Sunday, November 04, 2012

Columnist – Fully Evolved or…?

In an Op-Ed piece in the Lexington Herald-Leader of 03 November, Roger Guffey, a retired math teacher, took to task Georgia Congressman Paul Proun, a physician, account Proun’s dissing of human evolution. One supposes Proun has studied the human body about as well as Guffey but is the object of the predictable sarcasm accorded by the elitist evolutionists to those daring to disagree. In this case, Guffey is glad Proun is not from Kentucky, where, presumably, Guffey thinks idiots are expected to live…maybe not having evolved as fast as others from the…say, Neanderthal stage.

Guffey asks a series of questions which he seems to believe science incontrovertibly endorses as answers, therefore facts. Guffey asks why animals are tortured (his take on experiments) in order to find cures for human ailments, if evolution does not rule. The best answer might be another question, to wit, why haven’t animals tortured humans to find cures for their ills. The reason is obvious but anathema to the evolutionist or the politically correct, to whom the god of diversity mandates animals and humans to be on the same level.

Guffey asks why hemoglobins of humans and chimpanzees are “almost identical” but “very different” from those of dogs. He didn’t answer that but seems to mean that humans and chimps have evolved (didn’t say in which direction) while dogs haven’t, but doesn’t the true evolutionist believe that EVERYTHING evolved from a one-cell something? Humans and chickens have two lower limbs (almost identical?) but both are “very different” from snails. So what!

Guffey implies that snake venom is processed for injections to save humans bitten by snakes. Conclusion: Snakes and humans are in the same evolutionary chain? That might be news to most “evolution” anthropologists. His reasoning seems to be that all things share “some underlying physiological principles.” Well, of course! Physiological is defined as: “characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning.” One hopes for healthy snakes and healthy humans no matter their origins. Who wants venom from an unhealthy snake?

Guffey mentions that pig heart-valves are successfully implanted in humans, thus establishing pigs somewhere in the chain. He didn’t say where. Plastic valves are also implanted in human hearts and they work fine. Is that because of the physiological attributes of the plastic, which is not a living organism at all? Among other components, plastic is made up of resins that come naturally from trees. Does that establish an evolutionary connection between human tissue and pine bark?

Guffey mentions that some babies are “occasionally” born with tails as extensions of the tailbone (human, presumably), implying the evolutionary connection between humans and apes. Some babies are born with Downs Syndrome or without limbs or an extra kidney or blind or as homosexuals, at least according to some regarding the latter. Exactly how do those “accidents of birth” fit into the evolutionary process?

Guffey’s shtick, of course, is that the actual explanation of the universe and everything in it is or will be found in science. He also mentions the Big Bang theory of beginnings, for instance, as characterized by Proun as a “lie.” There’s no argument here with science, by using which great discoveries are made every day that eventuate in a constantly improving standard of living.

Guffey’s actual, predictable hang-up with Proun, however, derives from religion, in which millions of people find their own answers as to the beginnings of and the consequent course of nature, including people, something those who actually have no explanation for the beginnings (scientists like Guffey) resent anyone else having. God can’t be seen, weighed, has no atomic number and therefore can’t exist, or at least can’t create anything.

On this “religious” note, Guffey ends his article, stating dogmatically that Proun “clearly feels comfortable citing Biblical verses that support his view of the world.” Problem: Guffey didn’t cite a single verse he accused Proun of citing, unusual for a scientist, whose mantra is “facts developed through research.”

Guffey’s final shot at Proun notes that Proun has been married four times and wonders if Proun “is as comfortable citing the verses on divorce” or just cherry-picks passages attracting voters. Is as comfortable as what? Well…as comfortable as citing the verses Guffey cited that Proun cited, which, of course, was none. And this is a treatise by a scientist?

Religionists claim that man was created by God essentially as is, has evolved from nothing, has been changed only slightly by his environment, and possesses a soul, another thing that can’t even be found, like a liver or a spleen, so for the math teacher it can’t exist; otherwise, it would surely have appeared in the evolutionary timeline by now.

By the way, one wonders what sort of creature Guffey, as part of the “chain,” is evolving into right now.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Muckraker identifies Guffey's goof as an unquestionable (by others) trust in "science" (whatever the definition - materialistic). This reveals an indefensible presupposition that Guffey and all of his ilk depend on, even if not expressed like this: "There IS no metaphysic." This is non sense, however (and I'm not being mirthful or claiming their insanity). It is non sense because this presupposition is inherently self-contradictory. "There is no metaphysic" is a metaphysical claim. Just as "There is no absolute truth" is a truth claim - self-contradictory; non sense. Until such presupp's are dealt with, further dialogue always descends into nonsense - mostly name calling.