Wonderful new blog questioning evolution!

Cornelius G. Hunter, Fellow – CSC

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot (Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter’s interest in the theory of evolution involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects of the theory. His website is www.DarwinsPredictions.com

Just a quick note to anyone who may be questioning evolution but had always wanted to look at some information that had little bit of science but light enough that ordinary lay person interested in science could understand. Well I cam across this one today. Its called Darwin’s Predictions.com it is written by Dr Cornelius Hunter.

Here is the excerpt from his web page followed by the link to his blog.

1      Introduction

Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.

1.1    How to compare findings with expectations

It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell?

1.2    Two examples

Classical physics was elucidated in the seventeenth century. It explained how objects move and the theory worked well for many years until it was found to fail at very high speeds and in the subatomic world. Objects travelling near the speed of light and tiny particles did not obey the venerable laws of physics, and the new areas of physics known as relativity and quantum mechanics were required. Classical physics still worked well for traditional types of problems, but it was now understood to be a special case of the more general descriptions provided by relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems obvious that classical physics ought not to be dropped. It simply has a limited domain of applicability. In this example, it seems reasonable to say that the new findings are not so much a problem for classical physics so much as a refinement. We learned more about how objects move, regardless of the precise relationship between classical physics and quantum mechanics. [2]

Geocentrism dates back to antiquity. The idea that the objects in the sky rotate around the earth seems quite reasonable. After all, the stars can be seen to move across the sky every night. So do the moon and planets, and the sun by day. Was not the earth at the center of the universe? But there are anomalies in these motions. Sometimes the planets move backwards, for instance, and the geocentric model did not always work very well. Its false predictions, however, could be accommodated by adding adjustments. The anomalous motions of heavenly objects were described with dozens of epicycles. This highly complicated version of geocentrism worked very well. The positions of objects in the sky, and even eclipses, could be predicted in advance. Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler. [3] In this example, it seems obvious that the failures of geocentrism are not merely a case of refining the theory. In this case it seems that the theory is false.



About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Archeology, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Hedonism, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Wonderful new blog questioning evolution!

  1. That was very interesting I recommend that readers of this blog check your post. It is in my full agreement that both sides have limited information and that at some point we do have to commit ourselves to believing. However I would suggest that believing in God is easier, some atheist may argue that this is how my brain was wired up or my predisposition to this was due to cultural and family influences, whilst this is difficult for me to prove to others I rest assured that I have done my home work when it comes to verifying the logic of my arguments.

    Thanks for engaging in conversation

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  2. harry says:


    Does it EVER strike you as odd that all these IDer’s you reference and talk about are all part of the same organisation, the Discovery institue,.

    Who are the publishers of the wedge document, the document that lays out the stratagy of getting ID tought in schools by 2010 or something. The document that does not mention putting ID through a scientific process first?

    Is it not far more logical to see a conspiracy there? Rather than believe there is a conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists across the world to cover up the lack of evidence for evolution?

  3. No it does not strike me as odd. Thy are united in fight, they came together few years ago when they realised that united work was required if they were to make any impact on the overwhelming influence exercised and attack on anyone who does not agree with evolution. This is tactical decision that is simply there to help combat misinformation and show stronger united group of scientist who are not in agreement with the “majority” of “proper” scientists.

  4. harry says:

    Despite the fact that the wedge document, essentially their mission statement mentions nothing at all to do with science?


    Read it. Question it. Why does it say

    ‘To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science’ under 20 year goals

    When it says their short term goals are to

    Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication (1999-2003)

    What kind of scientific organisation sets out with a goal of getting their ‘idea’ into classrooms before they have even reseaarched it? Ask yourself, why would they do that?

    Why does nearly the entire paper not go on about the flaws of the theory of evolution itself, but what they percieve to be its materialistic effects.

    Once again, And i will keep hammering this point. Anyone with any scientific education would realise this document exposes the entire organisation as a complete scientific fraud.

    Did einstein say?

    I KNOW! i am going to get E=mc squared taught in schools, but first, I must actually go do some research on it. He is assuming he will be right. There is no thought process of ‘if my theory doesnt work.’

