Question #12:
Why is evolutionary
‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists
often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to
evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr. Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian
explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes
humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and
peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their
seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When
an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult
to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific
discovery.”8 creation.com/sexstories
(Sourced from the 15 Questions for
Evolutionists)
Story-telling, a main accusation many evolutionists use
as a claimed reason to not believe the Bible, but dismiss it as an unreliable
religious text – just a bunch of stories meant to persuade or cause people to
behave in a certain manner, has become the stock-in-trade of evolutionists. Evolutionists claim the Bible to be filled
with stories on the same level of mythology as the Greek gods of Olympus, or
the Egyptian gods, or even fairy tales.
Yet, when it comes to explaining exactly how any step of
hypothetical evolution occurred, the evolutionist has no actual evidence that
can be experimentally tested and repeated, but must rely upon stories that
happened “just-so”; not because they were witnessed, are repeatable or
confirmable, but because they absolutely must have happened “just-so” for their
faith in the hypothetical series of occurrences to have continued from
nothing-to-the uninhabited universe with chemicals-to all living things as we
know them today.
Case in point, the hypothetical evolution of non-living
chemicals into the first “living” cell.
For goo-to-you evolution to have occurred, non-living
chemicals (against all scientific fact, experimentation and observation) had to
evolve into the first self-reproducing living cell. In other words, evolution
(molecules-to-microbiologists) had to violate science in order for evolution
(pond scum-to-people) occur and become a “known scientific fact”.
Evolutionists will claim that given enough time, and just
the right chemical mix, and just the right conditions and just the right
timing, nature can violate the law of biogenesis; you know, the scientific law
that states every living thing in nature came from a prior, already existing,
living thing.
At this point the evolutionist has one of two choices: 1)
claim that biogenesis is not a law, or 2) claim that abiogenesis obviously
happened at least once because we are here.
A police officer clocks you going 85 mph in a 55 mph
zone, where 55 mph is the clearly and obviously posted speed limit. When you go to court, will you be able to
claim the law does not limit you to a legal maximum speed of 55 mph? Sure, you could claim that all day long,
however, every time you go back to the scene of your crime, you will see the
sign “SPEED LIMIT 55” clearly posted, according to the traffic laws of the
jurisdiction you were speeding in. Claim
the 55 mph speed limit is not a law all you like, you will still be wrong, and
still be guilty of lying and of speeding.
Just the same way, every time you see a new life, or a
new living organism, come into being, it is as a result of reproduction from an
already existing living organism. The
scientific law of biogenesis is a law because it has NEVER been witnessed to
have been violated. Some evolutionists
try to prove this wrong in a laboratory, however they forget, their experiments
are actually proving the absolute need for an Intelligent Designer to gather
the necessary materials and arrange them in a specifically designed order,
creating all the working pieces necessary, and making all the pieces properly
work together. In the laboratory, the
intelligent designer is the scientist manipulating the experiment according to
his will.
So, now we are left with the “just-so” story of
abiogenesis, an unproven, unscientific, unobserved hypothesis that must have
happened “just-so” in violation of science and the laws of science or else
goo-to-you evolution could never have happened.
So amazing is this “just-so” never witnessed and never repeated story
that non-living chemicals were able to assemble the over 200 parts necessary
for a single cell to survive and reproduce with no instructions for operation
or cooperation of the parts that were being “evolved”, and no instructions for
their assembly, and no instructions for the parts that were actually needed or
that parts were indeed needed in the first place. The tiny little non-living chemicals just
kept on trying over, and over, and over for millions, possibly billions of
years until they got it right and had a huge honking party to celebrate their
success!
Really?
Evolutionists claim this is science.
Even the existence of a Tooth Fairy is more plausible. But you know, evolutionists will tell you it
is an absolutely undisputable fact of science, evolution happened...“just-so”.
_____________________________
8 Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary
theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10,
2005.
