by Jay Johansen | Jan 24, 2008
A letter to the editor in my local paper recently said that creationists should stop critiquing evolution because “Science works … this includes the theory of evolution”. The writes point appeared to be that scientists have accomplished amazing things – theory of gravity (Isaac Newton), electric generators (Michael Faraday), moon rockets (Werner von Braun), MRI scanners (Raymond Damadian), and so on -- and evolutionists call themselves scientists, so we should give them great respect. But it wasn’t the evolutionists who produced these great achievements. These examples -- Newton, Faraday, von Braun, and Damadian -- were all creationists.
Oh, scientists who are evolutionists have made important discoveries. But has evolution as a theory led to scientific progress? The reality is that evolution doesn't work.
Take one example: In Darwin’s day, evolutionists identified at least 180 “vestigial organs”, that is, parts of the body that were left over from earlier stages of evolution and no longer serve any purpose. The existence of such organs was offered as proof that the human body was not the product of intelligent design. But as medical science has advanced, we have learned the purpose of these “useless” organs. Darwin’s list included many that have since been discovered to perform vital functions, like the pituitary gland and thymus. Perhaps you were taught in school that the coccyx is a useless vestige of a tail. It is now understood that it serves as an anchor point for muscles, vital to enabling us to walk upright and … how can I put this delicately? … poop. (“Operative Significance of the Supposed Rudimentary Coccygeal Process”). Many people still believe that the appendix serves no purpose, but it has been shown to have a variety of functions in fighting food poisoning and infection. (“Appendix Isn't Useless At All”, Duke University Medical Center Science Daily, October 8, 2007) Today many biologists say that the number of vestigial organs is down to zero. (CEN Technical Journal 14(2) 2000).
Evolutionists saw organs in the body that they didn’t understand and promptly concluded that they had no function. Instead of seeking cures for diseases of these organs, they simply cut them out and threw them away; sometimes even removed healthy organs as a “preventative measure”. Meanwhile, creationist doctors did the difficult research to discover the true purpose of these organs in our complex physiology, and find real cures for the diseases. How many people have suffered and died because the flawed theories of evolutionists delayed or blocked real research?
© 2008 by Jay Johansen
Gwladys Jul 23, 2014
I'm also a reader of the NARST list. I aslmot totally support all your arguments, but I don't quite understand your last paragraph in this blog post. Could you explain more to me who is not familiar with the US political context? Thanks.
Dheerendra Oct 3, 2015
>> Science concerns istlef with the material whereas religion concerns istlef with the immaterial.Would that it were so! The moment religion makes predictions about what will happen in the material world, it has stepped into the realm of science: it has made claims that are testable. God grants wisdom generously to those who ask in faith is a testable claim, especially when paired with the biblical idea that God's truth is unchanging. The test is to see whether many people who ask in faith are given compatible wisdom. That's not what we see, so the claim is falsified.I hope you'll read Part 3 of my story, due tomorrow, for another example.>> Faith in science means assumption: assumption for the purpose of logical induction.That's how math works, but not it's not the emphasis in modern science. Scientists generally do not reason inductively from assumptions. Instead, they pose a hypothesis and try to disprove it. If the hypothesis withstands decades of assault, it gains respect and may be considered a theory (e.g., atomic theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution). (Note that theory in science has a different meaning than in common discourse.) If the hypothesis is disproven, it is scrapped or revised and the cycle starts again. More on this theme here: .>> Faith in religion means acceptance.There, I agree with you completely!