Science and Darwinian Evolution

Darwinists often say that the Intelligent Design theory is not science. Really?  What is science?  Ask any scientist for a definition of science and watch him/her twist into a pretzel with a long, drawn-out definition.  The truth is that there is no standard definition of science.  Sure, if you look at a dictionary it will give you a broad general definition but it’s not definitive. It will say things like the pursuit of knowledge, understanding the natural world and the like.  But who is to judge if something is science or not science?  Is Intelligent Design not the pursuit of knowledge in the natural world?  Is the judgement that something is or is not science a scientific, metaphysical, or a philosophical issue?  Can someone who says Intelligent Design is not science prove his point scientifically?   J.P. Moreland, one of the finest philosophers of our day, in his book “Christianity and the Nature of Science” says this about a definition of science:

 

“There is no definition of science, not set of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as science, no such thing as the scientific method, that can be used to draw a line of demarcation between science and nonscience. Nothing about science essentially excludes philosophical or theological concepts from entering into its very fabric. Science is not an airtight compartment isolated from other fields of study, and there is nothing unscientific about “creation science.”

 

In general, we can agree that the scientific method is the process of establishing facts through testing and experimentation.  We could probably agree that anyone doing science will go where the evidence takes him/her.  Here is where we can go astray.  Do Darwinists go where the evidence leads?  Have they found evidence that documents their theory of evolution?  Darwin himself was quite honest about it and said that his theory had not been proven but it would with more research.  Have Darwinists met the standard of going where the evidence leads?  I don’t think so.  They claim that, in doing science, only methodological naturalism can be accepted. There is no room for dissenting views. Certain conclusions like design are not allowed. According to world renowned philosopher, Professor Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University methodological naturalism is:

 

 “The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Thus, science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings” (arn.org).

 

The second objection that Darwinists have about the Intelligent Design theory is their claim that it’s religion.  What is religion and what is not and who says it is or is not?  How did they come up with that answer?  It’s just an ad hominem attack without basis or evidence.  You cannot win an argument by simply attacking the other side, you must have convincing evidence that your position has supporting evidence.  The fact that such people make such charges tells me that they have no answer.  If I want to prove to a person who claims that the earth is flat, I present evidence that it is round.  I do not attack him/her personally.

 

Intelligent Design, contrary to what its opponents say, does not claim that design points to God; they never refer to God.  What they’re saying is when they look at the universe, its fine tuning and its complexities, it’s better described as design by an intelligent agent rather than random chance as the Darwinist say.  The universe is so finely tuned that if it varied the width of a single strand of hair, life would not exist.  To understand the precision of the universe, watch this short video clip explaining it.  Click here.  Once you see this fine tuning you’re left with only one conclusion:  Designed by and intelligent agent is the best explanation. 

 

The most famous Darwinist of our day is the British evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins.  In his book, “The Blind Watchmaker,” he makes this statement about design: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Notice that he refers to design as an “appearance of design.”   Now, the first question I would ask Dr. Dawkins is how did you arrive at this conclusion?  Was your declaration of “appearance of design” derived from science or philosophy, and can you prove your conclusion scientifically?    See this short YouTube video where Dr. Stephen Meyer explains this:  Click here.  This, to me, is like looking at Mount Etna in Sicily for instance, and saying it only appears to be there, but it is not there; don’t believe your lying eyes.  This is bizarre thinking, and Darwinists fall in line with Dawkins and believe that design is only an appearance of it. They blindly follow the herd. Is this how science is supposed to be practiced?

 

In the “Blind Watchmaker,” Dawkins refers to William Paley, a British scientist who in the early 1800s made the argument for design by giving the example of stumbling upon a watch on the ground.  You look at it and easily conclude that an intelligent agent designed it. Similarly, if you’re driving down the I-405 Freeway in Los Angeles and you’re surrounded by cars, you can easily conclude that they were designed by and intelligent agent and could not possibly have been made by chance or random mutation.  It follows then that Dawkins would look at all those cars as an “appearance of design.” This type of thinking is not science but pure, unadulterated speculation without supporting evidence.

