False Assumptions of Evolutionary Theory
Assumption #1: There is no God
The study of evolution is not founded on a desire for truth. Evolution is studied with a desire to validate naturalism. For this reason, the assumption is made that the whole of nature can be explained without any reference to intelligent design. Thus, evolution is assumed to be true at the onset. The arbitrary exclusion of the possibility of intelligent design from the theory of evolution immediately disqualifies evolution as a scientific study. One cannot embark on a scientific quest for truth with a fore drawn conclusion, and then search only for data to support that conclusion. Evolution is always evaluated with the fore drawn conclusion that evolution is the only possible explanation for life. Notwithstanding this self-evident truth, the study of evolution is begun by the assumption of atheism.
Biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., commented,
"Before 1859 science meant (and still means, for most people) testing hypotheses by comparing them with the evidence. For Darwin and his followers, however, 'science' is the search for natural explanations..."
Biologists around the world insist that intelligent design is not science, and categorically refuse to consider any explanations for observable facts by references to the need for an intelligent force. This position is defended because it is claimed that God cannot be evaluated scientifically. It is maintained that acceptance of God requires admission of the existence of supernatural forces that cannot be measured or validated by the scientific method. This line of logic forms a core dogma of neo-Darwinian theory, and represents an enormous error in scientific logic. Those who hold to this position have put arbitrary limits on science. The world is filled with incomprehensible forces that must be accepted not because they are understood, but because of observable facts. If institutionalized science were consistent in this perspective and excluded all incomprehensible entities as non-existent, very little about the universe would be known. There are many laws of the universe that are not remotely understood. The dual properties of light, for example, have been proven to exist through experimentation, and quantum physicists conclude that laws that they don’t understand are undeniable.
Evolutionary biologists are immovable in their belief that one cannot make observations in nature and scientifically deduce a need for intelligent design. Yet proponents of evolution, from Darwin to the present day, have presented their thesis by arguing that nature appears that it wasn’t intelligently designed. If it can be deduced that nature demonstrates a lack of intelligent creation, then it can also be argued that it supports intelligent creation.
Many argue that some very prominent evolutionary biologists, such as Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky, were members of Christian denominations. This is presented as evidence that evolution and a belief in God are compatible. The citing of the religious beliefs of secular thinkers is irrelevant. Both Mayr and Dobzhansky adamantly affirmed that natured showed an absence of intelligent design. The core principle of evolution, regardless of one’s religion, is that all species were not intelligently designed. The fact that leading evolutionists believed in God only underscores the inconsistency of their thinking.
Nevertheless, biology professors emphatically declare that evolution is not atheism. Once this disclaimer is made, evidence is presented to persuade skeptics that nature was not the result of creation by God or any other intelligent force.
Although many evolutionary theorists feign neutrality concerning God, the theory of evolution isn't neutral. If it were neutral toward intelligent design, then mechanisms of evolution would be undefined. Instead, a naturalistic explanation with excludes any need for intelligent design is assumed to exist to account for every observation in nature.
It is reasonable to exclude a personal God from a biology classroom, because specific characteristics of God cannot be deduced by the scientific method. But it is absurd to categorically exclude some form of intelligent design from discussion, because the necessity of an intelligent force can easily be deduced.
The denial of God is not the refutation of a specific entity such as the God of the Old Testament. It is assumed that no supernatural intelligent force whatsoever was required in the creation of species. Gradualism is assumed to occur exclusively through random variations of offspring filtered by natural selection. It is assumed that evolution has proceeded throughout the ages as a random, purposeless process, with no end goal. It assumed that chance alone created all life, and that the whole of nature is explainable without any intelligent force. God is assumed to be irrelevant. All of these assumptions are assumed, but none are proven.
The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard E. Dickerson, declared that God must be categorically excluded from science:
“Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."
Dickerson’s reference to science as “a game” is deeply troubling. Science should always be a quest for truth, rather than a vehicle to support a worldview.
It is often contended by atheists that God should be excluded from scientific theories because there is no evidence for His existence. The fundamental reason why so many do not see evidence of intelligent design is because they have arbitrarily excluded it from possibility. Rather than look at nature and decide if complexity is more consistent with gradualism or intelligent design, proponents of evolution start with the assumption that their worldview must be correct.
