Intelligent Design

When Evidence for Evolution is Actually Evolution of Evidence

Spread the love
In 1951 the leading evolutionist George G. Simpson stated that there really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question, concluded Simpson, has been decisively answered in the affirmative. Simpson was by no means the first to make this high claim—even stronger statements were made in the nineteenth and even eighteenth centuries—but in the twentieth century this sentiment came to dominate the life sciences. It became more than merely broadly accepted, it became mandatory. This set up evolutionary theory as what Thomas Kuhn would call “normal science.” Evolution became the standard, the dominant paradigm, within which the life sciences operated. From high school biology exams to university tenure and funding applications, all must work under the umbrella of evolution. New research is not merely described in terms of evolution, the very data are interpreted according to evolution from the first measurement. If a new fossil form is discovered, it is described as a result of gradualism if it is similar to known forms. On the other hand, it is described as a result of punctuated equilibrium if it is unique. One way or another, evolution is the narrative. And while it may be that, in practice, science needs to work in this way, this overwhelming dominance means that, ironically, evolutionary studies often fail to provide evidence for evolution. This is because evolution is assumed in the very interpretation of the data. This logical technicality, however, often does not stop evolutionists from making high claims about the evidence.  Read more

One Reply to “When Evidence for Evolution is Actually Evolution of Evidence

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    George G. Simpson (not related to Homer Simpson) is some one i note because of his work on fossils in South America. Now this biblical creationist sees his conclusions on classifications of critters here as very wrong. He has creatures who look exactly like other creatures in the world being tagged as of different orders etc just because of minor details. Very wrong.
    I actually began to note evolutionists complaining his classification system is wrong and off beat.
    Likewise it can be extrapolated his ideas on evolution being settled are not settled.
    One needs more intelligent people to look closely at all conclusions in recent historic data, concepts, hypothesis, “theories”, amongst the evolution thinkers.

Leave a Reply