Question Evolution: Evolution Is Dancing on the Titanic | Stand to Reason

Question Evolution:  Evolution Is Dancing on the Titanic | Stand to Reason

See the post of February 12, 2012, Question Evolution: Evolution is dancing on the Titanic, written by Greg Koukl, founder of Stand to Reason, a Christian apologetics organization.

This post points out that even unbelieving scientists argue about whether evolution is a satisfactory theory for human origins.  Note this excerpt:

Phillip Johnson has made a fair observation when he states, “If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact.”

Science, because of the scientific method, can be thought of as a methodology for acquiring knowledge about the physical world.  It can also be thought of as a philosophy – or what could even be called “science-as-religion.”  I support the first and reject the second.  The author of this post doesn’t see the issue exactly in this way, but does make a similar bifurcation of definitions:

Science has two definitions. The first is the most well known. Science is about a methodology–observation, experimentation, testing, etc.–that allows researchers to discover the facts about the world. Presumably, this is what evolution is about–the facts of science. Science in this sense has prompted the litany of concerns expressed above by evolutionists.

The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn’t conform to this definition is not scientific.

These two definitions are not always compatible. Evolution is a case in point. At first blush it seems like evolution is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest design, the second definition is invoked. The philosophy always trumps the methodology. That is, any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports intelligent design is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as “religion disguised as science.”

Here are the closing paragraphs of the post:

The evolution/creation controversy is not about evidence. It’s about the power of an academic elite to enforce a philosophy. This fact is becoming increasingly obvious to the public. Once this becomes clear, then evolution will have to stand on its own merits and it won’t be able to do so.

Evolutionists are dancing on the Titanic. If it were not for philosophical strong-arming in the field of science, Darwinism would have become an historical curiosity long ago. It’s only a matter of time before the iceberg hits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.