Darwin and "Proof" of Evolution

		[top_right_buttons.htm]
	Darwin and "Proof" of Evolution	[Rainmakers_Title.htm]

[navi.htm]

To: Creation Digest
From: Michael Hernan

Darwin's Origin of the Species opens with a Historical Sketch, an introduction of sorts. What is interesting is the number of Naturalists' of the time that Darwin quoted as 'accepting' or 'believing' in evolution. The presentation technique is similar to a theoretical physicist getting up on a stage and offering to prove his latest theory based on acceptance by a number of leading theoretical physicists.

An of course, Huxley stated that [evolution] was 'improvable'. Nothing is proved by Darwin's 'Historical Sketch' as nothing is proved by the contents of 'Origins.' How could it prove anything occurring billions of years in the past, except by a gigantic leap of faith that exceeds the faith required by religious theory.

Darwin is engaged in an 'evolution vs. creation' debate as he argues for the proposition of `a creator' being unable to form the geometrical and functional intricacies seen in biomatter. This has been the history of evolution ever since, with modernists assuming the moral (truth) high ground of scientific exactitude. Theoretical physicists ideas of scientific accuracy and resolution is substantially different from biological forms of scientific accuracy as manifest by Darwinian Models of evolution.

The creation side of the debate is not without its own faults. An ambiguity that begs for explanation and scrutiny is whether Darwinian Evolution and Religious Creation are mutually incompatible theories and whether these are the only possible viable choices.

As we wrestle with genetic manipulation today the thought of such activity being committed upon humanity in the past raises its head of possibility. This option, of course, is antithetical to prevailing creation theories as well as evolutionary theories. Each side in the two‑sided debate would reject genetic manipulation out of hand as counter to their basic theory, i.e. God creation or natural evolution. There seems nothing obvious to negate a creator manipulating genetic material in the process of creating living entities, including humanities' ancestors.

Similarity in genetic make‑up between species, including protein and enzyme similarity, does not prove familial relationships; it only proves similarity in various species, and the necessity of DNA as a fundamental basis of all life forms.

Both evolution and creation are faith based models, and as such, both fail any 'rational basis' test, which ought not to upset faith based creation modelers as much as it attacks evolutionists who claim a scientific methodology in their model. The biological evolutionists have asserted themselves as enjoying the scientific method as a rational basis for describing the growth and variation in life forms‑‑‑yet proof is missing!

As a leading Bio‑evolutionist stated, 'the truth of evolution is not discussed as a topic of debate, evolution is stated as a scientific fact', as if a proper emphasis and tone of voice will instill scientific viability in just another widely held opinion. Then one wonders at the emotional rejection of creation theories by the scientific disciplines, as if being made, or created, by another entity is personally an extremely unpleasant concept.

4/12/02

Michael Heman
scimike@citlink.net

[rightcolumn.htm]