Creation Insights

Revealing the empirical case for
intelligent design and Bible science.

Evolution's dilemma

The dilemma for evolutionists is to back the claim that evolution is a fact.

Harvard evolutionist Ernst Mayr said in an interview that, "...evolution is so clearly a fact that you need to be committed to something like a belief in the supernatural if you are at all in disagreement with evolution. It is a fact and we don't need to prove it anymore" (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr — ScienceMasters Series/Basic Books; October 2001, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html, accessed 10-13-04) .

Obviously, it is easier to claim something to be fact than to prove it with evidence. But brash claims do not make good proofs. The fact is that evolution rests upon the assumption of atheistic naturalism not facts. Mayr revealed this secular bias saying,

"Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal (Ibid) .

The fallacy of this secular bias is that obscures objectivity. Objective science is not atheistic. It is agnostic. To proscribe the supernatural by presupposition that an atheistic interpretation of origins is the only credible explanation is dishonest and prejudicial. It forces explanations to contradict laws of science and defies the very foundational principles upon which science is derived .

Nagging questions that evolutionists cannot answer with facts leave the general theory of evolution in question and far from fact .

Mayr admitted that, "Because of the historically entrenched resistance to the thought of evolution, documented by modern-day creationism, evolutionists have been forced into defending evolution and trying to prove that it is a fact and not a theory."

Mayr argues that these defensive efforts (viewed by many as vital to the theory's survival) are distractions to the development of evolutionary explanation. Unlike his peers, rather than spend time searching for and offering evidence to establish the fact of evolution, he simply declares that evolution is a fact. For some, the declaration is sufficient. For others, evidence and rational analyzation are required to establish a fact .

Check out the Questions to Ask Evolutionists page. Try asking evolutionists, especially your teachers, these questions and watch what happens.

These are questions that evolutionists are not able to answer with scientific evidence. However, be assured, they have answers, or to put it more accurately, they have responses. However, answers without evidence are mere declarations and myth propagation .

 

"Yet, clearly, evolution is not a "fact" in the sense that the man in the street understands the word. Without a time machine, we cannot prove that birds evolved from reptiles....Nor can we prove that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the whole development of life on earth...." (P.J Bowler, "Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised Edition, 1989, p.357).

"During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift-that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our continents-was every bit as good as it is today. .... In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away. ... The old data from continental rocks, once soundly rejected, have been exhumed and exalted as conclusive proof of drift. In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the expectation of a new orthodoxy. I regard this tale as typical of scientific progress. New facts, collected in old ways under the guidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial revision of thought. Facts do not `speak for themselves', they are read in the light of theory." (S.J. Gould, "The Validation of Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.161

"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on observations, not theories. Theories, it is said, are useful in suggesting new ideas and new lines of investigation for the experimenter; but "hard facts" are the only proper ground for conclusion. I have never come across anyone who carries this profession into practice--certainly not the hard-headed experimentalist, who is the more swayed by his theories because he is less accustomed to scrutinise them. Observation is not sufficient. We do not believe our eyes unless we are first convinced that what they appear to tell us is credible. It is better to admit frankly that theory has, and is entitled to have, an important share in determining belief." (Sir Arthur Eddington, "The Expanding Universe," Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1940, p.25)