On Darwin's 200th Birthday

Recently, a friend of mine posted a note on Facebook in which he tried to show some of the fallacies of Intelligent Design. It got me rather fired up, so here is a reply which I am posting today on the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. He seems to think that proponents of Intelligent Design have not done their homework in order to prove their point. It does seem to be true that there has not been as much research into Intelligent Design as there has been for evolution. This seems to be in large part due to the fact that evolution is at the present time very fashionable, and since government is promoting the religion of Atheism, there is more funding for such research. Furthermore, due to the humanistic and liberal nature of most facilities of higher learning, there is a need to conduct such research in order to justify their beliefs. The ironic thing is that, as much as proponents of evolution have looked for evidence to support their theory, they still have yet to find any. Not only are they unable to find evidence, but their theory can't explain such simple things as the geological column not being continuous or even in order; they can't explain why fossils appeared suddenly above strata that is completely void of fossils, or why some fossils are buried through several strata. The lack of evidence has lead to such interesting theories as Punctuated Equilibrium to describe the lack of evidence. I could go on from Dryopithecus to Java Man, but it is much easier to disprove than to prove something. The sad thing is that, even if Evolutionists were to discover actual and indisputable remains of some species that had DNA which was proved to be half way between a man and an ape, it wouldn't mean that the creature had been a missing link. It would simply mean that another species had been found. What it was or where it came from would still be up to interpretation. That is the nature of science. It cannot prove anything, but is only a tool. The fact is, that even apart from bias in data taking, data must be interpreted and interpretation leads to opinion and error. Take for example, the electron. No one knows for sure if electrons exist. No one has seen an electron, felt an electron, tasted an electron, smelled an electron, or heard an electron. What is an electron? It is a particle, which was theorized to exist, and so far every experiment to disprove it has failed. However, in order to remain a viable theory, numerous complexities have been added to account for its behavior. It is like Plato's light in the cave. We can see the results, but we don't actually know the cause. So it is with evolution and everything else in the world. It all depends upon the world view of the viewer and the perspective that he takes.
Throughout the Middle ages, the Roman Church accepted the ideas of Aristotle and invested heavily in his philosophy. Its synthesis of Aristotelianism and Christianity led to many great errors, and greatly distorted its world view. It is no wonder, then, that the Papists also adopted their geocentric view of the world. Later, when Ptolemy discovered that the orbits of the planets were not circular, he started modeling their motion with epicycles in order to make the world continue to fit the Aristotelian circular ideal. So it is with the evolutionist who must constantly be changing his theory in order to make up for the increasing evidence against it, but will not give up the idea that chance and mother nature are God. If an evolutionist were to believe in Creationism, it would completely destroy the way in which he views the world, and would in turn mean that there is a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being who controls everything. It means that there is absolute right and wrong. It would mean that there are things beyond mere human comprehension and control. It would be humbling.
Though most evolutionists are atheists, there is a sad, small number that call themselves Christians. Just as many in the middle ages tried to synthesize Hellenistic philosophy and science with Christianity, so they are trying with modern philosophy and science. They are committing spiritual adultery. This is extremely strange when you consider that the book of nature is much more difficult to interpret than the book of Scripture. Moreover, the Christian is to interpret the world through the spectacles of Scripture rather than the other way around (II Tim. 3:15-17) If we begin to apply other interpretations to Genesis, and say that it can not be taken literally, then what is there to to keep us from doing the same with the rest of Scripture. Soon, sin is in material objects, love is just an emotion, Christ was just a good man, and “God” is just what we call an abstract idea that refers to positive occurrences. Many times liberal theology tends to say that there are certain elements of creation that God does not control, whether it be the hearts of men, or the movement of the planets. The problem with this is that if God is not in control of even one thing, He is not God. Nothing that God creates is self sustaining. The fact that the Earth is not a wind up clock that God has released can be seen throughout the Scriptures.

Now, my friend seems to think that Creationists have contributed very little to science. Ergo, here is an abbreviated list of Scientists who were Creationists, and most of them have openly said that their Creationistic beliefs had a very large impact on their work.

Antiseptic Surgery
Joseph Lister

Bacteriology
Louis Pasteur

Calculus & Dynamics
Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics & Physical astronomy
Johannes Kepler

Chemistry & Gas dynamics
Robert Boyle

Comparative anatomy & Vertebrate paleontology
Georges Cuvier

Computer Science
Charles Babbage

Dimensional analysis & Model analysis
Lord Rayleigh

Electrodynamics & Statistical thermodynamics
James C. Maxwell

Electromagnetics & Field Theory
Michael Faraday

Electronoics
John A. Fleming

Energetics & Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin

Entomology of living insects
Henri Fabre

Fluid Mechanics
George Stokes

Galactic astronomy
William Gerschel

Genetics
Gregor Mendel

Glacial geology & Ictheology
Louis Agassiz

Hydraulics
Leonardo da Vinci

Hydrography & Oceanography
Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics
Blaise Pascal

Isotopic chemistry
William Ramsay

Natural history
John Ray

Non-Euclidean geometry
Bernhard Riemann

Optical mineralogy
David Brewster

Paleontology
John Woodward

Pathology
Rudolph Virchow

Reversible thermodynamics
James Joule

Stratigraphy
Nicholas Steno

Systematic Biology
Carolus Linnaeus

Thermokinetics
Humphrey Davy


This is the kind of paper that I would have gotten a “C” on at Dordt, which means either A) It is very poorly written and makes me look like an idiot, or B) It is very controversial and people don't want to hear it. Perhaps it is both, but don't hesitate to tell me that it is “A” if you think so.


The list of Creationistic Scientists came from
Vision, March/April 1982, Volume XXVII, no. 7, p. 13.

Psalm 14