Texas and Evolution

The following is an expanded version of the comment that Richard Cochrane and I posted on his site (qv) with regard to the dispute in Texas about whether to accept textbooks questioning evolutionary theory:

Some of those involved in this conflict are deliberately obfuscating the issue. No one with any observational powers can doubt that evolution takes place. Thoroughbred race horses are a far cry from those dog-size ancestors of theirs. I have also watched a “dog run” in West Virginia in which specially bred hounds followed an incredibly faint scent trail to where a raccoon was in a cage. They were mostly greyhound for the speed, but with a trace of hunting hound “for the nose.”

As one Christian apologist, a Dr. Johnnie Miller, puts it in his Christian Evidences, “the General Theory of Evolution, the evolution of all, as opposed to gradual adaptation within species, which is true and proven, is not true science because science deals with observation, experimentation, repetition and reality.” Writing about the evolution of apes into human beings in Adam’s Ancestors, Louis Leakey states that there must be a trail somewhere, but admits there is no evidence of such a trail.

It is at those points of the emergence of new species where, as Phillip Johnson and others have convincingly pointed out, the evidence for evolution breaks down. Johnson and the intelligent design advocates could hardly be farther from “narrow-minded, tribal, obscurantist Christians.” Johnson is one of the world’s leading specialists in the nature of evidence, which is, after all, the point here. He definitely falls into the category of “educated, tolerant Christians” and confesses that he is not arguing as a creationist, only as someone demanding convincing evidence as he would in court.

Miller goes on to point out that the General Theory of Evolution begins with the presupposition that there was no God involved in the process, and that presupposition leads inexorably to a foregone conclusion. The true problem for many scientists is that if they cannot establish Darwinism as fact, the only alternative is some sort of intelligent design process in the development of species, and modern science is simply not willing to deal with that. Backed into a corner, they have no choice but to fight tooth and nail, like those species struggling to survive in nature, for their sole alternative. Darwinian apologist Julian Huxley stated, “If you put God anyplace in the formula, you don’t need chance. If you don’t need chance, you don’t need evolution, so you might as well have a Creator.” Huxley had his reasons for not wanting a Creator, so he chose Darwinism.

The General Theory of Evolution states that “all originated by chance and progressed by chance.” As James Perloff points out, some scientists consider Darwinism more a religion than a science. But evolution through blind chance just demands too much faith for most of us. An anonymous comic once put it quite succinctly: “The princess kissed a frog and he turned into a handsome prince. We call that a fairy tale. Darwin says frogs turn into princes, and we call that science.”