Were humans created, or did they evolve? This debate continues to rage between science and religion. In Creation or Evolution?, author Michael Ebifegah examines these two worldviews within the framework of science..
He examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the earth’s age to the creationist/evolutionist controversy. He stresses that knowledge of the intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter..
Ebifegah augments the natural selection discussion in light of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s work and addresses science’s limitations in deploying similarity/dissimilarity arguments in the debate about creationism versus evolutionism. Finally, he focuses on the lack of historical evidence to justify an evolutionary worldview.
Creation or Evolution? discusses how the M-theory and Charles Darwin’s paradigm of evolution by natural selection are outside the limits of science. Ebifegah shows that we must look beyond the inadequacy of such theories and address the validity of science as the sole avenue of inquiry.
Because two organisms have similar morphological features, they should have a common ancestral progenitor. For Charles Darwin and his followers, this is sufficient reason to hypothesize macroevolution. However, both body (material) and mind (immaterial) characterize the development of living systems. When pictured from both of these perspectives, as opposed to only the material realm, would today’s scientific community reach the same conclusion? Those who adhere to good science would say no because science does not understand the immaterial realm, but those who cling to materialism would say yes because their espousal of pseudoscience overrides scientific principles and laws. While science has limits, pseudoscience has none and hence plays to evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s assertion that evolution is a movement whose orbit transcends the natural sciences and has invaded a myriad of other disciplines. This book looks beyond such simplistic and materialistic points of view. For instance, what would scientists deduce is the relationship between two organisms with (a) similar brains and minds, (b) similar brains but dissimilar minds, (c) dissimilar brains and similar minds, and (d) dissimilar brains but dissimilar minds? Within the limits of real science, the answer is that the relationship is indeterminate. However, to Darwinists there is no distinction because it makes no difference whether humans evolved from chimpanzees or chimpanzees from humanlike ancestors. Darwinists thus will give the same answer to all possible combinations since the preconceived conclusion is that they all share a common ancestor. This simple illustration fulfills the three attributes that Darwinists L. C. Birch and P. R. Ehrlick assign to evolutionism: (1) every conceivable observation can be fitted into it; (2) it is outside empirical science; and (3) no one can think of ways in which to test it. Reaching the same conclusion for radically different events proves the inefficacy of evolution as a unifying theory in biology, unlike the atomic theory in chemistry and physics. Nobel laureate Ernst Chain thus perceives evolutionary arguments as “gross oversimplifications of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts.” Chain points out that evolutionists are more interested in morphological similarities than dissimilarities. The fallacy of the similarity argument is evident in light of the “body-mind” dualism. If a morphological similarity between two organisms implies relationship, then a pronounced dissimilarity implies no relationship. If, for instance, dissimilarities between chimpanzees and human beings outweigh their similarities, we anticipate a negative correlation, which suggests no relationship between them and contradicts Darwin’s theory that chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Genuine science relies on empirical evidence, repeatable observations, and testable explanations. If any of these conditions is not met, the theory is automatically outside the limits of science. For instance, the origin of life or species is a singular event. It is not repeatable and cannot be tested. Accordingly, the Darwinian theory about the origin of species does not satisfy the requirements of real science. Why, then, is it presented as genuine science while creationism or intelligent design is rejected? The truth is that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact but an idea that tries to explain abrupt gaps in the living world and fossil record. His theory of natural selection is wrong because it does not fit the facts. Even nature is not on the side of Darwinists. The Biology’s or Life’s Big Bang, at Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and at the Chengjiang site in China, involving the abrupt and sudden appearance of a wide range of fully formed organisms with no intermediary fossils, disqualifies Darwins theory of evolution from a common ancestor and hence invalidates his tree of life. In order to support their preconceived philosophical preference, evolutionists do two things. First, operating outside the limits of science, they engage in circular reasoning or utilize unfalsifiable assumptions to undermine the established principles and laws of science. Natural laws are timeless facts, but theories can change with new evidence. The law of biogenesis—life derives from preexisting life forms—prevails today, but then comes the Darwinist theory of abiogenesis that life derives from non-life. Abiogenesis is not a demonstrable scientific law. For life to arise spontaneously from matter is equivalent to winning a lottery without playing, which is only possible given the skewed logic of diehard Darwinists. The origin of the Earth is unknown, so the origin of species cannot be related to it, hence, arguments about the age of the Earth or the ages of species and rocks that are based on circular reasoning are irrelevant to the creationism-evolutionism debate. Second, evolutionists do not always follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads. The DNA molecule provides a glaring example of how evolutionists achieve their objectives by advancing conclusions that justify their philosophical preference but turn out to be antithetical to common sense and scientific inference. It is foolhardy for Darwinists to imagine, for instance, that intelligence is required for designing computer programs that utilize binary code but unnecessary for designing the sophisticated genetic program that uses quaternary code. This point confirms Chain’s observation that scientists are prejudiced in their theories. Small wonder, then, that philosopher Antony Flew gave up atheism to endorse the concept of a sempiternal, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being. The tree of life based on Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection must be cut at its roots and the best way to accomplish this is what Flew utilized and atheists Jerry. Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini propose, “[T]o follow the arguments wherever they may lead, spreading such light as one can in the course of doing so.” Science is unable to prove the existence of either a common designer or a common ancestor; the choice between the two, consequently, is philosophical and not scientific. The notion of a designer, which creationists such as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein acknowledged, is anathema to evolutionists such as atheists Richard Dawkins and Victor J. Stenger. Scientific data are always the same, but philosophical conclusions vary depending which scientists are dominant and/or steering the scientific community. Regarding designing instrumentalities and agencies, there are two options: a dead source in the natural realm governed by chance and mindless forces; and a live source in the supernatural realm, a Creator endowed with power, intelligence, and wisdom. Only a Creator can justify the timeless scientific law of biogenesis and claim right of ownership of a property. The claim before a human audience must be consistent with conventional claims executed by human inventors. It must embrace the requirements of a conventional patent specifying the scope of the claim and a seal justifying rightful ownership. The Judaeo-Christian God is the only Being in world history Who has fulfilled all of the above provisos. The claim of ownership was presented both orally and in print by God’s finger on tablets of stone. The claim was structured in the form of a commandment law. God’s claim to have created the world in six days, with cessation on the seventh day as evidence of completion (seal), is firm. The authenticity of this historical claim is irrefutable. The episodes of God’s historical speech and documentation on stone tablets of having created the world were implemented at a particular point in world history, God, however, speaks timelessly and historically through the fossil records at the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang site. Religion and science are currently at loggerhe
Michael Ebifegha earned a PhD in physics from the University of Toronto and is currently a science and mathematics instructor at the Toronto District School Board. He is the author of The Death of Evolution and The Darwinian Delusion. He lives with his family in Toronto, Canada.