The Fossil Record Doesn't Support Darwinian Evolution
Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record (Colin Patterson: British Museum of Natural History).
Selected scientists claim that science corroborates unguided evolution. Nonetheless, there are numerous questions that appear to refute the notion of non-directed evolution; some of these difficulties make naturalistic evolution, in principle, impossible.
Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event (Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould).
Where are the transitions between distinct organisms evolutionists maintain have a common ancestry? There are only a few transitional forms that are claimed among the millions of fossils collected. Such a shoddy fossil record should give evolutionists a bit of humility. But the wild claims continue even though the evidence for unguided evolution is just not there. To make matters worse, other evolutionists often reject their colleagues’ claims regarding particular transitional forms (transitions between distinct organisms; missing links). Finding massive amounts of transitional forms appears hopeless. Unguided evolution is unsupported.
Ultimate Commitments and Science
Evolutionary biologists are abandoning natural selection as the principal cause of evolutionary change … The claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true (Cognitive Scientist, Jerry Fodor).
At some level you always believe your own propaganda (The Daily Show, Atheist Jon Stewart).
We’re all limited in our viewpoints by our ultimate commitments—what we’re capable of affirming is limited by our presuppositions. Our ideological passions are skewed by our most basic philosophical assumptions we take for granted—we can’t help think the other side’s evidence is faulty or irreverent if it opposes our basic presuppositions.
We’re limited by what our presuppositions will allow. Strict naturalists cannot allow “God’s foot in the door,” so they cannot see the potent evidence for intelligent design in biological organisms. The orthodox Christian cannot allow Dawkins’ toe in the entry, so they reject the New Atheists’ hottest wild theories vis-à-vis abiogenesis or mindless ascending evolution. We’re limited by the realities that our worldview allows.
So are we stuck in a stalemate? Nope.
It’s not a matter of dozing intellectually in a truce, but finding which worldview provides the ontological resources to account for research, analysis, deliberation, and knowledge. Strict naturalistic atheism is completely devoid of the necessary ontic endowment to account for such necessities. However, theism doesn’t win merely by default, but by having a foundation with the ontic capacity to account for the necessities of science and knowledge.
So everyone is seeing the biological evidence through a particular prism, and it’s important to know your prism is there, admit it, understand it, and make sure that you keep it from distorting the evidence. Moreover, make sure that your worldview has the resources to account for the rational, ethical, and analytical requirements. The Christian worldview has such resources in abundance; atheism lacks them.
It’s no contest.
The anti-theists are going to look to atheistic evolution because they force themselves to look that way. And the reasons for their hardened stand: a hatred for God, sin, deep emotional devotion, stubbornness, and guiding presuppositions.
1. What worldview can furnish the a priori necessities and rational tools for science, analysis, research and proof? Christian theism delivers the epistemic ground for the a priori immutable universals utilized in rational enquiry and proof; in principle, materialistic atheism cannot furnish the aforementioned ground. What is obligatory to account for analysis and proof is a first principle that has the ontological endowment to not only ground it, but to account for proof and its preconditions—all the universal operational features of knowledge. The loss of the immovable point of reference, in principle, leaves the ungodly bereft of a resource necessary to construct the analytical enterprise required to prove anything. Without God, one cannot hoist the necessary a priori operation features of the intellectual examination of evidence and proof. The Christian worldview supplies the fixed ontic platform as the sufficient truth condition that can justify induction, immutable universals, attributes, identity, and the uniformity of the physical world. But materialistic atheism lacks such a fixed ontic platform. Consequently, it fails to provide the sufficient ground required to justify enquiry, research, evidence, and proof.
Check out my new book that refutes Bill Nye Undeniable Evidence on Amazon HERE