Presentation on theme: "Evolution – a Theory in Crisis Part 1 of 3 The Scientific Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution Part 2 of 3 – The Philosophical Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution."— Presentation transcript:
Evolution – a Theory in Crisis Part 1 of 3 The Scientific Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution Part 2 of 3 – The Philosophical Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution Part 3 of 3 – The Biblical Creation Alternative and Its Implications.
Richard Dawkins “No qualified scientist doubts evolution is a fact.” 800 Scientists dissent: “We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”
Charles Darwin ( ) Evolution by natural selection
Definition of Evolution? Variation within a ‘kind’ or ‘prototype’?
Darwinian evolution’s ‘tree of life’
Day 1 Michael Penfold A caricature of the ‘creation model’
Day 1 Michael Penfold The actual creation model
Day 1 Michael Penfold Small changes (micro-evolution) + Millions of years = Big changes (macro-evolution) The central Darwinian Claim
Day 1 Michael Penfold Chalk & Cheese
A sample of what’s involved Evolve a 4 th chamber in its heart Evolve mammary glands and a milk supply Evolve a hair covering Evolve a temperature control system Evolve a corti in the inner ear Evolve a diaphragm To turn into a mammal, a reptile must:
Prof. Simon Conway Morris (Cambridge palaeontologist) “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus…” (Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold, Cell 100, (Jan ):1-11)
8. Mathematics/Probability 2. The limits of mutation 4. The Cambrian explosion 5. Lack of transitional fossils 6. Complex beginnings 7. Irreducible complexity 1. The nature of mutations 8 Problems with Darwinism: 3. Natural Selection’s Limits
‘‘We take the side of [neo-Darwinian] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’’ (Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31). Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin