Today is the birthday of Charles Darwin. Darwin's theory of naturalistic evolution by natural selection as the explanation of the origin of species has been hailed by many as foundational to modern science. The inerrancy of the Darwinian scriptures (that there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution) is now the official dogma of even the state of Texas. Thinking this way, we are often told, is a bedrock of all that science has accomplished over the past sesquicentennial (that amount of time, and a little more, has passed since Darwin published Origin of Species).
I'm willing to consider that. Even if I believe that naturalistic evolution does not accurately describe the origin of the world or of human beings, in the strange world of human thinking sometimes a wrong presumption can actually lead us to find the right answer for the wrong reasons. So, I'm open to the concept that Darwinian evolution is somehow a bedrock concept for all of our progress.
Still, trying to be good and scientific about it all, I'm wondering whether anyone could provide some substantiation of the claim.
- Why is it that a creationist could not have figure out how to split the atom?
- Why is it that a creationist could not have launched a man to the moon?
- What modern drug or medical procedure do we have today that a creationist could not have discovered?
- What electronic device has been developed that no creationist could have devised?
- Can creationists not mix chemicals?
- Did Alexander Graham Bell rely upon evolution to develop the telephone? Marconi? Curie? Fermi? If so, then how?
- Is there some mathematical breakthrough, the discovery of which is dependent upon evolution?
- Could creationists not have discovered DNA?
We've developed a lot of technology in the two hundred years since Darwin was born. I just am having a hard time seeing how believing in evolution is responsible for that progress. Indeed, I'm having trouble seeing how believing in evolution accomplishes anything substantive other than the avoidance of the jeers and dismissal of evolutionists. And if creationists could have accomplished any of these things as well as an evolutionist could have, then why, again, is it so critically important for the coercive power of the state to ensure that every eight-year-old be whipped into conformity on this point?