Sunday, 6 June 2010
The Darwinist’s dilemma: Why do most people reject evolution?
Why is it so difficult to believe in Darwinian evolution?
Evolutionists have a huge problem: what is wrong when despite their best efforts an increasing number of people reject the Darwinian concept of molecules-to-man evolution? Does the difficulty stem from inadequate science education or are scientists simply unable to explain issues so clearly that a layman could understand that he is the product of a long natural process?
Recently, Eugenie Scott reviewed R. John Ellis’ book How Science Works: Evolution. A Student Primer (Springer 2010) in Nature and concluded that it was unable to persuade the reader of the truth of evolution since Ellis fails to define Darwinian evolution in a convincing way.
Scott herself has defined evolution as change.
However, not just any kind of change would turn an amoeba into an anthropologist. Dogs, for instance, have changed enormously in a few hundred years but hardly anyone would think that a Miniature Pinscher is a rat or that a Great Dane is a calf.
Dogs change into – dogs.
In real life animals only change according to their kind. A frog will only turn into a prince in fairy tales, such as those Richard Dawkins has written – provided it is given 300 million years for the transmutation.
Dr. Scott, who characterises herself as an evolution evangelist, could learn from the words of one of the greatest evangelists of all time – the apostle Paul. Writing to the Roman church he says:
”For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”
People know intuitively that all life has been created.
Scott, Eugenie C. 2010. Back to Basics by Way of Evolution. Nature 465:7295, 164 (13 May)