Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
May the genuine theory win by craigthebrit May the genuine theory win by craigthebrit
About this debate over the teaching of evolution in schools. Just use your brains people. Evolution is a tried-and-tested theory that came about through observation and a spark of genius, while Intelligent (sic) Design/creationism is founded on an ancient book that has no more credence than any of the thousands of other religious texts this crazy species has produced.

Makes a good mousemat, it turns out...
Add a Comment:
PsychoGrandmaster Featured By Owner May 20, 2009  Hobbyist General Artist
Of course it does! I've seen all the proof I need! Java man, The Piltdown man, Nebraske man...
se1ene Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2009  Professional Photographer
featured your work here [link] hope you don't mind.

ps. love the description!
street-howitzer Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2008
Personally, I'm perfectly content with being a religious person who recognizes that evolution is a fact of human existence. The idea that humans evolved is not repugnant to my beliefs: in fact, it's something that makes perfect sense to my beliefs.

Otherwise, quite so. :clap:
mr-nightstone Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2007
Nice compositon, and I couldn't agree more :thumbsup: :+fav:
Paralyzinpower Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2007
Ok... after reading through all the comments... i am kinda wondering why everyone is getting so riled up.
craigthebrit Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2007
Me too... some people seem to think that evolution is controversial...
BooingBlue Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2007
Totally. ^_^
rushpoint Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2006
Very true. I'm a believer, hehe:)
AtheistsClub Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2006
Yep, makes sense.

But you have to admit, Kent Hovind makes some interesting points...

If Evolution is true, there is no Creator, so laws come from mans opinion. That is called a democracy, which is a terrible form of government. Democracies always degenerate into dictatorships. In America, it is sad to say, has become a democracy.

Source: Hovind 1999 Seminar

For more of Hovind's creativity you can check out kent-hovind. com. [link]


p.s. Your gallery totally sucks. That's why I'm adding this pic to our :+fav:. Because it totally sucks.
mr-nightstone Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2007
That's a really good quote! :D
craigthebrit Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2006
Thanks :D...

Yeah I hear Hovind is going down on charges of tax evasion...
AtheistsClub Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2006
Yes indeed. This past November 2 (2006), Kent and his wife Jo were convicted on no less than 58 federal charges, including tax evasion.

This web site has some fun facts about him. [link]
biodisk Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2006
my advice:

- stop spending time with bullshit (people here want to see art, not ignorance)

go back to school darling, i think you missed some classes...


p.s: your gallery sucks!
Inc- Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2006
All flame, no light.
craigthebrit Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2006
Well I don't know what school you went to, but in developed countries we teach evolution because it's based in fact rather than airy fairy stories about magical fairy angels, giants and mystical beings that don't ever present any evidence of their existence to anyone who doesn't live thousands of years ago when people thought the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe.

Theories, untested, unproved: Christianity, Buddhism, String Theory, Geocentrism. Evolution has a mountain of evidence behind it, even in the last few weeks they announced the discovery of a fossil human ancestor. Open your eyes.

It is art, and it happens to express a point of view. Deal with it - you'll see lots of religious imagery on deviantArt too.

p.s. find someone else who thinks so =p
Auraine2 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2006  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
If it makes so much sense why havent all the people got it? Oh wait, its because they are too religious to understand it right? I read Origin of Species and highlighted most of his personal opinions (most of the book) in regards to how natural selection works. If its so true then why arent any other monkeys evolving today into humans in that nice slow process? But the ultimate question would have to be why is an origin theory for life (Descent of Man) even discussed in science? thats all ill say on that, and basically just out of curiosity since you found it necessary to comment on my page. As for discussion of your picture I am guessing you made it just for proving some kind of point-and despite my disagreement with your comment spread over Darwin I do like black and whites-ive tried experimenting with b&w photography but am debating whether I want to post the results.
WerewolfOfTheWater Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009
"If its so true then why arent any other monkeys evolving today into humans in that nice slow process?"

Because that's not how evolution works, maybe you should read Origin of the species again.
Auraine2 Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2009  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
"Because that's not how evolution works, maybe you should read Origin of the species again."

