Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking
PseudoSkeptical
Arguments of
Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 28: Evolution
is sufficient to explain the origin of life, so God is not
needed.
This is
more of a religion
than reality. Evolution has only been proven at the micro level, not
the macro
level. While small changes within a species have been demonstrated and
observed, the theory that one species can transition to another has
never been
proven in any way.
The truth
is, there are huge
gaps and missing links in the current model of Evolution. No
transitional
species have been found that links humans to the prehistoric hominids
or primates.
And the transitions that allegedly took place, if it did, was way too
quick to
be natural.
Humans are
also not equipped
to survive in the wilderness of nature and cannot compete with the wild
animals
there in terms of physical strength and adaptability. Thus they could
not have
evolved naturally in the wild through Evolution alone. Our biological
human
physique is obvious evidence of this. Furthermore, no human fossils
dating back
beyond 200,000 years has ever been found. Moreover, the makeup of our
genes
contain many clues and bits of data that does not fit into the
Evolutionary
model. (see the presentation below by Lloyd Pye for details) And of
course, science
cannot explain how life began at all or how the first cell became
self-replicating. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous staunch
advocate of
Evolution, admits this. (see the end of the Ben Stein film below for
Dawkins’
confession)
These
unexplained mysteries
and discrepancies have never been solved by the scientific
establishment.
Instead, they are just brushed under the carpet, denied and given
copout
explanations and leaps of faith arguments. The scientific establishment
has too
much invested in its current paradigm to change its mind or rethink its
theories. They also ridicule and ostracize dissent so that scientists
are
required to tow the party line in order to keep their careers and be
promoted. In
other words, freethought or questioning is not allowed. In short,
they’ve
created a “forced consensus” that is run by
pressure and punishment, rather
than freethought.
To see an
excellent
documentary
that explores the suppression of “intelligent
design” in the scientific
establishment and universities, see Ben Stein’s revealing
film “Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed” on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4
Now, I do
not claim to have
all the answers to such mysteries. But there are some researchers who
have
invested a lot of time in this subject that are worth listening to. One
such
example is Lloyd Pye, a tireless anthropology researcher who has
pioneered what
he calls an “Intervention Theory”. See this
outstanding presentation by Pye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNGngZsxAhw
For more
info, see Lloyd
Pye’s
website
and book Everything
You Know Is Wrong.
Now, even
if micro Evolution
is
true, it does not rule out the existence of God or a cosmic universal
consciousness.
Greg Stone, author of Under
the Tree, put it eloquently on
my discussion list:
“Not
only is there a residue of
feeling, but there is a sound argument that Darwinian evolution is not
big
enough. It is not. Darwinian evolution deals with the specific nature
of the
evolution of biological forms on this planet. And it fails to account
entirely
even for that realm. It does not account for the overall evolution of
complexity within the universe, which then leads to the "special
case" of Darwinian evolution.
It
does not account for the origin of life forms, and most importantly it
in no
way accounts for the existence of the spirit and the spirit's effect
upon the
evolution of forms. Thus, Darwinian Evolution is incomplete when it
comes to
explaining life. And those, like Dawkins, Blackmore, Pinker, etc. who
try to
make Darwinian Evolution do more than it can will be seen in the long
run to
have been quite foolish.”
Some
researchers have argued
that it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve by chance on
its own
because of the astronomical impossibility of the conditions for life
being set
up by chance.
Theist J.P. Moreland
presented the arguments for this, using math and science, in his debate
against
Atheist Kai Neilsen, described in the book Does
God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists.
In
his debate with Atheist
Kai Neilsen, Moreland explains with math and science why chance alone
could not
explain how the conditions for life evolved.
One thing
the Atheists can
never explain is “Who
set up the vastly
improbable default conditions for life to evolve in the FIRST PLACE? Where
did the matter to create the universe
and life come from? How did something come from nothing?” It’s
kind of like this: We know the mechanics
behind how and why a pot boils, but that doesn’t tell us
about the person who
put the pot on the stove.
Some
Atheists also like to
point out that the need for belief in God can also be explained by
Evolution.
However, David Marshall, a
Christian missionary and philosopher rebuts that point well when he
stated in
my discussion list:
“To
make the jump from "evolution
can explain belief in God" to "there is no God" without involved
argument would be the generic fallacy, again.
To repeat my earlier example,
even if you can explain the human ability to
do math by evolution, that does not prove math is invalid.
In
theory, it should be possible (given your
presuppositions) to show how the human faculty for mathematics arose
through
natural processes.
That does not mean
E=MC2 does not accurately describe real events in the real universe. The
fact that evolution may have created an
awareness of dependency on one's mother on a child's part, does not
mean real
mothers do not exist and do not care for their children.
In
the same way, even if you were able to
describe the evolution of faith in God, it would still remain an
entirely
separate argument, whether God exists in fact or not.”
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page