Replies

In a discussion with a person awhile ago, I agreed to read a ‘Denying Evolution’ by Massimo Pigliucci. It was interesting but failed to prove what the pro-evolutionist thought it proved.

My original argument with this person was along the lines that to believe in the theory of Origins as laid out by evolutionist, it takes far greater faith then that required to believe that God created us. He said science didn’t involve faith. The following is an excerpt from my correspondence with him:

“In my first e-mail to you, I made a statement about faith being required to believe in evolution. Massimo reaffirms this on page 28 where he says, “Although we all necessarily have to make assumptions about the world in order to live our lives, some assumptions represent small and others large leaps of faith and science is distinguished by an attempt to make those leaps as small as possible—in fact, no larger than any person of common sense would make ”

• He demonstrates a few of those leaps of faith when he states that science is not immune from ideology or social pressure (p.66), or on p. 145 that science can not draw conclusions about things it can not measure (like a primitive organisms (p. 203) or transitional forms or how non life created life or how mutations could add genetic information vs. subtract information, etc.), or how science is subjective because it is done by human beings (p.248), or how it is influenced by politics in academia (p.262), or that scientists will “stretch a point if it fits with the scenario he is trying to convene” and that he MAY not get away with it under peer review (p. 228-229).”

I’m thinking that if any of these scientists are honest they will see the error of Darwins folly. However, I’m not holding my breath. What I expect is for them to come back saying that they have discussed it, and conclude that any dissension from Darwins theory will no longer be tolerated. Case closed.

What I expect is for them to come back saying that they have discussed it, and conclude that any dissension from Darwin's theory will no longer be tolerated. Case closed.

Actually, I get the impression that these scientists are faced with the conundrum that the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more we realize we don't know, and the better we can see the huge leaps of faith that are being made in evolutionism in order to try and make the evidence fit the theory.

What's obviously needed is a new theory that better aligns with what science has discovered over the past century. It must fit all of the evidence, and it must make sense.

Unfortunately, this "new" theory will also require purely natural explanations for our existence. What we'll get is a "new and improved" theory of evolution that will be less likely to be debunked by true science, but will still require immense faith that the presuppositions of "nature as creator" are true.