  5. First you use “evidence” that is clearly pro evolution how do we know this is not yet another spin? Second of all, it is right to have strategy to bring into questioning such sacred cow as evolution one needs to understand what he/she is going to face. In particular as every time this happens one tends to lose his Job. Therefore you could understand such reasoning without being worried about some kind of conspiratorial hidden agenda. In fact opposite is true, fact is that if you study medicine and attend certain universities in USA you will not be given necessary recommendation before you could move on to doctorial programmes. So much so that they almost demand you sign statement that you are in agreement with Evolution. Does this sound to you like freedom of enquiry and open to progress?

  6. harry says:

    ”First you use “evidence” that is clearly pro evolution how do we know this is not yet another spin?”

    What are you reffering to?

    ‘Second of all, it is right to have strategy to bring into questioning such sacred cow as evolution one needs to understand what he/she is going to face.’

    I completely agree with you. Totally. You should have a strategy when taking on something that is so ingrained in culture. Darwin had a strategy…AFTER HE HAD COLLLECTED THE EVIDENCE…Einstein introduced his ideas through a stratagy to get them reviewed in peer reviewed journals etc…AFTER HE HAD COLLECTED EVIDENCE.

    Not only that, its not about taking on evolution really, its a strategy for getting Intelligent Design taught in schools. When they admit they still have to research it and find evidence for it!!!
    With a view like that, you get the feeling they are going to find the evidence, because its not exactly going to be fair testing.

    Do you not see this? Do you really really not see this? This obvious flaw in logic, this blatent lack of science. This is just not scientific process. If you truly do not see this, take up my recommendation and pick up a GCSE text book and read about the fundamentals of science.

    ”So much so that they almost demand you sign statement that you are in agreement with Evolution”

    I did not know that. And it is a shame that is how paranoid people in the states need to be now.

    However I will explain the probably reason for this:

    Imagine for a second, you are hiring people to study particle physics in your lab. The corner stone of physics, is the model of the atom. You get an applicant who does not believe in the atom.

    You can react in one of two ways…

    answer 1: Hey ho, whats this then, why dont you believe in the model of the atom? (good interview material? novel ideas? budding genious perhaps?)

    answer 2: Throw it in the trash

    Normally I would be in favour for 1.

    But what if the answer this pupil gave was ‘because the current structure of the atom is impossible, because in the bible its not mentioned

    It may be that, after so many of these answers in interviews, they have decided to stop accepting applicants.

    Creationism, has NO evidence for it. None. Evolution does. So if you believe in creationism of over evolution it is pretty much proof that the medical applicant does not understand the scientific process. ( if you say evolution doesnt have evidence, or that its a religion, go ahead, but it doesnt change the truth).

    Evolution is the cornerstone of everything we know about biology. Pretty much every single animal on this planet fits into the evolutionary model perfectly. If your dream came true and evolution were disproven, everything we know about biology would come crashing down. Never has there been a more ridiculous statement that ‘evolution is not applied anywhere’. It is biology. It is what the periodic table is to chemistry to biology. It is what newtons laws is to physics to biology.

    Would you want a doctor who
    1: Does not understand the scientific process

    2: Does not, understand biology.

    ID and creationism explain nothing in biology, they are not testable. They propose no theories, naw explain animal behaviour. They do not provide a framework for breeding animals, nor an explanation for chimp societies. ID does not explain play between animals, or training by parents. It does not explain conflicting genes in the same species. The list could go on and on and on and on. For me, the most convincing thing about evolution is that how everything fits into it as a model so perfectly. You could remove half the evidence for it and as a hypothesis it would make perfect sense

    ID is basically, that looks really complex, we cant figure out how it evolved, it must be designed. Which is what they said about wings, before they figured that out, or eyes. ID is basically ‘god of tha gaps’ (which I will assume you know of).

  7. Jenna says:

    I feel I just have been acknowledged about this subject
    at job yesterday by a colleague, but at that time
    it didn’t caugh my attention.

Comments are closed.