Back in 2019 more than a thousand PhD scientists signed a "dissent" statement over Darwinian evolution. "We are skeptical," they said, "of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Like "We believe that homosexual behavior is a sin" or "We believe it is unsafe to allow biological males free access to women's bathrooms" kinds of statements, this falls in the category of unacceptable. "We will not listen. We will not hear it. We will reject it without examination." As bad as any conspiracy theory or "fake news" complaint, this one received little air time. Why?
These aren't religious nuts. For instance, Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, said, "As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information." Science, not religion. Back in 2012 when scientists discovered a triceratops horn that retained soft tissue, California State University, Northridge (CSUN) fired the guy that found it for publishing his findings. "This data will not be heard. Our narrative is the only one to be allowed."
So, in a world whose thinking is ruled by mass and social media that systematically screens the information we're allowed to have, you won't hear much about this. You won't hear much about irreducible complexity. You won't hear about the unexplained massive gaps in the fossil record. You may hear that DNA is the code that rules our existence, but you won't hear that it's code, which requires intelligence. We aren't allowed to question these things. And, of course, it's been the story forever (Rom 1:18-21). As for me, I don't have enough faith to believe in Darwin's evolutionary explanation for the origins of life.
7 comments:
Hi Stan,
I have a strong interest in the natural world and have considered the topic of evolution vs. creation to a fair degree for several decades now. I am aware of much of the “evidence” held by those on both sides of the issue. I have visited many “natural history” museums and zoos in our family travels, and although evolution is promoted at the secular sites, of course, I can say that they never really “prove their case.” Instead, they make unsubstantiated assertions about their so-called “evidence,” all of which is open to other interpretations, of course. (Some of the speculations that are presented as hard facts actually elicit a hearty guffaw from me—they are that contrived!) Despite the naturalistic perspective of these exhibits, to the contrary I can easily see complex and intelligent design and creation in the material on display (which is why I can still visit those places without conflict).
So I agree with the last statement you made in today’s post. However, actually, as I understand it, Darwin didn’t even give much of an “evolutionary explanation for the origins of life,” originally making a general claim about “common ancestors” after observing natural selection (confusing “evolution” and speciation, as we understand it now). I have read that he created a “tree of life” sketch and stated something like, “If my theory is correct, we should find transitional fossils to flesh this all out.” Those fossils have not been found—after almost 200 years—and the theory should have been abandoned as the unsubstantiated and implausible nonsense that it was. Instead, Darwin’s followers say, “We are still looking for the fossils. We’ll find the evidence. We know that’s what happened, and time will prove us right.” In the meantime, they accuse Christians of believing in fairy tales, while they are the ones that actually believe in the unscientific “magic” of “everything from nothing” while ignoring the clear evidence of God’s hand all around them. Like you, I don’t have enough gullibility to believe in evolution (which no one can demonstrate), and I have no good reason to doubt God’s sure word on the matter (for which I see evidence all around me).
~Lorna~
The hostility to different ways of thinking is unfortunately nothing new nor one sided. The silencing of scientists that disagree with the Evolution narrative was quite clearly broadcast in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. That was 2008. Too many people are so fixated on denying God, and on maintaining their status, they're unwilling to even indulge differing ideas. Same thing is happening in anthropological archeology. They tell us the Bible can't be true because the Jews weren't in Egypt when the Bible says they were, but that's based on dating that leaves a large time gap that amazingly puts them right where they're supposed to be if that gap were closed.
Yes, Lorna. Even among firm advocates of Evolution, Darwinism is not very common. Too many problems. Too many missing links. They prefer "punctuated equilibrium" or "catastrophism" or "genetic drift." It's an ever-changing field because the explanations don't match the data. But, like a dog with a bone, they won't let it go because ... well ... God is the alternative and that's right out.
@Lorna, it's also sad to see that the theory of evolution came from the now laughed-at-by-everyone spontaneous generation, and yet is still held onto, simply by adding more time. I remember going to a natural history museum and seeing a replica of some extinct primate that they built from no other fossil evidence than a partial jawbone. We certainly are imaginative people, but depending on who's saying it, we're willing to accept it with no question. If some scientist said he'd found proof of unicorns, we'd buy it on his word because "he knows best".
David, interestingly (maybe not the best word), there are Christian organizations (like BioLogos) are making a serious attempt to merge science and Genesis. They mythologize Genesis (which, foolishly, Jesus seemed to take at face value) and push for a version of "theistic evolution." Not making sense to me. "We need to correlate this latest idea in science that can't really be verified and has all sorts of problems with Scripture ... by redefining Scripture." Not getting it at all.
Theistic Evolution tries to have its cake and eat it too, but ends up with no cake at all.
Oh, yes, "theistic evolution" is full of the same holes that atheistic evolution has--it is bound to be if it is incorporating any form of evolution. Plus it denies clear scripture, which certainly doesn't help its case in my eyes. And yes, David, I see that type of thing (and worse!) at museums all the time--sometimes the bone isn't even from the species of animal they have "re-created" from it! Many fraudulent displays and so-called "findings" have since been debunked but certainly helped establish a credible facade, since they were promoted by "scientists," who we all know are not swayed by personal bias! (cough!)
~Lorna~
Post a Comment