The Faulty Foundation of Evolution
One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is the validation of hypotheses and theories through experiments or experimental studies. All of this, of course, is subject to the principle of reasoning. This process has served us well over time, and has allowed us to gain a great understanding in a variety of areas of scientific study.
There are some limitations to this method, of course. For one thing, we are dependent on what we can observe by some mechanism, and unfortunately, there are many things that we desire to learn about that are not observable directly, or even indirectly. Secondly, the scientific method is vulnerable to the same biases that plague every other system operated by mankind. If enough people don't happen to like your research (notice that I said "don't like" rather than "have proven it invalid") because it challenges views they hold dear, you may find it difficult to get your research published in a non-obscure location.
Now, when it comes to the science of evolution, many of its adherents emphasize the superiority of the scientific method to garner useful knowledge. They point to the many documents which have successfully made it through the review process, thus establishing the facts as they interpret the physical evidence to be. (Yes, contrary to popular opinion, science must interpret its data just like religion interprets the Bible.) They focus on how broadly accepted their data is, and how there is a solid foundation.
What many people ignore, however, is that some of the underlying assumptions of evolutionary science are not actually proven facts; nor is there only one plausible interpretation of the data. Not all of the concepts are universally accepted within the scientific community. There are instances where the same data is used to come up with two or more different theories, each supported by a group of individuals.
Despite the supposed openness of the scientific method in bringing advancements into view, it is pretty clear that this openness is limited to what is already generally accepted within the scientific community. This is the opposite end of the view that most Christians have, where everything is measured against the Bible to determine accuracy. (Ironically, Christians are often accused of being closed-minded for suggesting that data which opposes the Bible is automatically invalid, while science has no problem saying the same thing in reverse.)
When you look closely, evolutionary science deals with speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past -- and the distant past at that. Granted, all of science is constrained in some way from fully replicating events of the past, but evolutionary science is uniquely constrained because it not only requires a great many elements to work in perfect harmony (since this is supposed to have happen largely by chance), but because of the vast timelines involved, and the supposed minor and virtually undetectable changes occurring in any single creature, there is really no reliable way to replicate most of the hypotheses. And if you find something that doesn't fit the model, you either ignore it, or rework the model to include it.
Let's look at a couple of areas where evolution has issues that are routinely glossed over, or which fail basic principles of reasoning, but for various reasons have persisted. Here are a few of them.
The dating mechanism is a major foundational element of the evolution theory because evolution scientists believe that they need lots of time for all of these creatures to slowly move from one phase to another. (Personally, a shorter cycle makes much more sense if you were going to believe in evolution in the first place, and I'll show why in a moment). The dating mechanism relies on the idea that the decay of isotopes is constant and has always been constant, and that no major events transpired which would have altered them (like, perhaps, the meteor strike that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs).
Evolutionary science also relies on genetic material being gained over time. After all, if you start with single-celled organisms, and eventually move to complex, multi-celled organisms, you need to increase your genetic material, especially if you intend to have any diversity of creatures. Not only do we not have any examples of such increase over time, all our information points to definitive losses as generations pass.
Tied in closely with this is the need for complex functionality to evolve over time in a way that interdependencies of the components are maintained all the way through. Remember, this is allegedly being done by chance. This brings us to the relationship of DNA and RNA. How would this successfully evolve to a point of usefulness?
Okay, so let's say we still aren't sure about the above, but we want to make use of the vaunted scientific method for ourselves? What should we use as the basis for evaluating how the evolutionary cycle should play out? We can consider starting with the life-cycle of a frog and extrapolate this cycle to see how evolution might deal with it.
Here are two different documents that deal with frogs from infancy through adulthood.
We have chosen the frog because the types of changes that he goes through appear similar to what is regularly proposed by evolution -- albeit, within a much shorter time-frame.
Now, let's say we add some major time to this tadpole-to-frog cycle (like a couple million years), and we should also interject many generations of creatures. What do you suppose happens to the set of creatures who have to live for 10,000+ years in the stage of life that corresponds to a 10-day old tadpole?
Supposedly, during the metamorphosis, the tadpoles immune system is shutdown in order to more easily facilitate the changes. However, this leaves the creatures vulnerable to all sorts of illness and injury.
Clearly, the shorter the cycle of change, the more reasonable the success of the activity, since the time periods of vulnerability would be diminished. Conversely, the longer the creature must stay in a particular state where it has limited defenses against predators, the less likely the chance of survival. To simplify things for the purposes of this thought experiment, we'll assume, that the immune system of an evolutionary frog would remain intact across all of the many multitude of generations.
Still, this does beg some questions that I would love to see answered:
- Given the vulnerabilities of the creatures in each stage, how many of them would you have to start with in order for any frogs to exist today?
- If evolution was responsible for the frog originating from some tadpole-like ancestor, why wouldn't the immune system have also evolved to support the metamorphosis without shutting down in today's frog?
- For that matter, why wouldn't the evolution of the frog have resulted in frogs that don't need this sort of metamorphosis? (After all, the changes produced by evolution are supposed to be random, and yet be the best ones for the species in question.)
- If you extended the metamorphosis cycle of the frog by even years, rather than days or weeks, how likely is it that all of the tadpoles would die before becoming adult frogs? (Many tadpoles are already lost each year to predators -- even with their current short cycle)
- If evolutionary changes are both small and random, why do enough creatures manage to obtain the same types of good changes in order to become a better species?
There are so many assumptions that you simply have to accept in evolutionary science. Evolutionists often claim that Creationists are not accepting the evidence, but the truth if that Creationists simply interpret the evidence in nature differently from the way that Evolutionists do. Evolutionists use their interpretation of science as their measuring stick, and Creationists use the Bible as theirs.
At the end of the day, I would rather put my trust in God's viewpoint because it has several distinct advantages over mankind's viewpoint:
- God was there during Creation.
Mankind can only speculate and come up with multiple theories for what started it all.
- God is has accuracy down pat.
Science has often had to correct itself, and there is no indication that this trend has abated.
- God promises a future of constant learning.
Mankind proposes that we have no future, but likely destruction by the Sun.
I'll take God, whom I have proven for myself over the word and works of man, no matter how many peers have reviewed their ever-changing theories...