Evolution is accepted as a Fact
What is a fact?
It is something known or proved to be true?
Evolution is known to be true by many, possibly most people, but certainly not by all people. So it is not true to say evolution is known to be true and factual since lots of people, including philosophers and scientists, do not know it to be true or factual. Therefore it is not a fact in that sense.
So is it a fact in the sense it is proved to be true?
It is a fundamental statement of science that no scientific theory can be proved to be absolutely true. The reason being that some evidence may be out there, unknown, unseen and unsuspected that could disprove any theory. So scientifically evolution cannot be anything more than a theory that seems to fit all the facts known at this present time. It is at best a fact with a question or exclamation mark hovering over it. So does evolution get anywhere near being an established fact on the basis of solid observable evidence? The answer to that is no, since you only have to read a science magazine to realise that most of what is presented to the public as known and proved and factual is in fact filled with doubt, confusion and conflicting opinions.
Darwin’s original theory has been overtaken and adapted again and again until it is almost unrecognisable. For example the simple Tree of Life as drawn by Darwin is now a baffling multi-root system.
Darwin was a man of his time and is being proved to have been wrong about most things. The fossils Darwin expected to prove his theory remain AWOL. This will be denied of course but there are a few honest convinced evolutionists: Gould and Eldredge among others, both well respected paleontologists who state there are no fossils that prove evolution occurred. They state that the fossil evidence points towards one conclusion only, which they describe as stasis, which means there is no observable change. Evolutionary change is inferred from fossils that could be transitional between one kind and another. But as I say in another article, we could bury examples of all existing kinds and species, forget they had ever existed for a long period and leave them for a future generation to dig up. Then paleontologists could lay them out according to Darwinian principles and be published as incontrovertible evidence in a science magazine like Nature. Would that stand as proof of evolution and establish it as a fact.? Yes, all this could be inferred from the evidence, but it would be false. Good data misinterpreted. Facts are uncomfortable bedfellows. They can bite back.
Natural Selection is a fact, no-one denies it, but it was seen not to be up to the job and had to be propped up by the introduction of genetic mutations. These do supply a source of variety, but even when behaving at their best, mutations do no more than tinker with low level biological systems. These building blocks of evolution have proved to be either nearly neutral: (slightly disadvantageous) or damaging or lethal. Please look up the expression “genetic load” and note that it is a dangerous phenomenon, caused by high mutation rates, which can lead to extinctions.
No animal, plant or fish has ever been observed changing from one kind into another. Finch beaks into different kinds of finch beaks ( micro-evolution) has occurred and been seen to occur, but dinosaurs into birds is an unproved inference. Things can change via mutation through the loss of some once working function: such as sight or flight. And evolutionists use such examples, which is a demonstration of just how bare the cupboard is when push comes to shove. The non-existence of any solid supporting evidence is in fact good evidence against Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
What is behind it all?
The following is by Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist now deceased who was a very well respected and much published and quoted paleontologist. This is what he says the word fact means in relation to science.
"fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
He goes on to say.
“Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man:
"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change…Hence if I have erred in….having exaggerated its (natural selection's) power….I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
A question: how did Darwin establish his “fact of evolution”? Was it before or after his idea regarding natural selection?
It seems from the quote above that Darwin considered overthrowing the dogma of separate creations as his major achievement. If his theory was in error then he seems to taking a “so be it” attitude. But according to the above he had at least achieved one good thing, and that was sink the good ship Genesis in which God is said to have created the different kinds of animals, fish and plants over a matter of days. That does not sound like a project worthy of a scientist going about his business. Much more like a dogmatist rejoicing in a victory over an enemy, or a philosopher tearing down the systematic reasoning of a hated competitor.
Bringing the Bible to heel seems to have been his primary objective. How else do you explain the order in which he places his stated objectives, and the lack of any deeply felt care as to whether or not natural selection was up to the job. This is strange, and stranger still of Gould drawing attention to Darwin’s stated objectives:
"I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created…”
This is a man pursuing science with a whopping great philosophical bias against the only alternative version of events. This is worse than pseudo science since it ensures that all data will be interpreted according to a preset ordinance. A creationist may be accused of this, but most creationists are at least up front about their position. Darwin’s theory has at its root an objective that has nothing to do with science. He was a man in the process of losing his Christian faith, but just how much that influenced his interpretation of evidence was probably not obvious to many of those he influenced. As a scientist who was developing a growing contempt for biblical faith he had to find an alternative to the prevailing view, which at his time was faith based on biblical interpretations of the evidence. He was not alone in wanting this coalition broken up and smashed to pieces. He postulated a theory that was not original, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, Lamark and others had tinkered with these ideas. Darwin’s theory was based on a false premise: that nature could achieve without direction (natural selection) what breeding programmes (intelligently designed) had achieved with dogs, horses, etc. The difference is that breeders began with an existing kind, e.g. dog kind, and then bred for different characteristics. Hence the Great Dane and the Chihuahua. This has been observed and is the result of applied intelligence, whereas Darwin’s ideas have never been observed, e.g. ape to man, land mammal to whale, prokaryotic cell to eukaryotic cell.
Gould argues that facts like evolution could be wrong, but only in the sense that gravity could possibly be wrong. But how often had anyone seen apples suspended in mid air. Evolution is put on the same plinth alongside gravity. No-one in their right mind should contemplate any other solution to the question of how nature came to be as it seen to be. There is a distinction however that anyone should be able to understand. We experience the reality of gravity as a force, it is impressed upon us on a daily basis. This is not the case with evolution. Not only do we never experience it, but the evidence that it ever happened is open to doubt if not derision. There is change within kinds of animals, but it has strict limits that have never ever been circumvented, not even by the most focused intent and pressure. Breeders of everything from dogs to roses to pigeons have attempted by every means known to man to bring about such change, and have failed. What has never been achieved by intelligent design via these breeding programmes is said to have happened, must have happened, in the the unobserved past to bacteria, dinosaurs, and apes. That apparently is a fact which is incontrovertible. A fact that can only be believed by faith.
Evolution is a secular religion devised by atheists and imposed as if it were a religious dogma enforced by a Pope like Pius IX who defined the dogma of papal infallibility.
Evolution is not a fact as defined by Gould in his writings on this matter. It is not open to interrogation or internal criticism or falsification as any decent scientific theory should be. It is held by its adherents quite as fiercely and as inviolate as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. An infallible dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX and held to be so by all devout Roman Catholics. Evolution is also inviolate; it moves in a different sphere of being to any other scientific theory. And this should not be.
Please consider this, if Darwinism is wrong then it is soaking up scientific careers and incalculable sums of money in a search that can never produce answers. Certainly not answers that account for the evidence. The chase will never cease because the end in view can never be reached or touched. The theory of everything will be forever elusive if the answer has to couched in terms of naturalism and evolution. The story of the fox and the grapes comes to mind. The prize is always out of reach, always in sight, but above our heads. Looking up will never bring the grapes down. A bit of humility might help, bow our heads and confess that the systems we are examining are simply too sophisticated, complex, ingenious and wonderful to fall under an explanation blind to nature’s inherent intelligence. Evolution is an ugly theory, wasteful, brutal and random, a process devised for one purpose only, the elimination of purpose, direction and God.
