Saturday, 17 July 2010

Is Darwinian and neo-Darwinian Evolution outdated in the light of the most recent science?

Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box expounds upon the theory of Darwinian evolution and its succeeding postulate neo-darwinism as outdated scientific conjecture in terms of understanding the mystery of life’s origin.

The fact remains quite simple, neither postulate is up to date with the most recent discoveries of the complex molecule system, the cells, it machinary and the DNA.

I have to admit that Behe is not radically opposed to the evolution theory, he writes: ‘I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study development...within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world...however I do not believe it explains molecular life’ (p. 5). Hence Behe is inclined to believe that Darwin’s evolution theory indeed might help understand horse hoofs, but certainly not life’s foundation (p.4).

I realise that many atheists out of ignorance have pointed out that Behe occasionally corrects himself in favour of the evolution theory, however, granted the Behe is open toward evolution, the matter is not related to his occasional favour of evolution in certain often irrelevant details, but his overall tendency to be inclined in favour of design and a more divine intervention that greatly ascends mere naturalism.

Make no mistake about as Behe states: ‘Can all of life be fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution? Because the popular media likes to publish exciting stories and because some scientists enjoy speculating about how far their discoveries might go, it has been difficult for the public to separate fact from conjecture...’ (p.5). Hence here and elsewhere Behe considers much of the evolutionary enterprise as mere humbug; in fact in relation to molecular science he write: ‘...if you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus on your search on the question on how molecular machines machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence’ (p.5).

Behe’s further point depicts how Darwinian exponents have utilized in their tendency a range of childish and simply solutions to explain the complexity of the molecular system and the human body as a whole, e.g. the eye, which Darwin claimed had gradually evolved from a very simple function to the human incredibly complex machinery, and this conclusion based upon the idea that the lesser effective examples of functional eyes in a variety of animal species would therefore have to reveal a gradual evolvement from a lesser effective function to another; however this trick will not do with the newer and more advanced discoveries within biological science; we have today advanced far too considerably to fall for such outdated conjecture.

According to Behe the evolution theory is simply an outdated model of the understanding of life and its origin, which in modern days ought to be exchanged for the new advancement in science which recognises that biology and the human body is based much more upon engineering science than mere natural evolution, and which therefore demands a creator.

Interestingly a year ago I read a Danish report laying in the Danish embassy in London (2009) which reckoned that the Darwinian evolutionary theory was only held as a valid theory by 20 percent of the British population, the number is supposedly the same in Denmark, an utterly secular nation.
What does this suggest? It suggests that Darwinian evolution is currently a theory that the majority of thinking individuals recognise based upon the most recent discoveries as devoid of logic, reason and proof, and that there is far too much more complex and intelligent details that suggest an intellectual cause for the origin of life rather than random effect and a meaningless universe.

I guess individuals will have to decide between the most recent atheist conclusion, namely that E.T. planted DNA in the sea 400 million years ago (which of course begs the question, on which star E.T. was planted, when and by whom) or that a divine and eternal being not depending upon neither time, space or anything, by its own intellect, will and power originated existence and life.

No comments:

A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.