Before I start sharing blogs with reasons why evolution is not true, we need to clarify some definitions. I know, that doesn’t sound overly exciting, but it's very important. Also, I want to share why evolution is widely accepted in the scientific community, but shouldn’t be – it’s probably not what you think.
What is evolution?
Simply put, the Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on earth evolved from one another over a long period of time.[1] This lineage of all living things is called ‘common descent’. But how did this allegedly happen?
The current explanation is that random mutations to an organism’s DNA may eventually change the organism in a way that enables it to have an advantage to survive and reproduce.
What is DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)? It is the code (genetic blueprint) for creating living things. But when organisms reproduce, the new organism may incur some random changes to its DNA (mutations), which may change the organism. This is important because in the next blog I’m going to share why DNA does NOT support evolution.
Scientist Gary Parker summarizes how the process of evolution allegedly works, “Time and chance produce hereditary variation (mutations); struggle and death (natural selection) determine which variations survive.”[2](emphasis added)
It is important to clarify that evolution is not just small variations we observe in a given species, sometimes called ‘microevolution.’ Creationists and evolutionists agree that variation occurs within certain kinds of organisms. There are dog variations, cat variations, bird variations, etc. The difference is that evolutionists extrapolate this variation to suggest that, over a very long time, small changes eventually lead to major changes and new species, a process called ‘macroevolution.’
This may sound interesting, but as we will discuss in coming blogs, I don’t think evolution is supported by the scientific evidence.
Why is The Theory of Evolution widely accepted in the scientific community?
The vast majority of people have never studied the evidence (or lack thereof) of evolution. They simply accept it as true because it is taught in school and it is generally accepted by the majority of scientists. This is not meant to be a criticism. Most people don’t know that bad philosophy has corrupted this topic.[3]
First, let’s clarify that not all scientists believe in evolution. Although most scientists probably accept evolution, there are many scientists who do not. Some have written books and hundreds of scientists have signed a public declaration on the website: dissentfromdarwin.org
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”[4]
That said, it is probably fair to say that the Theory of Evolution is accepted by the majority of scientists. This deserves an explanation. If the evidence does not necessarily support evolution, what has led to the majority in the scientific community supporting evolution?
It is because evolution is chosen by default based on philosophy (naturalism). Naturalism is the belief that all beings and events that have occured in the universe are all natural, nothing supernatural.[5] Given all of the evidence for God, I believe this is a bad philosophy. For someone who assumes naturalism, the idea of evolution is the ONLY explanation considered (creation by God is not allowed); and then scientific evidence is interpreted based on assuming evolution is true.
Let me give you a couple quotes from evolutionists to demonstrate that evolution is chosen by default based on philosophy.
Dr. Richard Lewontin, a staunch evolutionist, made the following admission – it is a little long, but important.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[6](emphasis added)
Notice what Dr. Lewontin says. He chooses evolution because he has a commitment to materialism – the view that everything that exists is just the material world (in other words, no God and therefore no creation). It is similar to naturalism.
Dr. Lewontin is not the only scientist to make this admission. In preparation for this blog series, I read a book by a scientist who is pro-evolution to ensure I truly understand the opposing side (Why Evolution is True by Dr. Jerry Coyne). Dr. Coyne’s position further supports my point above:
“How do we know that creationists are wrong when they say that selection can make small changes in organisms but is powerless to make big ones? But first we must ask: What’s the alternative theory? We know of no other natural process that can build complex adaptation.The most commonly suggested alternative takes us into the realm of the supernatural.”[7](emphasis added)
Again, notice what Dr. Coyne says, “We know of no other natural process…” He has a philosophical commitment to naturalism, which limits the potential explanation of life. If that is your starting position, then of course God will not be an option, and consequently evolution is assumed.
Now some scientists would counter that scientific explanations have to be based on natural causes because otherwise there is no way to test that cause (i.e. methodological naturalism).
Here is my response: I agree that hypotheses that are testable with repeatable experiments are going to be investigated based on natural causes (for example, the temperature at which water begins to boil). However, we should NOT force a naturalistic explanation on questions related to origins that cannot be repeated via testing: for example: the beginning of the universe or the origin of life. Moreover, we should not force a natural explanation when the evidence seems to be contrary (such as a spontaneous healing which could be from God based on prayer or the resurrection of Jesus, etc.).
I love science. It is a discipline that has helped us learn about the universe and the world we live in, but science has limitations. For explanations regarding origins, such as life on earth, we should be careful not to be influenced by bad philosophy.
Summary Point:
The Theory of Evolution is assumed to be true based on the philosophy of naturalism – that’s bad!
[1]Dr. Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol.1. New Leaf Press: Green Forest, AR © 2009, p.235 [2]Parker, Gary. Creation Facts of Life. Master Books: Green Forest, AR © 2006, p.10 [3]Greg Koukl of Stand-To-Reason ministry wrote a great article regarding evolution being based on philosophy: https://www.str.org/w/evolution-is-philosophy-not-science?p_l_back_url=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dbad%2Bphilosophy
[4]https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf
[5]https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy
[6]Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons”. The New York Review of Books. January 9, 1997. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/ [7]Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True. Penguin Group: New York, NY © 2009, p.136
Assumption is not a word one would expect scientists to use to substantiate their position. It wasn’t that long ago that Christian scientists were the driving force behind promoting scientific research and education as they were accumulating knowledge of the miraculous world around them that was so evident of a transcendent Creator. The best scientists are the ones who tirelessly pursue knowledge and rejoice when they can verify a hypothesis - either right or wrong.
Jay Gagnon