From Smelly Socks to Evolution — Post Swap With Hayley

Hi! Hayley and I have been working on a post swap for awhile now. The idea was that we would each write an essay, send it to the other girl, and then post the essay we received on our blog. Hayley’s essay is about spontaneous generation, while mine is about the colossal squid (read it HERE, on Flourishing by Restful Falls).

Like I said, Hayley’s essay is about spontaneous generation, a false scientific theory. And, to be honest, I had no idea what spontaneous generation was until I read this!

From Smelly Socks to Evolution

This week in science I’m working with Chemistry. And you know? It’s really hard.

So I can’t even imagine being smart enough to not alone understand these things

but to discover them! One really smart chemist, named Robert Boyle, said

scientists should “give glory to the one who authored nature.” Wouldn’t it be great

if scientists in this age would believe this? In the end, only one source is 100%

reliable, and it’s not science, because science is limited, experiments might be

flawed, and when scientists want badly to believe their theories they push them

into areas where they have little or no knowledge.


Scientists don’t understand every detail of creation, so why do most people think

science is infallible? Scientists are limited; They’re real people, no super heroes,

and they definitely make mistakes. They’re human, so we can’t expect them to

know everything. (Did you know that the brilliant Albert Einstein occasionally

asked his wife for help with his math? It’s true.) Aristotle, for example, a

philosopher who lived in ancient Greece, made a pretty big mistake that scientists

believed for thousands of years. In fact, some people still believe it today. You see,

Aristotle observed one day that that maggots would appear on decaying meat that

had been sitting out for a couple of days. After the observation, Aristotle wrote a

hypothesis that stated living maggots can be formed from non-living meat. He

called his theory “spontaneous generation,” which means life can be formed from

non-living substances. He started noticing what he thought were examples of

spontaneous generation all around him. One example? Eels smell like the ooze you

would find at the bottom of the river, so they must have formed from the ooze.

Naturally, today, we think this is silly, but people actually believed it.


It turns out, people naively believed in spontaneous generation for more than 1,900

years, because all the experiments seemed to support it. But experiments might be

flawed. For example, a scientist in the mid 1600s named Jean Baptist van Helmont

“proved” spontaneous generation by placing a sweaty shirt in a closed wooden

box. Every time he performed the flawed experiment he would discover an

enterprising mouse gnawing out of the box around the 20th day. After a while,

everybody thought mice could spontaneously form out of a sweaty shirt. In fact, so

many experiments “proved” the theory that it became a scientific law. (Did you

read that? A scientific law stated that sweaty clothes give birth to mice.) Around

the same time, another scientist, Francesco Redi, decided to dispute the smelly

experiment, explaining that Helmont had no way of knowing if the mice had

gnawed into the box or out of it. When he wisely executed his own experiment, he

inserted meat into a sealed jar. No maggots appeared.


Once spontaneous generation was proven to be a flawed theory, many scientists

contended that maybe it was happening in microorganisms that no one could see.

But within just a few hundred years, thanks to powerful microscopes, scientists

observed the tiny things, and again, spontaneous generation was disproved. (Louis

Pasteur did that well, if you wanna learn more about his experiment, you should

Google it.) So then did science finally abandon the idea of spontaneous generation?

Surprisingly, they didn’t; man are these people stubborn! You see, today scientists

believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the idea that long ago very simple life forms

spontaneously appeared through chemical reactions. Do you see what they did

there? When Louis Pasteur demonstrated that microorganisms couldn’t just appear

in non-living substances, scientists argued that maybe some unknown life form

might have spontaneously generated from some unknown chemicals at some

unknown time long, long, long ago. So basically, the theory of evolution (which

requires a belief in abiogenesis) is the result of stubborn scientists holding onto the

idea of spontaneous generation long after it’s been disproven, by saying it

happened so long ago that no one can actually test the theory.


Do you still think scientists know everything? If so, you really haven’t been paying

attention. ‘Cause sometimes scientists (whom we rely on way too much) can be

really nonsensical. And let me tell you, there is only one person who we can put

our total trust in. It’s not a scientist or a human being at all. It’s God.


