From 1849 Darwin stopped going to church, decided he was agnostic, and later wrote:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be
true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who
do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my
best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
It is not difficult to see why a person would seek alternate
understandings of life and the here-after, with the threat of everlasting
damnation hanging over all but a few. The Church and perverse doctrines have a
lot to do with people’s rejection of Jesus and God. Belief in a Church is not
the same as belief in God. Any time man gets into the arena of God’s
responsibilities he will be confused and often misled. God made it clear
through his Son on earth that love is the most important attribute. We are
called to honour God, and obey his will. God’s will, was demonstrated in the
life of Jesus. As disciples of Jesus, Christians are required to exhibit God’s
love in their lives. We are called to walk by faith, showing God’s love and
grace in the way we live. The existence of God cannot be established by natural
science. Notwithstanding, the universe in all its wonder and intricacies is
evidence of the Creator. Darwin’s hypotheses provided a platform of
pseudo-credibility to atheists and godless in so-called “Christian” society. It
should be noted that evolution cannot be established as fact by scientific
rules that haven’t been adjusted to accept doubtful theories.
Karl Popper, echoing David Hume, argued
that no amount of empirical evidence is sufficient to establish that a law of
nature is true. Some subsequent
observation of the world might contravene the proposed law, demonstrating that
it fails to hold universally after all.
Popper held that the importance of empirical research in science arises
from its ability to falsify, not confirm, hypotheses. Cognitive scientists of
science have provided evidence that, Popper’s analyses notwithstanding,
scientists often exhibit confirmation bias. They seek out and emphasize
evidence that supports their hypotheses, and they dismiss contrary evidence as
artifacts of incautious observations or experimental designs.[1]
Popper to my unscientific mind, seems to be saying what is true
in many fields of research, “You See
What You Believe. Your causal beliefs about the world influence what you see.”[2] It
is evident in the field of evolutionary science no one pays any attention to
Popper. Evolutionary scientists expect the common public to accept their
findings even though some of them are biased and others purely illogical. The
same may be said of creationists.
If evolution were true, we would expect animals to have similarities.
Animals have similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.
This set of statements is equally illogical as saying that it is raining,
because the streets are wet. It is actually a well-known logical fallacy, known
as the Affirmation of the Consequent. Yet many high school biology textbooks
rely on this illogical set of statements as their so-called evidence for
evolution. The better explanation is the true explanation – that animals have
similarities because they have a common designer – God.[3]
Bayes’ theorem… Why are homologies
evidence for evolution instead of common design?
This prediction of homology is rather
unique to evolution. If biological creatures were designed & created in
some kind of workshop instead, there is no reason why the designer would be
forced to work within the constraints of heredity.[4]
The results of Bayes’ theorem are strongly biased by initial
assumptions and values assigned each hypothesis. In the above quotation common
design is discounted because of the author’s bias; “there is no reason why the
designer would be forced to work within the constraints of heredity.” Why not?
It is abundantly not only possible, but probable that design would repeat
successful structures, with the least amount of variation possible. Or maybe
the author has never heard, “if it aint broke don’t fix it.” I spent a couple
of hours watching some pseudo-scientist demonstrate by application of Bayes’ theorem
that the hypothesis of evolution is far more plausible than design. I do not
understand all of the aspects of Bayes’ theorem, but it was evident to me that the
assumptions used favoured evolution greatly.
The homology argument as supporting evolution is completely illogical. It
cannot be firmly established that evolution is the only process leading to similarities.
Occam’s razor was used by the instructor I was watching to favour evolution:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a
principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an
occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of
saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an
explanation is.
