The Fundamental Problem with Darwinism
October 5, 2020 · C.E. Carter
An excellent scientist will admit that their job is to guess how the world works and see if their guesses are consistent with inferences they have made from measured data. “Guess” is the key word there; take what you know (or what you think you know), make some deductions, come up with a guess for how to explain a particular natural phenomenon, and test it.
Richard Feynman was once asked to explain, in lay terms, what the mechanism behind magnetic repulsion was. In other words, we know there is a repulsive force between like poles of two different magnets, but why is it there? He explained to the interviewer why it was such a difficult question to answer, in his usual New York affectation, “when you ask why something occurs, you have to be working within a framework where you allow something to be true…and I don’t know how to explain it to you in terms of anything else which you already know.” In other words, the formulation of scientific theory depends heavily on the prior information the scientist brings to the research. For science which seeks to create further advancement of what has already established to be true, some guesses will be automatically discarded because they contradict a body of prior knowledge. For revolutionary science, we are allowed to make these kinds of guesses.
Darwinian theory is especially rife with scientists who feel the need to proselytize their anti-theism. I remember reading a book on biochemistry when I was young (I’ll amend this post if I can remember the title). It was a good conceptual introduction to the field of biochemistry, and I mostly found it beneficial to my scientific studies, but I would have found it a more enjoyable read if the author wasn’t so preoccupied with taking a jab at the Christian God every other paragraph. My goodness, dear author, I can’t imagine how hard your fragile intellect must have to white-knuckle your atheism. You work harder than most Mormons.
This militant atheism is ubiquitous in biology, and it affects the conclusions the field has collectively come to. God does not exist, by assumption, therefore we must be sure to restrict our scientific guesses to be consistent with that prior information. This means chiefly appealing to entropy, assuming ergodicity, and allowing for unimaginably long timescales to realize the great diversity and efficiency of biological life we observe today with non-negligible probability. That is the fundamental problem with Darwinism: the religious convictions of biologists are a cage they have locked themselves in, and they have thrown the key through the bars to the other side of the hallway, out of reach.
The Darwinian Syllogism
1. Either God exists or Darwinism is true.
2. God does not exist.
3. Therefore Darwinism is true.
What’s particularly humorous is when they use the conclusion of this argument to justify their own atheism.
4. Therefore God does not exist.
Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory which is open to scientific examination. Darwinism is a religious system which proselytizes Darwinian evolution by means of atheistic religious convictions, which masquerade as the main source of scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. An examination of Darwinism must therefore begin theologically, and then proceed scientifically.
P.S. This isn’t a syllogism that Darwin himself used. The man spent a bunch of time looking at finches in the Galapagos, noticed that each species had different biological characteristics, made a guess as to why that was, extrapolated that guess to all other forms of life and adaptation, and wrote a book about it. That’s a perfectly sound and fine way of making a scientific guess.