So this is my point: scientists are not all-knowing, their experiments aren’t always

infallible, and they thrust their ideas into an area where they have little or no

knowledge when they want people to trust them. So if you want to know the truth,

read the Bible. It will give you all the information you’d ever want to know. And

it’s all the truth. Every single word in the Bible is truth. If you wanna know how

the world began, read the Bible, because, although scientists are smart, they

weren’t there when the world was created—God was.


Hayley did a great job, didn’t she? That part about the eels was pretty unbelievable — which I guess is the point. ;)

Make sure to check out Hayley’s blog to read my essay about colossal squid!


P.S. I reached 120 followers! Yippee! Expect that book giveaway in the near future. ;)


32 thoughts on “From Smelly Socks to Evolution — Post Swap With Hayley

  1. CutePolarBear says:

    I agree with every word, Hayley! I honestly don’t understand why people (especially scientists) believe in Evolution. Same with Global Warming, or climate change.


    Liked by 1 person

    • Hayley says:

      Thank you!! Well… We’re sinful, that’s really the only way to explain it. And as sinners we’ll try anything to get God out of the picture, it’s very sad. But, as christians, should be praying that peoples eyes will be opened to the turn. Thats the best thing that we can do :).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hayley says:

      Thank you!! The debates between Creation vs. Evolution is one of those things that will never have an end. But I do enjoy reading peoples stands on it (no matter what side their on) :).


  2. Allison says:

    This was really interesting, Hayley! I know, isn’t it weird to realize all of the things people thought were true a long time ago? Yes, it’s SO true that we are fallible and God is not. No matter what science says, what God says is always the best way to go. Great job with your essay!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Hayley says:

    Yay! Thanks for doing this with me–it was really fun :). I hope I get the honor of working with you in the future! YAY FOR 120 FOLLOWERS!


  4. HopeHarman says:

    Great essay! I enjoyed reading it! We learned about spontaneous generation in our history class. It is pretty interesting how they actually believed it back then. They didn’t have the technology that we do today though!



    • Hayley says:

      Thank you!! I’m glad you enjoyed it :). Actually, people still believe it (evolution), but they’ve changed it to be too far back int history for us to know anything about it… Like I said in the essay :).

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Ellie @ On the Other Side of Reality says:

    Actually, evolution isn’t such a willy-nilly theory as you seem to think it is. Although it may not be possible to prove what “lit the fuse”, so to say, or set off the beginning of life on earth/evolution, it is extremely possible to prove that evolution is going on in the world around us. And not through these “flawed” experiments, as you say, but simply observing nature!
    Evolution is the result of natural selection. What is natural selection? Well, it’s basically the concept that organisms whose traits are better suited to their environment will survive better than those who have traits that are ill-suited for their environment. Ex: say there are two types of beetles who live in a canyon composed primarily of black rock. Some beetles have a white shell, and some beetles have a black shell. As birds they prey on these beetles are flying above, looking for a snack, which beetles are they more likely to see? The white beetles, of course! The black beetles will blend in against the rock and avoid notice by the birds, and the white beetles will be snatched up and eaten. Hence, the surviving population that will live to reproduce will be composed primarily of black beetles, and so the majority of the next generation of beetles will be black. And so on and so on and so on. //This// is evolution – when organisms who are not suited well to their environment naturally die out of the population, leaving those better suited for survival to continue the species. An excellent modern-day example of this is the rising issue of medicine-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics that formerly were able to treat bacteria in your body that cause sickness are seeing decreasing amounts of positive results, for the simple fact that the antibiotics went in and killed all the bacteria who were susceptible to them, leaving only those with a mutation that caused them to be immune. Those bacteria who had the immunity mutation were the only ones to survive and multiply, hence the next generations of bacteria were made increasingly up of antibiotic-resistant individuals, causing the antibiotics to be less and less effective. It would be very hard, I think, for someone who does not believe in evolution to explain this!
    So to conclude, yes – although spontaneous generation certainly does not exist and scientists are by no means infallible, there is still inescapable evidence that they are right about many things, evolution among them.

    Ellie | On the Other Side of Reality

    Liked by 1 person

    • Loren says:

      Hayley wrote this essay from a Christian standpoint, so she believes that God created the world and everything in it.

