Mountains of Evidence

2010.03.10   prev     next

How often have you heard it said that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, such that doubting it is like doubting gravity, or doubting heliocentricism, or thinking that Earth is flat? And that the only reason one could possibly have to doubt evolution is an adherence to religious stories of a 6,000-year-old world? Sounds virtually impossible to argue with, right?

But it’s really quite easy.

There are mountains of evidence that the Earth has gravity. But Darwin’s theory of evolution isn’t the theory that Earth has gravity.

There are mountains of evidence that the Earth is round. But Darwin’s theory isn’t the theory that the Earth is round.

There are mountains of evidence that Earth goes around the sun, and not vice-versa. But Darwin’s theory isn’t the theory that Earth goes around the sun.

There are mountains of evidence that our universe is about twelve to fifteen billion years old, and that our planet is about four billion years old, and that life has existed on this planet for nearly as long as the planet itself has existed. But Darwin’s theory isn’t the theory that life has existed on Earth for a few billion years.

There are mountains of evidence that the major religions consist mostly, if not entirely, of made-up stories and morals. But Darwin’s theory isn’t the theory that religions are bogus.

There are mountains of evidence that random mutations and natural selection occur. But Darwin’s theory isn’t the theory that random mutations and natural selection occur.

There are mountains of evidence that each species can change, within some defined ranges, over the course of generations, to adjust for changes in its environment, as guided by natural selection. Now we’re getting close to Darwin’s theory, but we still haven’t really nailed it.

Darwin’s Theory

Darwin’s theory is the theory that the process of random mutation and natural selection, starting with one or a few single-celled species, transformed those single-celled organisms into all the life we see on Earth today, without the aid of any intelligent intervention.

Are there mountains of evidence for that proposition? No, there’s virtually no evidence for it, and a lot of serious evidence against it.

Evolutionists take all the above-listed things for which there are mountains of evidence, and mentally attach those things to Darwin’s theory. But there is no evidence at all (not to mention mountains of it) that this attachment is based on anything but the personal desire to support Darwin’s theory by any means necessary.

If Not Darwin, Then What?

Intelligent Design is simply the theory that life — and not just the first bacteria, but virtually all the species and in particular their complex mechanisms — was designed.

And what is design? Well, by examining cases where we all agree design was responsible (e.g. the telegraph, the telephone, the iPhone), we can see that:

• There are mountains of evidence that intelligent design is an amoral, incremental process of experimentation, improvement, and frequent imperfection.

• There is no evidence that intelligent design ever exhibits the utopian characteristics described in the traditional Sunday School of western civilization’s most prominent religion.

When declaring Intelligent Design bankrupt or unscientific, which of the above two visions of the design process do the evolutionists employ? The one for which there are mountains of evidence? Or the one for which there is no evidence?