I recently read about some study whose results conflict with Darwinian evolution. Despite the conflict, the author’s logic basically said that even though Darwinian thinking could not explain what nature contains, the fact that this happened meant that ‘somehow’ evolution had brought about this result, and that more study was needed to find out just how this had happened.
It occurred to me—for the first time—that this type of argument is made over and over again by Darwinists (evolutionary biologists, for the easily offended).
What do we hear:
(1) Even though the ‘odds’ of all the necessary elements and individual components of the ‘original’ cell and its contained DNA (or RNA, if we want to dream) is astronomically high, meaning that the chance of this happening randomly is effectively zero, we KNOW, that it DID HAPPEN; and, so, therefore no need to talk about the improbability of it all.
(2) The ‘odds’ of any individual protein sequence coming about by chance is astronomical; but we know it DID HAPPEN; therefore, who cares about any talk of improbability.
(3) The Cambrian Explosion happened too quickly for it to be attributed to neo-Darwinian mechanisms, yet, it DID HAPPEN; therefore, it’s just a matter of time before we figure out how “evolution did it.”
(4) Yes, the ‘odds’ of winning the lottery is sky-high; but, guess what, someone always wins; that is, it HAPPENS; therefore let’s just push to the side any talk of the improbability of it all.
If you catch my drift here, you can see that since the work of science is to discover ‘facts,’ then since ‘facts’ always HAPPEN, no one can deny they happened. And, since ‘evolution’ is a ‘fact,’ then every other ‘fact’ MUST BE EXPLAINABLE using Darwinian theory, or neo-Darwinian theory, or some kind of ‘materialistic’ explanation. Yes, that’s right: methodological naturalism.
IOW: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Once Darwinists—-oops!!!, I mean, once evolutionary biologists assume the posture that nothing outside of natural forces can be invoked to explain biological phenomena, then “evolution” can NEVER be disproved, no matter what the next experiment turns up.
I often wondered how it could be that punctuated equilibria and the Neutral Theory, initially denounced by Darwinists, came to be accepted into the mainstream of Darwinian thought. I now see that the answer is that any ‘fact’ about nature/biology can always be integrated into evolutionary thought because these things DID/DO HAPPEN!! Who can argue with that?
“Junk-DNA”?? No problem. If it is shown that 100% of DNA is functional, evolutionary biologists will one day be saying: “But, we always thought this. It only makes sense that “evolution” [“nature” if you want to substitute] would eliminate anything that doesn’t have function.” And they will simply move on.
From the above, I reach this conclusion: It’s really a big waste of time trying to argue with Darwinists because there is nothing we can point to (remember, ‘facts’ are ‘facts’) that will change their minds.
Bottom line: Evolution is NOT falsifiable.