tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

“Do You Believe In Evolution?” Define Your Terms

How would you answer the question, “Do you believe in evolution?”

“Yes” or “No” would actually be quite inadequate. We must define our terms. Thus, the answer to the question, “Do you believe in evolution?” aught to be, “What do you mean when you say ‘evolution’? Answer me that question and only then will I be able to tell you whether or not I believe it,” or perhaps try, “Yes, of course, I do. But only in a certain sort.”

Campbell and Reece’s textbook, “Biology 6th ed.,” states the following in its opening pages:

“As the central theme of BIOLOGY, evolution unifies the entire book_.evolution is the core theme of biology”1

Thus, the authors clearly state that evolution is “the central theme of BIOLOGY” (here referring to the textbook’s title) as well as it being “the core theme of biology” (here referring to the study of life). However, do note something most important, which is the textbook’s own definition of “evolution,” as defined in its glossary as follows:
“evolution All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.”2
This is very important because the term “evolution” is defined as any and all changes-no matter how, when nor where they occurred.

Now, what would happen if someone asked you if you believe in evolution with this definition in mind and you answered no? They would think something to the likes of, “Poor ignoramus, you must live under a rock that has another rock on top of it!”If you answer, “No” then you are denying that living organism’s change, which they obviously have. If you answer, “Yes” then you will affirm this obvious fact. But, the term “evolution” has come to mean much more than changes in living organisms. “Evolution” is an all encompassing term that could carry along with it quite a bit of baggage-from life derived from non-life, to social Darwinism, from atheism, to random chance, from fossil frauds, to a concoction of scientific observation and philosophy, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, a “Yes” answer may lead you to affirm various concept with which you disagree.

For instance, we find an interesting bias in the textbook Biology’s explanation as to what science is and does:
“We will never know for sure, of course, how life on Earth began. But science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, and that is the approach that must guide scientific inquiry about the origin of life.”3

Notice the proclamation that we will never know how life on Earth began. This is a rejection of revelation. But wait, the statement rejects revelation because it is made in the context of a scientific textbook about biology. True, but why is the statement made? Because of the definition that claims that “science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena.” Clearly, we are not strictly dealing with science but with a faith based belief in materialism. Why faith based? Well, has it been proven that materialism/naturalism is the explanation of all things? No, and that is why it is a faith based commitment as was stated by Richard Lewontin (Harvard University Professor of zoology and biology):
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural_we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”4 [emphasis mine]

Scott C. Todd; Department of Biology; Kansas State University:
“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”5

Frank R. Zindler from the “American Atheists” official website,
“Science, however, involves the study of natural forces only, and ceases to be science when it attempts to explain phenomena by means of super-natural forces.”6

B. C. Johnson; author of “The Atheist Debater’s Handbook”,
“_scientific progress by definition consists of developing natural explanations for phenomena previously unexplained in these terms.”7

According to the a priori faith based belief even if the evidence leads towards an intelligent designer we would be forced to reject that conclusion. But, of course, we should go wherever the evidence leads. The a priori faith based belief is very simple to correct.

The proclamation is that:
Science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena

The fact is that:
Science seeks causes for natural phenomena

But it is not simply a matter of stating the fact that the people who actually established the scientific method and its various fields believed in God (or a god), the point is that science aught to search for evidence, then interpret the evidence in an exegetical manner (what is the evidence telling us) and then follow the evidence to the conclusion to which it is taking us.

In fact, the reason that the most influential atheist of the last century, Prof. Antony Flew, has become a theist (or deist) is that he reconsidered the arguments/inferences of God’s existence from science is because he, “had to go where the evidence leads.”8 What an enormous difference between a faith-based belief in materialism/naturalism on the one hand and honest philosophical and scientific inquiry, on the other.

Prof. Richard Dawkins, who according to Prof. Richard Lewontin is one amongst a group of science-popularizers who has “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market”9 has made the following statement:
“_nearly half the people in the United States don’t believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin’s particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”10

Just what is he talking about when he states that people “don’t believe in evolution,” even though it has been “proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt”? That is the question. Perhaps he is to be blamed for gross generalizations but perhaps we all bare some blame for utilizing undefined terminology. Incidentally, note very carefully that when asked to present his “most persuasive” case for Darwinian evolution, Prof. Dawkins made reference to his faith in natural selection.

People such as Prof. Dawkins may be shocked to learn that certain people whom they consider to be ignorant and superstitious have quite a sophisticated understanding of various concepts within the realm of evolution. The overwhelming number of American Christians, for example, have studied Darwinism for a minimum of a dozen years and have also had exposure to criticism of Darwinism and other theories (such as Intelligent Design). On the other hand, many secularists studied Darwinism for a minimum of a dozen years and have had no exposure to its criticism and have no concept of other theories. If they have had any exposure to these it generally comes in the form of a Prof. Dawkins like belittling caricature of Bible thumping ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked theists who have not been enlightened by the absolute truth of materialism/naturalism.

Therefore, answer with the question, “What do you mean_” You may even offer some terminology of your own, “_do you mean micro, macro, gradual, punctuated, vertical, horizontal, random, directed, cosmic, chemical, stellar, planetary, organic or what sort?”


Posted

in

by

Tags: