New Questions For Evolution...

A ll Creationist Christians know that evolutionary thinking just keeps going along in its blind alley approach, never asking the questions which should have been asked long ago - should macro-evolution actually be true.

Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994).

The brilliant Austrian philosopher of science challenged modern science over its insistense on only operating within a narrow band of materialist and naturalist knowledge. He insisted that such science can have no more claims to ultimate truth than those which may be found within Creationism. The very thinking which Feyerabend often warned about may now be observed in the approach of Richard Dawkins. In the Dawkins view, "scientific research" - on a very narrow and naturalistic basis - is presented as the ultimate truth about mankind. In his reductionism, Dawkins rejects any view that ultimate truth about human beings and human origins could have anything but a naturalistic perspective.

Unjustly accused of teaching an 'anything goes' approach to science, Paul Feyerabend was actually very committed to science but believed that it could not be taught within a highly naturalistic vacuum, divorcing it from insights from a much broader field. Without question, he made many committed evolutionists distinctly uncomfortable, but his application of logic and reason to scientific research and discovery have never been successfully countered.

Now - at last - some evolutionists are starting to ask a question which many of us doubters of evolution have long since thought a pretty obvious question. It is this:

If humans have really "evolved" to such an incredible degree, and if - as evolution insists - there is no real qualitative difference between us and apes, or dolphins, whales, elephants or tigers (since evolution rejects the Christian's insistence that men and women are qualitatively different to a large extent, having been made in God's image), why have not large animals also 'evolved' in order to offer more resistance to the predatory nature of homo sapiens?

After all, evolution can point to many examples of even very lowly creatures which (they insist) have developed mechanisms to protect against predators through the evolutionary process, yet if one considers larger creatures they just seem to go on falling into the devious traps of human beings. Sure, they mostly have fear of us (something the Bible said would be the case), yet rapidly declining numbers among several large families of animals (elephants and tigers, for example) has not resulted in their young being born with increased defences due to the "continued working of evolution."

A more open scientist who sometimes contacts us, admits that it is high time that evolution faces up to problems such as this. What a surprise then that it was on a BBC web page (the BBC being pretty much committed to a leftist, atheistic, Darwinistic and materialistic worldview) that I saw this question, albeit somewhat tentatively, being raised. The BBC article states,

'These questions are raised by Professor Geerat Vermeij of the University of California at Davies, US, in a scientific paper just published in the journal 'Evolution.' He has been studying the effects of predators on evolution for more than thirty years. [He said],

"Usually, when new, more powerful predators evolve or come in from elsewhere, the local species can often adapt by themselves becoming better defended through a variety of means; but this option seems to be closed when it comes to the evolution of humans as super-predators." (taken from 'Super predatory Humans,'

Evolutionists are already struggling to be consistent on this topic, for example, some are saying that large animals cannot defend against us because we are simply "too intelligent," but that is to backtrack on the usual evolutionary insistence that - according to the rules which evolution alone has set - we are not really more intelligent, except for the ongoing evolving of the human brain, yet when it is noted that several creatures have brains as large as - or even larger! - than human brains, the evolutionist has nowhere left to run! According to its own evolutionary and naturalistic 'rules,' large animals should have developed better defences against humans according to the so-called "ongoing processes of evolution." Admittedly, this is to argue in the area of micro-evolution, rather than macro-evolution, yet - against all known evidence - evolutionary scientism continues to argue that the 'big picture' of macro-evolution came about through the lowly processes of micro-evolution (that is: variations in kinds according to local conditions etc.,) over countless millions of years, therefore this is a legitimate area of challenge. Micro-evolution (that is, variation in kinds, natural selection), is, of course, perfectly correct and one may witness it everywhere, but to claim that this - given sufficient millions of years - led to man arriving upon the scene, from an origin in primeval slime and coming up through the ape family, is a bit like stating that the most sophisticated 21st century ocean liner "evolved" from an inauspicious beginning in a maritime junk yard!

Even worse for evolution theorists (yes, evolution remains no more than a theory no matter what you may have been led to believe), is that the micro-evolution which it relies upon, prohibits any break in 'kind,' that is, a dog remains dog, a cat remains a cat - no matter how many thousands of years you may throw at them.

But if people really are more intelligent, the question must be asked, Why? People should not be more intelligent according to Godless evolutionary theory.Here is yet another area in which the Theist - knowing that there is an omnipotent Creator God out there who created men and women in His own image - has a huge advantage in understanding. Evolutionists, however, are prohibited to 'think outside the box' and so must remain in their narrow, naturalistic blind alley. They continue to manifest exactly the same blinkered and naturalistic reasoning which the brilliant philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend warned would eventually bring modern science to its knees without a massive change in approach.

There are other challenges to its own reasoning which Darwinism has not yet fully confronted, such as being able to demonstrate - purely through evolutionary processes - how there can be information (not a physical commodity) in the universe, and what it (information) is, and where it came from. Once again, this presents no problem to the Christian Theist, holding to the belief in an omnipotent Creator God.
Robin A. Brace. February 20th, 2012.