Assumptions
Pt. 2
“There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God...there is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that leaves us with only one other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.” ~George Wald.
Honesty such as this quote by the Nobel Peace prize winner of 1967 is something hard to come by. Wald sounds like a man who understands the power of presuppositions. He took a very controversial topic, stripped it of all but it’s simplest components, and honestly assessed them. He walked away with a contradiction, but he was honest with himself about his contradiction and was virtuous enough to label it as such.
But if evolutions has been disapproved as Wald says it has, why is it taught with such predominance? I do not presume to know why, and of course not all scientists agree with George Wald, but one of the tricks that have been used to mask evolutions ineptitude is in the presuppositions.
All the children of America have been taught since grade school that evolution: whether fact, or theory, is the only acceptable science on the origins of life. Darwin’s finches, Haegel’s embryo’s, homology, the fossil record, four-winged fruit fly, ... the list goes on and on. But what makes evolution unique comparative to, say, genetics? The denotation of ‘evolution’ is ‘change’. In regards to science this word is constantly in reference to change in genetics. The difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane is in it’s genetics. The distinction I would like to make is between Micro(genetics)-evolution and Macro(changing species)-evolution. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane, despite the differences, are still dogs. A whale in no way is an elephant. The disparity is that while I make this distinction between genetics (micro) and “man came from apes” (macro), the majority of scientists (and text books) do not. They make evolution interchangeable between natural genetic changes and drastic mutations needed for a man-to-ape theory to be plausible. The big assumption in Darwinian evolution is that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. They assume that changes on the micro level slowly produced changes on the macro level. These assumptions are largely unattested and are left unproven.
Don’t get me wrong, some do attempt to prove this, but their evidence has a lot of short comings. The most well known is Haegel’s embryos. It is also the most controversial. Even many leading evolutionists distrust and show disdain for Haegel’s shoddy work and his theory of embryonic recapitulation has been widely discarded.
The fossil record just does not record macro-evolution. With one or two attested exceptions, there are absolutely no “missing links” found to the extent of changing a single-celled organism to every living animal on the planet. Darwin himself claimed that one would be a “idiot” to believe in his theory if no intermediary fossils were found. He predicted we would find thousands of “missing links” under the fossil rich Cambrian layer. That was two hundred years ago, and nowadays we call it the Cambrian explosion. No such fossils were found.
The main argument used to defend this assumption that micro- proves macro- is homology. The common picture of the bone structure of a man’s arm, a whale’s fin, and a bat’s wing is in nearly every text book. The idea is tied to Haegel’s theory in that those systems or structures that look alike in different animals must have evolved from similar ancestors. For this to be plausible, the homologous body part in question must by necessity have both developed identically and from the same genes, otherwise it would not follow that they evolved from the same ancestor. It is proved, homologous anatomy can and are in many cases developed from different genes and in very different situations and locations in the given animal’s development and thus it does not follow that they are truly evolved homogenous parts.
This assumption is one that needs attention. Evolution has a monopoly on our school system. Should we be concerned? One bad assumption can make all the difference. Have we been duped by an assumption?
Jared Williams
Honesty such as this quote by the Nobel Peace prize winner of 1967 is something hard to come by. Wald sounds like a man who understands the power of presuppositions. He took a very controversial topic, stripped it of all but it’s simplest components, and honestly assessed them. He walked away with a contradiction, but he was honest with himself about his contradiction and was virtuous enough to label it as such.
But if evolutions has been disapproved as Wald says it has, why is it taught with such predominance? I do not presume to know why, and of course not all scientists agree with George Wald, but one of the tricks that have been used to mask evolutions ineptitude is in the presuppositions.
All the children of America have been taught since grade school that evolution: whether fact, or theory, is the only acceptable science on the origins of life. Darwin’s finches, Haegel’s embryo’s, homology, the fossil record, four-winged fruit fly, ... the list goes on and on. But what makes evolution unique comparative to, say, genetics? The denotation of ‘evolution’ is ‘change’. In regards to science this word is constantly in reference to change in genetics. The difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane is in it’s genetics. The distinction I would like to make is between Micro(genetics)-evolution and Macro(changing species)-evolution. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane, despite the differences, are still dogs. A whale in no way is an elephant. The disparity is that while I make this distinction between genetics (micro) and “man came from apes” (macro), the majority of scientists (and text books) do not. They make evolution interchangeable between natural genetic changes and drastic mutations needed for a man-to-ape theory to be plausible. The big assumption in Darwinian evolution is that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. They assume that changes on the micro level slowly produced changes on the macro level. These assumptions are largely unattested and are left unproven.
Don’t get me wrong, some do attempt to prove this, but their evidence has a lot of short comings. The most well known is Haegel’s embryos. It is also the most controversial. Even many leading evolutionists distrust and show disdain for Haegel’s shoddy work and his theory of embryonic recapitulation has been widely discarded.
The fossil record just does not record macro-evolution. With one or two attested exceptions, there are absolutely no “missing links” found to the extent of changing a single-celled organism to every living animal on the planet. Darwin himself claimed that one would be a “idiot” to believe in his theory if no intermediary fossils were found. He predicted we would find thousands of “missing links” under the fossil rich Cambrian layer. That was two hundred years ago, and nowadays we call it the Cambrian explosion. No such fossils were found.
The main argument used to defend this assumption that micro- proves macro- is homology. The common picture of the bone structure of a man’s arm, a whale’s fin, and a bat’s wing is in nearly every text book. The idea is tied to Haegel’s theory in that those systems or structures that look alike in different animals must have evolved from similar ancestors. For this to be plausible, the homologous body part in question must by necessity have both developed identically and from the same genes, otherwise it would not follow that they evolved from the same ancestor. It is proved, homologous anatomy can and are in many cases developed from different genes and in very different situations and locations in the given animal’s development and thus it does not follow that they are truly evolved homogenous parts.
This assumption is one that needs attention. Evolution has a monopoly on our school system. Should we be concerned? One bad assumption can make all the difference. Have we been duped by an assumption?
Jared Williams
