Objections to Evolutionism – Conclusion

The five objections posted here sum up my primary reasons for disbelieving evolution, despite much evidence offered in its favor.

My difficulty in trying to understand these issues is in knowing whom to believe.  Wells makes a strong case, using numerous examples, for doubting the credibility of evolutionist claims.  Coyne and Dawkins, for their part, make the point that while scientists dispute many of the details surrounding evolution, they agree that the core evidence in favor of evolution is solid.  But going back to Wells, it seems that some of the key cited evidence is not as solid as it would seem, but has been misrepresented, exaggerated or even falsified – leaving me wondering how much of the rest of the evidence for evolution is trustworthy.  Then again, there are those who claim that Wells’ claims are utterly erroneous.

With the avalanche of material available, so much back-and-forth, so much you’re-wrong-no-you’re-wrong, so many biases seeming to underlie approaches and conclusions on both sides, this issue is an extremely difficult one to wade through.

In the face of such questions of knowing whom to trust, I must return to my Objection Number One, and choose to trust the God who has proved himself to me countless times.  While I will continue to try to resolve the discrepancies I see among the various evidences and arguments offered, I will choose to first put my faith in the Lord.

I cannot ignore the fact, however, that much of the evidence offered by Coyne, Dawkins and others is not merely compatible with evolution, but does in fact seem to indicate that evolution is true.  If creation is true, as I believe it is, then creationists must offer some explanation for this evidence, and show at the very least how it might be compatible with the biblical account of creation.  This will be the subject of my next post.

Objections to Evolutionism – Five

Objection Number Five: There are too many facts evolution simply cannot explain.

I’m not talking about a “God of the gaps” theory, rightly criticized by evolutionists, in which facts not yet accounted for by science are attributed to divine intervention.  In such a view, God’s role in nature gradually diminishes as science makes new discoveries, and creationists must admit that this absolutely cannot be correct.

What I am talking about is not those things which have not yet been accounted for by science, but those things which can never be accounted for by science: why do humans aspire to ideals such as truth, beauty, and love?  What is the source of the universal human sense of morality by which we know, deep in our souls, that some things are right and others wrong – and almost invariably agree on which actions belong in each category?  Why do humans engage in altruistic behaviors?

Such questions not only have not, but can never be answered by evolutionary theory (except by a pat “because we evolved that way,” which is no better than a pat “because God made it that way.”)  The Bible, by contrast, tells us how God made us, and why he made us the way he did, providing deeply satisfying answers to these and many other questions.

Objections to Evolutionism – Four

Objection Number Four: Evolutionists are as prone as the rest of us to “group-think.”

The scientific process is not foolproof when it comes to rooting out error.  In tandem to Objection Number Three is the likelihood that once an idea, even an incorrect one, gains a certain amount of traction among a group of people, it becomes extremely difficult to root out, for the simple reason that everyone “knows” it to be correct.  And the fact that all one’s peers accept something is true is regarded as further “proof” of its truth!

Among the scientific community, it seems to me that evolution (among other ideas) has achieved this status.  Scientists who perhaps understand their own field but not others, or who have doubts about things that don’t quite line up with evolutionary theory, simply dismiss their misunderstanding and doubts while reassuring themselves with the “fact” that the scientific consensus couldn’t be wrong.

Findings that don’t line up with evolutionary theory are “corrected,” contrary evidence is dismissed as “flawed,” and alternative explanations are not explored – because each individual expects his or her little piece of the puzzle to fit into the larger overall picture known as scientific consensus.

Objections to Evolutionism – Three

Objection Number Three: Evolutionist zealots have a history of suppressing dissenting opinions.

From my reading of evolutionist books like Coyne’s and Dawkins’ I recall a passage which I now cannot locate, so I will paraphrase from memory: “Much of the scientific process consists of scientists testing the ideas of other scientists, trying to find and correct errors.  If evolution is false, the scientist who finds the evidence will be eager to present it, as it would secure his or her place in the history of science.  The fact that no one has done so is yet more evidence that evolution is true.”

The only problem with this claim is the numerous cases of scientists and teachers who have tried to make a case against evolution, only to find themselves derided, pressured to resign, their tenure denied, etc.  Examples include: Guillermo Gonzalez, William Dembski, Roger DeHart, and some members of the 1999 Kansas State School Board.  The small amount of research I’ve done into the details of each of these cases leads me to believe that while these individuals have made mistakes, or could have handled their situations better, there is definitely a bias against them and their work due to their anti-evolution stance.

