For example, modern-day physics and chemistry are based on a philosophical system called positivism; in the past they were based on the doctrine developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
Biology is the only science that uses the currently defunct Hegelian philosophical system. Hegelian doctrine was not completely wrong, but it was replaced by more advanced philosophical systems, including positivism. This is a very interesting topic; however, a comprehensive discussion of the Hegelian philosophical system is beyond the scope of this book.
First generation evolutionists were firm believers in the Hegelian philosophical system, which comes as no surprise—at that time it was the most advanced philosophical doctrine. Positivism was only in its nascent state.
According to the main principle of Hegelianism, a process is bound to happen when the conditions favorable to its happening are present. The presence of favorable conditions is in itself a proof that the process is predetermined. Nothing in this definition indicates that the process should happen only once; on the contrary, the process will repeat itself as long as favorable conditions are present. For example, the presence of a gravitational field causes objects situated on the earth’s surface to remain there for an indefinite period of time; the process will repeat itself for as long as the earth exists. At a certain distance from the earth the condition known as weightlessness exists; weightlessness is also a persistent process that repeats itself permanently.
If the main principle of Hegelianism is properly applied, it predicts that the process that created the original cell will be repeating itself over and over because the elements known as the “building blocks of life,” or the constituents of the original cell, are always present. In other words, scientists should be able to observe the creation of an original cell on a constant basis. As everyone knows, this is not the case.
Naturally, the first generation of evolutionists tried to bypass this difficulty by saying that the presence of the building blocks alone is not enough to bring the original cell to life; something else is also needed to start the process of generation of the first DNA-like organic structure. What is this additional condition? There were several explanations depending on which evolutionists you talk to.
A majority of the first generation evolutionists used the concept of “vital force” in a feeble attempt to explain why there was only one original cell. Webster’s New World Dictionary gives following definition of vitalism: “the doctrine that the life in living organisms is caused and sustained by a vital force that is distinct from all physical and chemical forces and that life is, in part, self-determining and self-evolving.” No one really knows what a vital force is because it is a purely metaphysical quality that cannot be measured in any way; the absence of measurements makes it a nonexistent quality. Still, it would be interesting to know why, as evolutionists believe, it acted only once to produce the original cell. The explanation is just as ridiculous as is the concept of a vital force itself. It states that a primordial vital force gave itself up completely while giving life to the original cell, until there was nothing left!
A competing school of “thought” gave an entirely different explanation: in addition to the building blocks, favorable positioning of the planets in the solar system was necessary to bring the original cell to life. This positioning occurs once every 1010 years or so. This group of evolutionists stooped to the lowest level scientists could imagine: astrology.
Yet another group of evolutionists came to the conclusion that some sort of “nature magic” that acts only once was involved in all this; that group was also known for riding naked on a broomstick.
Without a doubt, the evolutionist will, upon finishing this chapter, cry—the straw man is down! But it was their predecessors who created the straw man to begin with.
11 : Second-Generation Evolutionists
The second generation of evolutionists did not like one bit what the first generation did to their beloved theory, so they came up with ideas of their own. As a result, they were able to discard the ideas of vital force, “nature magic,” astrology, and all other unscientific garbage. But in the process they created an equally large mess.
Initially, the second generation stated that the creation of the original cell was a random event and, because of this randomness, cannot be reproduced.
In order to proceed with the discussion, we will need to define the word random. This is how Webster’s New World Dictionary defines it: “without careful choice, aim, plan, etc.; lacking aim and method.” Nothing in this definition suggests that a random event is necessarily a one-time event.
Science indeed deals with random events; for example, the landing of an electron on a laboratory screen is a random event in the sense that determination of the exact landing spot is impossible. However, it is possible to calculate the probability of the electron hitting any given spot based on the position of the screen and the electron gun.
Does any branch of science deal with one-time events that cannot be reproduced? The answer is a categorical NO—all scientific theories deal with events that can be reproduced numerous times, otherwise there would be no difference between science and unscientific speculation.
Evolutionists tried to bypass this methodological difficulty by saying that the big bang was also a one-time event that, nevertheless, forms the basis of all cosmological theories.
Let’s take a look at an alternative to the big bang theory. If the big bang never occurred, then it follows that the universe always existed. But the notion of a universe that has no beginning runs contrary to all known cosmological data, such as the expansion of the universe, background radiation, etc. On the other hand, the data that would prove that any alternative to the evolutionary theory is incorrect does not exist.
Some evolutionists tried to remedy the situation by asserting the following proposition: at the present time we do not know what kind of biochemical reaction led to the creation of the original cell; however, in the future, scientists will be able to reproduce it and understand why the reaction is extremely rare. But in this case the evolutionary theory is not really a theory but a hypothesis and should be classified as such. This is how Webster’s New World Dictionary defines hypothesis: “an unproven theory, proposition, supposition, etc., tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or provide a basis for further investigation.” But evolutionists demand complete and immediate acceptance of their ridiculous theory.
Recently an evolutionist proposed that there was more than one original cell; perhaps they came to be in different geological epochs. Although a vast majority of evolutionists disagree with it, this proposition deserves a close look.
If the proposition is correct, then there are two distinct possibilities: 1) All original cells lead to identical evolutionary lines. This is clearly absurd: if this proposition is correct, then dinosaurs, for example, would still be roaming around. 2) The original cells lead to different evolutionary lines. In this case, the number of original cells is impossible to determine and it is also impossible in principle to make classifications of species based on the evolutionary lines. But true science does not deal with objects that defy classification.
Now it’s the right time for the evolutionists to yell—the straw man is on fire!!
But the straw man is a creature of their own making.
12 : Third-Generation Evolutionists
Recently, NASA probes landed on one of Saturn’s moons, Titan. That was the day when the third generation of evolutionists decided to boldly go where no one has gone before by transporting the evolutionary theory to Titan. They hypothesized that Titan’s rivers, which are filled with frozen methane (it’s