 

Tim Berra of Ohio State, a biologist and evolutionary scientist, compared the evolution of the 1950s Corvette to argue not for design but to the evolutionary process.  Darwin critic Phillip Johnson, in his book “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” calls this “Berra’s blunder.”  Johnson states it this way: “Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence — like the sequence of Beethoven’s symphonies to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court — does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan.”

 

In my neighborhood, I see signs that read: “Science is real,” love is love” “black lives matter,” and other such sayings.  But it all depends on what you mean by science.  A statement like science is real, may be true but just what kind of science are you referring to? It sure looks like it’s only science you agree with. 

Darwinian Evolution: A Giant Leap

My first encounter with Charles Darwin and evolution occurred at an Anthropology class at Compton College in 1965.  One of the assigned readings was Darwin’s master work, “The Origin of Species.”  I still have a paperback copy of this book, the first Collier edition of 1962.  An impressive work that is now a classic of science.  After completing the book, I remained puzzled about Darwin’s claim in the book that he had preliminary evidence of evolution.  One of the main points he made in favor of evolution was the Galàpagos Finches that he studied on a trip he made there in the mid 19^th century.  The birds may have different beak sizes but there was no evidence of any kind that this would lead to a different species; they remained the same kind of bird with different beak sizes; it was just speculation at best.

 

According to Jonathan Wells, PhD, a molecular and cell biologist, in his book “Icons of Evolution,” “Darwin claimed that single species diverge into several varieties then into several different species.  The Galàpagos finches were instrumental in helping Darwin formulate his evolution theory.”  Wells continues: “Darwin was so unimpressed by the finches that he made no effort while in the Galápagos to separate them by island, and much of the information Darwin provided turned out to be wrong. Eight of the fifteen localities he recorded are in serious doubt. Thus according to historian of science Frank Sulloway, "Darwin possessed only limited and largely erroneous conception of both the feeding habits and the geographical distribution of these birds.”  My question even back in 1965 was:  Is this all that Darwin has?  This thought remained in with me.  In the 1990s I heard other people describe reservations about Darwin’s claims and did some private investigation by reading as many books as possible on the subject.  Many are shown on the right sidebar of this blog as recommended readings. I remain unconvinced that Darwin or his followers can explain evolution satisfactorily.  

 

I’ve never heard of any compelling or comprehensive evidence presented by Darwinian Evolution proponents. Evolutionary scientists can talk a good talk and beat around the bush, but as the saying goes:  show me the evidence. Fancy talk will not do it.  I have not seen any.  What I see in Darwinian evolution is smoke and mirrors or arguments arbitrarily asserted without evidence.  And, according to the Principle of Reason, what is arbitrarily asserted can be arbitrarily denied (“Ten Universal Principles” Robert J. Spitzer, Ignatius Press, 2009).  Evolutionary biologists claim that the fossil record supports evolution, but the evidence they present is either missing, unconvincing or clear as mud.  Click here.

 

Darwin was a very competent scientist, and his work remains a classic.  Darwin made this statement about the quality of his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  This is crucial.  Now the question is do we have proof today?  Darwin stated that the fossil record would prove his theory and that it was incomplete in his day but would be demonstrated by future research.  Has this happened?  Far from it, the fossil record is in worse shape today.  There are no fossil transitional forms to prove Darwin’s theory.  In fact, the Cambrian Explosion shows no transitional forms 150 years later.  Click herefor a short video explaining the Cambrian Explosion and why it does not prove Darwin’s theory.

 

Now you may ask me are you a scientist?  Have you done research on this subject?  No, I’m not a scientist but over 1,000 PhD scientists have serious doubts about Darwinian evolution.  Click here to watch this less than two-minute video about such scientists.  What I find troubling is that those on the Darwinian evolution side are hostile against anyone who disagrees with them and in many cases refuse to let them speak.  Here is where I smell a rat.  What are they afraid of?  The fact that 1,000 scientists have come out about their doubt about Darwinian evolution is significant, given that you could lose your job at a university, for example, for not being in line with Darwinian evolution. There are many examples of science teachers losing their job for having doubts about evolution.   Click here for a story about teachers fired for doubting Darwinian evolution.

