I marvel at evolutionists in one thing – they stick to their fantasy in the face of ridiculous improbability, lack of evidence, and considerable countervailing evidence. As a Christian, I have plenty of spiritual, faith-based, cultural, and scientific reasons to discount evolution. Evolutionists, however, love the assumption, admire the assertion, and are singularly devoted to name-calling. I despise their tactics. Shouldn’t evolutionists be eager to examine their “theory” according to principles of logic, mathematics, and scientific methodologies? Shouldn’t they be honest about the implications of their worldview for the conduct of one’s life? How about implications for society, politics, education, commerce, and morality? Also, what’s the point of life if death ends it all? At least face up to the implications if you’re going to believe the impossible!
Evolution does not warrant the term “theory.” American school children are taught that the scientific method includes at least the following key elements:
1. Observation – What phenomena are occurring in nature?
2. Analysis – Are there patterns and can they be quantified?
3. Hypothesis – A preliminary explanation that fits the facts is constructed that can be tested. Alternative hypotheses are desirable, just as alternative designs in engineering are useful for comparison.
4. Testing and Experiment – Experiments must be constructed that can validate the hypothesis. The experiments also must also allow for data to show that the hypothesis is false. A hypothesis that is not “falsifiable” has no scientific predictive value.
5. Theory – A hypothesis that stands up to experiment under a multitude of conditions can attain the status of theory.
Even evolutionists admit that the subject of origins is not subject to real-time observation and analysis. At best, the topic is akin to detective work – which includes techniques of forensic science to attempt interpretation of whatever residual effects are left behind from previous events.
Evolutionists are wholly devoted to materialism — insisting that all of nature and its history are entirely explainable through natural forces, operating on natural resources, that can be observed in the universe today. They are not devoted to truth regarding origins. You see . . . truth might just require some supernatural component. Evolutionists define “science” to be totally divorced from God and the supernatural. This would be a shocking point of view to the God-loving scientists of previous centuries who were eager to learn of God’s brilliant creative powers. But this century has seen a perversion of man’s views on nature.
Regarding origins as “detective work” — Imagine a pair of police detectives who are committed to a philosophy of “accidentalism.” Joe Bob and Bubba cannot conceive that a death could be caused willfully by an acting, intelligent human being. They are confident that all sudden deaths can be explained by accidental causes.
One day, Joe Bob and Bubba are called in to investigate a particularly vexing case. A young man is found dead in his kitchen. Evidently, death was caused by several gunshot and knife wounds, with bullet entries at several different angles. A novice policeman at the scene suggests to our heroes that someone must have brutally murdered the victim. But Joe Bob and Bubba scoff at such a suggestion. They quickly develop a “theory” as follows:
“A loaded handgun must have been precariously perched atop a kitchen cabinet. An earth tremor caused the gun to fall to a counter top, resulting in the first gunshot, with the victim unluckily in the line of fire. The recoil kicked the gun against a dish drainer, causing several knives to fly (unfortunately) in the direction of the victim’s abdomen. The gun continued to bounce around the counter and to the floor due to the mechanical energy imparted by the recoil, with gunshots resulting from each collision with a new surface. Amazingly, most of the shots found their way into the victim. It is undetermined what became of the gun and knives — that is a bit of a mystery — but we are confident that further research will settle that issue.”
If the detectives are committed to accidentalism, they will not fail to generate “theories,” no matter how unreasonable. Similarly, those committed to materialism will never be deterred by reason or data from developing materialistic explanations for origins.
A U. of California, Irvine, geneticist, Francisco Ayala, said that the continued debate about creation and evolution was making the United States a laughing stock in the world. “If we don’t teach our kids good science, they will be handicapped later in a world that depends on science and technology. I am disturbed at this political trend. It is potentially terribly damaging to our children,” he proclaimed.
