Basic HTML Version
according to "natural law" without
benefit of Deity?
ls God Dead?
lf life simply evolved on its own, so
to speak, then the very idea of a
Creator God is so much excess
theological baggage, a concept
bouncing around in a sea of living
things that can get along quite well
on their own.
The central aim of evolution
is
to erase God from the land of liv–
ing things. Peter Bowler, lecturer
in the history and philosophy of
science at Queens U niversity of
Belfast, points out:
" The whole thrust of modern
evolutionism has been to eliminate
the need for a supernatural purpose
in accounting for the present struc–
ture of living things"; and, it is
" intended to exclude any role for
supernatural intervention in the
world"
(Evolution: The History of
an Idea,
Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1984, pp.
S,
6).
To an evolutionist, the theory is
the jumping-off point for his world
view.
It
is his final and only expla–
nation for the existence of life.
Evolution is a kind of catechism.
It
must be recited, accepted and
believed by the initiate if he is to
gain acceptance as a bona fide
member of the scientific commu–
nity.
But to believe is one thing; to
prove another. Can we mere mor–
tals, riveted in time to the late
l980s, really know
anything
about
what may have occurred l 0,000
years in the past, or l 00,000,000
years in prehistory?
Understand this important fact:
For a theory to be proved true, it
must run the gauntlet of the scien–
tific method. This means the the–
ory of evolution and its basic hy–
pot h esis must be
tested
experimental/y.
The scient i fic
method requires that a theory or
hypothesis be repeatable or repro–
ducible. Otherwise, the theory
can't be verified or falsified.
But how does one test or repeat
that which occurred in the past?
That is the fundamental problem
for
both
evolutionists and creation–
ists. Neither can see, duplicate,
verify, repeat or reproduce the pro–
cess (either creation or evolution)
in the laboratory.
24
That is the sticking point.
If
an
evolutionary episode or creation oc–
curred at sorne past time, each
would have been unique-an
unre–
peatable event,
forever sealed into
the past. Even if scientists could
turn one species into a nother
(which they cannot do), it would
still not prove that such a simi lar
change occurred
natural/y
in the
past.
That is the heart and soul of the
matter. We cannot observe the re–
quired past evolutionary steps tak–
ing place
now.
Nor can we witness
special creation in the very act.
There is no video evidence, past or
present, documenting the forma–
tion of an Adam out of a hunk of
clay by a Supernatural Being.
Of course, most scientists claim
that evolution can be scientifically
demonstrated. They assert that
evolution is taking place
now.
So
let's look at this aspect of the evo–
lution theory.
It is an observable fact that a
great variety exists withi n a given
species. Take man's best friend, the
dog. Scientific breeding over many
generations has produced the
diminutive Chihuahua, the sleek
whippet, jumbo-sized G reat Dane
and the bulldog- to name a tiny
portion of the many var ieties so
familiar to us.
But from Samoyed to Norwe–
gian elkhound and from Scottish
terrier to schnauzer- they are al l
dogs. A dog has never become a cat
nor metamorphosed into a horse.
This is true for every class of living
thing. A rose is still a rose is still
a rose no matter what its color or
shape.
Variety vs. Evolutlon
Yet, from Darwin to our time, the
fact of variety among living things
has been used as the assumed start–
ing point for
unseen
evolutionary
change. That is, observed micro–
changes
within
species have been
touted as the first glimpses of un–
observed macro-changes
between
an "old" and a " new" species.
Scientists themselves often for–
get the distinction between the
two. Microbiologist Lynn Margulis
and geophysicist Allen Hammond,
writing in the December 1981 is–
sue of the popular magazine-jour–
nal
Science 81,
stated:
"Evolution is not only inferred;
it has also been observed, in the
laboratory a nd in the field"
("Farewell to Newton, Einstein,
Darwin ... ," p. 56). The authors
then refer to the "fantastic variety
of dogs" as one supposed example
of this evolution.
Another case of this careless
logic is in the book
Evolution
by
Ruth Moore. An introductory cap–
tion claims, "Evolution takes place
most drarnatically when man se–
lects traits he likes and breeds
them true in bis domesticated
plants or animals" (p. 75).
But that is not evolution; that is
selective breeding. Breeding is
merely ferreting out and duplicat–
ing
already existing
traits within a
species. The 8,000 plus varieties of
roses are still roses.
Evolution demands the coming
into existence of a new life form
genetically independent
of the ex–
isting species. Breeding a new vari–
ety is merely bringing to the sur–
face that which already exists in
the species' genetic range.
Theory In Place of Proof
What, then, have evolutionists used
as "proor'? Harvard University's
Stephen Jay Gould, a staunch evo–
lutionist, points out that "theories
of speciation have been based on
analogy, extrapolation and infer–
ence" ("Is a New and General
Theory of Evolution Emerging? "
in
Evolution Now,
John Maynard
Smith, editor, San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman, 1982, p. 133).
But analogy, inference and ex–
trapolation- that is, projecting the
known
(variation) onto the
un–
known
(evolut ion)--do not consti–
tute proof. They do not measure up
to the demands of the scientific
method. That is why Dr. Gould
says this critical aspect of the the–
ory "is effectively dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy"
(ibid., p. 131).
Scientists have also run into a
dead end when trying to reproduce
evolution in the laboratory. One
example is the
Drosophila
me/anogaster,
the pesky fruit fly.
It
has a fast reproduction cycle of
1
O
to 15 days, so that many succes–
sive generations can be rapidly
bred. The flies are even bombarded
with X rays to greatly increase and
Th•
PLAIN TRUTH