Sunday, 12 January 2014
It's understandable that many people believe that to not accept biological evolution happened is to reject science/evidence. But if you reject apples, does that mean you reject all fruit?
If you reject the one part of an apple that is bruised, does that mean you reject the whole apple, and therefore reject all fruit?
People that accept creation, and reject evolution, what they really reject is the final conclusions of the theory of evolution. All of the investigative science and evidence that has went in to the evolution-theory, is largely accepted as true. For example, we accept that adaptation happens to species, that they can become specialized, that there can be beneficial mutations.
If evolution-theory is an apple, then we reject a bite of that apple, the bruised part of the apple. This does not mean that you have to reject the whole apple, and therefore all fruit.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE? (Do Creation-accepters, reject it?)
The parts we reject are the final conclusions, that must be treated as very great claims. This in itself means that logically and even scientifically, the evidence-demand GROWS. Evidence DIFFERS greatly, even the very same evidence can differ in value, depending on what your theory claims. You may think, "that's wrong", so I will give an easy example. Imagine we had the same evidence, a photograph of you flying like superman. We have one theory that you faked it, and one theory that you were a real-life superman. The evidence could be tenuous for one theory but strong for the other. Why is that? It's because the greater a claim is, the greater the evidence must be to support it. To claim that ultimately, trees, somewhere down the line, are related to fleas, is an astronomical claim by Darwin. So the evidence also must be astronomical. In reality, the evidence is not astronomical. Even Darwin admitted as to the poor areas of evidence for his theory. The burden of proof is still upon his theory, in these areas, logically.
If evolution (X) is true Then (Y) evidence should follow, (Y) evidence follows, therefore evolution is true.(X) --(Affirmation of the Consequent).
The above form of argument isn't an attempt to say that evolutionists are arguing the fallacy, but I am showing the fallacy only to point out how evidence does not prove a theory is true. An inductive tally of confirmation evidence would allow a theory to be viable, given scientific rules, rather than true. A simple example is if you have a theory that only red balls are in a bag, and each time you pick out a red ball, this evidences your claim. If you pick out 50 red balls, this confirms your theory but doesn't prove it, because the 51st ball could be blue.
Part of the problem with evidence is that there is a spectrum of evidence. Not all evidence has the same value. An example is easy, just imagine the missing link came wandering out of the forest, extant, and could even speak a few words, an upright ape. This, as evidence would be so powerful as to be incontrovertible, but merely finding a somewhat interesting skull, from an extinct-osaur, would be tenuous, inductive, evidence, circumstantial. It would "fit" your theory, but it might fit any number of theories.
DIRECT EVIDENCE (FACTS, in the colloquial sense of the word.)
The immense design-complexity of living organisms is staggering to the point that it is almost incomprehensible. Think for a moment, every single design in every organism has a whole host of engineering problems that arise from that organism existing, and every single problem is solved (millions), and every single organism successfully replicates.
. The complexity of life does not fit evidentially, with the theory of evolution, and it's simple mechanisms are incomparably inferior to an omniscient mind, in direct comparison. To accept simple mechanisms over such a mind, is to betray the direct evidence that SHOWS that to get these organisms you would need, creativity, extreme intelligence, foresight to solve problems that arise, unlimited imagination.
Does evolution have these attributes? To say such design-problems would NOT be solved if you have extreme intelligence, is foolish. To say contingency plans could not be put in place if you had foresight, is again pointless. Let's face it, we all know that such attributes match the evidence and would explain all of it.
When we hear scientists say things such as, "the genius of evolution" you have to remember that they are indulging in anthropomorphism, which happens when you give inanimate or none-human things, human characteristics. This anthropomorphic tendency on their part, does not prove that evolution has ANY matching abilities, what they have actually done is merely super-impose God's glory onto their theory. (i.e, they admit, by accident, that such design requires genius, which would actually come from God, and they instead offer praise to their theory, for accomplishing the feat they are observing.) But evolution has no genius or foresight, because it has no mind. People will also say, "the body is so clever". But the body, apart from your brain, has no consciousness. Any cleverness came from an outside source.