 

Now, I know that those of you who are ardent supporters of Darwinian Evolution strongly disagree with the view I present here.  OK, fine, you have a good argument, but a deficient one.   I would not want to silence you.  I would want to discuss both of our views openly and without fear of retribution.    You must admit that there are strong and credible opposing views.  Here is another example of a scientist who is skeptical of your view:  Click here.   I could go on and on.  The evidence against Darwinian evolution is huge.  You cannot ignore it. 

Was the Universe Created out of Nothing?

 The most famous scientist in our lifetime, Stephen Hawking, was an atheist and believed that the universe created itself, out of nothing.  Now, as a non-scientist, my first question to Dr. Hawking would be, is this a scientific question or a philosophical question?  We'll never know since Dr. Hawking died a few years ago.  Not to worry, a few other scientists shared his view, so I'll ask again, is this a scientific question or a philosophical question? Here is an article discussing this.  The question here, is obviously not a scientific question but a philosophical one.  You can't prove scientifically that the universe came into existence from nothing.  Certainly logic and philosophy would argue the opposite.  In our human experience and empirical evidence there is nothing that we can point to that came into existence from nothing.  Out of nothing, nothing comes. This was spoken by the leading character of Shakespeare's King Lear.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument to support the thesis that nothing comes out of nothing. Philosopher, William Lane Craig, is the most prominent defender of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  The argument is in the form of a syllogism:  (1) Everything the begins to exist has a cause, (2) the universe began to exist, (3) therefore it has a cause.  Craig published a book on this subject in 1979. A reprint of this book is still available on Amazon.com.  Click here.  Today, scientists agree that the universe had a beginning, dating to 14 Billion years ago (the Big Bang Theory).  It follows, therefore, that this fits the Kalam Argument.  As an aside, I would add that I have heard Dr. Craig speak many times and have followed his career and can say that he is perhaps one of the best philosophers of our day.  Click here for a short four-minute video explaining the Kalam argument in detail.

Up until the early 20th Century, science believed that the universe had always existed, then a man named Albert Einstein discovered that the universe had a beginning with his General Theory of Relativity.  Einstein was in disbelief about this, but his calculations led to a beginning.  To fit in with the scientific belief of the day of no beginning, Einstein thought that he had erred, so he came up with his "Cosmological Constant" equation.  Then when Edwin Hubble discovered what became known as "the red shift;" this proved that the Cosmological Constant equation was not a good explanation.  Hubble's 1929 brilliant observation was that the red shift of galaxies was directly proportional to the distance of the galaxies from earth.  That meant that things farther away from earth were moving away faster.  In other words, the universe must be expanding.  Einstein agreed and said that this was his biggest mistake.  The universe did have a beginning. See the article here.   For those of us who are religious  believers, this was an affirmation of what the Bible has taught from the beginning.  The very first words of the Bible:  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1).

How do we know what we know?  Charles Darwin, the god of evolution in his seminal book, On the Origin of Species, explained that scientists use a method of reasoning that points to "inferences to the best explanation for causes that we know."  For example, if we encounter ash at the foot of a mountain, we can infer that a volcano produced this because we know that a volcano produces such ash.  For a terrific and thorough explanation of this, see this short video by Dr. Stephen Meyer, the most prolific Intelligent Design proponent today.  Click here to see the video; it is worth watching.

For an additional fine intellectual challenge to Hawking's claim of the universe coming from nothing see this short video by Fr. Robert Barron made about 13 years ago before he was appointed a bishop.  Barron is perhaps the best Catholic intellectual cleric in the United States.  With a sharp mind and a powerful apologetic analytic defense.  Check it out:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo&t=8s

Punctuated Equilibrium Does What?

 Darwinian evolutionists have done many acrobatic hoops and jumps to try to prove that evolution is true.  One such attempt is Punctuated Equilibrium, as proposed by two American scientists, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early 1970s.  Punctuated Equilibrium is defined as: "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change."

