Evolution is Dead and unfortunately the doctors refuse to call the smoldering and stinking corpse.

Of course when I talk about Evolution I am speaking of the incarnation of it that assumes a Godless, a purposeless, and a orderless universe. The confusion arrises when one decides upon the term Evolution, like many other terms such as Gay, Rights, Social Justice, Free Speech, Free Will etc., it is very loaded with a plethora of meanings. Evolution on the one hand is used to speak of the adaptation of things like plants or animals or even our cells, but on the other hand it is used to speak about a common origin of all things in a singularity like a first protein or cell which then mutated (evolved) into more complex mechanisms and eventually life from which all living things find their origin.

As one can see such a term as Evolution can bring to the listeners mind a broad selection of possible meanings. Depending, of course, on the listeners own background and biases he or she will immediately think of a certain definition of Evolution, a definition which may or may not be the same as the speaker intended. This, as we all know, is the problem with many speakers and listeners: they are both entirely on different pages and thus do not communicate nor hear what is intended. Certainly this possibility arrises for us in this blog as I write it. That is why I am being careful to define my terms and hope that you hear my terms and not your own experience or bias.

When I say that Evolution is dead I, as previously stated, certainly mean the form of evolution that speaks of things like men coming from apes, transitional forms, and that things evolve without purpose or an outside intelligence guiding it. I am fully aware that this definition is under attack and that many people wish to redefine Evolution as something entirely different. To those people I suggest that prudence would guide them not to attempt to redefine Evolution from the definition I used (even if it could be argued that my definition is the minority view), but to coin or borrow a new definition without the word Evolution in it. Start from scratch I say, and let the bloated, misunderstood, and confusing term of Evolution lay peacefully six feet under. Why deal with all the baggage and spend so much time (like I am currently involved in) trying to couch your terms in a way so you will not be misunderstood?

Now let us get on with the real purpose of this article: why I think evolution is dead. When one thinks of evolution one must first consider its origin and how Darwin popularized it. In very simplistic terms evolution became popular because it explained a world in which there was no need of a Creator God. In basic terms it simply stated that the material universe can explain its own existence in Naturalistic and not in Supernatural terms. As one famous thinker once said: “God is dead” (of course you all know it was said by Friedrich Nietzshe), and that, to me, is the battle cry of the evolutionist.

God is not dead however, and although for decades the evolutionary scientists have attempted to convince us of it, he remains entirely alive. Christianity and the Bible have survived both religious and secular onslaught for over 2,000 years and it has adequately responded to every attack made on it and its integrity of truth still stands. Of course many readers will disagree with me on this, but the purpose of this writing is not to convince one of this or argue its truth, you can dismiss me or not, but I do write this for an audience of liked-mindedness (those who believe God exists).

In very simplistic terms everything we find in nature is simply and easily explained by God. If He is the God of the Bible then there is nothing that will prove his non-existance in nature (no Scientist can prove God doesn’t exist – Science cannot prove non-existance), as everything discovered by Science can be explained adequately as “God did it that way” (of course many want to go further and ask God Why He did it one way and not another, but for many of these Why questions, we simply must state that God has chosen to not answer.) There are other more effective methods of attempting to prove God doesn’t exist than by using Science (I do think all those methods do ultimately fail to the evidence). However, so I will not get bogged down in such long discussions I will simply state that I think we have been fed a lie from the secular evolutionary scientists. Evolution is not a science it is a philosophical theory that seeks to give additional feedback on the findings in science.

Obviously more explanation is needed to explain what I mean by a philosophical theory. Allow me to define Science first and then again Evolution. Science is simplistically the systematic study of the material universe. It makes hypotheses about how things work and then tests those hypotheses, it seeks to understand the workings of the material universe through observation, prediction, testing, and re-hypothizing. It has been very helpful to us humans from building societies to medicine to caring for our planet. There are many true things we learn from Science. Yet, the Evolutionist wants to pull the wool over our eyes and slip in his Evolution as “science” when it really isn’t. Evolution is a hypotheses (a theory) based on certain pre-held beliefs that do not originate in Science but rather are brought in from the outside based on a preconceived idea that God doesn’t exist and therefore it is necessary to explain everything we see in ways that don’t include God. It seeks to answer the how and why things look like they do and behave like they do; science doesn’t answer “why” that is the realm of philosophy, therefore Evolution goes beyond science in trying to answer why, thus it is not true science. *At this point please note I am using Evolutionist alone and regarding my earlier definition it is better said Secular, Naturalist, Evolutionist. I am not referring to people who are Evolutionists and something, like Evolutionist and Theist.

This is where terms get sticky and confusing. I am sure you just thought of an example where science clearly says why things are they way they are, like the boiling of water is simply the heating of water until it turns from a liquid to a gas. It boiled because (the why) you added heat. I totally agree that you just explained a “why” to me but I didn’t mean “why” I meant “Why” as in the real, original and base reasons behind everything. To make my point clearer let us go back to the boiling water and let me show you the Why I mean. Why does water boil in the first place? Why is there heat at all? Why does water exist in the first place? Why do the atom exist that create water? Why did they combine to make water and not just exist alone? Why did they come into existence at all? Why does anything exist at all? Do you see where I am going. Science cannot nor should not try to answer such Why’s because it can only answer what it sees and tests, and since it didn’t see or test the origin of the universe or see how it developed in a testable way (seeing effects and results of things done so long and far away is not the same as reduplicating it in the laboratory. You may be able to make water boil-or even create water- in a lab, but you cannot see the atoms that make water come into existence or even explain how they are held together, you can only see the effects of such things and make predictions based on that). *Again another problem I have with Science. I think it is very useful, but as history has shown us, we are often too quick to think we got it 100% right and forget that everything we know is not 100% sure as we do not possess 100% knowledge.

