quote to each of my postings. Or, maybe I'll start a series dissecting The Blind Watchmaker. That would be big fun!

I know, I know, technically I should be keeping my posts relevant to writing. But, hey, The Blind Watchmaker is, actually, a book :). Maybe I can find a way of looking at it all from the standpoint of a writer--I mean there are scientists--great ones--all over the place who dispute Dawkins succesfully in the science realm. (If you'd like to find out more about them, visit, or read Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, and then check the bibliography for names like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells.)

So, this at least gives me something to think about.

No comments: