Since there is going to be a celebration of the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s book, Origins which will be held November 24th, it has opened the door for much debate about Darwinian logic. What does this mean? It’s a method used as a basis to tell a story on various different pathways of evidence we observe in nature. These researched pathways do not agree with each other let alone explain details but it’s claimed to prove evolution as being friendly and dogmatic towards science while trying to argue Christianity is against science.
PZ Myers a liberal activist professor from Minnesota stated on his approach…“To teach a subject as science, you need an explanatory mechanism or theory that provides a conceptual framework for understanding the data, and you need a body of evidence, real-world observations, measurements, and experiments that you incorporate as well as you can into the theory.”
Do you have a real-world observation of spontaneous life in nature? For the past 50 or more years scientists haven’t be able to even create lab results with their experiments. There are no measurements in which we can draw from in nature that produce such data. Thus, it’s an interpretation which stems from man’s imagination. The specified complexity of DNA is not compatible with evolutionary thinking. Where is the mechanism to explain how information and parts for DNA were created by evolution? There is none.
So realistically, the origin of the first living cell is not really science according to PZ Meyers without the Darwinian logic. Just inventing a mechanism for it, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s factual. What we have observed about DNA, it was designed to thrive with specified intelligent information for its reproduction and function inside a species or man, not outside of it.
Here is another example of evolutionists using Darwinian logic to explain falsifying data…Similarities in genes between various species is presented as powerful evidence for evolution. However, we also observe substantial genomic differences in species that are considered as close or allied. So does mean it’s powerful evidence against evolution like similarities are supposed to be powerful evidence for it?
Darwinian logic, rather than going with true science methods, holding to careful conclusions, differences in genes with close relatives of species is not a problem, in fact they say, all paths lead one way or another to evolution. Science they claim, will eventually explain all the complexity in the puzzle. But this is clearly a story folks which evokes similarities and differences in genes by conceptualizing it into a particular framework known as evolution.
They are nowhere near any measurable or real-world observations about various genes or origins that one could make a careful conclusion with rather than leaving it to man’s imagination. We also haven’t seen mutations invent brand new information which gives a species new machinery, but we have seen mutations be destructive causing such things as cancer and we also have observed mutations that are neutral. Natural selection is not the mechanism that leads us to origin for it has no ability to create out of nothing, specified information in order for things to function and reproduce properly.