Darwinian evolutionary theory is considered to be based on science, the scientific method, and therefore scientifically verifiable. Now, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "...a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Atheists abound with the accusation that faith is not reasonable, faith-based reason is based in some sort of theological mythology, that faith is not scientific. For atheists, faith is a cop-out. 

What is faith? We exercise faith every time we sit down in a chair. We trust and believe each time that the chair will hold us. We exercise faith every time we drive a car. We trust and believe that others will drive reasonable. 

Based on the above definition of the scientific method, it is possible for our faith in the chair or in other drivers to be grounded in a systematic observation, measurement, and experiment of our chair. We have faith in the chair because we have seen the chair, and we have sat on the chair before. Maybe we built the chair, or saw other sit on it before us. Whatever the reason, our faith in the chair is not based on the simple fact the someone told us to sit, or that we trusted them. We tested the chair for ourselves, and we know the chair is sturdy enough for us. We were able to observe it, measure it, and experiment. 

Ready Set Renewed

Macro evolution is based on the concept that, over millions of years, bacteria turned into ameba, turned into tadpoles, turned into turtles. So there were sheep, dogs, birds, snakes, worms, until the most recent evolutionary manifestation…humanity.

 


Ok so here are my thoughts: 

If the evolutionary process over millions of years leads to the manifestation of humanity from all other types of animals, each other animal being a lower stage of evolution…

…where are all the interim evolutionary animals, i.e. the snake-bird, the fish-turtle, the man-ape?

…why do we see a wide variety of life on earth if evolution takes life toward humanity and beyond? Why do we not only see one species of living being? I mean, humans are the highest order of evolution, so why haven’t all other living creatures either died out, or evolved when we did? 

What have the scientists observed that is macro evolutionary? I would argue they have observed…nothing! There has been no present tense macro-evolution observed…ever. All that has been observed are the fossil record accompanied by the carbon dating method. Carbon dating has a problem however:

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion)… If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine. Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion. In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium…Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

So, in order for carbon dating to be correct as it relates to evolution, one has to belief in evolution to make it work. Dr. Libby believed in evolution, and so made some assumptions, and ignored research, to support his theory.

Scientists, not being present during the alleged macro-event, can only speculate on what happened, based on other scientists’ (Darwin, Libby, etc.) speculations. They are still not observing any macro-changes in the present. They can only observe species differentiation and adaptation in the present, and the strange fossil record from the past. 

Scientists cannot test their theory of macro evolution, because they cannot observe their theory of macro-evolution. Yet they still choose to belief in macro-evolution. That is called blind faith.

There is no history of any ancient historian, philosopher, theologian, etc., who posited anything close to Darwinian evolution. All of our earliest existent literature of the ancients demonstrates that all humanity had a belief that life came from a deity of some sort. There is no written testimony of any ancient thinker who relays witnessing some macro-evolutionary event. 

Interestingly, if the theory of evolution is true, what does that do for morals? According to all the ancients, morals came from the gods. Thus, there is a power, or person, who set things in order, and to whom we have to give an account. We can offend this powerful person, we can please this powerful person. Our global moral compass is dependent upon there being a higher authority which holds us accountable. That is at minimum deistic, if not theistic.

What does Evolution offer in terms of morality? Nothing. Considering that there is no being who created us, and since we have no purpose, then we are simply the sum totality of enzymes, chemicals, and matter. Our love, hate, apathy, affection, disgust, pleasure, delight, gratitude…these mean absolutely nothing. We are not governed by any moral at all. Since evolution is about the survival of the fittest, it is only the strongest which survive. Therefore, morals are not needed, except to ensure the promulgation of the strongest species. However, if the morals need to change a little, that’s fine too. So what was evil today can be holy tomorrow. There is no norm, no standard. Mass murder today is race cleansing tomorrow. Rape today is consensual tomorrow. What makes us think one thing is moral, and another evil? Nothing. Evolution teaches that man is the highest order of all things, maker of his own future, master of his own destiny, and answerable to no one. In this ideology, if there is a god, he is man. Therefore evolution is a religion, which ultimately promotes the deity of man.

 

So what does that leave us with?  If there is no factual way to implement the scientific method of observation, measurement, and experiment on the theory of macro-evolution, then macro-evolution is not predominantly scientific …it must be accepted by faith. It would seem then that the modern scientist and science teacher are promulgators of that great theory of “religion” called evolution which promotes the deity of man above all things, for which there is no observable evidence. This would make science the greatest “secular” faith-based movement in the world!

Comment