Dennis Campbell On Evolution | The Ashford Zone

I don’t know Dennis Campbell — I’ve never read him before — but I like him.

Another loony theory from the wonderland of evolution

Proponents of evolution remind me of the slightly dumb class clown who thinks people are laughing with him, while all the time they are snickering as he makes a goofy spectacle of himself.

Largely beside the point, but I think the class clown knows he’s making a goofy spectacle of himself. And is laughing along.

Since they hold a materialist view of the world, evolutionists must have a materialist answer for everything from lust to love. It quickly reaches absurdity.

For example, why are men — at least some men — attracted to women with slim waists and flaring hips? Well, because it indicates the ability to pop out babies. Preservation of the species, you know. Of course, that fails to explain why some prefer the emaciated runway model look.

Well, sure, Dennis. There are always outliers. In fact, that’s part and parcel of evolutionary theory.

Examples of this foolishness are endless. But recently, a theory to explain why the majority of the public rejects the theory of evolution exceeds any previous preposterousness by an order of magnitude.

Foolishness? Presposterousness? I think Dennis had his copy of Roget’s open when he wrote this.

Writing for TCS Daily (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122607B), Lee Harris comes to this conclusion: The unenlightened masses that find evolution an impossible pill to swallow reject it because apes and gorillas are loathsome to most people.

Yes, we just cannot abide the thought that our forebears were ugly, grunting, grub-eating hominids pooping in public and picking lice off one another.

No, you can’t. Going back to the Scopes trial, this has been one clear point of anti-evolutionsists.

Harris says the rejection of Darwinian babbling has nothing to do with the Bible and its story of creation. He writes: "The stumbling block to an acceptance of Darwin, I would like to submit, has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, but a whole lot to do with our intense visceral revulsion at monkeys and apes. This revulsion, while certainly not universal, is widely shared, and it is a psychological phenomenon that is completely independent of our ideas about the literal truth of the Bible."

Furthermore, says Harris, "This visceral revulsion against monkeys explains why so many people prefer to hold on to the far more flattering mythology of man’s creation as it was presented in Genesis. It is not Genesis that turns them against Darwin; it is Darwin that makes them turn to Genesis."

Is that so? Well, here is an alternative theory: People reject evolution because it fundamentally is an illogical — make that irrational — concept.

Okay, now the fun begins:

We are to believe that billions of years ago in the great nothingness the Big Bang spewed out an incomprehensibly large volume of matter. Somehow, the laws of nature just happened. Some matter became stars. Some, planets.

No, you’re right. Instead we are to believe that billions of years ago, an invisible magic person spewed out incomprehensibly large volumes of matter. Billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, and hundreds of billions of planets. And then, this magic invisible person concentrated on one single planet orbiting around a rather obscure star located on a rather obscure corner of a rather obscure galaxy.

Yeah, that’s far more logical and rational.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Yes, we know.

I would rather sandpaper a bobcat’s butt in a phone booth than completely jettison rational thinking….

You would — what? Well, ain’t that some downhome spun homily thar.

…which is what the cosmic leap of faith necessary to believe this fairy tale requires.

Right. Evolution, which is supported by things like fossils, and — oh, yeah, — human observation requires a "leap of faith". Religion on the other hand? Apparently not.

But it gets more absurd. After the requisite billions of years passed, a truly remarkable thing happened: A microscopic cell popped into existence. What caused it? Oh, just the random interplay of electricity and various chemicals, akin to the first microchip sprouting under a mushroom in Silicon Valley.

Uh, not quite. In fact, before the first cell, there were billions of years of chemicals combining to form compounds and isotopes amd molecules. Surely you believe in chemical reactions, don’t you, Dennis?

Not only did this cell survive, but it also managed to thrive. Somehow, it got nourishment from its soupy, primordial environment….

Somehow it got nourishment from its soupy primordial environment? That’s because it evolved from the soupy primordial environment. It’s kind of like wondering how it is that fish "somehow" became able to swim. They became that way because they evolved in watery environments. If a species of aniial evolved in water that wasn’t able to swim, then it would die off. This is what natural selection means.

…and then it "learned" how to multiply. How long did that take? A second? An hour? A million years? The latter seems improbable, because even the longest-lived creatures on Planet Earth live a few hundred years, at best.

Well, now we’re into serious nutjob logic here. Basically, Dennis is arguing that each advance in evolution cannot take place longer than the span of a generic creature’s lifetime.

I think I’ve identified the problem here. Apparently Dennis thinks that ONE cell was created from the primordial soup, which led to ONE fish, which led to ONE salamander, which led to ONE monkey which led to ONE man. Because he’s seen all those charts showing evolution, and there’s only one type of each species in the chain.

So, it must have been that this brand-new life almost immediately learned to multiply. Then, it "adapted" to its surroundings.

Kind of easy to reject evolution when you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Then…well, the story just gets loonier and loonier. To believe it one must function at a high order of gullibility.

Indeed. Unlike buying into Genesis?

Here are the facts: Human DNA is enormously complex, with 20,000 to 25,000 genes and three billion chemical base pairs. A cell is a veritable factory, with individual components performing myriad complex tasks.

DNA is computer code far more complex than anything mankind has developed. A computer program requires a programmer, and to conclude that what we see in life and the cosmos was designed, and thus requires a designer, is perfectly logical. This is what Intelligent Design postulates. ID is not creationism, that is, literally interpreting the Genesis creation account, as is dishonestly maintained by evolutionists.

It’s not logic; it’s giving in to ignorance. It’s scratching your idea and saying, "You know, this stuff is complex. Therefore, someone smarter than us must have been responsible for it. Therefore, ID."

The problem of course is that mankind has fallen for this before. Our pre-Christian ancestors did not understand the complexity of astronomy, so the stars were — to them — actual Gods riding chariots across the sky. Diseases were attributed to demons and other supernatural things, rather than viruses. Science led us to discover facts about these things — facts that even people like Dennis take for granted as true.

ID, however, is a conscious rejection of science in favor of ignorance.

As the human past has shown, just because something is complex and beyond our (or should I say, Dennis’s) understanding does not mean that there is a designer behind all creation.

What is not logical is to say that perfect order came unaided from utter chaos.

Ah, but where is the perfect order? Are trees perfectly symmetrical? (No.) Is the earth a perfect sphere? (No.) Where exactly is the "order" to ALL of creation?

There is order, I suppose, if you want to argue that creatures "fit" with their environment. The giraffe, one could argue, was "designed" by a "designer" to have a long neck because he eats the leaves from the tall trees. But evolution explains the giraffe’s long neck as well, and — more importantly — has scientific evidence to back it up, (i.e. fossils indicating giraffe-like creatures with shorter necks, okapis, etc.)

What is clear is that evolution is little more than a poor attempt to justify the rejection of God.

Even that is wrong. Evolution doesn’t reject God. It rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact, evolution might explain the process through which God created all (and if it does, then by rejecting evolution, you may be rejecting God, Dennis).

My rejection of evolution has everything to do with rational thinking and nothing to do with my supposed revulsion for apes and monkeys. In fact, I find chimpanzees and their cousins immensely amusing — almost as amusing as people like Lee Harris and his sublimely preposterous theory.

Yes, Dennis, I believe you. I think you do have a special fondness for monkeys…