Why Evolution Fails the Test of Science

Author: Cornelius G. Hunter, Senior Scientist at a high-tech research firm and postdoctoral researcher at University of California at San Diego.

This is the only article that attacks macroevolution in general, rather than simply the Darwinist flavor. Even under these circumstances, the author is more concerned in demonstrating that there is a lack of evidence and reason supporting evolution rather than "disproving" evolution. After all, evolution is so flexible and general a notion that it can be instantiated at will for ad hoc explanations of virtually anything, even completely contradictory and exclusive concepts. It is hardly possible to "disprove" such a theory; but he readily shows that it is perfecly natural to ask what evidence exists for us to consider it a valid theory at all.

He begins his article with a brief, yet thorough enough to make his point, survey of the data used to support evolution and the inconvenient, yet abundant, data that refuses to fit the mold (thereby effectively invalidating confidence in the theory). He then moves on to the crux of his argument: the primary reason for confidence in evolution, rather than compelling physical or empirical evidence, is a certain, religious, view of God!

This may sound strange at first, as it did to me, but his point is quite sound. Predating Darwin, ideas as to what God would or would not, or should or should not, do in creating the world are prevalent. The natural theologians presumed that God would only create a "perfect" world that was so obviously fine-tuned that anyone would know it simply by observation. The world, however, is full of seeming problems and errors. Their conclusion was that God didn't create it, at least not directly. This conveniently paved the way for Darwinism to take the intellectual world by storm.

Rather than focusing on history, Hunter points out the current modern reliance upon the same notion. He brings up the profoundly simple question: given the data we have about biology, why do we presuppose evolution? The general answer given by science is that evolution predicts that things should be this way and creationism would predict something different. Of course, one could ask: why?

You would have to read his article to gather the full force of his evidence, scenarios, and arguments.

On the issue of this world, and whether or not God would create it this way, I say that yes He would and did. What is imperfect or dysteleological about nature? Vestigial organs? Homology? I don't see any reason why God couldn't create things just this way. Only by assuming, and presuming, to know everything about God's actions and purposes could we assess whether or not He would do something one way or another.