In Darwin’s House of Cards, Tom Bethell has expressed
his incredulity regarding the theory of evolution:
·
I have become ever more convinced that, although
Darwinism has been promoted as science, its unstated role has been to prop up a
philosophy—the philosophy of materialism—and atheism along with it.
Bethell’s claim is undeniable. Even many atheistic
evolutionists have termed evolution a “God substitute,” even a “religion” as had
Michael Ruse. Even among the elites of the evolutionary priesthood, there have
been many rumblings of serious doubts, as Bethell relates:
·
In November 2016, the Royal Society in London,
one of the world’s most eminent scientific societies, convened a group of
scientists to discuss “calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution,”
acknowledging that “the issues involved remain hotly contested.”
Bethell points out that materialistic evolution has found
itself unable to plug the holes of its ship ready to capsize. Not only does
this question of the origin of life threaten this embattled theory, but there
also remains the seldom mentioned question of the replication of life:
·
Bear in mind that natural selection can play no
role at this stage, because it assumes the prior existence of self-reproducing
entities. (Bethell)
We cannot invoke natural selection to explain
self-replicating systems because natural selection relies upon the prior
existence of self-replicating systems to account for the principle of the
survival-of-the-fittest replicating their adaptive gene-set.
In the same way, the principle of natural selection derives
its explanatory power from many antecedents upon which it depends - life,
proteins, DNA, the cell, and a stable fine-tuned universe. It also depends on
the prior existence of self-replicating organisms. Because of this dependence,
natural selection cannot be expected to account for these necessary and elegant
antecedents.
Besides, natural selection seems to serve exclusively as a
culling mechanism for detrimental mutations as an agent of the law of entropy rather
than as a creative inventor.
Is there any evidence that natural selection has ever
produced a new species? Not according to Bethell:
·
Without evidence, Darwin’s supporters today
still accept that intergenerational differences accumulate, eventually
transforming their phenotype, or bodily form. But such a transformation has
never been observed. No species has ever been seen to evolve into another.
Darwin wasn’t able to present evidence that one species had
ever evolved into another. However, according to Bethell, Darwin remained
undaunted:
·
Paul Nelson, a philosopher of science with
Discovery Institute, points out that when Darwin made his arguments, he saw no
need for proof. He said, in effect: “Tell me why these minor changes should not
add up, over time, to major differences.” Of course, asking why a particular
thing should not happen evades the duty of a hypothesis to explain how it does
happen. It was one of Darwin’s favorite rhetorical devices, and he used it
repeatedly in The Origin.
Bethell pointed out that Darwin was aware that his theory
faced many major obstacles:
·
Darwin also asked why, if species have descended
from others by fine gradations, we don’t see “innumerable transitional forms.”
Furthermore, why are species so “well defined”? Why is “all nature” not “in
confusion?” These were good questions. He tried to answer them by saying that
the same process that “improved” and transformed some varieties extinguished
their predecessors: “Both the parent and all the transitional varieties will
generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and
perfection of the new form.”
Are transitional forms “generally exterminated?” This
wouldn’t seem so. And the transitional fossils? Arguably, there are none. Instead,
if evolution is change – and it is – we should be surrounded by highly
imperfect transitional forms with leftovers and transitional organs and
structures fitting uncomfortably together. However, we find profound elegance
and harmony among the species.
Besides, all species seem to be experiencing the gradual
decay of their genomes – de-evolution rather than development. The problems for
evolution continue to grow along with the tenacity of the evolution
establishment to cling to their moribund faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment