Fools rush in where wise men never go.
But wise men never fall in love, How are they to know.
From "Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear To Tread)" by J. Mercer and R. Bloom[1]
But wise men never fall in love, How are they to know.
From "Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear To Tread)" by J. Mercer and R. Bloom[1]
When Isaac Newton uncovered the complex mathematical laws that governed planetary motion, he attributed them to an intelligence source – the Biblical God.[2] While he was certainly not a Bible-believer, Einstein said, “God does not play dice.”[3] The comments of these famous scientists imply that a complex order is undeniably present in our universe. Perhaps the cause of this order may be beyond our ability to explain.
I find this very ironic. The complex chemistry that is present in the biological world dwarfs the complexity of the non-biological world.[6] If it is scientifically acceptable to reflect on the complex laws that govern the non-biological world, and deduce that an intelligent source may be the root cause of this complexity, it seems illogical to argue that something of greater complexity – i.e., the biological world – arose by random chance.
Because Evolution relies on unpredictable mistakes (i.e., genetic mutations) as a source for change, it can predict nothing about the future. Similarly, the fierce arguments Evolutionists have about the one true Tree of Life demonstrates the uncertainty of its claims about past events.[7] If the Fact of Evolution can neither predict future events nor describe the past with any degree of certainty, what scientific value does it really have?
In my view, the Fact of Evolution is a metaphysical assertion that does not add value to science. For example, in the vast majority of people, the dividing line between those who believe in the Fact of Evolution and those who dispute it can be discerned by asking one simple question: Are you willing to consider the possibility that God exists, and that he may have had a direct hand in the creation of biological life forms?
If the Fact of Evolution were strictly about the weight of scientific evidence, then one’s attitude about a metaphysical possibility would not be the determining factor in evaluating its claims. If a religious worldview causes people to reject the Fact of Evolution, than perhaps an atheistic worldview causes people to blindly accept it. There is good reason to believe this is the case.[8]
Shakespeare said that, “love is blind.”[9] I believe that a blind love of atheism has led many scientists to infatuation with the Fact of Evolution.[10] For example, many Evolutionists see humans as being virtually identical to chimps and gorillas, when it is very clear that they are not.[11] Good science requires absolute objectivity. When the Fact of Evolution is viewed with objectivity, many serious problems appear.
For example, I believe the expert testimony I have quoted in this book clearly demonstrates the following conclusions:
- The evidence for an evolutionary origin of cellular complexity is absolutely abysmal. Many vital cellular features, such as Ribosomes, have no known evolutionary path for their development. The chicken or egg paradox of the DNA/Protein relationship has driven scientists to hypothesize an earlier RNA-World that has many of its own issues. Furthermore, no observable life forms substantiate this theoretical RNA world.
- The fossil evidence for the gradual evolutionary transition between species simply doesn’t exist. Gould and Eldredge have documented that species appear suddenly in the fossil record, and that they remain virtually unchanged throughout their existence.
There is no doubt that different species can share similar physical features and similar genes. However, “copy, paste, and modify” is a technique often used by intelligent designers to create different products that share similar features. Thus, the evidence of common features suggests Intelligent Design as much as it suggests Evolution. To deny that possibility is to demonstrate a clear lack of objectivity.
Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician who made the following argument: It makes sense to wager that God exists because the consequences of betting that God doesn’t exist and being wrong are catastrophic.[14] If Pascal is correct, then infatuation with the Fact of Evolution represents a foolish bet. This book has examined the claim that empirical evidence turns that foolish bet into a sure thing – i.e., a fact.
Very few people doubt that politicians distort the truth – especially those of an opposing political party. This distortion is labeled political spin. So-called “spin doctors” spread political propaganda to anybody willing to listen.[15] Politicians are not alone in distorting the truth. Human nature pushes us to believe that we are always right. We tend to seek out others who agree with us. Scientists and theologians are no different.
This book has examined the testimony of numerous experts. I encourage you to examine their testimony, and decide for yourself whether Evolution deserves the label of fact. Perhaps you will reach my conclusion – i.e., that the Fact of Evolution is based on the anti-religious-spin of an atheistic worldview. Each of us is our own little jury. All jury decisions have consequences. Consider Pascal’s argument. Make a wise decision.
Notes and References
[1]. J. Mercer and R. Bloom, “Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear To Tread),” http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/brenda_lee/fools_rush_in_where_angels_fear_to_tread.html.
[2]. Isaac Newton, “Mathematic Principles of Natural Philosophy,” 1686, translated by Motte from Latin in 1729 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1934), as quoted from the website: Larry Vardiman, “Scientific Naturalism as Science,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=422.
[3]. “Does God Play Dice,” Physics World, 1 December 2005,http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23668.
[4]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[5]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), pp. 20- 22, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=20, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=21, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=22.
[6]. Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff,
[7]. Here is a sample of the various sources that document the controversy surrounding the evolutionary Tree of Life: “Life on Earth,” Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1; “Evolution: The Series – Interview with Richard Hutton,” Washington Post, 26 September 2001, http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution2_092601.htm; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 393; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 275 from Chapter 10 “The one true tree of life.”
[8]. For example, Richard Dawkins stated that his intellectual fulfillment as an atheist depended on Evolution: Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 10; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 6 from Chapter 1 “Explaining the very improbable.”
[10]. Dawkins is far from the only Evolutionists with an atheistic worldview. For example, a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) indicated that nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics: John G. West, “The Gospel according to
[11]. For an example of the claim that chimps are virtually identical to humans, see “How Objective Are Evolutionists” in the Introduction for this book: http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/. For an example of the claim that gorillas are virtually identical to humans, see Chapter 15 of this book: http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/.
[12]. Eugene V. Koonin and Michael Y. Galperin, Sequence-Evolution-Function: Computational Approaches in Comparative Genomics (
[13]. “Evolution: The Series – Interview with Richard Hutton,” Washington Post, 26 September 2001, http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution2_092601.htm.
No comments:
Post a Comment