Monday, September 19, 2005

WHY EVOLUTION FAILS TO PERSUADE: The Cart Before the Horse Argument

Quite often, evolutionists make presumptive statements about evolutionary events or pathways. While their perspective is the primary influence in academia, the media, and most of the scientific enterprise - they are in fact a minority playing to a listening audience comprised primarily of individuals who believe in a Creator, or who are at least sympathetic to that notion. Therefore, if they ever hope to convince others that Darwinism has any credibility, they need to produce evidence BEFORE they promote any evolutionary conclusions.

For example, at the recent World Summit on Evolution held in June on the Galapagos Islands, Paleobiologist William Schopf made a statement that, while honest, is a classic example of what evolutionists do all the time: They put the cart (assume that evolution is the process that occurred) before the horse (when they clearly can't explain HOW that process works). Here's a snippet of what Schopf said at the conference:

"We know the overall sequence of life's origin, from CHONSP (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus), to monomers, to polymers, to cells; we know that the origin of life was early, microbial, and unicellular; and we know that an RNA world preceded today's DNA-protein world. We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world."

When Schopf and other evolutionists say things like this, they presume (consciously?) the outcome before they can demonstrate it. Though the common man may see such remarks as lacking in common sense, even well educated people can see the inconguity in such statements. Or maybe it's just another instance of that evolutionist double-speak that we shouldn't confuse the "fact" of evolution with the "theory"? Sorry, but in my book if the facts don't support the theory - indeed - if they can NEVER support the theory - then honesty requires that we refer to evolution for what it really is and forever will be: speculation and conjecture.

Most people understand that the basis for arriving at any evolutionary conclusion requires that we first define how that conclusion was reached. The is the normal expectation of a rational, thinking person. If evolutionists can't do that, then who in the world is going to believe it when they say "we don't know how it happened, we just know it did"? And what right does anyone have to admonish the skeptic for refusing to accept such an absurd proposition - conclusion reached without any evidence? Without a well-defined cause, why in the world would an evolutionist expect anyone else to accept their presumed outcome - since clearly it's just a presumption (based on evolutionary speculation).

The only people who are likely going to accept such statements are those who have a pre-disposition towards accepting evolution in the first place.

That evolutionists continue making such statements, while at the same time insisting that evolution is the only acceptable explanation for the origin and development of life, indicates that they have yet to learn that it is precisely statements like this that convince the skeptic that evolution is not credible, and is certainly not worthy of being regarded as the sole explanation for the origin and devleopment of life on this planet.

And, as I said, statements like this are made all the time:

“It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved, assumed additional functions, but how they arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis…” ( Stahl, Barbara J. Vertebrate History – Problems in Evolution. Dover Books, NY - 1985, pg. 349)





0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home