The other day, I was thinking about a certain cell phone game that many of you know and love. Angry Birds is the name, and playing it is “my game,” is suppose you could say. Triple-star high-scores on every level . . . not to brag or anything.
Anyway, as I was pondering some of the challenges in the game, I was reminded about just how precise (some might say lucky) you have to be to get that much coveted triple-star rating. I’m not sure how I tied it into the whole issue of evolutionary theory, but I considered that many use this same reasoning for evolution. Eventually you’ll get to that desired end, given enough time (or enough pulls of the rubber band. Wow, I thought, How could Angry Birds be evidence for evolution?
Then I thought a little bit harder. This is often the solution to such problems. Everything that happens in Angry Birds is guided by a program, a code in the game. For instance, you can’t shoot more than one bird at once, you can’t use powers of a different bird whenever you want; you must stick to the parameters set by the code.
How does this relate to the issue? Well, in the world we see today, there are parameters represented by scientific and/or natural laws. Thus, evolutionary processes must obey these laws. This is the set of rules evolution must abide by. Therefore, if evolutionary theory cannot perform according to the natural laws we see today, it should be discarded as a theory, only to be accepted by the radical. Is that not what the scientific community would do with any other theory? I personally think that evolution doesn’t even pass the genetics test, but it’s up for you to decide what the truth is.