If you listen carefully to an evolutionist, you will, sooner or later, hear him or her inadvertently make a confession about either his motivation, or his chosen faith, or the missing facts of evolution. Additionally, he will share an “evidence” which really is not evidence at all.
In this post I will summarize examples of the first three, and in the next two posts I will share examples of the last two.
In previous posts I’ve pointed out glaring confessions made by prominent evolutionists, on a popular documentary series published by the BBC, called In Our Time, such as the fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of the evolution of photosynthesis-vital to all life on earth (3). I observed one evolutionist being unwilling to answer the question of why the earth’s magnetic field and the ionosphere should be in place to protect us from the otherwise destructive onslaught of radiation from the sun (4). These benefits are only a fraction of those under the umbrella of what is termed “the anthropic principle”.
I recently covered the IOT episode concerning enzymes, also indispensable to all life on earth (do you see a pattern here), in which the host was scalded for suggesting that the incredibly beneficial complexities and operations of enzymes seem to be “intelligent”. I also pointed out how the panel admits candidly that enzymes were “made by chance, at the beginning” (a direct quote). Such “invention” (one word used for its origin) does not happen now. For the “invention” of all enzymes, there is no supporting fossil or other evidence mentioned by any of the three evolutionists (5).
The assertion that enzymes were made by chance, at the beginning, was, to me, reminiscent of verses of Scripture, such as this simple but profound one:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
One evolutionist at the end of the extended version-the “off mic” part of the Enzymes podcast-then explains to the wayward host why he should never use the word “intelligent”:
“This is one thing that we’re always very careful of when we’re talking in the public sphere, because this idea of intelligence is very seductive”. He said that he often talks about it with colleagues, but he said that they are “very careful not to use it in the public sense”. “We have to be very careful that we don’t go into intelligent design, because that’s nonsense”, he said.
But where is the evidence that his theory is sensible? None was offered. This is the epitome of hypocrisy.
In another post I related a discussion on the subject of parasitism (1). In the course of the discussion it was becoming clear to host Melvyn Bragg and his listeners that parasites commonly have a symbiotic relationship with their own hosts, meaning that one depends heavily upon the other to stay alive (there’s that pattern again). It was also clear that the learned evolutionists were avoiding mention of the benefit of one to the other and the noted pattern. To his credit, Melvyn popped the question:
So you’re definitely saying that sometimes parasites can have a positive and good effect?
And this was the answer, betraying a certain sense of irritation:
Well the trouble is that words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in biology-it turns into “theology” then (1).
At least this evolutionist is being consistent with his beliefs, but if we really take his comment seriously and take it to its natural conclusion, and apply it to history or politics, or statistics, then all this whining about who colluded with who, and who gassed who, and who blew up who and who owes who what is superfluous and unnecessary, since there is no such thing as good or bad; positive or negative. If words like “positive” and “good” don’t belong in biology but only in theology, what is cancer, or a rupture, or Covid 19? Are these neutral issues, or are they perhaps “bad”? And if they are bad, isn’t there a “good” also?
Stephen Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, with a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, writes about a principle of evolutionary science in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” (2). “Methodological naturalism”, aka “methodological materialism” is a presumed rule of science, he says. It asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature…by reference to strictly material causes only. In other words, there must be no reference to God, explicit or implicit:
“According to this principle, scientists may not invoke the activity of a mind or, as one philosopher of science puts it, any “creative intelligence”.
Meyer also relates a now famous (or infamous) quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, laying out his own version of the “ban God” rule:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.
1: Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. BBC Radio 4 “In Our Time”: “Parasitism”-broadcast January 26th 2017.
2: DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. See also the follow-up, “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” in which Meyer answers his critics.