When Is a Fact Not a Fact? - Part 1
What does someone mean when they say that since evolution is a fact, the Bible cannot be true? The answer is in which definition of evolution is used. If they mean, “variation within species,” thatʼs observable, and a fact, but no challenge. Darwin observed these kinds of changes both in his pigeon breeding and in the Galapagos Islands, where dry seasons favored the finches with longer beaks. In both cases, no new genetic information was added, and when the rains came back, so did the short- beaked finches.
So far there is no controversy with consistent observation or the Bible. Life reproducing “after its own kind” has plenty of room for this kind of change, which is usually called “microevolution.”
What Darwin proposed beyond the evidence is that these small variations within species might accumulate over long periods of time so that given enough time, new species would develop. If this is the case, then several species would have a common ancestor, and those common ancestors would have a common ancestor, all the way back to one common ancestor for all living things. WEʼRE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE!
The real question is, at what point does science stop using the scientific method, and at the very least become much more speculative, and consequently less factual?
In fact, the evidence, observable, and testable, shows a much shorter leash to the potential of biological evolution. As one scientist said, “The mechanisms of microevolution, genetic mutation and natural selection, simply cannot bear the weight of Darwinʼs theory of “macroevolution.”
While this article is only long enough as an introduction, hereʼs one example. For seventy-five years, biologists have tried to genetically force the fruit fly into becoming a new species. Thousands of generations have been produced, with as many mutations. The result - lots and lots of fruit flies.
For the eminent French biologist and former President of the Academie Francaise, it shows a limit to genetic change, and the failure of Darwinʼs theory. If there are limits to the achievements of the most skilled breeders, why should we assume that there are no limits to a mindless and blind process, the least efficient of all?