Naturalistic evolution is the idea that systems, especially biological systems, get more complex by themselves, without the need for some mind or spirit to guide their development. Darwinism proposes that minor changes which give certain biological organisms a survival advantage compound over time to produce major variations and changes, and that ultimately this can explain the origin of species, including man. If this is so, then mankind is nothing more than a more intelligent animal, and God was not really needed for creation (so why not deny his existence altogether, by an application of Occam's razor?)
No informed person doubts that natural selection occurs in biological systems, favoring some kinds of genetic combinations over others in certain environments. But the assertion that fluxes of physical energy and natural selection explains changes from amino acids to DNA, from reptiles into birds, or from apes into humans cannot really be justified scientifically. The reasons for this I outline below.
It is true that Darwinism is the best and possibly the only option available to those who deny the existence of God, the Creator. Some scientists are strongly prejudiced on the subject of God's existence. They feel that to allow God in as an explanation of why some things happen would cause the whole scientific enterprise to be seriously compromised. To them, science is about explaining how every natural thing is in turn the product of natural causes. Because "God's intervention" could in theory explain everything, it therefore explains nothing from a scientific point of view. It is therefore considered desirable to make the assumption that He doesn't exist, to force us to think about what really goes on in natural systems, and how we can predict and control them using tools such as mathematics and the scientific method. But this is not an argument against God's existence, its just a working philosophy. The improbability (or impossibility) of complex specified information appearing out nowhere for no reason at all is conveniently ignored in such thinking. So is the fact that a Christian world view acknowledging the existence of a faithful God who says to His children "Go find out" ( Proverbs 25:2) is not at all harmful to the scientific enterprise – in fact it provided the philosophical foundation for the actual emergence of science in history. The majority of early scientists such as Newton and Pascal were in fact Christian believers.
Now it is true that in times past, mankind believed that spirits were affecting just about everything. Since then, it has been shown that many, if not most things that happen in the physical universe can be well described by mathematical equations of varying degrees of complexity. We don't need to invoke the concept of spirits to explain a lot of natural things that happen. Historically, enlightenment thinkers from the 18th century onwards grabbed hold of this and extended the idea to say that this really means that we'll eventually be able to explain everything in rational, naturalistic terms, and we'll no longer be obliged to acknowledge the existence of a Creator to whom we would presumably owe some kind of allegiance on the basis of the fact that He had created us.
This kind of humanistic thinking got a boost when Darwin published his "Origin of Species". From then on, through people like Thomas Huxley, and later humanistic educators like John Dewey, the theory of evolution entered the cultural mainstream and became perhaps the dominant paradigm in western society in the 20th century.
Despite the fact that many schools are forced by law to teach this theory as fact, it has never been proven. Repeated assertions that it has been proven do not constitute proof. A lot of money is wasted every year vainly trying to prop Darwinism up – money that could have been spent on some more worthwhile areas of scientific and technological enterprise. Some feel that Darwinism doesn't NEED to be proven. For them, it may be assumed to be true. To them, something like evolution must have happened because the alternatives are philosophically unacceptable, politically incorrect and unscientific. See Phillip Johnson's articles for elaboration of these ideas.
As a thinking person and a science graduate, I would believe that evolution happened if there was substantial evidence in the fossil record to support it. There isn't. I can't see any really strong reason to believe that any of the fossils that have been found are what may be termed 'transitional'. All the bones of the billions of intermediate forms that "must have existed" seem to have been bio-degradeable. BUT, my friends, we know [read "assume"] that science can give us ALL THE ANSWERS to our existence because, because … er well, because science has helped us build better toasters, computers and we've even got the technology to put a man on the moon, right? Why should we not simply deny the possibility of the existence of something that is outside the scope of science?
Charles Darwin, who popularised the theory of evolution, was actually trained in theology, not science, and was also known to be a freemason. Truly, he was a blind leader of the blind. But by the time he was ready to die, there is evidence that he actually renounced his own theory and believed in Christ. It was really people like Thomas Huxley though who led a whole generation by the nose so as to deny God and trust in an elite community of scientists. Nowadays popularisers like Richard Dawkins continue this tradition.
Here are just a few of the problems with the theory of evolution:
1. The Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) – before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that didn't exist, if there is no God?
2. Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still unknown. See Reasons to Believe for more information on Creation and Time and the astronomical evidence for God's existence.
2. No model has ever succesfully been given for the evolution of the first biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time. Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would surely destroy them.
What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows 95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?