Every created complexity observed by man requires intelligent design. For philosophical reasons, however, the deduction that complexities of nature are the result of intelligence is deemed illogical and unscientific.
Assumption #2: All of Nature can be Explained by Naturalism
The assumption of atheism immediately leads to other assumptions. If there is no intelligent creator, then it naturally follows that all of the observable world can be explained in terms of naturalism. If such an assumption is permitted, then evolution is a fact of nature by default. Evolution is declared to be true at the onset. The exclusion of the only possible alternative to a theory logically confirms that theory. This is why biologists constantly claim that evolution can explain the whole of nature.
It has been often stated that evolution has erased the need for God. This is obviously a philosophical perspective, since most of nature has never been investigated in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. Researchers may give up searching for naturalistic explanations, but evolutionary biologists refuse to concede that man's inability to conceive a viable mechanism of evolution negates the possibility of evolution. According to the mindset of Darwinism, it is impossible to cite any example of complexity in nature that is too great to be achieved by evolution. Although new species are discovered daily and many biologic systems have never been considered in terms of evolution, it has been predetermined that everything yet to be discovered will be consistent with Darwinism.
Many biologists express certainty that every
unknown complexity evolved into existence and exclusively through naturalistic
means. It is unknown how a whale
navigates in the open ocean. It is a
biological mystery how animals such as lions communicate with one another to
coordinate hunting strategy. No one
understands how any complex behavior could have evolved. It is dogmatically assumed that all incomprehensible
complexities that span the biological world were created through random mutations
without any intelligent design. Statements
that "all of nature" can be explained by evolutionary mechanisms can
only be made if one has disproven intelligent design.
No man is capable of understanding what is claimed that evolution has created by chance. If scientists understood a naturalistic pathway from inorganic matter to single cell life, man would be able to create life from raw materials. If man understood how a quadruped terrestrial mammal could evolve into a whale, scientists could take the DNA of a wolf or similar creature and perform genetic engineering and cloning to produce a bottlenose dolphin. If biologists understood how an ape could evolve into a human, they could at least on paper demonstrate how mutations could randomly occur to result in the differences that exist. If scientists understood how instinctive behavior can appear as a result of mutations, geneticists could manipulate the DNA of deer so that they would avoid highways, thereby saving millions of dollars annually. The absurdity of these proposals is reflective of how little man knows about the genetic code, and how changes can result in the creation of new traits. In view of these facts, it is equally absurd to listen to evolutionary biologists claim that science adequately understands evolutionary mechanisms. Natural selection is simply credited with creating every complexity of nature without any understanding of how such transformations could actually occur.
It has become popular in recent years for evolutionists to declare that the debate is over, and that all rational scientists are in agreement that evolution is a fact. Such declarations are extremely ambiguous and unscholarly. While no one denies that antibiotic resistance occurs in bacterial populations, it is implied that such an observation can be extrapolated to the "fact" of universal common descent of species.
Once the assumption is made that evolution is a fact, another assumption is embraced. All roadblocks to evolutionary theory, prior to even being considered, are assumed to not represent impossibilities. Obstacles are categorically declared to only be indicative of a lack of man's understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. Never does an obstacle to evolution that cannot be explained by an appeal to known laws of biology call the general theory of evolution into question. Never is a complexity deemed too great for evolution to create.
In this manner, the exclusion of intelligent design from science has resulted in a corruption of science. No longer is there room for debate. The assumption is made that science will one day produce the answers within the framework of evolution. Instead of critically looking at proposed mechanisms of speciation, elaborate and imaginative stories are accepted which are not subjected to scientific challenges. In many cases, evolutionary mechanisms that cannot even be imagined are assumed to have occurred.
The following pattern of logic pervades current biological thinking: God is not scientific. Therefore, we must assume that nature can be explained without God. Therefore, we will assume that everything in nature can be explained without God, even though it seems impossible. Thus, if an obstacle is found, someday it will be explained without invoking intelligent design.
Assumption #3: The Earth is Billions of Years Old
A fundamental assumption of evolutionary theory is that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years of age. This assumption is justified primarily on two lines of evidence. First, the radiometric dating of rocks indicates lava flows of extremely ancient date. Second, it is argued that geological evidence indicates that vast eons of time must have elapsed to account for what is observed. In truth, there is no scientific evidence to justify the contention that the earth is billions of years old.
