“The fossil record is anything but complete. Actually, it’s a exceptionally poor filter with gaping holes. On top of that, recovery of fossils is exceptionally tiny compared to what actually lies buried. The odds of finding particular forms is very very small.”
This was the excuse in Darwin’s time and Darwin was right to argue that. Now after a century of unburying fossils, this doesn’t cut. Some transitional forms should have been found. Their absence have led to scientists to formulate theories such as the punctuated equilibrium, which have their own problems.
A theory cannot be proven based on the absence of evidence or in the difficulty of finding evidence.
“We can’t find evidence, but if the evidence were found it would be as I say. Believe me”. Complete fail
Well, let’s say the fossil record doesn’t show evolution–common descent–to hold. What do you say about the evidence from the phylogenetic tree?
Firstly, a disclaimer. I am a Catholic but I don’t have any theological problem with evolution. I don’t think Adam and Eve really existed and I don’t think that Genesis has to be interpreted literally. Having said that, the problems with evolution are scientific.
Secondly, let’s define the terms. Common descent = all living organisms descend from a common ancestor. Biological evolution = change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Macroevolution = species derive from other species through biological evolution. Microevolution = inside the same species, some specific features are selected through biological evolution. Mutation evolution = the way that evolution happens is through DNA mutations. Darwinian evolution = the way that evolution happens is through RANDOM (blind) DNA mutations. (I know, I know, Mr. Briggs, maybe this “random” is not accurate, but bear with me).
Bob asked me about the evidence about the phylogenetic tree. Well, to begin with, there is no inequivocal evidence about the existence of a phylogenetic tree. As you see in the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree), the definition of phylogenetic tree IMPLIES acceptance of evolution. That is, talking about the evidence of evolution in the phylogenetic tree (defined in evolutionary terms) is the fallacy named “begging the question” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).
What is the evidence in favor or against Darwinian evolution?
EVIDENCE IN FAVOR.
- Living organisms are very similar, not only in a macro way but also in a micro way (the cell, chemical reactions).
- These similarities are not equal. There are organisms that are more similar than other ones. So you can classify organisms in a cladistic tree (this is what Carl Linnaeus did).
- Complexity of living organisms increases over time.
EVIDENCE AGAINST.
- Transitional forms have not been found.
- Mutations cannot produce the kind of change we see from a species to another (irreducible complexity). See for example, https://www.amazon.com/Chance-Shattering-Modern-Theory-Evolution/dp/1880582244 . For some complex structures, several mutations must be produced at once to be advantageous, which is extremely unlikely. If the mutations are produced serially, natural selection removes them from the gene pool.
If you see the evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution is only one of the theories that can explain this evidence. The similarity of living organisms could be explained by the fact that they are designed by the same designer (not necessarily God). The web pages I produce are similar and they can be classified in a cladistic tree, as I learn new tricks or I derive a design from a previous design.
A directed evolution would fit the evidence too. A designer producing the kind of mutations needed to go from a form to another form will explain all the evidence in favor and against.
So there is no evidence of Darwinian evolution, only because you can derive a cladistic tree. This is a piece of evidence that fits with several theories and cannot be taken as a proof of only one theory. Even more, there are theories that are more in line with the evidence.
In addition, Darwinian evolution has several pieces of evidence against it.
Rodney Stark writes in the link I include below: “I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist, but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species!”
Atheist Thomas Nagel writes in Mind & Cosmos :”‘ … the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design position – scepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidence – does not appear to me to have been destroyed …At least the question should be regarded as open.”
If it was about science, the fact we don’t have a certainty about the origin of species would be well known and all theories would be assessed according to their merits. Real science does not hide from the lack of knowledge. There are a lot of scientific aspects that we don’t have explanation for (at least, until now). We don’t hurry to present one theory as a fact, only because we don’t understand something.
Why is different with Darwin? Why Darwinian evolution is presented as the only theory, as something proven by science, and indisputable and undeniable, as a fact? As said Richard Dawkins, “the theory is about as much in doubt as that the earth goes round the sun”
Because it was never about science. It was about atheism (or materialism). As Dawkins said: “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. This article explains that evolution was motivated by atheism: http://www.aei.org/publication/fact-fable-and-darwin/
It was about fighting traditional religion. As geneticist Richard Lewontin said (I emphasize using *):
“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 take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, *because 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.*”
This is why you see cars with a bumper sticker of Darwin (the Ichthys Christian logo with two legs) and not with a bumper sticker of Newton or Einstein. This is because evolution can be undeniable and cannot be discussed in a classroom, only accepted without question. It is because it is not about science. It is about the cultural war.