Mirificam Press

Use the links below to share The Law of Evolution: Silencing Dissension by Redefining Science on your favorite social networks.

Back to the Article >>

The Law of Evolution: Silencing Dissension by Redefining Science

January 2nd, 2008 in Web Design Culture

by: Matthew Griffin

Clive Thompson contributed an article entitled A War of Words to the November 2007 issue of Wired Magazine. The tag line on the article was "Science will triumph only when theory becomes law". The gist of the article was that the theory of evolution has become so overwhelmingly confirmed by scientific evidence that it should now be referred to as the "law of evolution". This move, in his opinion, will finally suppress all the dissidents by placing them in a position where they will "sound insane" for questioning a proven scientific law. I take issue with Clive's proposal, and I could write a whole book about why, but for now I will try to be brief and hit the high points.

We call scientific laws "laws" because they hold up against repeated testing in the laboratory using the scientific method. We can document their effects and predict results with a high level of accuracy. We don't use the word "law" when referring to historical events—that's exactly what Clive is proposing.

"Evolution is super solid," says Clive. "We even base the vaccine industry on it." Here, Clive reaches into the goody bag of micro-evolutionary examples to disguise the embarrassing lack of evidence for macro-evolution. The argument has never been about whether or not generational changes occur within species—this is micro-evolution. Rather, the debate centers around the claim that changes within species are unidirectional—once they have taken place, they never revert back—and that these changes are capable of producing every variation of species on the earth, and life itself. The evidence is decidedly against this theory—the theory of macro-evolution. Experiments attempting to recreate macro-evolution in the lab have been utter failures. All changes within species tend to gravitate back toward their original state, and the fossil record is in such distinct contradiction to the theory that scientists were forced to develop the quantum leap theory of punctuated equilibrium to compensate.

So what gives? Why is Clive willing to resort to such verbal sleight-of-hand? What if the origin of species can't be explained by Darwin's mechanism? Big deal, right? Gravity won't cease to function if the theory of macro-evolutionary origins turns out to be wrong. That's why it's important to understand that macro-evolution is primarily a question of philosophy. Naturalistic philosophy dictates that all life must be the product of some blind natural process. This is not a scientific claim. It's a philosophical (even religious) one, and as such can't be tested or reproduced in a lab. Before Charles Darwin, naturalists had no proposed mechanism capable of producing life or accounting for the variety of species. Darwin gave them that mechanism and now they will protect it at all costs. This is what prompted leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins to assert that, "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory... we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Why? Because without evolution, the naturalist's belief system falls apart.

So let's look at the fundamental flaw of materialistic naturalism as a philosophy. A naturalist understands nature as a giant impersonal machine with gears and levers just waiting to be discovered. But in this worldview, there is no place for human personality and morality. He must regard them as fantasies. When he goes home at night to his wife and kids, he contradicts himself with every goodnight kiss and "I love you." In short, his philosophy doesn't match reality—he can't live it.

On the other hand classical Christianity offers a full-orbed philosophy of nature and morality. As a Christian, I understand that the gears and levers of nature are the products of precise engineering. When I go home, I can love my wife and children, understanding that these sentiments are the imprint of a personal God.

I wrote an email to both Clive and Wired and Clive was nice enough to reply, but when I responded with an offer to buy him a copy of Darwin's Black Box by microbiologist Michael Behe, the conversation went cold. I guess Clive has already decided what his law is.

Back to the Article >>