The assumed truthfulness of evolution is the primary reason that the earth is argued to be billions of years old. All agree that in order for evolution to occur, immense time periods would be required. This is because of the rarity of beneficial mutations and the known improbabilities involved in their spontaneous appearance. No evolutionary mechanisms are considered possible within short time spans.
Coupled with the assumption of a billions-of-year-old earth is another assumption; that overall conditions on the earth have remained relatively stable for billions of years. All life on earth is extremely fragile and would immediately be vulnerable to extinction should environmental conditions significantly fluctuate. Even if the earth is 4.5 billion years old as evolutionists claim, it is also assumed that the sun has remained stable, emitting essentially the same amount of heat during that entire period of time. The orbits of the earth around the sun and the relationship of the moon to the earth are assumed to have been constant. These enormous assumptions are based solely on a belief in evolution. In other words, it is believed that the sun has been stable for billions of years because life on earth has been assumed to be progressing for 4.5 billion years. Thus, the belief in a stable solar system capable of supporting life is founded on circular logic. There is no direct evidence that any of the conditions required for life have remained constant for vast eons of time.
Added to the assumption of a very old earth is the assumption that all geologic
observations conform to a paradigm of atheism.
In all evolutionary explanations of the history of the earth, there is a categorical dismissal of any events that are referenced in scripture or are associated in any way with the concept of intelligent design. Only mechanisms and events that conform to the theory of evolution are considered. For example, a global flood is assumed to be a myth, and current geologic theory as to the formation of the earth's strata is presumed to preclude any sort of worldwide cataclysmic flooding as described in the book of Genesis. This position has been taken in spite of the existence of extensive scientific evidence of global flooding. Water laid sediment spans the surfaces of entire continents and is seen over nearly all of the earth's land surface. Marine fossils are commonly found in mountains far inland, including the Swiss Alps, Rocky Mountains, and the Himalayas. Whale fossils have been discovered up to 600 feet above sea level at sites hundreds of miles from the ocean.
The very existence of large fossil deposits proclaims cataclysmic burial as would be encountered in a global flood. Many formations containing fossils include complete skeletons of huge animals in large numbers, suggesting a disastrous sudden burial such as would occur in a worldwide deluge. Fossilization is known to be a rare geologic event, requiring rapid catastrophic burial resulting in a prevention of normal decomposition. Such an observation is inconsistent with the slow gradual formation of strata as envisioned by evolutionists. Those who argue for evolution have theories, all of which are highly speculative, to explain the widespread presence of marine fossils far inland. Many suspect multiple occurrences of massive flooding, but adamantly deny that a flood was global. However, these theories are accepted not because they are the most consistent with scientific observation, but primarily because they comply with the requirements of the theory of evolution and specifically because they exclude any reference to scripture or intelligent design.
In addition, all methodologies utilized in attempts to date the earth's strata assume
that no global flood occurred. These assumptions are made not only without proof, but in the face of compelling evidence that massive flooding in fact did occur on a global scale. In addition to geologic evidence of global flooding, numerous corroborating ancient historical documents attest to such an event. Because these are deemed to fall into the category of religion, they are not only ignored, but are all assumed to be false.
Legends of a global flood are found in numerous cultures around the world, traced to nearly every known ancient group of people. Some elements common to the Genesis account are evident in many of these stories, including the construction of a large ship, the provision of animals on the ship for preservation, and the release of birds as the waters receded. In one sweep, proponents of evolution dismiss all corroborating historical documents under the label of “flood myths”. It is argued that some legends make reference to mythology-based deity, and disagreements between accounts are widespread. Therefore, they must all be false.
It is recognized by geologists that evidence of massive flooding is found in many parts of the world. These facts are explained away by the contention that multiple, separate smaller cataclysmic events occurred throughout the world. However, it is fiercely contended that a single global flood did not occur.
The unconditional dismissal of any theories of geological history that are referenced in scripture is indicative of a predetermined commitment to a religious philosophy by those engaged in what they consider to be science. Central to that ideology is the belief that all nature was created without any intelligent design. Rather than an honest search for truth, theories are confined to those that strictly conform to a paradigm of atheism. If the flood of Noah was seriously entertained by geologists, the entire theory of evolution and the worldview of secularism would be eroded.
Whether one accepts the concept of naturalism or intelligent design, there is no validity in assigning an age to the earth by radiometrically dating its rocks.