EVOLUTION IS UNREASONABLE
by Wayne S. Walker
"’Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the LORD…" (Isaiah 1.18). The two previous articles in this series have made the affirmation and sought to provide some evidence that in several ways the general theory of evolution is not really scientific. However, since it is often presented as scientific fact, we also affirm that it is, therefore, unreasonable. Our relationship to God is not based on human reason alone. However, God’s word appeals to our reason and God expects us to use the reasoning abilities that He has given us to examine evidence so that we may determine what is true.
Evolution is unreasonable because it asks us to believe as a definite fact in that which has not been and, indeed, cannot be proven. We noticed in earlier articles that even honest evolutionists admit that evolution has not been shown definitely to be fact. William Strauss in Quarterly Review of Biology back in September of 1949 wrote, "I wish to emphasize that I am under no illusion that the theory of human ancestry which I favor at the present time can in any way be regarded as proven. It is at best merely a working hypothesis whose final evaluation must be left to the future. What I wish especially to stress is that the problem of man’s ancestry is still a decidedly open one, in truth a riddle" (emphasis mine, WSW).
Evolution is unreasonable because it often resorts to subterfuge. Those who oppose the theory of evolution are often ridiculed for saying that the theory of evolution teaches that man evolved from apes. Marjoni Behringer in The Satellite (October, 1964, p. 3) wrote, "To affirm that evolution means man came from a monkey constitutes a total misinterpretation of the evolutionary concept and returns our intellectual perspective to that of the dark ages." However, George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most outstanding, and at least honest, evolutionists of our country, has said, "On this subject, by the way, there has been too much *****footing. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape–a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility–and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigatory to say otherwise" ("The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, April 1, 1960, p. 969). To confirm this, we visited the St. Louis Zoo, and in The Living World, a model of a supposed human ancestor looked exactly like an ape. Attempting to justify the universal teaching of evolution and make it less offensive by equivocation is simply unreasonable.
And evolution is unreasonable because it seeks to eliminate certain alternate explanations without any consideration whatever. In his book The Dogma of Evolution, p. 117, Louis T. Moore wrote, "The evidence for the evolution of plants and animals is commonly said to be derived from many sources. When, however, we examine these causes for our belief, we find that, excepting our desire to eliminate special creation and generally, what we call the miracles, most of them can be considered only as secondary reasons to confirm a theory already advanced" (emphasis mine, WSW). In the absence of proof for evolution, it is unreasonable to refuse any consideration of alternative explanations just because one desires to eliminate the possibility of the miraculous. In our article next week, we shall examine some more reasons why the general theory of evolution is unreasonable. (—taken and slightly updated from With All Boldness; December, 1993; Vol. 3, No. 12; p. 14)