Oh I've read it several times now, though not in the past year or so I'll admit. I've highlighted and notated many key things in the Origin of Species. The truth of the matter is, in terms of discussions of Evolution whether it be the chemical evolution (abiogenesis) or biological anthropology they all rely on said "Natural Selection" in which Darwin was so fond. In other words, Natural Selection started the process by which we began hypothesizing how matter came from nonmatter and how homo sapiens came from animals.

As are many theories in the scientific realm many of these theories tie in with one another, so pardon my simple generic response on the subject. Darwin himself did notate several things wrong or that could prove controversial to his suggestions, he mentioned them quite often in fact. He himself even stated that Natural Selection did not equate to absolute perfection.

"Natural selection will not necessarily produce absolute perfection; nor, as far as we can judge by our limited faculties, can absolute perfection be everywhere found." -Origin of Species, Bantom Classic Book 1999, pg 171.

However, there is a general idea that absolute perfection will at some point be reached as Natural Selection eliminates the weaker of genetics etc. Or in other words "Survival of the Fittest". Origin does, however, make it apparent that humans evolved from animals, on his discussions of animal-like nature of humans. Even Wikipedia details this. Descent of Man was more known for it, but it is hinted at within Origin. While I'm at it, lets not cut it short, let's not forget its "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Darwin's theory relied on using time as its basis, through massive amounts of time and natural selection modification would occur in species possibly for the better as Survival of the Fittest would rule out the weaker genes by simply those animals or the like that survived their environment. Survival, according to Darwin equated to an animal's fitness. This has all been tied in with biological anthropology, especially with Descent of Man.

"According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a populational phenomenon and should therefore be gradual and continuous. This should not only be true for microevolution but also for macroevolution and for the transition between the two. Alas, this seems to be in conflict with observation. Wherever we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. Among living taxa there is no intermediacy between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and either birds or mammals. All 30 phyla of animals are separated from each other by a gap." "What Evolution Is" Ernst Mayr-Basic Books 2001, Pg. 189

Also from the same page I'll take another quote from Mayr, "The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

This final quote I find most substantial, Darwin stated that while inconsistent the fossil record would through time prove his theory. Fossils, supposedly are evidence to the change in populations over time. This totally disregards the truth of a fossil, that is a fossil is something that died long ago and pretty much any assumption made to its past and or its predescors are simply that -assumption.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest are nothing more than tautologies, tautologies that have been used to base biological anthropology (evolution of mankind, biological matter etc) over the years. Still it remains, if natural selection in terms of evolution is true, and macroevolution as my anthropology professor so loved pounding in my head is so true, why must it take sooooo much time for evolution to occur? Is it simply because time is the only answer since we don't see any other animals evolving today?

At any rate, good day.
WerewolfOfTheWater Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2009
And actually, we DO observe evolution, unless you'd be content to use anti-biotics from 20 years ago.
WerewolfOfTheWater Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2009
"matter came from nonmatter and how homo sapiens came from animals"

Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with how "matter came from non-matter" and homo sapiens -are- animals. Abiogenesis is also not evolution, they are different subject matters.

"He himself even stated that Natural Selection did not equate to absolute perfection."

Evolution is not a religion, in other words, what Darwin says does not amount to facts about evolution simply because he said it. Darwin was merely the first one to propose the idea out into the public light. It doesn't mean he was right about everything and we always have to do everything Darwin says. Modern scientists now know more about evolution than Darwin ever did.

"Natural selection will not necessarily produce absolute perfection"

How does this mean that the theory isn't correct? All this means is that natural selection doesn't make perfect beings, which is correct. Or are you saying humans are perfect beings? Well, here's a secret: They're not.

Again, stop mistaking evolution for religion, unlike religion, evolution isn't obligated to create perfect animals.

"However, there is a general idea that absolute perfection will at some point be reached as Natural Selection eliminates the weaker of genetics etc."

No there isn't. This is a misconception generated by the general public, thus proving you don't really know much about evolution. It's impossible to obtain perfection because every environment is different. If you are apt to survive in the desert, you'd probably die if I threw you over in Antarctica.

"through massive amounts of time and natural selection modification would occur in species possibly for the better as Survival of the Fittest would rule out the weaker genes by simply those animals or the like that survived their environment."

