Darwinian Evolution Is It True?

Darwinian Evolution Is It True?

Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than evidence[i]. The story is told, and the facts are made to fit the story. No one has ever been able to tell the story better than Charles Darwin. He truly had a great imagination and a skillful pen. He even admitted that his theory didn’t have any scientific evidence. Yet, the scientific community gobbled it up like little children listening to a fairytale.

The reason for his great acceptance among scientists was that science needs an explanation based on a materialistic world view. A worldview that leaves the deity out of its creation story. Darwin’s theory of evolution provided a new creation myth. The theory came more out of necessity then it did research and observation. Of course, any thinking person understands that no one can observe the kind of Evolution that Darwin wrote about for such observation would require one to observe something coming from nothing and changing into something else. Until these observations are made evolution will remain a theory and not a fact.

I have a book in my office written by a Harvard professor[ii] which attempts to answer the question, is the theory of evolution a social construct. In the first few chapters, I thought that he was actually going to charge the theory with being a social construct. However, in the last few chapters he saved his academic credentials by proclaiming it a fact. His evidence was a study done on fruit flies where it was observed that the fruit flies changed from having two wings to four wings and had different shaped eyes. He didn’t seem to notice the problem with his conclusion. The problem is that at the end of the experiment the fruit flies were still fruit flies. Fruit flies with too many wings and too many eyes. Yes, the scientist witnesses a change, but the problem is that the Darwinian evolution requires much more than a change in a species.  It requires not only a change in species but also family and other taxonomic categories as well. It requires that something changes into something else.

The truth seems to be that we don’t know much about the history of the earth or of life. Henry Gee[iii] in his book “Deep Time”. Points out just how ignorant we are of the past and shows that anyone should think twice about making grandiose statements about ancient history, which science is continuously doing and constantly changing.

Why do people believe in evolution? Simply because they have been taught to and they have nothing else to believe in. All societies have a creation myth which seems to indicate that human beings need an explanation for their origin. The evidence of this can be seen in the fact that there are fewer people that claim to be agnostics, than those that claim to be atheists.  Though agnostic is a superior view than atheism it lacks the scientific myth of evolution to support it. The scientific materialist or atheist community needed a myth to match their unbelief. Darwin was the mythmaker that provided them with a myth that they could dress up as science.

I personally find Darwin’s theory of evolution and the worldview that it created interesting and challenging but not compelling any more than I do the fundamentalist view of creation. However, the evolutionist which believes that evolution is the theory of everything is a greater error then the fundamentalist. My advice to them is to get over their ignorance and watch their dogma

[i] The story has been told so often that many people accept it as fact. When in actuality there is little evidence to support it.

[ii] “Mystery of Mysteries” with a subtitle Is Evolution A Social Construction? By Michael Ruse.

[iii] Deep Time by Henry Gee. At the writing of the book, Henry Gee was a Senior Editor at Nature with a Ph.D. from ‘Cambridge in Zoology.

Deep Time and Evolution

Deep Time and Evolution

Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch closer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else.[1] But this is exactly what some atheists attempt to do.[2]  They think they have explained existence by explaining evolution in some kind of narrative form. However, they have a number of large problems. (1) They must first prove that evolution is a science. That is if you believe that science is made up of knowledge that follows what is known as the scientific method[3]……….(2). let’s assume that you prove that evolution is a science. Then you  must prove one theory of evolution.[4] That is, you must prove that evolution is non-dirtected from outside of nature.(3) Then after proving 1 and 2 you must show how evolution of any kind proves that there is no God. In actuality, if you prove one and two all you have proven is that you have the ability to explain how something changed into something else. This may prove that you are intelligent and maybe that you have kissed the Blainey stone and that you are a great storyteller, but it proves nothing else.  An explanation that can never be proven by the scientific method is not science in the literal sense of the word.  Moreover, after all that work you still are not even close to explaining how something came from nothing.

In 2000 Henry Gee[5] who was the Senior Editor of Nature published his book “Deep Time” which was somewhat ignored by the scientific community and especially evolutionist. In the book he maintains that span of time in which evolution took place makes it almost if not impossible to have any rational conclusions about the fossil record. In speaking about the two conflicting views of evolution progressive and non-direct he says the following: “The failure of both use of evolution rest, once again, on the failure to understand that deep time cannot sustain scenarios based on narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is central to my argument. Next time you see a fossil ask yourself whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it could be your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then is futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not science.” Page 114 of Deep Time.

[1] G.K. Chesterton

[2] A few atheist in recent time have attempted to explain how something could come from nothing. However, a close reading at their books always end up pointing to a cause that is something.

[3] “There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon—in this case, Evolution—as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no. In other words, there was no scientific way to test it. Like every other cosmogony, it was a serious and sincere story meant to satisfy man’s endless curiosity about where he came from and how he came to be so different from the animals around him. But it was still a story. It was not evidence. In short, it was sincere, but sheer, literature.” “The Kingdom of Speech” by Tom Wolfe.

[4] The two main theories of evolution. There is Darwin’s that espouses random undirected evolution and there is the progressive that believes that there is a built in progressive element that improves and directs the species.

[5] Gee joined Nature as a reporter in 1987 and is now Senior Editor, Biological Sciences. He has published a number of books, including  In Search of Deep Time (1999),A Field Guide to Dinosaurs  (2003) and Jacob’s Ladder (2004).