But is evolution really a science akin to physics and chemistry? Is it a science that forms the basis of significant fields useful to society like Electrical Engineering? If it is a science then it must be subject to rigid mathematical analysis and painstaking reviews of evidence and logic. Evolution fails miserably, however, in any honest attempt to equate itself to the established sciences. Many biologists like to say that evolution is the foundation of their science. But thousands of research papers on the form, function, biochemistry, physiology, reproduction, and other characteristics of living creatures are published with no consideration of evolution.
In fact, many evolutionary speculations have set back biological science time and again. Modern biologists have thoroughly discredited the silly notion of “embryological recapitulation” — an idea that held sway for the first half of the 20th century. The idea was that the development of an embryo parallels the evolutionary development of its species. The notion was promoted in the 19th Century by a German evolutionist named Ernst Haeckel, who was exposed and kicked out of his university when it was discovered that he falsified evidence and created fictitious drawings to support his ideas. Amazingly, this ridiculous idea is still found in some high school texts on biology.
Evolution falls far short of “theory” status because it is not subject to meaningful experiments. Evolutionists typically insult their critics by comparing their faith with the theory of gravity. Creationists that dispute the “fact” of evolution may as well fight against Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity, or quantum theory, or relativity. And our precious little school children – if they dare to entertain doubts about the wonderful, unifying, all-encompassing theory of evolution – how can they possibly learn science and engineering and compete in the global marketplace?!!?
If someone disputes accepted gravitational theory, though, experiments can be quickly designed and executed to check it out. More compellingly, zillions of experiments have already been done and documented. I recall performing a few, myself, in both high school and college!
So – if not a legitimate “theory,” does evolution merit the status of “hypothesis”? Alas, it is an “explanation” that doesn’t fit the facts. Worse, it travails against a myriad of contradicting facts. Not only is evidence lacking, but application of simple mathematics demonstrates the impossibility of evolution’s foundations. It’s not just a matter of not finding compelling evidence to support their “theory.” Evolutionists cannot even imagine how to overcome the barriers in their beliefs. If this were about writing fiction, we could not plausibly award the category of “science fiction” to evolutionary dramatizations. When science fact and mathematical plausibility are vacant and the difficulties are brushed aside, the fictional category is termed “fantasy.” The most fitting term for the construct of evolution, therefore, is “fantasy” — akin to tales of wizards and elves and centaurs.
The origin of life is an enormous subject. More dangerously, it is an emotional and politically charged subject. The discussion in the articles to follow is intended primarily to equip a novice creationist with a few facts and points of logic to engage in a heart-to-heart discussion with someone who has bet his eternity on the evolutionary fantasy. Excluding that small cadre of professional evolutionary biologists, most people that accept evolution don’t know why they believe it. Ask someone. Be polite. Try to get someone to explain the foundation of his evolutionary faith. You’ll have to work at being exceptionally polite, because most folks – in frustration – will get angry to cover up the realization that they don’t know why they believe it. I’m not going to give professional biologists a pass, of course. I’d love to hear one address the essays in this section head-on.
Let’s back up to the “big picture.” There are many reasons to address this subject. One simple one is this: Since the evolutionary fantasy has acquired a monopoly on our public education, literal and functional atheism has multiplied. There is little respect for the Bible and, consequently, morality has disintegrated. Christians are weak in defense of their faith because they have been intimidated by the “consensus of brilliant scientists” who speak of the “fact of evolution.” America is spiraling downward and the doctrine of evolution is a significant contributing factor. In short, if we’re all a bunch of animals, what’s the point of morality and why restrain anyone from hedonism? Natural selection certainly seems to favor self-centeredness and cowardice. Abortion is just removal of inconvenient tissue. What is the meaning of life if even our thought patterns and our drives and aspirations are just the result of random chemical processes?
Consider the rich man in the parable below. If he was an evolutionist, his lifestyle made perfect sense. But he was a fool. No matter how much he was determined to ignore God, judgment awaits:
“And he spake a parable unto them saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou has must goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” – Luke 12:16-21