Friday, August 18, 2006

And that is really the most important part of evolution...

There is a Seinfeld episode which aired during season three that contained the following dialogue:
Jerry: I don’t understand. Do you have my reservation?Car Rental Assistant: We have your reservation, we just ran out of cars.Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here, that’s why you have the reservation.Car Rental Assistant: I think I know why we have reservations.Jerry: I don’t think you do. You see, you know how to *take* the reservation, you just don’t know how to *hold* the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.
I mention this because when I started to look at the claims made by evolutionists that evolution is a Scientific Fact it is what popped into my mind. I couldn’t get past thinking that evolution is missing two essential components for it to really be a fact. If it is not a fact then it is just a theory which appears to fit the evidence that we have.

From what I have studied I would say that the majority of the evidence that evolutionists have given for evolution can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. Some of the evidence shows that micro-evolution has been shaping life on this planet since the beginning of time. Even evolution’s strongest critics, young earth creationist, agree that this is the case. According to the literal reading of the Genesis account we discover that God created one man and one woman through whom the earth was populated. The adaptations of people and animals through micro-evolution can be seen as a wonderful design by God who created us to survive on this every changing planet.

Another group of evidence can be interpreted in one of two ways. That is the shared features, DNA, and other similarities between all living things. For the evolutionist this is interpreted to show common descent, which would make perfect sense if you did not believe God was involved. The commonality we see between species would be logically seen as coming from a heritage that we share.

One the other hand, if you believed that God created, the commonality that is seen could also be interpreted as a common designer. Rather than sharing a common ancestor species share a common designer, and thus you have people talking about Intelligent Design.

The main reasons why I cannot accept evolution as scientific fact is not because of the evidence that has been discovered (there might be good reasons to question that evidence), but rather what is missing. In my mind the two crucial components necessary for evolution are not there.

The first component which is missing is a mechanism for macro-evolutionary change.
“Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.” ~ Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981
It would seem to me that macro-evolution is dependent on the mechanism (if I am wrong explain to my why), and if a mechanism for change cannot be established then macro-evolution cannot be a fact. It would also seem to me that this provides a reason to suggest other possibilities of why there is a variety of life. If there is no natural process which accounts for change between species is there another explanation? Science is about asking questions, forming theories, and testing those theories. Macro-evolution is built on the assumption that sooner or later a natural mechanism for change will be discovered. This assumption renders macro-evolution to be less than a fact right now.

The next component evolution is missing is evidence that life began naturally. Again if you assume that God does not exist and that the material universe is all there is, then of course you are going to assume that life somehow began by a natural process. The problem is that there are no good theories to explain how life began. It appears that even simple forms of life are too complex to have formed by natural process. The probability of it happening is essentially 0, but evolutionist what us to believe that given enough time even the extremely improbable will happen. Noble Prize-winner Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going” (Life Itself). If life is not the product of natural processes then the very foundation of evolution is ripped from underneath it. Macro-evolution relies on a natural beginning for life. Again we see the bias of the evolutionist who does whatever is necessary to keep God out of the picture.

By promoting macro-evolution as fact the evolutionist tries to make us believe that the issue is settled: that God is irrelevant to our lives. God is not needed for our being and He is not needed now for our guidance. Scientists are just as biased as anyone else, and understanding their agenda is part of the process of uncovering the truth.

Here is what I want you to take way from this: be skeptical. Just because somebody has a bunch of fancy degrees or has written a book doesn’t mean they have all the answers. The majority, even when it comes to science, isn’t always right. Don’t be intimidated by the evolutionists, they are not nearly as tough as they think they are.


Anonymous said...

At the subatomic (quarc) level there is no difference in matter. We are all, and everything else, just little bits of electricity. What makes it combine in ways that accounts for the vast diversity in the universe? And where did these little bits of electricity come from? Athieistic scientists cannot answer the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing." Blessings, Hawkeye Gold

brad said...

You wrote that "science is about asking questions, forming theories, and testing those theories". The tests of those theories is like natural selection. If the test is successful, then the theory survives. Same thing in genetics. If an organism to reproduce, then its genes are successful: they survive to the next generation. The next generation inherits the successful gene package, with perhaps some mutation. That mutation might be better or worse. It's a natural process (mechanism) of survival of the fittest.

There are good theories about how life began. The earliest life may have been self-replicating RNA-type molecules. They would emerge from an organic mixture (in water) that followed a series of selections toward increasingly complex biological molecules. After these RNA molecules, other more-compliated molecules would follow, leading to DNA and then packaged structures containing DNA within protocells, along with other organic molecules.

Yes, be skeptical, do research, and decard the theories that don't fit the evidence.

Accept the Differences

Most of us understand that people are different and those differences are a good thing. The world would be a boring place if everyone beli...