As I keep up with the latest news, it is not at all unusual for me to see stories on the latest discoveries in science. In fact, most news services have entire science and technology sections where they archive stories of the latest discoveries and advances in science.
I don’t do a lot of reading in this area, but I do, at least, like to browse it occasionally just to stay up with the topics that are at the forefront. A lot of what is written about is quite interesting – advances in medicine, space science and astronomy, robotics and computer technology are all fascinating to read about. There is one area, though, that aggravates me to no end because the science it is based on is so flimsy.
No, it is not global warming, though the way that is typically dealt with these days is also a bit frustrating. For instance, it was way over the top when recently the woman in England decided to abort a child because bringing another living human into the world would contribute to global warming.
But as frustrating as that is, articles on biology which assume that evolutionary theory is the truth are even worse. These article assume that Darwinistic evolution is the truth, then draw conclusions which end up not having any actual empirical support. Let’s look at some actual examples of articles which recently were reported.
Scientist: Human Race May Split in Two in Far Future
This was the headline of a recent article which asserted that in the next 100,000 years, two subspecies of humans will emerge: a tall, slim intelligent privileged class, and a short, squat, ugly, dim-witted race of servants. Reading the story, though, there is no science in it at all. It is simply one scientist’s projection based on his belief that man has already evolved from apelike creatures to our present form. His logical progression, then, is for that to continue until his projection is fulfilled.
New Hypothesis: Life Could Have Started in Layers of Mica
This article asserts that since the primordial soup theory (the theory that the chemicals which formed life were pooled in an environment which allowed life to develop) has pretty much been discredited, there needs to have been a different breeding ground for the process. So, the new idea postulates that life formed between the layers of mica. It is the same basic idea as before, but just provides a new, supposedly more protected, environment for the process to occur. Again, there is no science here. Evolutionary scientists start with the assumption that there is no such thing a God who could have created life, so it had to have formed naturally and evolved. It is strictly a faith assumption.
Human Evolution Seems to Be Accelerating
Here we have the assertion that people are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past. The assertion is that residents of various continents are becoming increasingly different from one another. From the headline, you expect to see some kind of indication that a new species of human will, at some point, emerge. But that is not at all the argument. What this view touts is that within various segments of the human population, the bodies of the local inhabitants are adapting to their environment (for instance, the pigmentation of Africans and Europeans are different because of the environments they live in). The only problem here is that this is not an issue of evolution. There is a massive difference between natural selection (which are natural changes which happen within all species of life) and evolution (which leads to new species and types of living things). No one questions natural selection, but evolution is nothing more than a theory without any empirical proof behind it.
Study: Evolutionary Change Lets Pregnant Women Stand Upright
This article seems to indicate that men and women used to have the same skeletal structure, but since women needed to walk upright while carrying a heavy bundle in their abdomen during pregnancy, they developed a different shaped set of vertebra in the lower lumbar region to allow them to handle the load. The difference in shape is certainly there, but it is beyond me to understand where they get off saying it is due to evolutionary change. There is no science to make that statement. It is, once again, nothing more than the assumption that there is no other possibility. There is no God to create women that way, so they must have evolved the ability.
Exposing the Flaws of Evolutionary Theory
When you see stories like what is written above, you can be sure that all of the conclusions are based on philosophy, not science. These scientists start with a set of unproven, and unprovable, assumptions. They assume that God does not exist, or that if he does he did not directly create life. From this assumption, they deduce that there is no other possibility but that life emerged and evolved to higher forms strictly through natural processes.
Given naturalistic worldview assumptions, Naturalists can generate some very interesting debates. They will make their assertions and, to discredit them, Christians must show point by point why they are not valid.
There is a better way, though, to deal with this. Rather than trying to debate the resulting outcome of their theories, it is better to go to the root of the matter and challenge their very assumptions. But by looking at the issue from a worldview perspective, the real problems with the evolutionary theory rise to the top and are exposed.
Here are the four primary problems with the Naturalistic approach to origins:
1. Matter – Since no supernatural is acknowledged, matter had to have come into existence on its own. However, there is no science whatsoever which can explain how something could have emerged out of nothing. Neither is there any science to explain how matter could be eternal. For Naturalists, the very basis for the existence of the natural universe itself is nothing more than a faith assumption.
2. Life – As evidenced by the article above on the theory about mica, evolutionary scientists are stymied when it comes to explaining a natural origin of life. There is no science to explain it. Even the theories are nothing more than throwing mud up against the wall to see if something will stick. Again, since they don’t acknowledge the supernatural, the only possibility is Darwinistic evolution. Once again, strictly a faith position.
3. Macro evolution – Even given the fact of life, evolutionary scientists are without any actual science to explain how the many different species of life came into being. Once again, the only belief that they will acknowledge is that lower life forms evolved to higher life forms through natural means. This is nothing more than pure speculation based on the faith assumption that it happened that way. There is no science to prove it, or to even show how it could have happened.
4. Consciousness – The final problem relates to consciousness. How did consciousness arise out of unconsciousness. For the evolutionary biologist, the only possibility is that human consciousness is nothing more then the evolution of a brain large and complex enough to create conscious thoughts. Once again, though, this is nothing more than speculation based on Naturalistic assumptions. There is no science to show that it happened or that it even could happen.
When you read articles like what is above, or when you talk to people who assert Darwinistic evolution, it is not necessary to debate them point by point. Go to the underlying worldview assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, there is no way the conclusions can be right. Armed with this knowledge, you can stand with confidence in your faith that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and that everything he has revealed to us is the Truth about reality.
© 2007 Freddy Davis