Aug 172005
 

What is Darwinian of the gaps? Darwinists have declared Darwinian evolution as a well-tested theory. Indeed it has been so well tested that it should be considered as fact and not just a theory. Recently even Peter Ward the coauthor of Rare Earth has come out and reinforces this idea that evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. (more on this at a later posting) The general public and the majority of scientists believes this is the case, so it must be true, right?

For those who have followed my blog and my cyber-postings would know what I mean by Darwinian evolution. 1. Darwinian evolution is Atheistic. I base this on the definition by Ken Miller “The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”‚ I haven’t found any Darwinists that would disagree with this definition yet. 2. Darwinian evolution is a random and unguided process capable of abiogenesis and all the diversity of life through descent with modification from LUCA (last universal common ancestor)

The purpose of this post is to focus on the second part of Darwinian evolution. What gives the Darwinists this confidence that Darwinian evolution is a fact? What evidences do Darwinists bring to the table? After 150 years of research and 3 revolutions later, Darwinists have indeed amassed copious research and evolutionary mechanisms to support their theory.

That is the standard perception conveyed by the elite Darwinian Priesthood (scientists that espouse evolution is a fact). Contrary to Peter Ward’s claim, that evolution is a very difficult and demanding subject. To understand the second premise of evolution is extremely simple. What is the evidence for life from lifelessness? What is the evidence for the diversity of life stemming from one or few common ancestor? It all boils down to the Modern Synthesis. This is the idea that genetic variations brought about by random genetic drift and gene flow, which changes the gene frequency of a population. These gradual changes accumulate to form new species as in macroevolution.

While this is a neat and tidy little story, this is a Darwinian of the gaps story. Darwinists are filling the gap of evidence with faith. Faith in their naturalistic process. Darwinists are proud of their faith. Darwinists bombastically ridicule anyone who dares to point out that they have no direct evidence in nature or in the lab that show any such macroevolutionary transformation. The Darwinists declares their critics as ignorant and anti-science because they want to replace God as an explanation for their gap in knowledge.

First of all, ID is not suggesting we put God in place of any gap in their knowledge. Second, ID is filling their gap with the knowledge that random and unbounded genetic variation does not produce the specific genetic information required for the diversity of life. What the Darwinists have done is painted an elaborate fairytale of evolution. As long as you don’t ask about the specific details of this fairytale then you are fine. If you start questioning the tale, “How can a cricket speak to a wooden boy?”‚ . What is the mechanism that would allow the cricket to vocalize speech? Once you start asking detail questions of the fairytale, the story breaks down. Such is the case with Darwinian evolution.

When you start asking what and how many random genetic changes are required to transform one alleged ancestral species to another? What is the differential survival cost of these random mutations? What is the random mutation rate for these alleged species given the fact that every species mutation rate is different? How much time is required for macroevolution through random mutations? Are there any biological, environmental or physical factors that would affect these random mutations? If so, what were they during this transformation period? Were these factors static during this macroevolutionary period? The Darwinian fairytale for the explanation of the diversity of life on earth is far from being a theory let alone a fact.

Just as Pasteur denied spontaneous generation, ID denies Darwinian evolution. Not only has ID pointed out that Darwinian evolution has no explanation for how biological systems function to produce macroevolution. ID is providing scientific data that shows there is no gradual random cumulative evolution. There is no evidence of a minute gradual incremental morphological change leading to a macroevolutionary result.
ID is providing scientific data that shows discrete morphological forms, as the records in the Cambrian explosion. The scientific data from molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascades and regulatory genes. Scientific data for biological convergence has contradicted the Darwinian cornerstone mechanism of random mutation that evolution should not repeat itself.

  7 Responses to “Darwinian of the gaps”

  1. Formally speaking the Big Bang, or let us say (if one is one of those wicked YECs, “the beginning”), has no naturalistic explanations.

    Natural law does points only to the beginnning of the universe, it does in no way, explain the causes. So here we have situation where natural law points to something (namely the beginning of the universe) as being true but clearly without natural explanation. A “proof by contradiction” shows that the origin of the universe is not from known natural laws, yet it is an undeniable truth….

    Miller is mistaken then to say that science can only address things that obey natural law. Not true, as I’ve shown. Science is fully capable of identifying things that are obviously true, but have no natural origin.

    Salvador

  2. scordova, you’ve made a good point. I have not attempted to address the validity of Miller’s statement. I’ve only wanted to point out his statement was necessarily Atheistic.

    I also agree, “those wicked YECs”. 😀

  3. Very clever the way you get rid of the traditional, Christian definition of natural science, and claim it to be atheistic.

    I suspect you’ve gone way past Miller’s definition. I believe he was referring to the standard view that science can only study what science can study; since we cannot either put God into a test tube, nor seal a test tube from God, we cannot claim to run a test to either disprove or prove the existence of God.

    That’s a philosophical position arrived at by Christian scholars after a couple of centuries of work on the demarcation issue.

    Have you overstepped Miller’s intent, or do you really abandon the Christian history of western science?

  4. Can you offer any citation for any “Darwinist” who says evolution is random?

    I know of none. Think hard about this: “Selection” is the opposite of “random.” The common name of the theory is the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection.

  5. edarrell, I am not sure if I should waste any more time with your silly comments. For the benefit of the readers, I will entertain this one more time.

    You accuse me of going past Miller’s definition, yet you start defining Miller’s view according to your own interpretation. Where did Miller say anything about putting God in a test tube? Where did Miller say (we) cannot put God in a test tube to either disprove or prove the existence of God? You are a typical Darwinian hypocrite. You accuse me of misrepresenting Miller and yet you misrepresent him even more. Let’s look at his statement one more time. ” Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature.” If this statement is accurate and I have not found any Darwinists who disagrees with this statement, then the question must follow, is God inside nature? The answer would be no. If God is not inside nature then God is not considered under “Science” . So according to Miller Science is not about putting God in a test tube and prove or disprove God’s existence. God is rule out a priori in Miller’s definition of science. If I misinterpreted his statement it is because his poor definition of science. In your case you’ve added and change the meaning of this statement altogether.

    Can you offer any citation for any “Darwinist” who says evolution is random?
    I know of none. Think hard about this: “Selection” is the opposite of “random.” The common name of the theory is the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection.

    This is one of the most incredulous comment that I’ve seen from a Darwinist. Random mutation and Natural Selection (RM&NS) is at the heart of Darwinian inferences. Have you never heard of the Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod? 😀 You’ve exposed yourself as a closed minded, blind faith Darwinian drone. You don’t even understand the basis of evolution is random and you are clueless between the difference of RM and NS. Your blind allegiance to defend Darwinism has caused you to miss my answer to your own question within my post. 😀

  6. [Comment censored by blog owner]

  7. […] human appendix must be a vestigial organ because there is no known function (this is what I call Darwin of the gaps.) The next step in the Darwinian fairytale, vestigial organs is an artifact from common descent; […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.