Evolution makes extraordinary claims about who we are. They insist we’re simply accidents of nature, with no purpose. And when we die, we’ll return to matter, and that will be the end of it. They claim to have science on their side. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Darwinian evolution doesn’t have it. The scientific evidence they claim supports their position is either nonexistent or weak and debatable.
Materialistic science will never be able to explain:
The origin of life
The origin of proteins
The origin of information in cells
The origin of molecular machines
Darwin’s theory was wrong about everything:
Cells aren’t blobs of protoplasm
Organisms aren’t innately moldable
Haeckel was dead wrong about embryology
Results of artificial selection can’t be extrapolated
DNA shows us that life is founded on information, not chemistry
Darwinian evolution will never be able to explain:
The complexity of cells
The complexity of organisms
The transition from single celled to multi-celled animals
How random mutations could ever create new genes
How evolution could accomplish any change that requires more than one step
When you look closely, evolutionists don’t have explanations for much of anything, other than adaptation, or micro-evolution. As Stephen Meyer, PhD. has said:
“Trifling evidence and momentous conclusions.
That is evolution in a nutshell.”
Without good evidence to back up their claims, Darwinism is just “scientists trying to do philosophy”.
So, let’s ask again, what’s keeping Darwinism not just afloat, but dominant in our culture? It isn’t science, it’s our culture itself. It’s our human nature that’s attracted to a materialist worldview.
I think the following quotes from well-known atheists can help nail down that attraction.
“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 the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Evolutionary Biologist, Harvard
Lewontin, who died in 2021, was a towering figure in evolutionary biology. He wasn’t concerned about the validity of the evidence; he just wanted to keep God out of his world! He claimed to be defending science, but he was actually protecting his worldview, which was founded on materialism.
In their desire to keep God’s foot outside, Darwinists’ tolerance for unsubstantiated Just-So stories shows us how little evidence they have. It isn’t science that’s driving their materialism.
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that…
..My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world.”
Thomas Nagel, atheist philosopher, The Last Word, pp. 130–131
Today, too many careers are staked on evolution to allow it to fail. People in academia, social sciences, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, genetics, and evolutionary psychology would be adrift without evolution as their anchor. The validation coming from professionals in those fields may appear to be a believable factor supporting evolution, but ultimately, support for materialism is personal and emotional, not scientific.
Grigory Potemkin
Grigory Potemkin was a Russian nobleman who served in the Russian army during the reign of Catherine the Great. He successfully planned and carried out the conquest of portions of Crimea, taking it away from the Ottoman Empire in 1783.
Four years later, in 1787, the Empress Catherine wanted to tour her new holdings, so she organized a trip down the Dnieper River by boat. Potemkin naturally wanted to impress the Empress, but his plans to colonize the region were way behind schedule.
Legend has it that Potemkin had portable facades built to disguise the run-down villages in Crimea, then shipped in peasants and farm animals from central Russia. Everywhere Catherine’s boat arrived, she was greeted by happy, waving peasants. When her boat moved on, the “towns” were dismantled and set up downriver, where the same peasants would wave to her again. Catherine was satisfied that she ruled over a happy and prosperous population.
Potemkin’s ruse has been used at least twice since. Stalin set up model farms and villages to show off to foreign visitors. They helped him portray a prosperous country that wasn’t reality. North Korea has built “Peace Village” in the North-South DMZ. It looks like a thriving town, but it’s largely uninhabited, only for show.
So, a “Potemkin village” is a fabrication, literal or figurative, that provides a façade to allow people to believe that the situation is better than it actually is.
Darwinism is a scientific “Potemkin theory”, a false front covering up the empty worldview of naturalism. It has no scientific value.
Recommended Books:
Steven Lizarazo: Naturalism: The Self-Made Cosmo