Being openly conservative on a liberal campus is a strange experience. On one hand, I have found that to my delight many people here are much more conservative then they realize. They go with the flow because it is popular, but in 10 years many will consider liberalism to be a college phase.
On the other hand, now it is tough to be a conservative. The most discouraging thing for me is that the university, the place that is supposed to be the center of open exchange in our society, is dominated by one point of view on everything.
Some right wing columns printed in The Signal do not create an equal open exchange when the majority of professors and the administration is hopelessly liberal.
If you don't believe me, start taking a poll of their beliefs on gay marriage or who they voted for in the last election. It will not be proportional to the general citizen body by any means.
Call this "one view" philosophy whatever you want, but if you contradict it in any way you will get one of three responses. You may get the shocked, "No, he couldn't be that ignorant! He's in college!," or the classic angry "You must be stupid to believe that!" or my personal favorite, the condescending "Well you can have your little beliefs, but don't talk about them here."
These are precisely the types of reactions one gets when they question the pseudo-scientific dogma of evolution.
Now before my many biology friends start foaming at the mouth, let me clarify what I mean.
It has been well-established that species make changes within their species through natural selection (microevolution); no one is disputing that. What I cannot accept scientifically or religiously is that all life on earth came to being on its own (macroevolution).
This planet is ridiculously complex. Every organism from the tiniest bacteria to the blue whale are made up of a multitude of elaborate bodily systems all working together.
Take the human brain, for example. The brain is insanely complex with trillions of nerve connections all firing at once. Your brain can take words and process them into mental images, works the heart and respiratory system without a conscious input and performs countless other functions.
This is one of only a dozen organs in the human body that all work together in almost perfect cohesion. Think for a moment back to biology class and recall the intricate, ordered functions of each cell or better yet each cell organelle. Now tell me all of this was formed by chance.
Forgive me if I find the idea of countless atoms colliding randomly with raw energy to form intricately ordered cells and even eventually an ordered structured human being a little difficult to believe.
Adding to my skepticism are several scientific laws that seem to fly in macroevolution's face.
All systems and organisms tend to go to disorder not order (entropy). The law of biogenetics states that non-living things cannot give birth to living things. Rocks nor floating particles of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen cannot make cells, or even under the right circumstances with manmade design.
Nevertheless, I think the most damning piece of evidence is the pure numerical probability against a random genesis. Proteins, the building blocks of life, have never been shown to form randomly, the chances of 20 amino acids forming randomly are 1 X 10 to the 40,000th power (one with 40,000 zeros after it).
Macroevolutionists counter these laws and statistics by referring to the age of the world and saying that over billions of years anything could happen.
However, they have pulled the proverbial wool over all of our eyes. There is no way to definitely prove how old the earth is. The best scientists can do is guess based upon half lives (decay rates) of elements and suppose how old the solar system is.
Furthermore, macroevolution cannot be repeated or observed by placing it outside of the scientific method it claims to spring from. Scientists cannot evolve things nor can we observe any substantive changes that cause organisms to change species. Any of the rare changes that we see in populations result from microevolution.
I could go on and on about the scientific hurdles macroevolution has to ignore to legitimate itself.
However, the sad truth is that few in the "recognized" scientific community question its validity despite the volumes of evidence written against it. Their life work depends on this theory being true.
If macroevolution were proven to be a fairytale tomorrow think of all of the biologists, anthropologists and evolutionists whose research would be useless. I suspect this is one of the motivations for the silence within the scientific community; they want and need it to be true.
Now we are left with a dilemma. If the objections of scientists are correct, evolution has deserted science and become the very thing I put my faith and trust in; a belief, or a religion if you will.
As we have seen, it does not need to answer to the scientific method or follow common sense logic. It just is. Currently, it is the unquestioned dogma over much of academia.
I see this theory also being used to assault God's place as Creator. Although evolutionary apologists like the Catholic Church try to say that we can reconcile God and macroevolution, I disagree. If evolution is true and we all evolved from particles randomly smashing into others, where is God in that equation?
Evolutionists hardly ever mention his name in their research, nor do biologists search for his contributions to the development of life.
If you write an evolution paper with God as the Creator, you will be laughed out of the Science Complex at the College.
My friends, you cannot check your beliefs at the door of the science building - that's not how a belief system works. You either believe it all of the time or not at all. Life was either created or randomly generated.
The entire argument comes down to this: were we intelligently designed by a loving Creator or did all life spontaneously evolve from rocks? You choose.
