Science and Religion
Articles By Andy Chains (© Andrew C. Haynes)
|
|||
 |
 |
Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution - In Doubt 1 - Darwin In Doubt - Persistent Problems with Darwin’s Theory - Download PDF version of this article) 2 - Fundamentalist Atheism, Fundamentalist Darwinism - And Darwin’s “Black Sheep” Of Modern Science - Download PDF version of this article) 1 - Darwin In Doubt - Persistent Problems with Darwin’s Theory - top There was a time when our planet was a totally dead world. Today there is a rich abundance of life. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is an attempt at a purely naturalistic explanation of the development of all life (though, note that the theory has nothing to say about the origin of life). Darwinian Theory Of Evolution (you can download a free copy of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ at my ebooks homepage) The basic assertions of Darwinian Evolution are well known, namely that:
Darwin In Doubt My ‘Darwin In Doubt’ had its own origin in my desire to improve my understanding of Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution. My background is mostly in Physics/Maths, which I have taught since 1982. I have a BSc in Physics and an MSc in Scientific Computing. Hence, my approach to Darwin’s Theory is from the point of view of an interested amateur with a scientific background. Fortunately, it is not necessary to be a specialist in Biology or Palaeontology in order to understand what Charles Darwin’s Theory asserts, and assess its credibility based on the relevant data and arguments. Initially, like most people, I took Darwin’s Theory as ‘a given’ - and it came as a real surprise to me to discover that most of the data presented as evidence for Darwinian evolution, including that in ‘The Origin Of Species’, does not relate to or support his main assertion, namely that of extremely gradual organic change via huge sequences of intermediate life forms. The most direct evidence we could have for sequences of ‘inconceivably great’ numbers of ‘intermediate and transitional links’ (Darwin’s words in quotes) might exist as living descendants of intermediate life forms and/or in fossilised remains. Living sequences? Molecular Biologist Michael Denton, in his 1985 book ‘Evolution - A Theory In Crisis’ says that ‘...out of all the millions of living species known, only a handful can be considered to be in any sense intermediate between other well-defined types’ - i.e. no living sequences exist. This was the case in Darwin’s day, and has remained true for 150 years, in spite of the many, many new species discovered in that time. Fossil sequences? Dr. Niles Eldredge says (Guardian Weekly - 26th Nov. 1978): ‘...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years, and no transitional forms were found in them.’ And Michael Denton says: ‘... while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life ... what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms...’ Thus, evidence for Darwin’s ‘inconceivably great’ numbers of ‘intermediate and transitional links’, did not exist in 1859, when The Origin was first published - and such evidence does not exist today, 150 years later. Both the living and the fossils contain well-defined groupings of fish, reptiles etc plus a handful of stand-alone individuals, of dubious status, claimed as ’missing-links’ - but there are no sequences, alive or long-dead, corresponding to gradual but great organic changes. The lack of fossil sequences was a particular matter of concern to Darwin - In The Origin, he wrote: ‘Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation...of the forms of life?’ Presumably he fully expected that in time such fossil evidence would be found to confirm his theory. However, 150 years on, and Darwin’s question still stands as a direct challenge to his own theory of life on earth. He also said that the absence of intermediate sequences of fossils ‘is probably the gravest and most obvious all the objections which may be urged against my views’. Most of the palaeontology that has ever been done has been done since Darwin wrote those words, and if the lack of fossil sequences was so grave in 1859, how much more magnified a threat to the credibility of his theory is their continuing absence 150 years later? Fundamentals Of Modern Science One reason (maybe the only one?) why Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution was and is so readily accepted, and actively, indeed, aggressively, advocated by many, in spite of the lack of direct evidence (then and now), is indicated by Richard Dawkins, who says in his 1986 publication ‘The Blind Watchmaker’: ‘In Darwin’s view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book.’ But this will not do. Human recorded history goes back thousands of years - but modern science, as founded by the true greats, such as Newton, has only existed a few centuries - and it is only in the last hundred years or so we’ve had the subsequent explosion of technologies (“the appliance of science”) which so characterise our modern age. It is fundamental to modern science that theories are based on relevant data, and not influenced by preferred beliefs - and that they are held with a ’light hand’ - if the data goes against a theory then the theory goes. And if one investigates beyond the usual superficial presentation in the media or educational texts, it is clear that Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution is in trouble - for entirely scientific and rational reasons. G K Chesterton - ‘Doubts About Darwinism’ - download a free copy at my ebooks homepage That Darwin’s Theory is in trouble has been known for decades. G K Chesterton says in his 1920 “Doubts About Darwinism” “The Darwinians have this mark of fighters for a lost cause, that they are perpetually appealing to...authority” - if you point out problems to a Darwinist “He will probably answer with the names of various German professors; he will not answer with any ordinary English words, explaining the point at issue.” - and elsewhere, “when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and in common speech...When they have no explanation to offer, they give short dignified replies, disdainful of the ignorance of the multitude.” Time to get Darwin off our tenners?! 
