Part 1: The World of Prehistory
Part 2: Has Earth Already Had an “End Time”? Cataclysm of the Great Flood
Part 3: Transition from One Environment to Another
Part 4: How Well Does Evolution Theory Agree with Scientific Principles and Discoveries?
Part 5: How Old Is the Natural World?
Part 6: Conclusion
Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?
4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?
4-A: Introduction
Or, to re-phrase the title-question, we might ask, did the natural world evolve by itself, or was it created?
What we have learned so far – from fossil, geological, and cultural evidence – presents a version about the origins of the natural world that may be different to what you have heard before. As outlined in previous posts, mankind has a fascinating and marvelous ancient heritage. But unfortunately, it has lain buried under misguided concepts about our past history. Those concepts were thought to be modern and progressive at one time, but as we’ve already seen, a more thorough examination of the scientific evidence has revealed many of them to be somewhat misleading. Let us continue then the process of re-orienting our thinking. Let’s aim to get a more accurate understanding of the science behind these issues as we continue the search to retrieve our lost, ancient heritage.
The following posts will examine evolution theory in the light of the science of genetics, DNA discoveries, fossil evidence, and dating of the Earth’s age.
Every scientist knows that, before pronouncing a theory or hypothesis as fact or as a “law”, he or she must prove its truth by using the experimental method. Until one has tested a theory exhaustively enough to see that it works in practical reality, only then does it become legitimate; only then can one begin to proclaim it as a new “law of science”.
But when it comes to investigating the more distant past history of mankind and the earth, this experimental method is often ignored; scientists tend to skip this normal and established procedure called investigation, experimentation, and testing. Instead of letting the evidence speak for itself, it ends up getting misinterpreted, then forced, pounded, and made to fit into the mold of preconceived ideas.
Along this line, here is a revealing quote from the brother of Charles Darwin, commenting on Charles’ recent book The Origin of Species :
“In fact the a priori reasoning [the theory] is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling”
– Erasmus Darwin (November 23, 1859)
What he meant here was that the theory seemed to him so utterly profound that the facts, even if contrary to evolution, should just mind their own business and take a back seat to the theory. Well, that is a case of putting on the blinders – a poor scientific approach… and poor detective work!
True science is based on
- accurate observation
- thorough investigation
- unbiased interpretation
And if true Science points us to the reality of a supernatural Creator, then that is what we ought to believe and follow.
Unfortunately however, that regrettable attitude of willfully ignoring evidence has prevailed and caused great misunderstanding in the collective mind of mankind… to the point now where everyone assumes that evolution theory is the only valid explanation for the origins of the natural world. And because of that universal assumption, any evidence to the contrary is ignored, denied, discredited, and otherwise swept away out of sight under the academic rug.
Proponents of evolution may be very good scientists in their areas of specialization, but when it comes to understanding our distant origins, all scientific sense, even common sense, seems to fly out the window. Likely, this stems from an unwillingness to acknowledge the role of the Creator in forming the natural world, which arches beyond what can be explained by science. Among scientists, the need to explain everything is both a strength and a weakness, it would seem.
So in spite of solid scientific evidence, it still remains a difficult exercise to dismantle the old assumptions and ways of thinking about the origins of the natural world. But let us look at the “solid scientific evidence” and see if we can gain a better updated understanding about this great mystery of our origins… from five different angles:
***
it makes more sense all the time, than those so called “billions of years”.
This material is quite obviously well-researched and well-written. I think this article is full of valuable information that is presented in a unique way. If I were to rate it, I’d rate this a solid 10.
Admiring the commitment you put into your website and detailed information you offer. It’s nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed material. Wonderful read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
I think i just had a light bulb appear over my head thanks to your blog. lol good job.
Hello, I love viewing your website. Hjalmar Lindholm
Very absorbing post. Very entertaining and accurately penned blog. I will come again in the near future.
I’ve chosen datnig methods next because of my last blog about ANCIENT tribes. Yes, there’s an absolutely critical piece of the case you’re missing. It’s that the geologists and chemists, who spend their entire careers gaining knowledge about radiometric datnig, are NOT assuming that atmospheric composition has always been the same. It hasn’t been.If you do even shallow, playful research in any peer-reviewed science journal about radiometric datnig, you’ll find that half-lives are not affected by any of the following: temperature, pressure, chemical environment, electric/magnetic fields. You’ll find the same thing in Wikipedia. Half lives depend ONLY on nuclear properties. Chemists know this because they have tested the applicable nuclides (particular isotopes) of elements such as uranium, strontium, cesium, carbon and others in a variety of laboratory conditions. They change all the variables. They are extremely careful. Decay rates are checked and re-checked and are reliable. Importantly, when a rock is dated, they don’t use just one method of datnig, they use at least five or six. And each individual result (done by different chemists in different labs and independently submitted) nearly always points to the same age range as the next. This is a slam dunk for the validity of radiometric datnig. Scientists who do this kind of work are not conspirators. When a hypothesis is published, you have an arena of other scientists who try to disprove it. If one of them does, he scores tremendous points for himself. In fact, if you disprove your OWN hypothesis, you also earn points. This is what I refer to when I mention peer-reviewed journals. I’m not writing an attack piece, but peer review is not what Creation Science is up to. Peer review is the primary mechanism by which science is kept honest. In the world of science, any dishonesty gets you barred for life. It’s a one-strike system.The scientific arena doesn’t overlook simple things that you or I might point out to them. The studies that are taken up are scrutinized in rigorous detail. Hypotheticals and potential problems with results overflow researchers’ books. You’re not going point out obvious flaws to huge fields of detail-oriented scientists. If you did, your ideas would be immediately published and you’d have many scientists banging heads to team up with you in order to join the pioneering ranks of cutting edge science. Unfortunately, real scientists are repeatedly dragged from the front lines of important research to explain away New Earth/Anti-Evolution concepts that could have been refuted by, literally, a few minutes of pedestrian research. I hope my language wasn’t too aggressive here, but it is crucial to recognize that one-strike/peer review makes science virtually incorruptible. It is not out to promote old earth theory; it’s just how it works out. I have a paper to write for now, but I’ll be back.Best,Patrick
Dear Patrick,
I know it is disturbing to think that scientists may be wrong about things. The measuring of time by radiometric dating involves some extraordinarily complex procedures, and I don’t think that it is nearly as precise or flawless as scientists seem to think, nor are the procedures and checks-and-balances as watertight and controlled as we might think. Frankly, I feel that if the scientists can’t even figure out that the world was submerged in a great Flood, when the evidence for that is so obvious, then how can we trust what they say about radiometric dating? Just my opinion, but my advice is, don’t take everything you read at face value. Look at the post that has in it the list of “missing links”, for example, and learn how the scientific world has swallowed the misinterpreted, even forged, evidence that was presented to it. No checks and balances there. Same goes, I would say, for radiometric dating. Evaluate and examine things; don’t just take people’s word for it, even if they are supposed to be experts. Being “scientific” doesn’t automatically mean you have to leave God out of the picture. The truly great scientists – Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and others – all believed in God and testified of God’s hand in the creation of the natural world.
Warmest Regards,
John Lyall