When you read the popular science press you continually come upon articles that purport to offer more evidence for the veracity of evolutionary theory. The question for today is whether this evidence is discovered or manufactured.
Quotes and comments;
1. "The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms. They provide further evidence that the Cambrian explosion involved rapid innovation in fine-scale anatomy as well as gross morphology, and are consistent with the concept that the development of advanced vision helped to drive this great evolutionary event.'' [1.]
- The arthropod eyes being referred to do not provide evidence for rapid evolution of vision capacity. Only if one believes cosmic evolution is a fact, can this be seen as evidence of E. Only if one already accepts e. theory can this be interpreted as evidence for E. This doesn't prove evolution; the theory proves this is evidence! i.e. if you start out with e. you have to end up with evolution, there's no other answer that can arise.
If E. is true, everything is evidence for evolution :=} It's a circular defense of evolution in terms of evolution. i.e. we know this is evidence for evolution. How do we know this? We know this because we know E. is true. If you accept that E. is absolutely, without a doubt, true, no evidence can possibly refute the theory.
2. "Their discovery reveals that some of the earliest animals possessed very powerful vision; similar eyes are found in many living insects, such as robber flies.
Sharp vision must therefore have evolved very rapidly, soon after the first predators appeared during the 'Cambrian Explosion' of life that began around 540 million years ago.'' [1.]
- Why do they say vision 'must' have evolved rapidly? They say this because they know the theory isn't a theory but a fact, and so it can't be wrong. E. could no more be wrong than that it's possible to wake up tomorrow to find gravity had disappeared.
3. "Given the tremendous adaptive advantage conferred by sharp vision for avoiding predators and locating food and shelter, there must have been tremendous evolutionary pressure to elaborate and refine visual organs.'' [1.]
- Evolutionary pressure? What's that? Is it like the pressure of a gas? The pressure of gas after a bad meal? The pressure in a propane tank? Has anyone observed evolutionary pressure? Since we know it was a tremendous pressure I assume this means they were able to measure it :=}
This isn't empirical science, it's just storytelling. There isn't any 'pressure' that produces the mutations that supposedly create all body plans.
We see in examples like this how theory manufactures evidence, and this evidence is then used to support the theory. i.e. it's not the data that produce the so called evidence, but the theory that produces the evidence. When you find a fossil (etc.) you don't observe evidence, you observe some data. No one has ever seen evidence; as evidence is manufactured by a rational process.
The whole concept of evidence is non-empirical. Evidence is a philosophical concept in origin; and is based on the assumption truth exists, and that one can find support for propositions. (esp. via observation) For evidence to exist, one must have a theory of truth to base your claims; for if there is no truth, there can be no evidence. (It was Van Til's position that there is no autonomous method for truth, and he spoke of the necessity of scripture.)
This is the dangerous position the evolutionist is in. By claiming E. is a certain fact, as certain as anything knowledge possessed by humankind, they have made it impossible to refute, and all contra evidence (such as this is in my view) is interpreted in a way friendly to the theory, or if this seems impossible, it's just ignored.
Let's say the theory is false; this means that the people who accept it unconditionally would never be able to refute the theory.... as all the data must be interpreted in such a way as to provide more evidence the theory is correct. By claiming it to be not a theory but a fact they've placed themselves in a prison of their own making. To claim a theory is a fact is imprison critical thought.
By insisting E. isn't a theory but a fact, the Darwinist protects himself from self doubt and from non-evolutionary critique. If E. is a certain fact he need not concern himself with critiques of E. theory, and can just brush them aside with a wave of his hand. By claiming he can tell us what the true nature of reality is, man has usurped the role of God, for to claim that x is a fact is to claim omniscience. (Apparently an omniscient God is impossible, but an omniscient human being isn't :=}
As I've said before, finite, fallible, and fallen man is incapable of determining facts, and if he's wise he will resist the temptation to do so. It was Van Til's opinion that the only facts (truth) man has access to come from the special revelation we call the Bible.
M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Complex Arthropod Eyes Found in Early Cambrian; Creation/Evolution Headlines June 29
2. 'A side-by-side comparison of the fossil imprint with a living insect eye shows virtually no difference in complexity.'
- As is usual, no evolutionary progress is seen in the history of an animal kind; the animal appears out of nowhere, and remains almost identical to end of its years on earth. This looks like a refutation of the theory to me, but then no one is paying me to defend Darwinism.
3. 'In their concluding paragraph, they affirmed use of the phrase “Cambrian explosion” as a real event. They could offer no explanation for the evolution of these eyes, nor did they put forward any transitional forms.
- If there really was a 'Cambrian explosion' then what gets exploded is the myth of Darwinism, for this is not what he assumed and predicted, nor what he thought he had proved with his armchair speculations. Since Darwinists know E. is true, this can't be the case however, and feel they've got nothing to worry about :=}
4. I'm referring to Cornelius Van Til
5. Why we need to prove evolution if it's already a fact is a matter for another day.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
