Friday, February 17, 2012

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

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.” (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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.