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.