Problems with evolution…not a simple topic to start off the new year. Nor one without debate in scientific and religious circles alike. Today we’ll discuss some issues with facts and bias from both sides of the evolution issue.
Before I get into today’s post about evolution, I just want to say I hope all of you had an amazing Christmas and New Year. I’ve been a bit preoccupied with business and I apologize for taking so long to get something new here for you in 2010, so I guess I’ll jump in with both feet and talk a bit about evolution theory.
OK, Lets get to it.
There are a lot of polarizing discussions about evolution within Christianity and other religious …and even a few in science, but evolution theory is still well entrenched in scientific circles these days.
I am the first to admit I am not an expert on evolution. All that I can do is offer some of the information I’ve studied re: the problems with evolution as I see them. In university my anatomy, physiology, neurology…and a whole bunch of other ‘ology’ classes had a definite evolutionary bias and I’ve done a lot of reading on the issue since then from both sides of the debate…
I will offer some of my insights…feel free to disagree with me, as you likely have before and likely will again :) Any discussion on science and religion, especially when evolution is involved, will definitely get it’s fair share of disagreement.
Problems With Evolution: Hasn’t it Been Proven?
What do I mean, “Problems with Evolution?” isn’t it a done deal? Hasn’t science proven that evolution has occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Well, what I’d say to that is: Not so much.
We’ve already discussed quite a bit about topics closely related to evolution in the past… design and origin of life, etc. Now before we get into fossil records, evolutionary trees, and the like (which will be discussed over the coming weeks), there’s something more fundamental about the issues surrounding evolution that we need to discuss.
Whether you’re talking about the problems with evolution, the reasons why you believe God exists, or how the universe was created, there’s a common false belief that we have to deal with first: That the facts speak for themselves.
Anyone who has truly studied science should realize that the facts never ‘speak for themselves’ in evolution theory or any other branch of historical science. Facts always have to be interpreted according to a framework that has been built on a lot of assumptions. Evolution is no different.
Evolution theory is based on the framework of naturalism…which assumes that there is nothing beyond the natural world. No supernatural.
Evolution: Assumptions behind the Theory
(From Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati)
- There is nothing beyond the natural realm. No supernatural forces exist.
- Nothing gave rise to something at a ‘Big Bang’ event.
- Non-living matter gave rise to life.
- Single celled organism’s evolved into multi-celled organisms.
- Invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.
- Ape-like creatures evolved into man.
- Non-intelligent and amoral matter evolved into intelligence and morality.
- Man’s yearnings evolved into religion.
- etc, etc, etc, all involving a process of evolution in some way.
Like evolution theory with its naturalistic assumptions, the Christian worldview has it’s own assumptions. It assumes there is a God who was the cause of the creation of the universe and of the creation of life. How He decided to go about creating life…whether using evolution in the process or not, is hotly debated amongst Christians.
If He did use evolution in His creation of life, I believe that there are enough problems with evolution theory to say that He didn’t use it in the form it has been taught since Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of the Species‘ in 1859…more on this in the next article.
Back to science, religion, facts and bias…
Some would say the list of evolution’s naturalistic assumptions above has been proven by science, but science has no evidence…not even a workable hypothetical theory as to how matter and energy could have appeared from nothing…or how life evolved from non-living matter.
The the rest of the above assumptions have not proven either. Plausible sounding hypotheses have been constructed, but they are evolutionary interpretations based on the naturalistic worldview, just as creationists will examine the same evidence and base their interpretations on the supernatural world view.
Either side, the evolution or the creation camp, can come up with theories based on the evidence, but these theories are not based on irrefutable evidence.
None of the naturalistic assumptions listed have come close to what anyone could truthfully call scientific proof of evolution.
Evolution Theory Says There is No God
Then comes the assumption in naturalistic evolution that there is no supernatural, or no God. This is unprovable both philosophically and scientifically.
If by definition science is confined to the natural world and must work within it, how can it speak to whether or not there is anything outside the natural world? …other than to make the arbitrary assumption that there is not. Natural experimentation cannot prove or disprove a supernatural being.
The problems with evolution start with beliefs and assumptions. It’s not the facts that are the issue. Creationists and evolutionists agree on the facts. The actual evidence is the same for both creation and evolution. It is just interpreted differently. Evolution theorists dismiss creationists as unscientific, but that is not about the ‘facts’. It is about the naturalistic definition of science that takes the supernatural out of the realm of science a priori, before the facts ever get a chance to be interpreted by any other framework.
Evolution and Forensic Science
Science can be divided into two kinds.
- Operational Science
- Forensic, or Historical Science
Operational science involves repeated experimentation that can be rigorously tested and proven to a very high degree of certainty. It’s what brings us computers and automobiles and provable descriptions of our present natural world. Evolution does not fall into this category.
Forensic science uses the evidence that is available to best interpret things that have occurred in the past. This would include archaeology, paleontology, much of cosmology, and evolution theory.
Many of the problems with evolution stem from the fact that these theories cannot be rigorously tested. They occurred in the past under unknown conditions that are unlikely to be able to be reproduced in the lab even if they were known.
In forensic science involving evolution, there are a group of current facts and evidences that are common to all theories. What brings the different interpretations of the evidence is the different biases of naturalism vs. creationism and the belief in the supernatural.
If you’ve been reading this blog, you know I believe that there is ample evidence to rationally conclude in the existence of God. That’s what Rational Faith Online is all about. This will definitely bias my opinion regarding the evidence for evolution, just as the naturalist will be biased on how he or she interprets the evidence regarding evolution.
What we need to understand is that:
- Defining the supernatural out and evolution in to the naturalistic definition of science doesn’t make it true.
- Because it is believed by a majority of scientists doesn’t make evolution theory true.
- Scientists, like all of us, have their own biases and preconceptions…and it is possible for the majority of them to be wrong if they base their interpretations on faulty premises.
- The study of evolution involves forensic science and a high level of interpretation of the evidence based on the observer’s worldview.
Having said that, I’m not unequivocally saying modern science has it all wrong, just that it’s possible that they do. When dealing with an indoctrinated and dogmatic stance on any issue, whether religion or evolution, it is easy to let belief cloud your interpretation of the evidence. Naturalism is a religion in itself, and self-enlightened naturalists will agree.
Richard Lewontin of Harvard, an evolutionist, states:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
So lets keep this in mind as we get into more specifics on the problems with evolution over the coming weeks.
See you next time!
{ 1 comment }
Science mandates that all things be proven through the scientific method. If this process cannot prove there is a God and cannot disprove there is a God- how then does science refute the existence of an Almighty Creator? It doesn’t. Men’s interpretation of science and its application to our world does.
It took science hundreds of years to understand, explain and harness electricity. Did our lack of knowledge mean electricity did not exist? Certainly not. We simply had not progressed our understanding sufficiently to account for electricity’s attributes. It was always there. Our ability to prove or disprove something does or does not exist is not an effective means by which to solve life’s mysteries.
Comments on this entry are closed.