Sunday, February 27, 2011

How Can You Reject Evolution as Fact?

I do reject the idea that macro-evolution is "fact". There simply is too much circumstantial evidence where assumptions have been based off of previous assumptions. What happens if the early assumption is wrong and now we have years and years of "facts" based on a mistaken concept? So to call it "fact" makes you feel better.. but it doesn't make it true. It is theory. Scientific facts have to be proven in a lab.. Therefore even if evolution is true, we can never call it fact, because no one is able to sit around for 1 million years and observe it. We can make a theory based on evidence, but it's only that, theory.
Now.. I absolutely believe in micro-change. It is demonstratable that living things make small changes and adaptions over a relatively short amount of time. For instance this explains why there are so many different kinds of dogs. But I reject the notion that we evolved from monkeys... the only way we could know that is if we could find sufficient HARD fossil evidence. And none exists that makes that final conclusion.
And scientists, and this is my opinion, are generally naturalists and atheists.. so they are going to find only a solution that matches their initial presumptions... I mean think about if you were a scientist and you discovered something new, complex, and mysterious.. you would have two options. You could link it into the natural explanation pretty easily using theories and "facts" that are already assumptions. You'd just have to tweak the theory a bit here and there and then you have your explanation.. OR you could say, 'well this shows signs of design, I think it could possibly mean there was a creator.."
As naturalists I don't see them taking the turn towards creator because you can always, and I mean always come up with a neat sounding natural explanation. Scientists sometimes are given god-like powers of declaration. They declare it, show some scant evidence or assumption, and IT is so.
Well I am a true cynic and skeptic. I believe that science has become a religion and therefore instead of using true scientific method to make their declarations they first cram it into their previously stated assumptions and beliefs in a natural-only world.
You might ask, Who made God? The short answer is that God is self-existent.. NOT self created.. self-creation is impossible.. just like the natural theory of the big bang. Self-existent simply means that God is eternal. Nobody made God. God IS. By even asking the question you would be admitting that something cannot come from nothing. Which gets you into a huge problem. I mean in the very least, something, ANYTHING, has to be eternal. Existence has to justify it's own existence.

No comments: