I never cease to be amazed at the lengths evolutionary scientists go to justify their belief in naturalistic evolution. They do everything from making up data, to attributing to science things that are not science, and even creating novel theories out of thin air. I have seen many articles of this sort that have been published in research journals, science websites, and other sources.
One thing I have noticed about virtually all of them is that in trying to justify their theories, they throw in a lot of speculation. For instance, recently I came across an article entitled, Chemists have demonstrated for the first time how RNA may have copied itself on early Earth — solving a bottleneck that had blocked the origin-of-life field for decades. You can read it at https://spacedaily.com/n-chemists-have-demonstrated-for-the-first-time-how-rna-may-have-copied-itself-on-early-earth-solving-a-bottleneck-that-had-blocked-the-origin-of-life-field-for-decades/
In this one, you don’t even have to get into the article to begin seeing the speculation. Look again at the title. It begins: Chemists have demonstrated for the first time how RNA may have copied itself on early Earth. “May have?” Really? Why are they using this speculative language? They are using it because they really don’t have any evidence (much less proof) that what they are speculating about is actually true.
What these folks are trying to figure out is how non-living chemicals could evolve in a way that could emerge into life using naturalistic evolutionary theory. They know there would have to be some mechanism for inert chemicals to begin self replicating in order to pass on of genetic information to another generation. Their speculation proposes that RNA molecules somehow randomly formed and became the earliest means for doing that.
Here’s another one of you. This article is entitled, New Fossil Study Challenges the Classic Story of Human Evolution. You can read this one at https://scitechdaily.com/new-fossil-study-challenges-the-classic-story-of-human-evolution/
These evolutionists looked at Darwinian evolution and recognized that the traditional explanation that natural selection was responsible for increasing the complexity of life forms had certain problems associated with it. With that in mind, they went looking for an alternative explanation. As it turns out, they didn’t simply throw out natural selection, but added in another factor – genetic drift.
With this theory, they posited that because of various environmental factors, some traits gradually become more common, even without providing a clear survival advantage. These increasingly common traits, then, serve to stabilize the changes created by natural selection. This process would help preserve an organism rather than pushing it continually in a new direction. Scientists promoting this theory speculate that culture also has a part to play based on the existence of things like tools, food processing, cooperation, shelter, and shared knowledge.
Again, though, there is no science behind this idea. All these people have done is to observe what exists, then speculate about how it could have come about through purely natural processes.
The truth is, there is no actual science to back up naturalistic evolutionary theory. Evolutionists, while claiming to be scientists, don’t begin with science. They begin with naturalistic worldview beliefs.
Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. If that is true, then there had to be a natural way for life to come into existence then evolve into the many life forms we see today. There is no science, however, that has ever shown this to even be possible. Believers in this philosophy believe it as an article of faith. As such, it is a religious belief.
So they begin by asserting Naturalism to be true, then they go about trying to figure out how to prove it using the scientific method (the use of observation and experimentation to prove things about the natural universe). Only they don’t use the scientific method. Rather, they use speculation wrapped in scientific sounding words.
That’s why in EVERY article like this you find the speculation words:
- may have been
- possibly happened
- could be
- could have happened
- provides a new way to look at it
- and so on
When scientists use the scientific method, they are always trying to figure out something about nature that they don’t yet know. And that is legitimate. Christians also believe the scientific method is legitimate. God made the universe to operate based on natural laws, and scientists who recognize the existence of the laws try to figure out how they work.
But evolutionary scientists don’t begin with the existence of natural laws. They do believe, of course, that natural laws exist, but that is not their beginning point. Their beginning point is their belief in Naturalism. With that as a starting point, their research ends up taking them in directions that don’t reflect reality, and it forces them to speculate about how things that are not true and real could possibly be true and real. That’s the best they can do.
Freddy Davis is the president of MarketFaith Ministries. He is the author of numerous books entitled The Truth Mirage, Rules for Christians Radicals, Liberalism vs. Conservatism, and his latest book Shattering the Truth Mirage and has a background as an international missionary, pastor, radio host, worldview trainer, and entrepreneur. Freddy is a graduate of Florida State University with a BS in Communication, and holds MDiv and DMin degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is a popular speaker, particularly on the topic of worldview and its practical implications for the Christian life. He lives in Tallahassee, FL, with his wife Deborah.
You may also contact Freddy at Leadership Speakers Bureau to schedule him for speaking or leadership engagements.
To set up an appointment to speak to a Literary Agent:
Email: Alfredo Baguio
Call: (702) 605-4354
0 comments