Do you see how Evolution goes farther than Science should? It says that things came into existence just because (a Why), they exist just because (Why), and have no direction they are going (Why), because there is nothing beyond nature or the natural giving things meaning or purpose. Evolution didn’t get this from looking at things in nature, it took an outside philosophy and used it to interpret Science’s findings in nature. When Science looked at a moth, it can merely describe what it sees, how everything works, but that is all. It cannot say why the moth exists (in some higher purpose way) or its ultimate purpose (apart from just merely observing what it does and doesn’t do). Evolution on the other hand took what Science said about the moth, and then added to it. It said, on top of what is seen, that the moth exists just because it randomly happened to, because there is no Thing or Being causing it to be, it simply just is.

Do you not see the difference in Evolution and Science? Consider this other reason why Evolution is not Science. What does the Creationist say (those people who believe in God, and that God created everything) about the moth? They say that God created the moth (Why) to so exist in His world that its existence will glorify Him (Why) and so work with the rest of Creation to achieve His purposes for it (Why). When I put it that way do you not see that Evolution is much more like Creationism than it is like Science? Evolution and Creationism both seek to answer the Why of the universe and matter, therefore both are not “Science” but more of a philosophy. Some even call them both religions because they both interact with a God or Non-God, but I think philosophy is a better term for my purposes here. *Again just because something isn’t Science doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Science doesn’t have a patent on truth, many other things outside of science are true.

This means that in the debate between Evolution and Creationism, it isn’t between Science and “Religion” or Philosophy, but rather between two competing Philosophies. And personally I think the philosophy of Christianity (from which Creationism stems) is much more robust and time tested than Evolution not to mention more consistent with the “facts” of he universe, and therefore gets my vote.

I will give a few simple “philosophical” reasons why I think Evolution is a weaker philosophy. First Evolution claims that something had to come from nothing. A logical and philosophical (not to mention natural) impossibility. I think alone, such a thing kills evolution, yet I have heard evolutionists simply dismiss it by stating that “well it has to be true that things come from non-things because look…there are things and we know that non-things once existed and that there is no God to have caused existence”. I am sure you immediately see the falseness of that line of arguing and all the logical fallacies it commits like circular reasoning, begging the question, etc. Besides the fact that Evolution claims God doesn’t exist, while trying to use Science to prove his nonexistence (science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, and can only give reasons for His existence), it also jumps out of its claimed territory (science) to fight against God’s existence by appealing to philosophy of the existence of evil etc. So like a troll with two heads it cannot decide if it is a scientist or a philosopher and therefore ends up going no where.

The big lightbulb than went on in my head the other day was this. Evolution is simply the attempt to explain what scientists see in nature while assuming there is no God. It isn’t demanded by nature, it is a view forced upon it from the outside. No person looked at a rock, decided that the rock proved there is no God and therefore they must come up with a theory of how the rock came into existence apart from God. Rather it seems more like a person, who was already convinced that God didn’t exist, looked at the rock and sought to explain it in terms that proved his prior convictions. Of course the real history is more complicated than that, and I wonder how much (without being able to see into peoples inner motives and thoughts) evolution took off because the person simply didn’t want God to exist. I also think some of it had to do with a rebellion against a certain rigid and dogmatic view of nature that many religious people held at the time.*I think much of Evolution fits into the category of: trying to prove prior convictions, prior convictions that I think are weak and shouldn’t be held. Of course we all have prior convictions when going into anything, especially science, so the issue to me isn’t are the scientists biased with prior convictions, but are they aware of their bias, honest about their bias, and really sure their bias is the best bias to hold.

I do think that the findings of Science do contradict certain rigid and dogmatic views of religion (especially some forms of Christianity – earth the center of the universe for example), but I think such views are mostly dead and most “Christians” today hold an interpretation of Scripture that doesn’t contradict any view of Science, but rather an Evolutionary view of Science, and as I said before it is really a battle between competing philosophies not against science. Again science can only describe what it sees, and to go any further in explaining it is to start down the path of philosophy. Science doesn’t know why the laws of physics exist, it just knows that they do and how they work, it takes evolution or creationism to attempt to explain why they exist (they just randomly came into existence or they were created by God).

I do know that this topic is much more complicated than all this, but I also think it shouldn’t have to be that much more complicated. I know my scientist friends will argue that they think Science can explain the why, like why the laws of physics exist (something about something interacting with something causing something etc), but again this is only a description of what is seen and an attempt to explain it, while not really explaining it. I will leave you again with one last example. Two plus two equals four, but why? Why are there things that can be added? Why does two exist? Why can two be added with another two? Why do they always equal four and not other random numbers? Again math can explain only so much and at some point we must go beyond math to ultimately explain it. Two plus two equals four is either a random, by chance event that always happens the same way for no reason, or it is the planning of a intelligent purposeful being; I believe it is the latter and therefore Evolution, as a philosophy, is dead.