The Evolutionary Two - Step

Anytime evolutionary theory has been challenged by the evidence Darwinian evolutionists come up with some new incredible theory to explain the problem away – no matter how improbable the logic. While evolutionists can make assumptions to fit the ‘facts’ the same courtesy is not extended to anyone with a dissenting views.

An example of ‘evolutionist assumptions’ is what has happened in regards to the fossil record.

The Proof?

Charles Darwin felt it was essential that transitional fossils of ancestral creatures be located. He admitted that none had been found, but he believed they would be. Darwin knew they had to be found because if supportive fossils could not be found, his theory would be disproved.

When the fossil record did not show what they assumed, evolutionists created new assumptions in an attempt to fill in the gaps. This was done to forestall acceptance of evidence that the fossil record says more about intelligent design than Darwinian evolution.

A New Explanation?

An example of this is the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge. The fossil record showed abrupt appearance of species and stasis, or lack of substantial change, throughout a species’ range in the fossil record. Gould and Eldredge claimed that the abrupt appearance of species could be explained by the transition occurring quickly, geologically speaking, in small, isolated populations such that the transitional forms would be highly unlikely to be preserved. What are Gould and Eldredge ultimately saying? What is PE? Ultimately, PE is a proposed mode of evolution. What is evolution? Is it not change? PE is supposed to be a mode of change and yet the evidence for it is stasis. But what is ‘stasis’? Is it not lack of change? So then lack of change (stasis) is the evidence for change (evolution via PE)! [1]

Why was this theory proposed? Since the fossil record did not yield the evidence to support protracted and steady Darwinian evolution they had to invent a new theory that could fill in the gaps for a failed theory.

A Matter of Assumption

The scientific community starts with the assumption that evolution is true and that intelligent design cannot be considered. Their observations are, by definition, skewed because they will insist on making it fit their evolutionary worldview no matter what new theories they have to invent. Therein lies the problem.

"Any theory can be made to fit any facts by means of appropriate additional assumptions." - Schumpeter's Observation

Theory or Fact – The Big Dance

Answers.com indicates that a theory is, “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” This definition alone provides ample reason to not accept evolution as an established fact of science. Theories are not facts. They can be wrong. The more definitive issue is that much of the scientific community will not even consider they can be wrong. If one theory ends up leading to a dead end, rather than go where the evidence actually leads they simply construct new ideas no matter how bizarre. Even when the evidence and logic indicate better answers can be found if intelligent design were considered, these individuals would rather come up with new assumptions.

Is this Real Science?

Real science is based on a search for truth. If the evidence leads in a direction that is unexpected, shouldn’t an honest person of science go where the evidence leads? Perhaps their prejudice prevents them from doing so.

This scenario is exactly what has happened time and again in the scientific community. Of course, this assertion is loudly denied, but the facts tell a different story. This may help explain why evolutionary theory is often presented as fact even if the evidence points an entirely different direction.

References:

[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp

Article Source: http://www.content.onlypunjab.com

Discover truth using simple everyday logic. Learn the truth about evolution and intelligent design. Articles, debate, and more. Obvious Truths: www.obvioustruths.com/

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated