Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is being dismantled and refuted right under our noses scientifically, mathematically, logically, philosophically, and theologically by a cadre of well-trained and intelligent “outsiders” some of whose names appear throughout this post. Now it’s time for mainstream science to behave like professionals by looking, listening and analyzing in the objective manner that is supposed to be the trademark of their discipline.
The challenges are coming from every realm of the intellectual world. There is fresh thought and analysis that goes straight to the consensus building block of what the scientific community has staunchly defended — specifically, the assumption of “naturalism” (sometimes referred to as materialism). By either name, this philosophy states that everything can be explained in terms of natural causes. In other words, there can be no appeal to a supernatural cause (i.e. God). This is the building block that is being challenged.
“…materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” — Richard Lewontin
“Darwinian theory is not based on testable, scientific fact, but rather upon the enforced prejudices of naturalistic assumptions.” — James P. Gills, M.D.
Materialism is especially vulnerable on two fronts: origin of the universe and origin of life. A growing body of research has emerged over the last several decades which is approaching critical mass and actually seeing the light of day. This work is exploiting these weaknesses and changing the scientific landscape.
Truth should not be limited to this arbitrary philosophy of naturalism. When God’s presence is detected through science it needs to be acknowledged. This is not a threat to science. But, even if it is, what is science worth if it is willing to ignore truth in favor of its own agenda?
In any human endeavor, you can tell when new ideas are gaining momentum. Those with the old ideas become defensive, often to extremes. It’s happening in the scientific community today.
“It will never formally end as long as there are millions of them out there with lots of money. I think the important point is that with the Supreme Court victory Edwards v. Aguillard, we destroyed the strategy that has been their focal point since the 1920s, namely, the attempt to force legislatively the mandated teaching of this oxymoronic creation science of theirs in the classroom.” — Stephen Jay Gould, from “Evolution, Extinction and the Movies” (Interview with Gould by Daniel S. Levy), Time (May 14, 1990)
“Undoubtedly the highlight of the ministry’s relatively young life was the opening of the Creation Museum on May 28, 2007 attracting over 4,000 people (and about 60 protestors).” — Referring to the grand opening of the AIG Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/history
The most significant part of this paradigm shift is that scientists will be liberated from a self-imposed philosophical constraint that mandates a naturalistic explanation for everything. The scientific community has claimed and guarded this ground rule as necessary to maintain the curiosity that motivates scientific inquiry. After all, we can’t credit a supernatural force every time we hit an intellectual roadblock. Maybe so, but I think part of this reflects human arrogance. To rule out a priori any possibility of a supernatural cause creates a philosophical blind spot.
Does this paradigm change mean everything of science has become obsolete? Of course not! It is possible to arrive at the right conclusion with incomplete information, incorrect assumptions, misguided philosophy and/or faulty reasoning. The discoveries that have brought us amazing technologies, life-saving medicines, and comforts of life will not cease to exist nor stop advancing simply because we are in the middle of a paradigm shift. Breaking free of false ideas is likely to accelerate some areas of science and permit a course correction in others. What science has accomplished is quite amazing considering that it remains handicapped by naturalistic blinders.
Getting back to Darwinism, it is impossible to make a thorough, airtight case against it in a single essay. It will take many more years to lay it to rest in the graveyard of discarded nonsense. The purpose of this post is to be one more conduit between what is happening in the marketplace of ideas and those who are not yet engaged with the topic. This movement is big news and deserves to be on everyone’s radar screen as the battle of ideas is fought. I will close with a few quotes from some of the new leaders and some from the old school.
A Biochemistry Perspective
“Darwinism ignores this one fundamental principle: ‘Natural selection does not exist in prebiological molecules.'” — James P. Gills, M.D.
“The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work. And that is interesting. Because from the actual structure of the chromosome we can demonstrate that the human species did not come from a progressive humanisation of a pre-human.” — Professor Jerome Lejeune, Conference Paper dated October 1975, “The Beginning of Life”
A Probability Perspective
“There are an estimated 1080 atoms in the universe, and our odds for random emergence of all enzymes are 1 in 1040,000. This means life could not have appeared by ‘earthbound random forces even if the whole universe consisted of primeval soup.'” — James P. Gills, M.D.
A Complexity Perspective
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” — Charles Darwin, in “Origin of the Species”
“To Darwin, the cell was a ‘black box’ — its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has ‘absolutely broken down.'” — Michael Behe, Biochemist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box”
An Information Science Perspective
“there is no convincing experimental evidence that order with high information content … can arise by natural processes.” — Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D., Chemistry
An Archaeological Perspective
“The Cambrian explosion, ever a headache and mystery for true Darwinians, is much worse now than it was thirty years ago.” — Thomas E. Woodward, Ph.D.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” — Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University
A Genetics Perspective
“The Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the Twentieth Century.” — Michael Behe, Ph.D. quoting Michael Denton, geneticist
A Design Perspective
“Natural causes are too stupid to keep pace with intelligent causes. We’ve suspected this all along. Intelligent design theory provides a rigorous scientific demonstration of this long-standing intuition.” — William A. Dembski, Ph.D., Mathematics and Philosophy of Science
A Philosophical Perspective
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” — Malcolm Muggeridge
A Theological Perspective
“The creation and evolution issue is so important because it is foundational to biblical authority, a Christian worldview and to the whole of Christianity. Therefore, it is necessary to have a solid understanding of the issue of origins.” — Georgia Purdom, Ph.D., Molecular Genetics
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” — C. S. Lewis
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” — Bible, Romans 1:19-21
© Copyright October 2008, Clancy Cross. All rights reserved.
Read more “Clancy’s Quotes” at: ClancyCross.WordPress.com