Friday, December 19, 2008

Evolution Not a Fact Now

In the last post I talked about "Abiogenesis," which refers to materialistic, naturalistic origin of life. I had looked up the topic in Wikipedia and found short summaries of various theories for this origin. They also listed some of the problems to the theories. Though "Origins" research is not quite the same as "Evolution," some say that molecules evolved to form simple life which evolved to form more complex life. In any case, materialist, naturalistic origins would imply chemicals coming together under the laws of physics and chemistry to form organisms.

With continuing discovery of microbiological mechanisms, almost all Darwinian tenets of small change and survival have been found lacking, both in origins and in biological life in general. These discoveries have only made for more questions which have not yet found answers. It is OK for scientists to continue to question, hypothesize, experiment and learn. I'm sure there are plenty of grants out there to learn more about science. But scientists also should be willing to analyze and apply the past 50 years of discovery to the present and state where evolution stands now. As of now, evolution is not a fact. The chemicals do not go together in a way that forms life under physical and chemical laws as we know them now. Then why are people, often scientists, saying it is?

Those of us who do not insist on evolution being fact can only speculate. Can it be that the other hypothesis, that God created the world and life in one fashion or another, is not acceptable to them? When one holds two possibilities at a time, some call that open-mindedness. It seems that scientific discovery should take us to conclusions, not the other way around.

Classroom study of science should be called something like "Scientific Theory, Method and Discovery" (STMD). That would take away the insistence of theories as Truth and simply present what various scientists think, how they proved it, what problems remain, and leave the students to think about it themselves. And for goodness sake, include creationist scientists. Is the mention in a classroom of a scientist who believes in God a criminal act in this country?

As Christmas speedily approaches, my posts will probably be short. After the New Year, I'd like to dwell more on Origins of life and the relationships between the 3 major types of cells: bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes (true cells). Now that I'm done with my book I hope to have time to do more descriptions of biological science in my blog. Because biology is in such a state of exponential discovery, the facts are coming fast and furious. Therefore it's hard to summarize and/or make simple to understand. But I can make a start and hope that when people see the facts, they will be able to conclude for themselves what the commotion between creationists and materialistic, naturalistic evolutionists is really about.

Update 1/21/2013: My interest in Intelligent Design Theory (ID) has changed to what is called "Special Creationism," the belief that God created species separately and directly. Much of the biological science in ID is similar to Special Creationism.

2 comments:

wheezy4sheezy said...

Hello this is Kiersha. I am reading Unto Others that you sent and it is very very good! I just wanted you to know that! It is a real page turner and I love just sitting down to read it. Hope to see you soon, have a Merry Christmas.

Kay said...

Hi Kiersha! I'm so glad you like it. Thanks for letting me know!