Interesting Article about Darwin’s Folly
There is an interesting article that details how science has proved some of the earlier evolution models faulty. This story focuses on Darwin’s idea of the “Tree of Life.” Allow me to share one paragraph:
The neat picture of a branching tree is further blurred by a process called endosymbiosis. Early on in their evolution, eukaryotes are thought to have engulfed two free-living prokaryotes. One of these gave rise to the cellular power generators called mitochondria while the other was the precursor of the chloroplasts, in which photosynthesis takes place. These “endosymbionts” later transferred large chunks of their genomes into those of their eukaryote hosts, creating hybrid genomes. As if that weren’t complicated enough, some early eukaryotic lineages apparently swallowed one another and amalgamated their genomes, creating yet another layer of horizontal transfer (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol, 23, p 268).
This is why I believe in God.
That’s an awful lot to swallow. Their theory seems like a Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex Deus ex machina to me. The coincidences seem to engulf one another and built upon one another until the whole concept taxes one’s credulity. I suppose you have to be a true believer when first you approach a theory like this if there is any hope of wholesale adoption.
The kicker, of course, is the final sentence of the article in which Eric Bapteste, a scientist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, says, “The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.”
It was helpful to be led down a dead-end path for nearly two centuries? In an academic sense, I suppose it could have been a useful exercise for scientists to hone their argumentation skills, building the strongest case they could from the evidence they could uncover. But, in the end, the evidence they produced has apparently been rent asunder, rendered completely useless.
Meanwhile, after four millenia of intense scrutiny, Yahweh still is. The further revelations that God is Trinity has withstood the battering of two thousand years’ worth of inquiry. Leaving Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as constant and immutable as the day Man discovered the nature of their God. All the while science has “progressed,” reversed its conclusions, and reinvented itself when, time after time, the latest theory is decimated by a johnny-come-lately claimant to the throne of scientific consensus.
Of course, it seems to be the vogue thing to worship Change. After all, it is something one can believe in. No matter how far-fetched.