Now, a simple question:  Does this definition not argue against Darwinian evolution?  According to Darwinian evolution "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics."  So, I'm confused; is evolution change over time or a sudden explosion? According to proponents of Punctuated Equilibrium it's not change over time but a sudden happening.  If you Google for the proof of Punctuated Equilibrium you will see that they say that scientists have found proof of it in the genetic sequence.  But, sorry, I don't get it. Where is the beef?  Show me the transitional forms.  I've yet to see any of them.  Click here for a short video of an explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium.  The skeptic may say, you don't know what you're talking about; you're not a scientist.  Well, yes, I'm not, but show me the transitional forms.  I don't see them. Scientific mumbo jumbo will not do.  Don't tell me you see it in the genetic code; show me the transitional forms.

Supporters of Punctuated Equilibrium may have the Cambrian Explosion in mind.  It is true that the fossils in the Cambrian appeared fully formed; no transitional forms, but how does this lead you to Punctuated Equilibrium?  Here is a fine article by Casey Luskin explaining this.  Click here to read it.

The Problem With Darwinian Evolution

 You have to have faith to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Lots of faith.  What is their evidence for change over time?  Does the Fossil Record back them up?  Does science back them up? Do they allow other points of view?  Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics back their position of gain of function over time?

I am not a scientist.  I have been interested in this subject since reading the classic Darwin work, Origin of Species in my second year of college.  I was impressed by Darwin's work but I kept scratching my head as to how he can jump to the conclusions he did.  How did a minuscule increase or decrease in the Finch beak indicate a change in transitional animal forms?  How did the Fossil Record lead him to believe in change over time when he could not find such a record?  Since those early years I've read extensively on this subject.  I have yet to see proof that Darwinian evolution is true.  I agree that Darwin was a brilliant scientist.  Darwin was up front about his scientific views. He stated that he did not have proof of his theory; he believed that the Fossil Record would eventually prove him right.  163 years later, the Fossil Record is worse than at his time.  Darwin stated in the Origin of Species:  

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

To this day no transitional forms have been found.  His theory has broken down.  The Fossil Record as shown in the Cambrian explosion proves him wrong.  For years I had serious doubts about Darwinian Evolution, then one day I heard an interview with the author of Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson.  Johnson verified every doubt I had.  Here is a short video of Johnson on the problem with Darwinian evolution.  Phillip Johnson died a few years ago.

Fossil Record:  The Cambrian Explosion shows all the animal forms appeared fully formed.  So, they have a hell of a time trying to use the Cambrian Explosion to prove their point.  Click here for a short video clip of Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Cambrian Explosion.  So, what do they use?  Lots of fancy double talk and no scientific proof, in my view. Cell biologist Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, list 12 Darwinian icons that Darwinists use to "prove" evolution, such as The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryo's, Archaeopteryx, and Peppered Moths, all have proven to be either fakes or have been debunked.   I have a strong suspicion that what drives them is their fervent atheism, such as the well known British Darwinist, Richard Hawkins, a proud atheist.  In his popular book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins states:  "Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist." Don't know if this is true but I suspect that it has a lot to do with it.  Dawkins says that design is an illusion basically; it looks like design but it's not.  So, where is the beef?  He presents no evidence for his position; just an arbitrary assertion.  You just have to have faith in Dawkins.

Does science back up Darwinism?  I have yet to see it.  Again, you must have faith. 

Do they allow different points of view?  Just try to speak at any college about Intelligent Design or say anything that challenges Darwinian evolution and see what happens.  Or, try to teach Intelligent Design; you will be fired on the spot, as was Washington state High School teacher Roger DeHart.  DeHart was not trying to reach Intelligent Design, he just wanted his students to look at both sides of the issue. So what are they afraid of? The truth perhaps?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Does the second law support Darwinian evolution?  No, it's the opposite.  According to this law, energy goes from order to disorder, or what is called entropy, not the other way around like the Darwinist believe.  Just look at a human being.  What happens over time? Are you in a better physical shape at 90 years old as you were at 18?