The Complete “Darwin In Doubt” - £3-95 In my complete ‘Darwin In Doubt’ [about 27000 words, downloadable in PDF (Adobe) format] I seek to discuss Darwin’s Theory and its problems in a structured manner - the following is the index to the book: PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
APPENDIX
2 - Fundamentalist Atheism, Fundamentalist Darwinism - And Darwin’s “Black Sheep” Of Modern Science - top The basic scientific approach is really quite simple - namely, a careful accumulation of data (=direct observations), with theories based upon such data. Theories and facts (data) are distinct - a theory has to be consistent with known facts, but it is not itself a known fact, unless it can be directly observed. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the “black sheep” of modern science because, unlike the vast majority of scientific theories, there is often a motivation behind its advocacy, a motivation that has nothing to do with the data that supports the theory directly - namely the presupposition of atheism. Ever since the publication of Darwin’s 1859 “Origin of Species”, atheists have jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon in the belief that the concept of organic evolution supports their atheistic view - thus, defending Darwin’s theory is seen as essential in order to defend their atheism. They add “fundamentalist Darwinism” to their “fundamentalist atheism” - they treat these matters as if they were absolute, unquestionable, truths. A consequence of fundamentalist Darwinism is that we see Darwin’s theory of evolution routinely treated as a “fact” - as virtually self-evidence truth. We see that data that supports the theory is emphasised - while problems with the theory are ignored, minimised or explained away. However, there really are problems that cannot be dismissed as insignificant or treated as if they were inventions of Darwin’s detractors. For example, while there is fossil data that is consistent with an evolutionary interpretation, the most vital data that evolutionist would love to have has never been found - namely, long sequences of fossils linking together very different life forms - verifying the once-existence of, what Darwin referred to as, “inconceivably great” numbers of “intermediate and transitional links” - and this is after 150 years of fossil hunting since “The Origin”. The lack of fossil sequences was a concern specifically referred to by Darwin in “The Origin” - presumably he expected such sequences to turn up over time - but they have not. His theory was accepted by many without such direct evidence, and has since assumed a life of its own. The missing fossil sequences have been ‘explained away’ by a variation on Darwin’s theory called ‘Punctuated Equilibria’. Thus, Darwin’s theory has become independent of the evidence - if fossil sequences are found, Darwin is right, and if they are not found, he is still right - abracadabra science! This is the inevitable consequence of having a ‘fundamentalist’ view of Darwin’s theory. The implied logic is simple - “Darwin’s theory is true, therefore any problems must be explicable” - there’s nothing wrong with the logic - the problem is with the premise - but it is a premise that has become adopted as a “fact” throughout science and the media (and even treated as such in school textbooks). Fundamentalist atheistic evolutionists are keen for (Darwin’s theory of) evolution to be perceived as a fact. However, evolution can never legitimately be called a known scientific fact, without distorting the basic nature of science (and, indeed distorting what even the word “fact” ordinarily means). In the scientific approach, ‘facts’ are what one observes directly - so for evolution to be a known “fact” means that it has to become a direct observation - and that means having been in a position to directly observe the 4000+ million years of earth history (and apparently there is only one potential candidate for that privileged viewpoint - and that would not suit the atheistic presupposition of Darwin’s modern-day aggressive “bulldogs”!). When someone asserts that organic evolution is a “fact” (and they do!), they are being unscientific at the most basic level, in failing to distinguish between direct observations and theories based upon observations. Many may have the gained the impression (from atheistic scientists!) that atheism and science go hand-in-hand - that one cannot be a ‘real’ scientist unless one is an atheist. The falsity of this is indicated, not least of all, by the fact that the founders of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton etc, were not atheists - clearly they perceived no logical tension between science and the creation concept. Aggressive atheism is actually quite a modern phenomenon - and it is entirely arbitrary - indeed, there is no logical compulsion to infer atheism from modern science - not even from (Darwin’s theory of) evolution (even if it were demostrably valid!). |
 |
 |
||