3. The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species. Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium, the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do. As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that other experts outside their field have proved the theory – these are the true keys to evolution's popularity.
Some Biological Problems of the Natural Selection Theory – Dr. Jerry Bergman
4. If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist? And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?
5. All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account for the evolution of man from apes.
6. Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on genetic information.
7. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which says that closed systems tend to increasing levels of disorder. The order must have come from somewhere in the Universe to give rise to the order here on earth? But how and from where? Naturalists don't seem to have any real answers to these questions.
8. Its hard to imagine how an eye would evolve. A half seeing eye has no survival value. How could such as a half developed eye come to exist if it serves no function and adds no survival value?
9. Evolution just ends up being an affirmation of the theory debunked by Pasteur, of "spontaneous generation". Things just appear. Genetic information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes.. No God need be involved. Take it on trust. Its only your eternal soul that's at stake.
Authors Whose Books are Worth Reading
Philip Johnson – 'Darwin on Trial', and other books. Read his on-line aritcles.
William Dembsi – 'Intelligent Design' (this guy seems to have gotten Darwinists worried)
Hugh Ross – 'Creation and Time', 'The Fingerprint of God' and more.
Michael Behe -'Darwin's Black Box'
A Sociological Question: Why is this theory so valued and protected by so many in the scientific community?
Here are some possibilities:
Note: these are not arguments against evolution itself – they seek to answer questions of a sociological and
psychological nature. Some of these statements come out of my own world view, and assume things I have not sought to prove here.
1. It may be felt for reasons outlined above that alternatives to Darwinism jeopardise the scientific enterprise. This ignores the fact that lots of religious believers have made outstanding scientific contributions, many times believing they were called and led by God to do so.
2. Being humans, scientists are vulnerable to peer pressure, and the desire for recognition and easier access to funding might make it more expedient to avoid dissenting on the issue of evolution, which is like a sacred cow in the temple of modern humanistic science. Writing against evolution can be very bad for your career as a scientist. Censorship happens. Its hard to get papers published by respected institutions if you deviate from the philosophical straightjacket of naturalism. Scientific journals usually don't give theists the right of reply when they come under attack.
2. Added to this is the fact that scientists like many others, would prefer to reject the uncomfortable idea of a Creator/Judge to whom they will one day give account.
3. "Creation Science", defending the idea of a 6000 year old Universe makes alternatives to evolution look foolish, because it makes out the record in creation is a lie – that all is created with the appearance of age. Also, it would seem that some "Creation Scientists", like evolutionists, have been intellectually dishonest in the way they have handles the data. In this way this movement has been a stumbling block to some honest seekers after truth. Many people do not realise that you can believe in an ancient universe and in the Bible without compromise and without believing in evolution.
4. People assume that what their teachers say is proven. Academics are sure that the evidence of evolution is conclusive – in someone else's discipline – not their own. In this way evolution is passed down like a modern myth and its all a bit like "The Emperor's New Clothes".
5. The media and the education system in the west has been dominated by secular humanists for almost 70 years. Thus the lies are backed up with the influence of the press and the authority of the education system. Movies and T.V. documentaries have unquestioningly foisted the ideas of evolution on a gullible public. On many shows about nature evolutionary dogma is constantly pushed but never justified. Remember, it has already been proven by someone else, right?
Evolution and Extra-Terrestrials
Some people believe in UFOs and intelligent extra-terrestrials, as a proof of evolution. The SETI project is no doubt at least partially motivated to find evidence for the evolutionary idea and to undermine the Scriptural message. So far it hasn't found anything. But if it did find complex codes in radio signals, would that be evidence of intelligent life? If so, why wouldn't the complex genetic codes in primitive bacteria and other organisms be evidence of intelligent design? It seems to me you can't have it both ways!
One person wrote to me claiming that aliens had transformed apes into humans using advanced technology. This explained the absence of missing links. When you are committed to a viewpoint like evolution, anything, no matter how bizarre or unsubstantiated, can become acceptable if it is good for the cause.
Many Christians believe that the phenomena of U.F.O is probably due to fallen angels more than anything else. Messages from these so-called aliens promote occultism, and not naturalistic science. Is it a co-incidence that these E.T.s give out the same doctrines that demons do in spiritualist meetings? I think not.
I'd like to hear from readers. If you are opposed to my views you'll have to do more to convince me than to tell me I'm an idiot and that "everyone knows" that evolution is a fact. How about taking this article to pieces, step by step?