Evolution - is it reality?!

Okay, later than intended (due to my failure to publish the previous post when I had intended to do so!), a few comments on the film that my wife and I watched at the "Cité de l'Océan" exhibition in Biarritz.

As already stated, the English-language version was narrated by David Attenborough - a convinced evolutionist. This meant that everything was interpreted as evidence for Charles Darwin's celebrated theory. There, of course, is the first problem for what is now known as "neo-Darwinism" - it is a theory! 

Now, I have been challenged on that claim before now. I have been told that the word "theory", when used by Darwin, does not mean what most people understand by it! What has never been made clear to me is what it does mean! The dictionary definition of "theory" will be slightly different depending on which particular dictionary is used. However, the Cambridge English Dictionary states that a theory is: "a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation." In other words, a theory is not a proven fact! 

What I found interesting in the film that we watched, was the frequent use of the word "perhaps"! "Perhaps" this happened; "perhaps" that happened; "perhaps" something else happened! However, in the next sentence, that "perhaps" had become an established fact! That, I have to say, is something that I have discovered to be the case, over and over again, throughout a goodly number of years being interested in the subject. 

Science should be, I would claim, a constant seeking after knowledge. "The scientist ... must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J.Robert Oppenheimer; Physicist). True science should look at evidence, not close its eyes to anything that doesn't fit its own particular ideas. A scientific "fact" is something that is both observable, and repeatable. The theory of evolution is neither!

On the other hand, when I observe the world around me - whether I look at the delicate petals of a tiny flower; the exquisite colours and patterns of the wings of some butterflies; the night sky with its myriad of stars, all moving in such a way that we are able to predict where they will be, in our line of vision, in six months' time - or sixty years!; a murmur of starlings performing their aerial acrobatics in the sky above me; an aeroplane taking off from the nearby Bergerac Airport; or a thousand and one other things; I see overwhelming evidence of design, and planning, and creation.

I am, of course, a fully convinced creationist - and I make no apology for being so. I would also claim that I am not some uneducated, mentally retarded, 'brainwashed', person. I have a considerable list of formal academic qualifications, and (for what it's worth!) a reasonable IQ. However, even if one does not accept the existence of a supernatural Being, Who created all that exists by the power of His Word, and to Whom, in the English language, we ascribe the nomenclature "God", I fail to understand how any unbiased, right-minded, person can fail to see order and design all around us.

Of course, "intelligent design" (ID) does raise the question of the identity of the Designer - but that is another issue!

If you have the time, and the inclination (and almost an hour to spare!), I commend this video to you. If, part of the way through, you decide that you don't wish to watch any more, at least scroll to 55'50 - and make sure that you wait until 56'00! You may be surprised!

https://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

It was Humpty Dumpty!

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." (Through the Looking Glass; ch.6)

We seem to be living in an increasingly Humpty Dumpty world.  As a "child who was born on the Sabbath Day" (well, it was actually a Sunday - but in the little rhyme, the two terms are synonymous!), I was always happy to claim to living up to what I was supposed to be: "bonnie, and blithe, and good, and gay".  However, I am less likely, today, to refer to myself by that last adjective.

Likewise, politicians in a number of parts of the world have, recently, redefined the word 'marriage'.  All that it now means is that two (for the moment!) people declare love for one another.  There is no need for even the possibility of procreation; and there are still questions as to what would constitute grounds for divorce!

Even as long-standing a word as 'evolution' seems to be able to change (or ought I to say, evolve?!) its meaning.  I have been reading up on SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) with regard to getting more 'traffic' to this blog.  In one article, I read: "Thus, through evolution, smart engineers at the engines devised better ways to find valuable results that searchers would appreciate and enjoy."

Two things jumped out at me.  First of all, there was the interesting juxtaposition of 'evolution' and 'devised'.  Surely, I asked myself, the whole point of evolution is that it is the result of random choices made over a very long period of time?!  If something is 'devised', that clearly implies that there has been forethought, planning, design.  It certainly doesn't sit well with a notion of random choice.

Nor should it.  The second thing that I saw was the reference to "smart engineers".  That suggests a certain level of intelligence - certainly not a mindless, chaotic, series of accidentally fortuitous circumstances!

Of course, this is the point made by the proponents of ID (Intelligent Design) - that there is abundant evidence in the known universe for us to be able to postulate a creative, intelligent, mind behind all that is. As the old advertisement, for something or other, had it: "You know it makes sense!" 

Speaking, by telephone, with a very dear friend in the south of England, earlier this evening (or last evening, if one wishes to be pedantically accurate - it is now past midnight!) we discussed, among other things, this very point.  Charles Darwin confessed that his theory with regard to the origin of species was flawed by the failure to discover fossil evidence of any of the necessary 'intermediate' creatures.  However, more than 200 years after his birth, and more than 150 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, such evidence is still notable by its absence.

Another problem, recognised by Darwin, concerns the eye.  He wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”  Indeed, the thousands of elements in the single-lens eye must all be in position, and working correctly, for that eye to have any vision.  Take away any of the elements, and the eye simply doesn't function!

Evolution is, in fact, a pseudo-science that provides a philosophical framework for those who refuse to admit the existence of a Creator to Whom we are all, ultimately, accountable.  It is the refuge of those who are like the Biblical 'fool' who says in his heart, "There is no God"! (Ps.14:1).  By the way, the Hebrew word used (nabal) refers to someone who is 'empty-headed' in a morally deficient sense, not to someone who is intellectually wanting.

Praise God, He has not left Himself without witness, and the day is coming - perhaps sooner than many think - when at the Name of Jesus (Who, of course, is God the Son) every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (see Phil.2:10-11).