Fifth, the crossover application of the concept of radical change over time using the analogy to inanimate geological has to be one of the worst in history.
Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism involving inanimate things like wind, water, tidal, and glacial erosion over long periods of time, creates natural wonders that are functional from start to finish. A canyon created by water runoff is functional throughout its development. A river delta formed by sediment deposited over a long period of time is fully functional throughout its intermediate stages. The Grand Canyon was fully functional when it hypothetically started out as a river being three feet deep and fifty yards wide…eons of time ago…regardless of the catastrophic divulge that carved out its immense dimensions sometime in the far distant past.
To apply this same reality of the continuous functionality of non-living, geological things amenable to radical change over long periods of time, as an analogy to support an argument for a similar functionality in the long road from a single living antecedent to the diversity we observe today in the living world…Darwin’s “tree of life”…is not only unsupported scientifically but is bad philosophy. Inanimate, non-living things in geology can never be anything other than functional no matter what transitional condition we find them in. The same cannot be said for living things in a delicately but perfectly balanced ecosystem.
A main point I want to make in this chapter, and indeed in this book, is that God has high standards and expectations for us. This is one reason why God composes our journey of faith life-scripts. Darwinian macroevolution has no high standards. Something in intermediate transition without a definite trajectory and having a random chance outcome cannot be classified as having high standards and expectations.
When the reactive mode is factored in, nature is downgraded to a system in constant need of corrective debugging utilizing unguided and purposeless trajectories, rather than the near flawless wonder that it is.
In macroevolution there is no high standard of expectation…no optimistic foresight…for a Mount Improbable outcome of functional biological characteristics, because there is not the foresight of a mountaintop in contemplation to aim for. There is only aimless, dysfunctional meandering in relatively meaningless directions. Mount Improbable outcomes across the breadth of the diversity of life require foresight, and Darwinian macroevolution by definition lacks foresight.
For Christians, the natural world is a source of pride in our Creator God. For atheists and agnostics, the natural world is on a par with human created things that need corrective debugging to resolve transitional intermediate imperfections through Darwinian evolution.
Biblical-quality journeys of faith promote higher morality than the philosophy of naturalism fueled by Darwinian macroevolution. The challenges, difficulties, and adversity inherent in God-composed adventures of faith produce resiliency in the area of moral absolutes, which are meaningless in a God-less, naturalistic worldview.
If a rising tide lifts all boats, the converse is also true. Remove direction and meaning from life, and replace it with the serendipity of random chance outcomes without any standards or expectations, and we have a global explanation for the underlying cause for many of our cultural, societal problems today.
If after 150 years of intensive effort the search for macroevolution in the fossil record has failed, instead producing the contrary evidence of the Cambrian Explosion, stasis, and extinction, and if the new information age has exposed the utter incapacity of random chance search strategies to produce function in complex systems, instead requiring the obvious need for intelligent agency…if macroevolution is thereby empirically proved to be a false choice…then the only concept left standing is creationism.
If theism owes any debt of gratitude to Darwinian evolution it is that it narrowed the field down to two and only two choices. If macroevolution drops out as a candidate, then the only candidate remaining is God. If this becomes the clear reality in the near future, why would we continue to teach macroevolution in our high schools and colleges, if this promotes the culturally debilitating, aimless, purposeless, philosophy of naturalism?