Except you're not taking into account the fact that the Earth changes, and therefore so do environments. Therefore, when an environment changes, animals must adapt to conform to it. You're also not taking into account mutations.

"All 30 phyla of animals are separated from each other by a gap."

Everything is "seperated from each other by a gap." When an animal has offspring, no two of those offspring are the same barring identical twins. The "gap" that's being referred to is merely the line we've drawn for classification purposes. Technically, everything is a transitional form, just like you're a transitional person from your parents to your kids.

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly"

That doesn't mean they didn't evolve.

"are simply that -assumption."

No, it's not. We take the behavior of modern animals and then look at the structure and studies of fossils and then draw conclusions based on what evidence we have.

And furthermore, what is God, other than an assumption? Every time I hear an argument for god, it's an assumption. "We can't explain how this happened, therefore god did it" is more of an assumption than anything ever proposed by evolution.

"why must it take sooooo much time for evolution to occur?"

Because an animal can't just suddenly give birth to a new species, it takes time and small adaptations for them to eventually add up and become bigger changes. The reason why you don't see modern apes evolving into humans is because we didn't evolve from modern day apes. Humans and modern day apes merely share a common ancestor. Somewhere along the line, one species ends up in several different environments, and therefore those populations will adapt to different demands in their environment and eventually over time can become different species. It's really very simple and logically flows just fine if you just thought about it for 2 seconds.
craigthebrit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2006
Correct! The vast majority of people coming from a non-religious background accept evolution, and the only people who campaign against it do so not because it's some "shaky" theory, but because it doesn't fit with a fairy tale. Evolution is obserable, testable, it makes perfect sense and the evidence for it is all over our DNA!

This one's only B&W cos the original photo was, but I've used it a bit elsewhere too. Post away! :)
Auraine2 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2006  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh really, this is coming from someone who believes that we came from a microscopic organism over LOTS of time, because magically we were able to do that. Lets not forget that that microscopic organism just came about from an ocean that formed over millions of years of ice comets dropping 1 inch of water over the rocky crust of earth once every 20,000 years which had formed from meteoric iron crashing into earth and before that the earth was a ball of energy which had spun out from a dot the size of a trillionth of a diameter of a proton which the energy was just always there always existing. Whatever, I just heard this fairy tale in one of my lectures today and if you dont see FAITH in that and consider it science then you really have no comprehension of what science is or how it works. There cant be origin theories in science-why-you cant test it. But wait, everything is based on uniformitarianism right? Except for your BELIEF SYSTEM because we do not see other planets forming etc. An origin theory, which is what you believe in, cannot be science because it cannot be tested by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I mean really, apply science-actual science not this crap about well "DNA does this" and look at the science and you just might be able to see where your beloved theories are in flaw. They conflict with science itself. Actually, Evolution is not observable so dont lie (youd only be adding more torment in Hell if you do that) and if you actually believe it can be observable then go show me a human getting better as far as DNA goes. Mutations only do BAD things, do the research. BTW, when you read something you might want to try discerning from the person's opinion and the actual hardcore science otherwise youll be brainwashed like you already are. Another thing, if Evolution makes perfect sense then why are there so many flaws with it. Why are there mutations? (btw why is Turner Syndrome still around if nature chooses the fittest) Oh wait, survival of the fittest right? You cant determine who is fit or not. See, Im better than science than you but you might be better in say English than me. Does that make you more fit than me? No. Am I more fit than you? No. By the way, DNA is evidence for there having been two perfect human beings...why dont you take your blind fold off and look at the science rather than the opinions. Just a suggestion. As for Kent Hovind, why dont you debate him instead of me...oh thats right...he'd tear your argument to shreds in a second wheras I take my time and find all of your weaknesses and tendencies in your arguments (if you call them that).

As for the B&W, I find its cheaper photos....and since Im scraping pennies they seem to be a nice choice as well as a classic look.

Deo servatis tu.
rushpoint Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2006
You have to be a fake to think that crap you just spit all over us will have any affect on hard science, and plane fact.
I am sorry, I had to respond, you obviously spend way to much time at "answersingenesis."

