A Sincere Question from a Thoroughgoing Creationist

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.

1. Why is it that a creationist could not have figure out how to split the atom?
2. Why is it that a creationist could not have launched a man to the moon?
3. What modern drug or medical procedure do we have today that a creationist could not have discovered?
4. What electronic device has been developed that no creationist could have devised?
5. Can creationists not mix chemicals?
6. Did Alexander Graham Bell rely upon evolution to develop the telephone? Marconi? Curie? Fermi? If so, then how?
7. Is there some mathematical breakthrough, the discovery of which is dependent upon evolution?
8. 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?

One Big Weakness of the Theory of Evolution

By "the theory of evolution" I mean to signify the notion that new, superior species arise through the processes of genetic variation and natural selection. Those who control public education in Texas are presently debating whether our curriculum should continue to address both strengths and weaknesses in the theory of evolution. I didn't realize that the debate had prompted even national Baptist Press to sit up and take notice (see here). The pseudo-scientific groups do not wish to acknowledge that there are any weaknesses at all in the theory of evolution. (Even the evolutionists believe in an inerrant text, apparently—the only difference between them and conservative Christians is that the evolutionists believe that they have authored their own inerrant statement, whereas Christians will at least acknowledge their own fallibility and ascribe inerrancy only to God and God's word!)

So, are there weaknesses in the theory of evolution? You bet there are, and I'll only trouble myself to mention the most glaring one: In thousands of years of recorded human history, we've not once seen it happen. Scientists have coerced a thing or two like it in a lab somewhere, but with all of our myriad species on earth and with as long as humans have been recording history, you'd think we'd have a record of somebody saying, "My cow gave birth to a buffalo last week!" After all, as the theory goes, this is supposed to be something that just happens, and just happens with regularity, right?

If it ever does happen, it will be a pretty strong argument for the theory: "See kids, Tommy over there has another set of eyes in the back of his head. That makes him a new species derived from homo sapiens, and guarantees him lower automobile insurance rates."

But it doesn't happen. And most scientists appear to have the same relationship with evolution that some Christians seem to have with the second coming—they'll affirm it as a matter of dogma 'till they're blue in the face, but their words and actions sometimes make you wonder whether they really believe it. Consider the book A Plague of Frogs. William Souder is apoplectic over a rash increase in mutated frogs allegedly caused by contaminants in their watery habitat. Scientific sources utter grave pronouncements over our certain imminent doom if these things aren't sorted out quickly.

But wait a minute. Why aren't these scientists gleeful about the uptick in mutations? Shouldn't we be supremely confident that the outcome will inexorably be a superior frog? Or do they need Charles Darwin to reach down through the decades and help their unbelief?

The basic foundation of science is to be dubious about a person's grand, sweeping claims and to observe for one's self. Observation over doctrine. On occasion some labcoat will stroll away from his bunsen burners and wave before the world some evolutionary Shroud of Turin to encourage the faithful, but the processes of evolution simply are not observed and do not repeat in real-world experience. It is because of the fundamentals of science, not in spite of them, that people continue to see weaknesses in this theory.