      Your examples about the beetles (survival of the fittest) and bacteria (mutation) actually make sense. It’s the evolution theory that humans evolved from apes that I have a hard time believing.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Liam Siegler says:

      Hey Ellie,

      I’d just like to say, no creationist and myself included, ever deny that the “evolution” you explained above is never happening. You just described natural selection, which I do believe to be true. However, natural selection is not the evolution I think you are referring to. Evolution is the addition of new information or in other words, the evolving from one species to a new species, such as (some) Monkey’s evolving to man for instance. This change is /not/ what you described. What you described was adaption and variation. Adaptation is where a species adapts to its environment with /already existing information/ or is effecting by survival of the fittest; variation is when a species changes based on /already existing information/. Some refer to this as “micro evolution” which I think is misleading since /its not evolution at all/.

      Evolutionists are hard pressed for any evidence regarding evolution with increasing of information.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ellie @ On the Other Side of Reality says:

        Loren – Obviously, although many of those who believe in evolution are atheists or agnostics, there are a fair amount of people who believe in evolution AND believe that God created the world – that he is the one who “lit the fuse” that started evolution and life, so to say. My biology teacher is one of these people – I go to a Christian school, and he’s a very devout Christian, but he firmly believes in evolution. So although I’m obviously not saying that this is what you, Hayley, or anyone else has to believe, I am saying that evolution and belief in God are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

        Liam – Casual friendly reminder that the scientific community does not propose that humans are descended from monkeys. We are simply cousins on a family tree, descended from a common ancestor – like dachshunds are not descended from retrievers, but they have a common ancestor, the wolf.
        Going back to the dog example, the “addition of new information” you’re referring to is two things:
        A) the increasing presence of a certain trait in a population to the point where the less-prominent trait dies out, therefore making it appear like new traits were introduced, when really existing traits were simply modified and sorted through over a period of time.
        B) The mutation of genes. This is a mistake that can sometimes happen when genes are copied when making a baby. Each cell needs to have its own copy of the genetic information contained in your chromosomes, so that it can divide itself to create more cells so you can grow! And all these new cells must have the correct genetic information, so every single cell in your body has a copy of your DNA/genes, or “instructions” on how to make the correct cell with your unique traits. (Ex. all the cells in your irises have the instructions to be blue, brown, or whatever color your eyes are. Otherwise, your eyes would be spotted different colors!) Sometimes, when copying over the genetic material, a mistake can be made which results in a mutation, or a hitherto unseen trait in your body. This is how people can get diseases such as Huntington’s or hemophilia without either parents having the disease or being carriers – a mistake is made when gene material is being copied from cell to cell, and the cell with those “mistakes” in their instructions will pass those mistakes onto the cells that come from them. However, some mutations can be good – like lactose tolerance. People from Europe and parts of Africa tend to have a higher tolerance for milk and dairy products, because their ancestors herded cows and drank their milk to help survive, so those who had a genetic mutation that coded for lactose tolerance generally survived better and reproduced more in the population. (Humans are actually all “supposed” to be lactose-intolerant; there’s a little “switch” in your body that is supposed to switch off tolerance for milk around age 8-14, once you’ve been past breast feeding for a while. However, those with lactose tolerance have a mutation that causes that switch to stay on, enabling you to consume milk into and through adulthood.) These “additions of new traits” you are referring to are partially a result of mutations such as this.
        Also – I don’t think many people realize this, but according to evolution the common ancestor of chimps and humans – let’s call them X – didn’t spontaneously give birth to a bunch of chimps and then spontaneously give birth to a bunch of humans. Through natural selection, humans gradually diverged from chimps, with the added prevalence of already present traits and many mutations, until we were so different we qualified as separate species – a process that took millions of years. It’s like if you have two cousins who look the same at birth, but throughout their life they gradually develop to look much different. One cousin did not give birth to the other, and they are totally different people, with unique appearances and interests – but they still share a ton of genetic material and come from the same family.
        Finally – the definition of natural selection is “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring”. The definition of evolution is ” change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift” So you see, if you believe in natural selection and mutations, you therefore believe in evolution to at least a degree.

        Ellie | On the Other Side of Reality


What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s