Every single thing you just said is crap and I could disprove it all, but I don't think I will waste my time.
Auraine2 Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2006  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hard science equals actual observation. If you want to spit at me then take a look further than the page in a science book. Its something called common sense...but unfortunately we do not see that too often anymore. Back to least what I believe has some type of logical basis. Your "hard science" relies on assumption that a) the Big Bang happened because we assume it happened the way "Evolutionists" say it happened. I get the whole thing about the universe expanding..yea..dont have a problem with that...I do have a problem with thinking that because it is expanding at the rate it is now that it has always done so...which is what the calculations for the age of the universe is based on. Which oddly enough. ..just keeps changing all of the time..such as the age of the earth. I do believe I watched a show on the science channel just on evolution ..stating the earth is now 4.4 billion instead of 4.6 which was what has been taught for years. It just changes by the books I read too...amazing. :sarcasm:

B)...Evolution occurred because we see it in the fossils. Dont give me the crap about variation in kinds...variation in kinds does not equal animals changing from one kind to another which is the whole basis of Abiogenesis and Macroevolution. Fossils =dead animal...which means any assumption on what they were, when they were, and what they became can merely be assumption. It all comes down to the simple thing of you can't test origin theories. I may have belief in the Bible but Im not so arrogant to claim that an origin theory is pure science because science rests in observation and experimentation. You cannot experiment on or observe an origin theory because we are here now..not in the past.

Ive always wondered...which evolved first the brain or the heart? Scientifically evolution falls under because of the precision of the human body. Even down to DNA and RNA replication. Aside from organs such as the brain, heart, eye, etc. DNA and RNA replication alone are extremely unlikely to have occurred through Evolution because if one thing went wrong...which would have happened since Evolution is the cycle of continuous bettering of a species through survival of the fittest....then poof we would be jelly..not humans.

That's all Im going to say aside from 1)Its "plain" not "plane" a plane is mode of transportation..and or a device in something such as geometry. 2) I do like the answersingenesis site but rarely go to it or any creationist site for the most part. I mainly read books that discuss Evolution on of course the Evolutionists side that way I know what's being said. I even bought a book entitled "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism". For the most part I spend much of my time destroying Alliance in World of Warcraft or using that thing called my brain to speculate what Im taught because the education system in America is highly based in drill methods instead of instilling "i can think for myself" method (im in the education major myself).

Now as for the disproving ..have fun...most of what I said is hard core logic. And Ive had plenty a share of debates. Not to mention Im a Biology major so try if you wish. Honestly I think that little statement was a copout but if it wasn't i probably won't debate you anyway as a)you appear to be closed minded as it is (and I will say it is assumption...) b) I want to level my character. c) I don't enjoy smashing my beliefs down peoples throats so much as now I can take any frustrations I have with the "scientific theories" in question (how they became theories without actually abiding to the scientific method Ill never know)...out on Alliance members. c) You'd probably only copy/paste things from books or sites instead of any actual thoughts from yourself on the matter.

Nuff said. That's probably all I will say as I use this site as it was intended for from now
rushpoint Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2006
Hmm, I agree, no more common sense, it seems people today just believe what people tell them without any proof whatsoever.
First of all, Evolution has little to do with astrophysics or astronomy. You say that the numbers keep changing, well OF COURSE they do. As new information comes in, we change our view, that's the whole point! To not believe something because it's information changes to fit updated models is silly. You seem to have a problem with time scales so let me give you an analogy.
If you look at the universal time scale as a one year calender, from the moment time began (i.e. big bang) to present, humans will have evolved and existed in the last second of the last minute of the last hour of December 31. There are such massive timescales involved that no one can really comprehend it except with analogies like these.

You believe we are intelligently designed, correct? Let me tell you, there is so much evidence against this it's overwhelming. For instance, what about everything that seems "unintelligently" designed? The human body is astoundingly inefficient. We are still on our way, evolving into something else. And don't think what many religious people think about evolution and say that it's like a bomb going off and there being a building standing when the dust clears. That is obviously ridiculous. Evolution is quite the opposite. It is structures and planed within DNA to change over time. I wont go into it any more since you mentioned reading these types of books, though I doubt your comprehending them very well.
Most of what you said is far from hard-core logic. In fact, your arguments are laughable and frankly, I find it frightening that you claim to be a biology major.
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
December 23, 2005
Image Size
116 KB


8 (who?)