Are Evolutionists wasting scientists’ time?
|Created by Gerard de Vos|
Category: Evolution related
What is science? To explain, let us use the example of a scientist studying the process of photosynthesis. Plants use carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to produce organic compounds that cause growth and can be utilized by either humans or animals. The scientist wants to understand the process. Then he can apply that knowledge to improve plant production for the benefit of man. He uses the latest scientific techniques and methods. Since photosynthesis can be studied by repeatable, testable and observable experiments, he will make progress. It should be stated unequivocally that the origin of the process of photosynthesis (whether by special creation by God or by evolution) has no bearing on his work. He is only interested in the present functioning of the photosynthetic system. Once again: knowledge of origins is of no concern to him. He wants to know what happens in the cell when sunlight strikes the leaf.
It is advertised that Darwin’s idea of evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. Dr Philip Skell asked 70 eminent researchers whether they would do their work in a different way if they thought Darwinism was wrong. He said: ‘From my conversations with leading researchers it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology (Darwinism)’ (Thomas Woodward, Darwin strikes back, Green Press, 2006, p 179,180). His answer to critics was: ‘ ...but the responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of experimental biology’ (ibid, p 180). What he is saying is to confirm what was said in the beginning. Origins have no bearing on how operational science works. This means: evolutionary ideas have nothing to contribute to real science, just as one’s religious beliefs do not impact science. The results of an experiment will not be affected if the scientist is a believing Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew. This will be a real shocker to some, because it has been taught for so long that one cannot do science without believing in evolution. To do science, one has to believe in and adhere to scientific methods. That is the only requirement.
To repeat for clarity: Prof Skell said: ‘Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin’s theory has been raised to its present high status because it’s said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology... But is that correct? While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas’ (ibid, p 179). A S Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one’ (ibid, p 179).
Prof Skell: ‘Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms. What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. ....It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research guided by Darwin’s theory, which has produced the major fruits of modern biology and medicine. And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin?’ (ibid, p 181).
The question is this: are evolutionists wasting scientists’ time? Yes, they are. But they are doing it for a reason, which has nothing to do with science. They are spreading the message that science has to do with naturalism, and that is a lie. Operating science has to do with the now, what is happening, and why? Tom Bethel said this: ‘Evolution is perhaps the most jealously guarded dogma of the American public philosophy. Any sign of serious resistance to it has encountered fierce hostility in the past, and it will not be abandoned without a tremendous fight. The gold standard could go (be glad to get rid of that!), Saigon abandoned, the Constitution itself slyly junked. But Darwinism will be defended to the bitter end’ (T Bethel, The American Spectator [July 1994], p 17 as quoted by D Gish, Evolution, the Fossils still say No! Institute for Creation Research, 1995, p 13).
The general public trust science. By clothing evolution in scientific garb, they score by influencing many an unwitting soul, who doesn’t realize that this has nothing to do with science, but with souls. Eternity, the length of which we cannot comprehend, the unfathomable riches of heaven, too large for our brains to understand, is what is at stake. The devil will not leave one stone unturned in his effort to seduce as many people as possible into thinking that evolution is science. If that is true, there is no need to even look at the Bible, because the creation account is a myth. This is another of the proofs the world gives us that the Bible is the truth. If it weren’t so, why all the lies that evolution is the backbone of science, while it is the backbone of the devil’s strategy? Believers in Jesus should understand the message: do not neglect this great treasure that there is a life after death. Prepare for it.