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.

“Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology”

Hi – I’m reading “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” by J. P. Moreland and wanted to share this quote with you.

“Science cannot be practiced in thin air; it is based on many assumptions this, each with its challenges. And the business of stating, criticizing, and defending its assumptions is not scientific but philosophical. Just as the structure of a building cannot be more reliable than the foundation on which it rests, so the conclusions of science (i.e., the structure) cannot be more certain than the presuppositions of science (i.e., its foundation).”

The book can be purchased in Kindle form on Amazon.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad