Question

Isn’t homeschooling wonderful? You can inflict assign all manner of interesting things to your child. Take this week, for example. This week, Jake will be reading about Creationism. There are benefits to this way beyond a deepened understanding of evolutionary theory. He will gain a much better appreciation for logical thought, as well as practical experience recognizing and contending with flawed arguments.

I always research these things myself first. So tonight, I found this site, containing the gem:

The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our “post flood” brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand… Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change.

Question… How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years? (Don’t expect and answer from them.)

Title of this bit: “The Human brain proves Evolution a lie.”

If we ignore all the hocus pocus (pre-flood brains were what?) and grant the writer’s premise that ‘we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our “post flood” brains,’ this says far more about the redundancy of the human brain and nothing whatsoever about evolution. Nearly all of our organ systems have built-in redundancy. Skin and gastrointestinal tract lining constantly regenerates; we have far more liver, lung function, and kidney function that we could possibly need for our moment-to-moment existence. But that’s the point: we evolved so that we could last long enough to reproduce. Redundancy is a good thing — without it, an infant wouldn’t last 9 months, let alone 90 years.

Some folks argue that our longevity is a product of evolution, too. As a first approximation, we are useless once we’ve reproduced and then raised our children into their reproductive years. Let’s use Michelle Duggar as an example of the pinnacle of Darwinian success. I don’t know how old she was when she had her first, but she might have been 12. It’s possible. Allotting one child per annum, she would then be 30 at the birth of number 18. If number 18 is a girl (and I think she is), this daughter would hit her reproductive years by age 12. By this superficial “first approximation,” Michelle really doesn’t need to live much past the age of 42. Not unless she plans on having numbers nineteen and twenty, of course.

But you can make a strong argument that people should live longer than the minimum years necessary. Let’s remember what’s really important here: that your genes live on not just to the next generation, but to the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that . . . And what better way to insure the success of your genetic inheritance than to be physically present for its protection?

This should make the Creationists very happy: natural selection favors an extended nuclear family (assuming the elders of that family aren’t psychopaths who, through their nutso behavior, reduce their offspring’s reproductive success).

So we’re built to last, but by “built” I don’t mean “designed,” unless by “designed” you mean “produced by millions of years of evolution.” Because we certainly weren’t designed intelligently — but that’s a discussion for another day.

D.