All this makes me wonder how many more scientists may have objections, or at least serious questions, about evolution, but are afraid to speak up for fear they will experience similar results.  How many scientists would knowingly sabotage their own careers, their life’s work, their access to resources to continue their work?

Objections to Evolutionism – Two

Objection Number Two: Evidence in favor of evolution may be presented as stronger than it actually is.

I have a few reasons for believing this may be the case.

First, in my reading of Dawkins’ and Coyne’s books it has struck me that much of the evidence they present as supporting evolution is fully compatible with evolution, but taken on its own does not necessarily lead one to conclude that evolution is true.  This evidence seems equally compatible with the idea that in the beginning, God created numerous types of living beings, which were not descended from a common ancestor.

The evidence I have in mind includes: homologous bone structures among various species; observed adaptations resulting from natural or artificial selection; the taxonomic hierarchical organization of all living things; and the geographical distribution of various species.

The question for creationists is whether a theory of creation has explanatory power at least equal to, if not greater than, the apparent explanatory power of evolutionary theory when it comes to evidence that could be compatible with either theory.  This I will explore further in a subsequent post.

Second, Jonathan Wells in his book Icons of Evolution makes an excellent case that much of the evidence presented as supporting evolution is in fact much less decisive than evolutionists typically claim.

This includes the following evidence: the claim that laboratory experiments have demonstrated the first life could have arisen spontaneously from early Earth conditions; the inference of the “tree of life,” from the fossil record and DNA sequences of modern species, supposedly pointing to a single distant ancestor; the so-called “recapitulation” of evolutionary sequences in the embryos of various species; and the inference that certain modern species are descended from species known from the fossil record (or other similar species).

Third and last, I have heard a number of creationist speakers make claims to the effect that some of the “evidence” in favor of evolution is simply false.  That’s not necessarily claiming that evolutionists are outright lying, only that many tend to interpret the evidence in a way that supports a pre-existing conclusion – namely, that evolution is true.

The biggest subject of debate here, from what I’ve read and heard, is the fossil record.  Both Coyne and Dawkins – and many other evolutionist writers – claim there are no anachronistic fossils.  That is, there are no fossils, not a single one, found “out of order” according to what evolution predicts.

Creationists, on the other hand, frequently claim that the dating of fossils, and the sedimentary layers in which they are found, is a highly subjective process – not nearly as cut-and-dried as evolutionists claim.

Since I have no first-hand knowledge of how fossils and rock layers are dated, for me it comes down to whose word I will accept, since the claims of each camp are mutually exclusive.  Given my other objections, both those already given and those still to come, I’m inclined to doubt the claims of evolutionists that they can know so precisely the ages in question, and that all this evidence invariably supports evolution.

Objections to Evolutionism – One

In my last post, I defined what I’m calling evolutionism.  In response to a comment on that  post I wrote, “When I talk about having faith in evolution, I don’t mean that people are taking it on faith without relying on evidence.”

I will candidly admit that writers like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins marshal a great deal of evidence that, taken at face value, does indeed support their claim that evolution is true.  I, however, have numerous reasons to distrust the evidence presented, which I’ve summed up in five objections.  The first objection is below, and the next four will each be posted separately to avoid a single over-long post.

Objection Number One: I believe the God of the Bible created the Earth and all living things.

I’ll start right off by saying I’m well aware this is not a scientifically acceptable reason for denying the truth of evolution.

It is purely subjective for me to make claims that I personally know God, I’ve heard him speak to me, and I’ve felt his presence.  It’s also a subjective belief of mine that the Bible is true and should, for the most part, be accepted as literally true.

As subjective as these beliefs are, however, I cannot deny them; I must acknowledge them as my starting point.  Because I know God, and because I believe he has demonstrated to me that the Bible is his Word, I must use this as a framework into which every other truth must fit.

If it could be demonstrated that my beliefs about God are incorrect, then I would be forced to reconsider my opinions on a number of other subjects, including evolution.  Likewise, if it could be demonstrated that the Bible is not trustworthy, then my framework would fall apart.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for the subject of evolution, even if the Bible is trustworthy I must admit the possibility that I may have interpreted it incorrectly.

Particularly at stake here is my understanding of Genesis chapter one: I believe it is correctly read in a straightforward, literal manner.  Greater minds than mine, however, have concluded that all or parts of that first chapter are true only in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense.  If this is true then my first objection will not stand.

To date, however, all my study and prayer on the issue has led me to the conclusion that according to the Bible, evolution is not true.  From this conclusion, I and other creationists must account for evidence that appears to contradict the biblical account of creation.  How might it fit into the framework established by Genesis?  This I will tackle in a subsequent post.