Biologist Michael Behe, in his classic work, Darwin's Black Box, talks about "irreducible complexity." Unless all the parts are there, the mouse trap does not work.  This is totally the opposite of what Darwin proposes.  So, I'm still waiting for the evidence of Darwinian evolution.  James Perloff, in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, equates Darwinian evolution as having a 747 aircraft being assembled by a tornado in a junkyard.  

Darwinism and the Problem With the Fossil Record

I'm a Darwin skeptic, and it has nothing to do with religion, the Bible or creationism.  I say this because the Darwinists do not take too kindly to anyone who does not buy Darwinian evolution as being without question.  My skepticism is due to the fact that the theory has not been proven, despite what you hear from Darwinists.  My main point is that the fossil record does not have any proof of any transitional forms, required by Darwin's theory.  On social media, you should see the responses to any dissent; it is vicious.  Ad hominem attacks are the order of the day.  The Darwinist immediately go to their first strategy when answering a Darwin skeptic: you're a creationist or a Bible thumper.  This is a way of dismissing you without answering your argument.

I admire Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.   I read his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species;" twice.  First as a young college student and a second time over 30 years later.  Darwin was a great scientist.  He stated his theory and made it falsifiable.  According to Wikipedia falsifiability is: "refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question."  Darwin specifically hung his theory on the fossil record.  He made this statement in The Origin of Species:  “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”  Darwin believed that the fossil record eventually would prove his theory, once it was complete.  One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is no better than in 1859 when the Origin of Species was published.  Click here for a fine article by Casey Luskin on this problem.

Darwinists will tell you that there are transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx, wales and others.  None of these have any conclusive proof that such is the case. Here is another article in a science journal that denies that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.   The data, on the contrary, lacks conclusive evidence of any transitional forms.  The Cambrian Explosion is one of the best case against transitional forms.  All the fossils appeared suddenly and complete species.  Most scientists admit that they have a problem with the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinist where the conclusive evidence is and they will circle the wagons.  There is no conclusive evidence, period.

What is a "Creationist"?

Whenever a Darwinists, or any proponent of Darwinian evolution encounters a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID) they will quickly brand them as a "creationist."  They do not define what they mean by "creationist."  Click here for a detailed definition of what is referred to as "creationism." This is usually used as a way to dismiss the ID proponent as being a religious nut.   There are two big reasons why this is false:

1.  Darwinist will call an ID proponent a "creationist," meaning they are Bible thumpers that can be dismissed out of hand.  After all, the Bible is not science, so an ID person must be an anti-science person.  False.  First of all the Bible does not say that the earth was created in six literal days.  Those who believe in a literal interpretation of this are plainly mistaken.  The Bible says that one day is like a thousand days, for instance.  See 2 Peter 3:8 which states:  "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."  I've read over 30 books by ID proponents.  Not one has ever stated that he/she believes in creationism.  There are Christians who believe in creationism, meaning the the earth was created in six literal days, but I've never heard of one ID proponent claiming to be a creationist.  I'm not a creationist.  I believe that God created the universe but I also believe that science has shown the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billions years old.  Even if you are a "creationist" how does that negate the evidence of ID?  If you brain surgeon is a creationist will this disqualify him from doing brain surgery?  When you disagree you must present evidence to nullify the other's evidence, not ad hominem attacks.

2. When Darwinist call an ID proponent a "creationist," they falsely assume this.  They believe that since you're not a Darwinist you must be a "creationist.  Again, this is a false charge not based on any knowledge of the accused person.

The Darwinist handle any opposition with ad hominem attacks; they try to slime you.  They do not present opposing evidence, they just call you names such as "creationist," anti-science and other hateful epithets.  A few years ago I attended a debate at Biola University in La Mirada, California where a Christian debated an atheist, William Lane Craig was the Christian and Peter Singer of Princeton University, the atheist.  Darwinist will never allow an ID person to step foot in a college campus.

If you're a science teacher, try mentioning any evidence against the Darwinian theory and see what happens.  You will be escorted out of the school and fired on the spot.  Is this academic freedom?  This is pure academic tyranny.  A few years ago a movie was released dealing with this issue and details what happened to scientists who dared say anything other than tow the Darwinian line.  Watch a trailer of this film here.