STONEHENGE IS AN ACCIDENT

C DeSalvo

Stonehenge is a “simple” arrangement of between fifty and one hundred large stones in a field in Southern England. Most scientists believe Stonehenge was designed and built by intelligent beings. But appearances often can be deceiving. I contend that Stonehenge was not designed but is the result of natural forces acting over many centuries of time.

Stonehenge happened when several dozens of large, local and foreign stones were accidentally collected together by earth movements, storms, glaciers, earthquakes and other natural events. Weathering by rain, rivers, sand beds and ocean waves gradually shaped the stones into elongated forms. Natural forces slowly caused many of the stones to become buried in an alluvial deposit such that some stones were arranged vertically and in a large circle. Other stones came to rest horizontally upon the tops of pairs of the vertical stones. As time passed, the horizontal and vertical stones were rubbed together by the back and forth motion of damp or wet alluvial material that supported them, and those motions naturally created the mortice and tenon features that tightly position together the horizontal and vertical stones.

As more time passed, plate tectonics and other earth movements gradually lifted the alluvial deposit above water level and rains slowly washed away the soil, sand and gravel surrounding the large stones until the upright stones were partially exposed with the horizontal stones remaining across their tops. And that's how nature did it.

Can anyone prove beyond doubt with direct evidence that my analysis is wrong? Absolutely not. Can scientists prove with direct evidence that humans built Stonehenge? Absolutely not. Their primary argument favoring design is the precise circular positioning of the vertical stones and the horizontal stones. Furthermore, scientists argue that the crude grooves and ridges (mortices and tenons) are not likely to have been made by natural forces. In opposition I suggest that there is no direct proof that their speculations are any better justified than mine. And I further contend that many other constructions similar but likely more simple than Stonehenge exist buried in alluvial deposits all over the earth. In time those “missing links” will be discovered and prove that I am correct; Stonehenge is the result of a long series of favorable, simple, natural accidents. There was no design.

Let me now abandon theoretical, speculative, possibly sarcastic text and move closer to rationality.

We must admit that Stonehenge is a ridiculously simple construction, of miniscule complexity compared to a single-celled life form. And Stonehenge has practically zero complexity when compared to the still not fully understood complexity of a living human – a multi-cellular construction that is alive, can eat food, extract materials for its growth, can think, move, heal wounds, reproduce itself, etc. The number of parts and functions performed by a human body makes Stonehenge look like a bunch of pebbles in a child’s sandbox.

So why do scientists insist that Stonehenge is too complex to have been formed by natural means, while one cell, the DNA language, the mammalian blood clotting system, eyes, brains and even an entire human being, all fantastically more complex than Stonehenge, were formed, they insist, by natural means!

Could it be that their biased worldviews are clouding their analyses? Could it be that Stonehenge’s design has no impact on their distaste for religious restrictions on behavior, so attributing Stonehenge to intelligence is easily acceptable to atheists. But the notion that humans were designed crushes the theory of evolution, the keystone of atheism, and that is intolerable to atheists.