QUESTIONS FOR DARWIN

 

 

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.