So, Joey's brother, a recent guest on the BadChristian podcast, recently made a few statements that made him feel like a dumbass. We wanted to let him clear the air, so here he is!

Before you read, make sure to check out the episode here!

Feel free to skip ahead to 80:00 to get right to the controversy!

First, thank you to Joey, Matt and Toby for having me on their podcast.  I’m definitely a fan of their show and what they are doing.  Second, thank you to Joey, Matt and Toby for affording me this opportunity to redeem myself from what was truly “a deer in the headlights” moment for me when answering Toby’s question about my stance on the theory of evolution.

Regrettably, I was unable to give the kind of answer that question deserves, not to mention the kind of answer that I am capable of giving under normal circumstances.  Chalk it up to nerves, a social anxiety flare up, or being subjected to Joey’s fat stomach protruding over his belt and through his shirt—I choked.

So, when asked whether or not I agree with the theory of evolution, my response was blunt, dogmatic, and void of any rational defense.  After replaying the incident in my head over and over again, my fear was two-fold:  a) I had done great injustice to a position that has been labored over and developed by men and women far wiser than me, and b) it made me look like a complete douche who was simply parroting the favored position of American Evangelicalism, and who had never really taken the time to study both sides myself (a very egotistical concern, I know).  I was definitely giving tremendous credence to Matt’s stereotype of Christians not knowing shit about science.

The truth is I have studied both sides of the evolution/intelligent design debate.  I use the term intelligent design here because, contrary to what many atheists have to say, intelligent design is in fact a science that is founded on the same epistemology championed by Darwinists (empiricism), and uses the same scientific methodologies employed by scientists since Francis Bacon.  The key difference between the two systems of thought is metaphysical:  the atheists/neo-Darwinists presuppose a self-contained universe and materialism (matter and energy is all there is), while ID proponents presuppose that God could exist and that empirical analysis can be used to test for and provide evidence for his existence as the Intelligent Designer.

In addition, I clumsily failed to articulate precisely what it was I was objecting to.  I object to evolution, as it is conceptualized by our atheist/materialist friends:  the origin and subsequent development of a vast array of life forms from non-living substances (abiogenesis) through random, blind physical processes.  And while, as a Christian, I cannot preclude the possibility of theistic evolution (although I find the idea quite repugnant, but hey—God can create however He chooses to, who am I to critique?), make no mistake about it, materialistic evolution is wielded about as the atheist Excalibur that allows them to finally, rationally refute the necessity of a God; since there is no need for a creator, bye-bye God.

So, how did I come to this (controversial, laughable, absurd, correct <insert adjective of choice here> ) position? Since I have already been ridiculously verbose thus far, I will try to keep this short.  I will provide three reasons—reasons that I have found to be the most compelling, personally.

The Odds

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (through blind, random processes—my words) is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” –Fred Hoyle [decidedly NOT a bible thumping ignoramus, but an atheist that championed the idea of panspermia (look it up) to “fix” the theory of evolution given the shitty odds of it actually resulting in beings that could calculate such odds]

Using Hoyle’s analysis (I quickly found this on Wikipedia, but the topic is dealt more extensively in Dembski’s Intelligent Design), the probability of cellular life evolving is one in 10 raised to the 40,000th power or a 1 followed by 40,000 zeros.  Remember, there are only 10 raised to the power of 80 protons in the entire universe.  Furthermore, probabilities less than 1 in 1050 are considered mathematically impossible. And I have blind faith?

Irreducible Complexity

Darwinists believe that life evolves through chance mutations.  This idea relies on the notion that some mutations are beneficial and that, over time, a collection of such beneficial mutations can create a new, more complicated structure or system that will be passed on to other generations and will eventually become more complex/efficient through continuous tweaking by blind, random physical processes (like the eye).

Scientists like Michael Behe (check out his book Darwin’s Black Box for a technical treatment of this topic) have discovered, through careful empirical work, that cells are like highly complex factories that simply could not have developed through gradual processes.  It is only when the tiny, intricate parts are working together that the system becomes beneficial to the cell.  When each part is examined in isolation, there are no benefits; this compels us to question how did such efficient intricacy evolve through non-teleological (or not designed) means.  Remember, when Darwin came up with evolution, next to nothing was known about the cell.  Cells were assumed to be little more than tiny blobs of life.  We now know better.


As much as it has been attempted, life has NOT been produced in a laboratory from non-living material—despite the highly controlled, artificial conditions of lab settings that were probably not present on the young earth (as postulated by Darwinists).  And while Miller-Urey’s experiment did produce some amino acids, this is a far cry from life and its highly complex, information-rich data structures known as DNA.  Indeed, without abiogenesis, there can be no materialist evolution.  And since there isn’t any evidence that abiogenesis has occurred, a belief in it requires faith—a helluva lot more faith than I have.  I guess there’s always panspermia, but then you have the problem of infinite regress to deal with…

If you’ve made it this far, I hope that you have found these words to be thought provoking.  This has not been an attempt to pick a fight with anyone.  Simply put, I was merely trying to save face AND do a better job articulating a belief system that I find to be truly compelling.  Hopefully I accomplished these goals.  And for those readers in other belief systems (atheism, pantheism, Darwinism, etc.), I salute your tremendous faith and respect your worldviews—I know that a lot of intellectual labor has gone into developing them as has been done in mine.