Evolutionists love to boast "there are mountains of evidence for Evolution". Is this true? Is there really so much evidence for Evolution that one cannot reasonably doubt it? To answer this question, we must first understand what "evidence" is.
Evidence, as defined by the Oxford dictionary, is "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In order for there to be "mountains of evidence", therefore, there has to be a significant number of facts that indicate Evolution is true or valid. It turns out, this is troublesome for Evolution from the beginning. Whereas scientific theories can be consistently and reliably tested, Evolution is not a scientific theory. Rather, Evolution is a claim about history.
This automatically decreases the amount of evidence that can possibly be presented for Evolution. Because Evolution is a claim about history, the evidence for it must be circumstantial, i.e. based on inference. When asked about this, Richard Dawkins once claimed "Evolution has been observed, it just hasn't been observed while it's happening." He went on to draw an analogy between a scientist studying Evolution and a detective walking in on a murder scene. The interviewer interjected "circumstantial evidence", to which Dawkins agreed. "It's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that".
So now we know the type of evidence that Evolution must naturally provide, but there are several ways to dispute the amount. Let's talk about Dawkins' murder scene analogy. The detective has a lot to look at, but there is also a lot he cannot look at. Smart criminals often attempt to hide or destroy the evidence, and a lot of it naturally decays over time. Vital clues, then, are very often not readily available. The same is true for the creation/Evolution debate. It has been 6,000 years since the world began. It has been roughly 4,300 years, give or take, since Noah's flood. It has been 4,200 years since the dispersion from the Tower of Babel. It has been even 3,400 years since the Exodus. Time erodes evidence, and thus, even over the "short" time since the events described in the Bible, a lot of evidence is missing.
But of course, Evolutionists claim they've found their man. The evidence at the murder scene is sufficient to press charges. Next step: court case. Convicting a man of murder is not done by science alone. Facts, you see, do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. That's why, in most court cases, there are two sides: the prosecution, who argue the evidence proves the defendant's guilt, and the defence, who argue that it doesn't. The prosecution, for example, may argue that the defendant is guilty because he was found holding the bloody knife. The defence could respond with alternate reasons the defendant could be holding the bloody knife. It's possible, for example, that the murder took place in the defendant's house, and the real murderer returned the knife to the kitchen. The defendant, being unaware of the body in the next room, went to the kitchen to prepare food, found the bloody knife and picked it up to examine it. This is one of many possible reasons the defendant could have been found with the bloody knife. This is why the standard of evidence for guilt, in any civilised country, is "beyond reasonable doubt".
In much the same way, there is no evidence for Evolution that does not fit within other worldviews, with Biblical Creationism being the best explanation for all the evidence we have. Fossils, for example, are not the exclusive property of Evolutionists. Furthermore, the fossil record fits nicely with the Creation Orchard, but not so much with the Evolutionist tree. This in spite of the relative completeness of the fossil record.
There is another critical difference between Evolution and forensic science. Forensic science, while it does not rely on direct observation of the crime, does rely on observable science to draw conclusions about the crime. For example, if a body has been dead for a while, it starts to attract insects, which lay eggs on the body, hatching into maggots, which eat the body as they develop. If this has happened, forensic scientists can make a rough estimation about how long the body has been dead by observing the insects eating it. Whatever stage of growth the insects are at, we can reasonably conclude the body has been dead long enough for them to have reached that stage of decay. Further estimations can be made based on the level of decay of the body. Even these dating methods have problems, but they can be fairly accurate, especially when compared to each other.
So what's the difference between this and Evolution? Time. The processes used in forensics all happen within human lifetimes. We can know roughly how long it takes a body to decay because it decays within human lifetimes. We can know how this speeds up or slows down depending on the environment, because multiple bodies have decayed over different amounts of time in multiple different conditions, whether intentionally in a lab, or by tragic circumstances, such as those who have died up mountains and been observed. Similarly, entomologists can repeatedly observe the development of maggots. Because these things happen within human lifetimes, they can, and have, been observed.
By contrast, the long processes Evolutionists appeal to take too long to observe. No one watched a sample of potassium decay over 1,251 billion years, and no one ever could. That would be ridiculous to even suggest. It has also been demonstrated that radioactive decay does not remain constant. It can be sped up, or slowed down, under the right conditions. Furthermore, no one was watching the samples being dated for millions of years, ensuring the conditions remained constant (which, let's be honest, would be impossible) and that no contamination took place. Most hilariously, some of the things Evolutionists claim take millions of years actually do happen within observable time frames. The Lincoln memorial, for example, was built in 1923, and yet, stalactites, which Evolutionists used to say take tens of thousands of years to form, were observed to have formed there as early as 1968.
But obviously, even in cases where the evidence is 100% circumstantial, it is often unreasonable to doubt the defendant's guilt. So, even with all of this going against it, is it not possible that Evolution is a solid theory? No. The evidence for Evolution is negligible at best. Evolution has failed to fulfill many of its predictions, such as Darwin's prediction that there should be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. Evolution makes inferences that just aren't necessary, such as the argument from homology, an argument which is just as supportive of a common designer. This is demonstrated by the fact that our own designs often share homologous structures.
Evolution's history is littered with frauds, such as Piltdown man. Evolution clings to evidence it acknowledges is not evidence, such as Tiktaalik, which is still trumpeted at the popular level for the sole reason that nothing exists to replace it. Evolution can't even keep its story straight, such as the pervasive dino-bird story, a story that Alan Fedducia said is "so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it". Evolution relies on completely mythical concepts, such as the geologic column. Evolution relies on mythical constructs, such as oort clouds, to explain things that don't fit their theory.
All of this, and more, shows us precisely why Evolutionists will tell you there are mountains of evidence, but will never actually show it. It's nothing more than futile boasting, like when a dog barks and snarls at another until the gate is actually opened. Evolution is, by far, one of the silliest religions mankind has ever invented.
And as Michael Ruse admitted, that is exactly what it is. "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. (...) Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
But Christianity has the upper hand. Unlike Evolution, it is based not only on evidence, but on the infallible word of God, passed down to us from prophets who actually saw the events taking place. Christ's birth, life, ministry, death, and post-resurrection appearances were observed while they were happening. No one just happened upon an empty tomb and constructed a narrative about how it must have been used by a crucified carpenter. That's why, unlike the Evolutionary narrative, the Gospel doesn't even change every week.
For this, we can be thankful, because another thing that doesn't change is the fact that all have sinned, and thus are condemned to death. But in His love, God is not willing for anyone to perish. Therefore, He has provided a path to eternal life. Just one. That path is Jesus Christ, who, knowing no sin Himself, died a sinner's death, in order that all who will confess Him as Lord, and believe He rose from the dead, will be raised with Him.
Yorumlar