Thoughts on the Theory of Evolution

As it has been presented over the years on many occasions, there are two basic theorems"=

THEOREM #1: Evolution is the fact of common biological origin of all species?
THEOREM #2: Evolution is the hypothesis that the diversity of species from the common origin came about without God's intervention and not as an unlikely occurrence, but one which was inevitable through simple stochastic processes (processes governed by probability curves)?

I've seen convincing evident supporting theorem #1. You can argue that's science. But theorem #2 puts the "Theory of Evolution" outside the realm of science, seeing as that theorem is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It's more a statement of faith of the evolutionist. In debates arguing against the validity of theorem #2, typically the atheistic naturalist with invoke theorem #1 claiming evolution to be a fact. They play the kind of word games lawyers play by changing the meaning of the word in the middle of the argument.

If "A" is scientific, and "B" is non-scientific, then does A+B = scientific? Or does A+B = non-scientific?

Or how about this, if the Theory of Evolution is THEOREM #1 & THEOREM #2, then logically if THEOREM #2 is wrong, then the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong.

WAS EVOLUTION LIKELY?

Let's consider THEOREM #2: Was Evolution by purely stochastic means likely?

One cannot simply say, "Well, it happened. Therefore it must have been likely." The stupidity of such an argument can be seen by making i regarding anything. "I found a piece of paper with writing on it. Well, it happened, therefore it must have likely occurred by stochastic means." Yet I've found even prestigious scientists using such arguments to deflect criticisms of evolution. (What a bunch of idiots!)

"Given enough time anything is possible"

This is a typical argument used in support of THEOREM #2. But this doesn't prove the theorem. It doesn't answer the question as to how much time is enough time. And typically these idiots will respond. "Well, i happened, so there must have been enough time." But that's simply a restatement of their own hypothesis. They haven't proven anything.

While the functional complexity of nature intuitively implies a Creator, they argue that our intuition doesn't work over the long time spans i took evolution to take place. And therefore "intuitively obvious", or what we call "reasonable", is not evidence acceptable to the atheistic naturalistic, who claims we must be "unreasonable" and "counter-intuitive" in our estimation of the evidence.

Here's my question to such people: HOW MUCH TIME IS ENOUGH TIME?

Consider the Cambrian Explosion where in the span of only 20 Million Years, all the fundamental diversity of mechanisms in species developed.

"BIOLOGOS" has a page, "Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?" - Their "proof" is simply their own hypothesis which states, "The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change."

Nowhere have they proven their "plenty of time" hypothesis. This is simply a "Let's raise a flag and see if someone salutes it" type of "proof". Or it's sort of the "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario, in which anyone who questions their hypothesis is simply labeled a fool. By they are the fools for claiming such presumptions to be "scientific".

From what I've found, scientists are generally poor philosophers, invoking logical fallacies to "prove" their philosophical point, like falsely appealing to "authority" in areas of which the "authority", namely themselves, is not really an authority, such as you see above with the claim "plenty of time", of which they haven't verified.

In fact more evolution took place in those 20 million years than in the past 500 million years. If "plenty of time" is based on the rate of evolution over the past 500 million years, then in fact there was no "plenty of time" for the Cambrian Explosion to have occurred.

The proposition that life is purely a product of stochastic events is not science. Rather it's a statement of faith. It's the religion of the atheistic naturalist.

ABIOGENSIS

Abiogenesis deals with the creation of the first cell. It's no technically evolution as this is prior to there being a self-replicating system, namely the cell, which is the basis for the propositions of evolution.

The cell is far more complex than anything it produces. It contains a coding mechanism written in a language with an alphabet of four letters and one which not only replicates its own code, but also the replicates the entire cell. It's a factory with a computer programmed to replicate not its own code, and not only the computer, but instructions as to how to replicate the entire factory.

But if you think that's unlikely to come about by chance, consider this. Natural processes produce racemic mixtures. That's is it produces equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed molecules, optical isomers of one another. But thing about DNA, which is billions of letters long, is that all its letters are left-handed, while all the letters of the RNA are all right-handed.

Consider a jar of a billion letters of A,T,C,G, half being white and half black. Now shake the bottle. What are the odds that all the white end up on the bottom and blacks on the top? Not only that, but all the letters must form a self-replicating code. Much as the atheistic naturalists would like to invoke the idea that "given enough time anything is possible", the fact is, "As soon as the environment settled down to be relatively habitable, life appeared. Just half a billion years beyond the formation of the Earth." This is a statement of what scientists have observed. And they're not saying that abiogenesis had half a billion years to work, but rather it took half a billion years before environmental conditions would allow a cell to survive. And then, suddenly, in some short unspecified time period, life appeared!

It is presently a mystery to scientists as to how the first cell came into being. Here's the question, at what point should we invoke divine intervention as the explanation for a phenomenon? No evidence is ever sufficient for the atheistic naturalist. Their faith is that God doesn't exist and as such there must be a non-divine intervention explanation for all things, but that it's just that we haven't found one yet.

The atheist is like a man on an island who insists he is the first one there and denies any evidence to the contrary. He sees footprints tha are not his and reasons that as the island must be millions of years old that's enough time for erosion to randomly create what appears as footprints. He sees a tree where it appears someone has carved letters into it in a language form which tells of the history of a person who had lived on the island, but the man rejects it again as just a produce of natural chance events which have yet to be explained. Yet in fac there is writing in every cell of every tree in existence, the DNA code. Rejected out of hand by atheists as evidence of the divine but embrace by reasonable people as evidence of God's existence.

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

Jan 30,2022