Do Evolutionists really claim their theory isn’t perfect?
Feedback 18 February 2002
From John Ford, CA, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be published.
His letter is posted below with point-by-point responses by Dr Don Batten, interspersed as per normal e-mail fashion. The editors do not correct errors of spelling or grammar in submissions.
Refuting Evolution is a general critique of the most up-to-date arguments for evolution to challenge educators, students, and parents. Thus it provides a good summary of the arguments against evolution and for creation. It should stimulate much discussion and help students and teachers think more critically about origins.
176 pages (High School-Adult )
Dear Mr Ford,
Please see my comments interspersed below.
It has become a common tactic of creationists to capitalize on the fact that science is far from perfect in explaining the origins of life.
Materialistic notions of the origin of life are not just ‘far from perfect’, but are completely lacking in credibility. See the Q&A section on the Origin of Life for lots of good reasons why the origin of life is an intractable problem for materialists, as is becoming more and more manifest (if that were possible) with almost every new discovery that adds to our knowledge of the biochemical complexity of life.
Creationism has been fairly successful in presenting problems with the theory of evolution, but the point they seem to be missing is that evolutionists do not claim the theory to be perfect.
That is not the impression that the public and students are given. ‘Evolution’ is presented as a completely coherent explanation of everything from the origin of the universe to human fashion preferences—an all-encompassing worldview that has no need for God; atheistic to the core. Sir Julian Huxley, former head of UNESCO, explained:
‘in the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves , mind, and soul as well’ (Evolution After Darwin, 1960, p.252).
This is precisely the context in which Darwinism (evolution) is taught today.
They realize that there are holes, and they are searching for the reasons behind them. Science is a constantly evolving field. Scientific phenomenon that don’t make sense at one point in time are often quite clear at a later time after other discoveries have been made. No reasonable evolutionist will tell you that the current collection of evolution related theories are all in their final forms or are in any way perfect.
|...it would not matter what the evidence was for those whose mind is already set against acknowledging their Creator.|
How does creationism do any better? Proving evolution wrong brings Bible/Qu'ran based religions no closer to being right.
Leave the Koran out of this. The parts of the creation story in the Koran that are correct came from the Bible anyway (remember that the Koran post-dated the last of the Bible writings by more than 600 years). Juxtaposing the Koran with the Bible, as if they are equivalents, is a deceitful debating method of guilt by association—readers remember September 11 and then associate this in their minds with the beliefs of Christians. It is not a teaching of Christianity that men who die in the killing of ‘infidels’ (non-Muslims in the eyes of the terrorists) will be rewarded with paradise.
All they prove by these arguments is that we do not yet understand the origins of our universe. It does not follow from the anti-evolution arguments that we then must have a ‘God’ which created everything around us, takes an active interest in us, and tells us how we should live.
Actually, evolutionists invented the dichotomy—see the quote from Huxley above, where he says that the evolutionary way of thinking gets rid of God. Surely, if Huxley's contention is correct (and many other atheists have said similar things), then problems with evolution also spell problems for the atheist's unbelief in God. You are correct in saying that overturning evolution does not prove the Christian notion of God Who takes an active interest in us, holds us accountable, etc. We do not teach that nature alone can lead us to adequate knowledge of God. You should not have got that notion from our Web site or publications. There is much that we can only know through God’s actively revealing it to us—technically this is called revelation. We believe that God has revealed many important things in the Bible, which we regard as ‘His Word’ to mankind (and there is much evidence that the Bible is no mere human concoction, but is inspired by God—see the Q&A section on Bible).
Creationists say that the evidence for evolution is flawed, but do they forget that their own ideas on our origins are quite absent of any meaningful evidence at all?
Hmm… Have you looked at anything on our Web site with an even slightly open mind? What evidence would convince you? If the incredible irreducible complexity of even the simplest bacterium does not convince you that there is a creator, then I would suggest it is not the evidence that is lacking, but your willingness to admit its implications. Perhaps your attitude is like that described by Professor Michael Ruse:
‘And certainly, there’s no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion … And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.’ Ruse, M. (1993) Nonliteralist Antievolution, AAAS Symposium: The New Antievolutionism, February 13, 1993, Boston, MA .
In other words, it would not matter what the evidence was for those whose mind is already set against acknowledging their Creator. So much for ‘following the evidence wherever it leads’!
A 2000 year old book written by men who werent even aware that the earth was round is hardly a concrete source to base the beliefs concerning our orgigins on.
Which anti-Christian website is continuing to dishonestly spread the myth of the flat Earth? I assume you did not make up the idea. Please look at the articles under Who invented the flat Earth? Also, the Bible claims to be revelation from God; it is not merely the words of men. Since God was the only one there at the beginning, perhaps what He tells us, via the human authors of the Bible, has more credibility than the conjectures of the modern-day apostles of atheism—people who were not there, and who deny the obvious in saying there is no Creator (Romans 1:20)? Indeed, God says that such people are fools (Psalm 53:1). Should we listen to fools, or God who knows everything and created everything? Please don’t be a ‘fool’!
Dr Don Batten