Evolutionists love to claim the moral high ground in the debate over origins by stating that their beloved theory is supported with only empirical and rigorously tested science, whereas those “ignorant”, “deluded” creationists rely solely on faith, hope and mysticism…
However, even though they now speak of evolution as if we all “know” it’s proven, scientific fact, I’ve noticed how many times they still use words and phrases like “we think”, “probably”, “most likely” and “scientists are of the opinion that…” This is hardly “empirical” evidence.
Another word-set commonly used in the preaching of evolution is this one: “must have”. I herein offer a few interesting examples.
Such “empirical” evidence came into play in a discussion I heard recently on the subject of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants absorb sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and magnesium, grow themselves, and provide food for other life forms. Just coincidentally, of course, they also eject oxygen as a “waste” product, something which certain life-forms not a million miles away from us are rather partial to. We, in turn, release Carbon dioxide as a waste product. Quite a coincidence, eh?
It was an intellectual presentation, the panel consisting of highly qualified biologists and educators*. As is normal these days in any scientific discussion or documentary, half of the time was spent in the preaching of the relevant evolutionary “understanding” of how it all came to be.
Photosynthesis, declared the all-knowing panel, began when the only life forms around billions of years ago, single-celled bacteria, were “captured” by large inorganic molecules, and conscripted as energy-producing slaves for their new masters. Thus, they say, the necessary process to grow plants came into being.
Asked by the admiring program host if they could give an idea of “when” said evolution from bacteria into the necessary chloroplast organelles happened, “within, say, seven hundred million years or so”, one of the expert answers was:
“…there are no fossils of this kind of thing-to date-in rocks, but it must have happened…”
To summarize, there is no empirical evidence: there is no fossil evidence of the alleged two-billion years past transition from single-celled bacteria into chloroplasts, but they know that it “must have happened”. Well, that proves it then, doesn’t it?
A text book on the evolution of life from non life similarly bridges an enormous gap in one deft leap by invoking the “must have” imperative, demonstrating-on paper-how to easily solve a giant mystery by adding non-testable elements to the non-observable narrative:
“Once the necessary building blocks were available, how did a living system arise and evolve? Before the appearance of life, simple molecular systems must have existed that subsequently evolved into the complex chemical systems that are characteristic of organism” (“Biochemistry. 5th Edition).
One of my favorite “must have” episodes was in a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, released in 2008. Towards the end of “Expelled” Director Ben Stein interviews none other than the high priest of Neo-Darwinism, Richard Dawkins.
Stein asks Prof. Dawkins how life began from non-life. Prof. Dawkins answers:
“Nobody knows how it started…we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life”.
Stein: “What was that?”
Prof. Dawkins: “It was the… origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”
Notice that Dawkins had just made a gargantuan leap from nothing but soup to the first self-replicating molecule, actually skipping the substantive information that Stein had asked for.
The conversation continued…
Stein: “Right. And how did that happen?”
Prof. Dawkins: “I’ve told you, we don’t know”
Stein: “So you have no idea how it started?”
Dawkins: “No, no, nor has anybody.”
So in summary, the great Professor assures us that while they “don’t know” how life evolved from non-life, they’re pretty darn sure that it “must have”.
The Prof went on to suggest that life may possibly have come from somewhere else in the universe. This is a convenient theory-in-reserve for some evolutionists, just in case the problem of life from non-life on earth proves too difficult to explain convincingly. Life “out there” in the universe is an increasingly popular subject, because, well, we all know that just about anything is possible in space, don’t we. And in another theory called “convergence” the idea is that there must be plenty of other beings out there which have evolved to look just like us. Cambridge News discusses one scientist’s book on the theory:
“Extra-terrestrials resembling humans must have evolved on other planets, according to a new book by a Cambridge professor.
An evolutionary biologist based at St John’s College, he says evidence different species will independently develop similar features means life similar to that on Earth would also develop on other, equivalent planet”.
That’s the theory-or perhaps we should really call it a hypothesis, or better still, “wild speculation”, because, as Cambridge News states:
“Professor Simon Conway Morris says it is ‘paradoxical’ no evidence of life ‘out there’ has yet been discovered”.
* “IN OUR TIME”: “Photosynthesis”, with Melvyn Bragg