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. 

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.

Believe or be Banned: The Intolerance of the Darwinists

Darwinian evolutionists have a stranglehold the science of evolution.  A skeptic of Darwinian evolution cannot exist in any public institution of higher learning, High School and beyond.  If a teacher ever says anything close to casting any doubt on Darwinian evolution he/she will be expelled forthwith.  The fine documentary film,  Expelled, documented this well.

Now, I thought that science meant to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  Apparently not, when it comes to anyone challenging evolution.  Why is the science establishment so afraid of anyone who doubts or wants to look into anything other than the party line?  Could it be that they're not so sure, or better yet, they don't have the evidence?

I've been a Darwin skeptic since my first Anthropology class in college.  After reading Darwin's classic  The Origin of Species,  I suspected then that Darwin had jumped the sharks after he claimed that the beak change in Finches could be a sign of one species turning into another.  Nothing of the kind has ever happened.  I believed then and I still believe now that Darwin was a great scientist.  I believe that The Origin of Species deserves to be an all time classic;  it is.  Darwin, was an honest scientist.  He clearly stated that if what he proposed in this book did not turn out to be true, such as the fossil record, his theory would break down.  The fossil record is no better now than it was in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  Where are the transitional forms?  They have not come up with a single one yet; evolutionists  will circle the wagons and dazzle you with their vacuous scientific jargon.  I have a simple question:  Show me the transitional forms?

Darwinian evolution is more blind faith than science.  Their definition of science is all the evidence that "we" allow and if you present anything else you will be eliminated.  Back to the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinian about the Cambrian Explosion and see what he says.  The Cambrian Explosion is a devastating rebuttal to gradual incremental change.  All the fossils found there were all fully formed; no transitional forms; no gradual incremental change.  Click here to watch this YouTube video about the Cambrian Explosion.  I'm convinced that Darwinian evolution has been the biggest fraud committed on science in history. Darwinians are the Bernie Madoff of science.  A house built on sand.

Most Darwinists will tell you that most scientists support Darwinian evolution.  In fact this is not true.  Click here for a list of hundreds of top scientists who dissent from Darwin.  The Darwinists will answer with ad hominem attacks; they will call you every name in the book but cannot prove their theory.  One of their favorite ad hominem attack is to call you a "creationist" or a religious zealot.  No, show me the transitional forms.  If you cannot prove your theory, calling people names will not do it.

To Chase the Wind: In Search of Darwinian Evolution

The 1960 movie Inherit the Wind is used frequently by those who support Darwinian evolution to point to the supposed stupidity of not believing in evolution .   The movie made those who opposed evolution look like religious fools.  Nothing is further from the truth.  The movie had a designed bent in favor of evolutionist and it was a very biased point of view.  The truth behind this movie is beyond this piece so I will not spend any more time on it.

In my introductory piece, I mentioned that Charles Darwin was a good scientist who was intellectually honest.  Darwin makes this statement in "On 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 out no such case."   Here is the question: Do we have evidence today that answers Darwin's statement?  After 150 years the answer is no. Darwin's theory has broken down, as he predicted.

It was no accident that two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin's followers came up with a missing link:  Archaeopteryx, the oldest bird.  For 150 years Darwinists have used this bird as the missing link.  As it turns out this bird was not the oldest bird and Darwinist now have been reluctantly forced to abandon it, but it was done quietly.  Wow!  The bird that you based your belief in Darwinism is now gone?  Click here for more information on this.  As it turns out, Archaeopteryx was not really a bird after all, but a dinosaur.

Another arrow into the heart of Darwinian evolution are the icons they've trotted out in the last 150 years.  Icons such as Piltdown Man, The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryos,  Darwin's Finches, Peppered Moths and many others have proved to be false or not supported by the evidence.  Let's take Piltdown Man who was first introduced in 1912.  Piltdown Man was exposed to be a fraud.  According the the book, Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, in 1953 scientists proved that Piltdown Man, though thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragments was more recent, and belongs to a modern orangutan.  Haeckel's embryos drawings have been proven to be fakes. In his popular book, Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells points out that scientists in the middle 1990s, in an interview with Science Magazine, concluded that: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology (p.92).  Yet these drawings still appear in modern biology textbooks.  The Miller-Urey experiment has now proven not to support what it proposed to support.  The Peppered Moths turned out to be planted on the trees and a complete fraud, as described by Wells's Icons of Evolution.

The biggest challenge to Darwinism though is the Cambrian Explosion, which is rarely mentioned in evolution books.  The Cambrian Explosion which happened about 500 million years ago shows the animal forms complete with no evolutionary connection at all.  Phillip E. Johnson, in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds says this about the Cambrian Explosion:  "The basic animal groups appear suddenly and without evidence of evolutionary ancestors.  What is even more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian's macroevolutinary transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil evidence is most plentiful among marine invertebrates." A documentary was done a few years ago by Illustra Media called Darwin's Dilemma that beautifully describes in vivid dramatic detail why this is such a big issue challenging Darwinism.  The DVD is still available.  Click on the indicated hyperlink to see it on Amazon.com.


Obviously, this is a huge subject and many books have been written on these issues.  One important clue about why evolution, as described by neo-Darwinists, is not credible is how they react to anyone who does not follow their line:  They blow them away, literally.  No biology professor can survive if he/she remotely questions Darwinism.  As an example, click here to read about how the editor of a Smithsonian science magazine was fired for printing a peer reviewed and approved article by Stephen Meyer, PhD, favorable to Intelligent Design. No opposing views are tolerated.

Dr. Meyer later wrote a devastating rebuttal to Darwinian evolution in his best selling book, Signature in the cell. The Darwinian way is "our way or the highway."  This is science?  The 2008 movie "Expelled" dealt with this issue in detail.  The movie is still available on DVD.  Click here for a short trailer.  This is akin to the Muslim way of executing anyone who leaves Islam, as is the current case of a Christian Pastor in Iran who has been sentenced to death for converting to Christianity.  Anyone who questions Darwin is sentenced to a figurative death by the Taliban wing of science, the Darwinian evolution lobby.

Opponents of Intelligent Design (ID) will often tell you that it is not science.  They will usually link ID to creationism.  This is totally untrue and a way to avoid the issue instead of giving an answer.  Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of the popular book just mentioned earlier has a fine seven minute video on just this issue.  Click here to view it.