In every aspect of the universe design is evident. There are
no mathematical rules based on random accidents. In the application of Bayes’
theorem assessing the likelihood of which hypothesis is better, i.e. evolution
or design; the numerous assumptions upon which evolution is based greatly
outnumber the single assumption of design –which is design. I was amused by the
obvious bias of the Bayes’ theorem instructor’s glib discounting design to elevate
the probability of evolution. False science now suggests that evolutionary
change occurred during the “gaps.” No one was there to see it, there is no
evidence supporting it yet the instructor accepted the assumption as
scientific? I understand that Bayes’ theorem is used in computer programs for
predicting probabilities. One has to keep in mind when using either computers
or Bayes’ theorem, the cautionary adage “garbage in – garbage out.” The application of Bayes” theorem to establish
evolution as being more probable than design only works for scientists if the multiple
assumptions of evolution are ignored. I would suggest that design goes a lot
further with sticking with what works. Everything on earth apart from energy is
made up of matter; matter is made up of atoms; atoms are made up of protons,
neutrons, and electrons, and so on.
Homology is a product of divergent evolution. The two species were once
the same species at the point where they have a most recent common ancestor.
Over time, individuals in the population evolved through either some type of
selection or isolation from the rest of the population. The species, even
though they diverged at that point, still retain some of the characteristics of
the common ancestor. These are the homologies.
Convergent evolution is the origin of a homoplasy. These similar traits
evolved independently of each other and are not found in the common ancestor of
the two species being examined. Instead, each species evolved the trait after
diverging and becoming separate species.
Some causes of homoplasies are species
living in similar environments, filling the same types of niches, or through
natural selection.
Analogous / Convergent Structures. Some biological characteristics are
analogous (also called "convergent"), which means that they serve the
same function in different species but they evolved independently rather than
from the same embryological material or from the same structures in a common
ancestor. An example of an analogous structure would be the wings on
butterflies, bats, and birds.[5]
The “science” of evolution steadily evolves in an effort to
obscure reality, and patch inconsistencies within it. “Popper held that the
importance of empirical research in science arises from its ability to falsify,
not confirm, hypotheses. …. scientists often exhibit confirmation bias. They
seek out and emphasize evidence that supports their hypotheses, and they
dismiss contrary evidence…”
The homology thesis of the
evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between
all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a
number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely
unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find
wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs,
which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary
relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.
Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural
similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the
octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no
evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both
are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even
evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and
man by positing a common ancestor.[6]
Evolutionists claim that design lacks the facet of
prediction. Prediction – Darwin said something, which was later found to be
true –that proves evolution. Actually I would suggest it proves design. By
looking at the design of a flower, Darwin “predicted” there would be some
creature found with the ability to reach its nectar and pollenate similar
flowers. The design of the flower and its survival necessitated a means of
pollination. That’s common sense, not support of evolution which defies common
sense.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we
understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is
seen was made from things that are not visible.[7]
Beginning from the point of view that God exists, evidence
for his existence is seen in the design and orderliness of the universe.
Without the design and orderliness of the universe scientists would not be able
to do their work. It is certainly inconsistent for scientists to utilize the
exactness of predictability to land a camera on an asteroid, and then deny
design. Evolutionary scientists depend on design to come up with their hypotheses.
From its beginning to its current postulations, evolution
has been, and is, the easiest alternative to believing in God. Evolution
removes any need for accountability to a higher authority. Evolution confirms
non-belief for atheists. It is evidently more appealing to those who choose to
be godless to have evolved from slime than to admit a connection with God. As
Darwin said, “We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with
all his noble qualities... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp
of his lowly origin.” That notion meets the needs of atheist, agnostics, and
the godless. But, I believe people are made in the image of God. People differ
from animals in that they are accountable to God, and are endowed with an
eternal spirit.
Evolutionary science must cling to it hypothesis of common
ancestry of all living species, even though it is highly improbable, if not
impossible, because the alternative offered by design subjects man to an
inferior position under a superior being. Evolutionists can deny all they want
that their hypothesis is fact based –it isn’t. Evolution is based on unfounded
assumptions. It is very much a belief system. Design has more evidence
supporting it than evolution has for its hypothesis. At any time design
manifests itself all around us, but there is not one living example of
evolution. One might say that evolution falls through the gaps.
