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. ;)
A couple of months ago I read about spontaneous generation in my science. Sometimes it’s amazing how many mistakes good scientists make!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know! It’s weird that they thought eels could spawn for river ooze and stuff like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup… But it’s not just scientists… We all make mistakes, like all the people that believed in Spontaneous Generation way back when :).
LikeLike
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.
CutePolarBear
LikeLiked by 1 person
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 :).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I loved this! Creation vs. Evolution is one of my favorite subjects to debate on.
http://purrfectlyinspired.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
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) :).
LikeLike
Weird. Scientists…. sigh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ugh… I know right xD.
LikeLike
This was fabulous, Hayley! So amazing and true. :) I think I’ll reblog this sometime. :)
♥Megan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I nominated you for the quote of the day challenge!
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOREN!! LOREN YOU HAVE 120 FOLLOWEERRRSS! xD
♥Megan
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!! Yes!! You are so right, Allison!!
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
I hope we can collab again sometime, too. :)
Thanks! I’m excited to host the giveaway.
LikeLike
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!
<3Hope
allthingsdollcreations.blogspot.com
LikeLike
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 :).
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
This was really interesting! You did an awesome job, Hayley. ;)
YAY! CONGRATULATIONS ON 120 FOLLOWERS!!! :D
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Zielle!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome! :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Science is so unbelievable! It’s so full of holes … and everyone seems to believe it anyway! It’s like no one thinks for themselves anymore. :(
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Reveries and commented:
I know, I’ve been reblogging a lot recently. But everyone making such good posts … blame it on them, not me! XD
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on A Barefoot Gal and commented:
Hello everyone!
Today I have for you a post that has a very interesting essay written by Hayley and posted on Loren’s blog, then re-blogged by me. Quite confusing, right? Right. Anyway, I thought you might enjoy it! :D
LikeLike
Wow, people actually used to believe that stuff? It makes no sense… Scientists will always be wrong in one way or another, but the Bible will always remain true.
LikeLiked by 1 person