Evolution: An Article of Faith

Pro. Glenn Sunshine, in his recent book Why You Think The Way You Do, speaks of the introduction of Darwinian (Naturalistic) Evolution and in so doing he writes on the inability of the Darwinian Evolutionary theory to lay claims to "fact". As a matter of fact I felt he wrote so well on the subject that the rest of this blog will be a direct quote. If you like what you read I highly recommend you pick up a copy for yourself.

_________________________________

Interestingly enough, [Darwin's] theory does not fit the defination of science. For a theory to be scientific, is must be able to be validated through the scientific method:

A theory is proposed and predications are made from it.
These predications are then tested through scientific experimentation.

• If the experiment fails the theory must be discarded or modified.
• If the theory succeeds, it does not prove the theory true, but it does make it more probable that the theory is correct.

Darwinism is not subject to scientific method anymore then anything else in history. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it.

Darwin knew, of course, that he had no access to the past, but he reasoned that if his theory were true, then natural selection would still be operating today, and thus it should be possible to make specific predictions and test them. For example, Darwin thought that evolution occurred relatively quickly, as his experience with the beaks of finches growing longer during dry years suggested. He tried to breed pigeons into a new species to demonstrate this, but he found that while there was a great deal of variability in pigeons, the variability stopped well short of creating a new species. In other words, his experiment failed. You can take a goldfish and give it eyes that protrude, change its color to black, and divide its tail, but you cannot turn a goldfish into a goldfinch.

Darwin further predicted that innumerable transitional fossils would be discovered, probably within decades, and noted that if a sudden emergence of new species were to occur, his theory would be falsified [note from Derek: if a theory is "falsifiable" in science it is a good thing. In order for a theory to be true it must at least have the possiblility of being false. Otherwise it is just simply a "belief"]. What the fossil record shows is that species are remarkably stable, and the innumerable transitions that Darwin predicted have not been found. Further, during the Cambrian period (usually dated to about 530 million years ago), most major groups of complex animals emerged suddenly, not by gradual evolution, in an event known as the Cambrian explosion." According to Darwin himself, this simultaneous emergence of species without gradual ascent from earlier organisms should have disproved his theory.

Yet instead of falsifying Darwin, the basic concept of evolution has been retained, with alternative explanations suggested for the absence of transitional species. One popular theory, known as punctuated equilibrium, suggests that species tend to remain stable until, for some as yet unexplained reason, a series of rapid mutations takes place that produces new species. This happened so rapidly in terms of geological time that fossils, which are relatively rare things, were not produced in any of thes periods of transition. Unfortunately, as Darwin himself said, this rapid evolution cannot be accounted for via natural selection. Rapid emergence of species falsifies his theory. It also sounds like special pleading, a "Darwin of the gaps" explanation, to say that fossilization of the transitional forms predicted by Darwin never had the opportunity to take place in the emergence of any species on the planet, past or present. Nor is it much better to say the fossils are there but haven't yet been found. This is a statement of faith, not fact.

But, of course, none of this matters because Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable. Certainly, naturalists think they have good reasons to accept natural selection, but people always believe this about their articles of faith. Ultimately, the evidence for Darwinism is circular:

• Naturalists assume Darinian evolution
• They use it as the framework for interpreting any evidence they find
• They proclaim that the evidence proves the theory

But as people employ this method, it is literally impossible to recognize evidence that would contradict Darwin because every explanation of the data begins by assuming that evolution is true and proceeds from there. In other words, Darwinism interprets the evidence rather than the evidence testing Darwinism. As a result, no matter how many failed predictions come from Darwinism, it can never be proven false. Simply put, naturalistic evolution is an article of faith.

________________________________

Note: Darwinan evolution is NOT scientific theory. It is NOT fact.

I have read so much in recent years - even by Christian authors - who claim and even emphasis that Darwinian evolution is a FACT. IT IS NOT!

I am tired of the rhetoric of the religous (Darwinian) evolutionist. Not because they promote their religion (all religions have that right in my opinion); but because they claim theirs is not faith, but fact; and in making this brassy and clearly untrue statement they claim a "high ground" over other so-called religions. They look down their high noses on "religous people" as though we are a bunch of simpletons, yet they are one of us, simpletons of the religion of Darwin. Religion has not been removed from the schools, rather the religion of Christianity has been replaced by the faith and religion of Darwin.

Just a thought.

Derek

(Quotes taken from pages 167-68)