In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book? Darwin proposed a scientific system which threatened the common belief that nature was designed in such a way to have means adapted to ends. Instead, he proposed that all of nature, including human nature, was not the work of a Designer but the happenstance of purely materialistic laws over time. Undoubtedly this scientific proposal has ramifications beyond biology. Philosophy, economics, politics, ethics, sociology, and just about every other field of study has been radically revised by those who accept a Darwinian worldview. Many Christians have tried to respond to the threatening challenges of materialistic evolution by harmonizing Christianity with it. However, the question remains whether or not evolution is true. In fact, recent polls suggest that less than 10% of the American population believe in a type of Darwinian evolution, despite the monopoly the scientific paradigm has on the public education system. Why do so few believe in evolution? I believe that materialistic (or Neo-Darwinian) evolution in untenable because the evidence does not support it. Evolution is only acceptable if one is committed to certain philosophical presuppositions. In this article I am going to offer a general critique of materialistic evolution explaining why it is unacceptable. Am I Some Whacked Out Fundamentalist?
Too many people believe that the only kind of person who could reject evolution must be some fundamentalist who reads the Genesis creation account in the most literal way. First, that is an ad hominem argument. That means such a point pokes fun at the person making the argument, and does not address whether or not that person has offered good or bad reasons for accepting or rejecting the argument. Secondly, that is simply false. There are many evangelical Christians who hold a high view of the Bible and believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old. If you are willing to consider my case against evolution, I want you to pay close attention to the arguments I raise against it. The points I bring up are relevant and often scientific. My case works from evidence to a conclusion and not vice versa.
Furthermore, those who support an understanding of science that I agree with are not just religious quacks. Many have been educated at the best schools and are widely recognized as dedicated scholars. Furthermore, those who support Intelligent Design come from all fields including biology, astrophysics, philosophy, law, theology, and other disciplines. My argument is not "whoever has the most PhD's wins," however, it does matter on some issues whether or not the source it comes from has been trained to understand the field they speak on.
You may believe that since I am a Christian, then my religion predisposes me to holding a certain view. However, such an observation can be thrown back at the Neo-Darwinist who holds her theory because it is comfortable to live a life that is unaccountable to God. The point is is simply this: judge evolution according to the evidence. If the evidence supports evolution, then believe in it. If the evidence points elsewhere, then go elsewhere. Let's see where the evidence leads.
What is Darwin's Theory?
Simply put, Darwin's theory suggests that the principles of natural selection can account for all animal life (including humans). Natural selection is a process also known as survival of the fittest. This means that in the struggle for survival, the animals with the best genes for survival would find mates and pass on their genes to their offspring. Those who are unfit for survival would die out and subsequently not pass their genes on. In this manner species would gradually pass on superior traits and leave behind inferior ones. Also, in order to account for one species changing into another, Darwin assumed that random genetic mutations could account for major changes (like growing wings or having lungs rather than gills). Such a process must take place over a large span of time in gradual steps. Initially, such a view does not seem implausible. However, let us look closely at the evidence and see whether science and good reasoning support this theory.
Read More: http://www.ukapologetics.net/1neodarwinism.htm