Materialism

Taking apart a Steinway & Sons concert grand piano piece-by-piece to understand how it works, no matter how thorough and expert is the scientific methodology in dissecting and analyzing the function of its parts, will never on its own make the artistic leap to the creative invention of a Beethoven piano concerto or a Chopin etude.  The imaginative inspiration of a musical composition is on another level…in another domain of reality…informationally unconnected to the basic physical mechanics of the parts of the musical instrument.

The creative, artistic program of information that goes into the “why” component of the ingenuity of a Beethoven piano concerto is not at all the information package that makes up the mathematics, physics, and chemistry of “how” the concert grand piano produces beautiful sounding individual notes.  Dissecting the piano painstakingly piece-by-piece for scientific analysis will not uncover the secret of music or the purpose behind the creation of the body-plan of the musical instrument.  The secret of music composition will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the keys, the strings, the soundboard, or the distinctive shape of the wood box, raised lid, and three supporting legs.

The most skilled modern scientist, using the best techniques and finest equipment available, analyzing the acoustic features of the sound-board and the vibrating resonance of the various strings while clunking away at the piano keys, may or may not be artistically inspired to create a musical composition simultaneously as the investigative work progresses, based upon a positive reaction to the beauty of the sounds he or she is producing at the keyboard.  The beautiful tones of the concert grand piano tells the researcher there is the possibility of “music” inside, but if they fail to respond in an artistic way to experiment with the highly specified arrangement of the musical notes of the various piano keys to create a musical composition, they will remain in the purely materialistic zone of the physics and chemistry of the musical instrument alone.

The two potentially parallel, simultaneous efforts…first the scientific investigation of the workings of the piano and second the creative discovery that the sounds produced can be arranged into an interesting and satisfying musical composition…are intimately connected yet are very different, discrete programs of information.

This is one explanation for the dichotomy between the differing viewpoints of atheistic materialism and theistic creationism.  The Christian sees the order and intelligibility underlying the “body plans” of the varied phenomenon of the natural world as a confirmation for the experiencing of beautiful lives…like creating musical compositions.  The scientist working within the narrower worldview of naturalism sees no such transcendent reality above the ceiling line of the pure mathematics, physics, and chemistry of functioning parts.

Taking this argument of the different levels of existing information a step further…the creative, directional, information program that assembles the cheek bones, nose, chin, lips, forehead, muscles, tendons, and skin of the face of a beautiful woman is likewise entirely different from the informational program that arranges the basic parts of the DNA, protein, and amino acid molecules encased within the microscopic eukaryotic cells of the human body.

The information program that forms the intended limits and boundaries of the shape of the beautiful woman’s face is analogous to both the creative mechanical imagination that invents the functional body-plan arrangement of ascending and descending notes on the keyboard of the concert grand piano, combined with the artistic genius that composes Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata or Chopin’s Ballade No. 2.  Some guiding informational program must tell each living cell precisely where to go in the human body and what function to perform, in exactly the right artistic arrangement to produce the sparkling eyes, radiant smile, beautiful hair, lovely shape of the face, and melodious voice having perfect pitch, tone, and resonance coming from the beautifully attractive human female.

Like the information contained within a musical composition that transcends the mechanics of the piano, the essence of what makes a beautiful woman enchantingly feminine is a mystery that transcends far above the hypothetical creative capacity of material particles…particles acting without the outside guidance of blueprint instructions according to the naturalistic scenario.

The artistic imagination contained within the creation of the body-plan form of the face of the beautiful human female cannot be reduced to the materialistic parts of proteins, amino acids, and DNA any more than the musical genius of a Bach, Beethoven, or Brahms can be explained by the inked musical notes drawn on the page of a musical score, or the engineering statics and mechanics composition of the parts of the concert grand piano.

One of the reasons why Darwinian evolution has never caught on with the majority of people, at least in America, is that people sense that the atheists and agnostics who preach the philosophy of naturalism intermixed with evolution, are proposing a simplistic explanation entailing only the mechanics side of the equation…that is inadequate to encompass the fullness of reality that includes innovative lifestyle programs as well.

Scientific investigation is incapable of answering the larger, fundamental question as to why the concert grand piano was created in the first place.  Analyzing the various parts of the piano…no matter how thorough and complete…will not answer the fundamental “why” question as to the piano’s origin or its functional integration within the world of music.  This basic limitation of the explanatory reach of the scientific method is profound.

The empirical evidence for an extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution, including the all-important, essential lifestyle changes required…is simply not there.  People look at the complexity of the outside natural world and the intricate coordination internally in the functioning of their own bodies and conclude by mere commonsense that all of this is beyond a complexity that random chance could possibly assemble into functionally coordinated realities.

To fill-in the gaps of our understanding with the speculative philosophy of atheistic naturalism and materialism is not the automatic, default option of reason.  The atheistic philosophy of naturalism has enormous philosophical problems, leaving humanity at the extreme end-point of a cold and purposeless existence having no meaning, no compass, no anchor, and no sure confidence in our own mental reasoning capacity when reduced to mere materialistic particles…in other words…only the materialistic understanding of the mechanics of the concert grand piano…but without the beauty of musical compositions.

God created the precision of the natural world so that God-composed journeys of faith could be experienced by people of faith…like playing Debussy’s beautiful Claire de Lune on a piano.

The idea that living things of incredible functionality, adaptability, fearsome power, and breathtaking beauty merely self-assembled themselves, according to the naturalistic philosophy that nature can create itself through a random chance search strategy, without any guidance from outside intelligence, requires the clearest scientific explanation in detailed and specific terms of the method of how Darwinian macroevolution might occur.  Fill-in speculative philosophy will not suffice in this incredibly important area of scientific investigation and worldview formulation.

A Stable Natural World Creates Consistancy

The spiritual danger zone of the way of the cross that is the path to the discovery of “all truth,” using just the right blend of crisis, tension, and resolution, requires a stable natural world environment in order to function properly.

Scientific discovery of the correct workings of the larger universe never demoted mankind to a lesser or insignificant status.  The relative importance of mankind in the scheme of things is determined by the care the Intelligent Designer God took in creating our habitat.

The scientifically discovered fact that the earth orbits around the sun in a small solar system located in the outer third of our massive spiral galaxy called the Milky Way, amongst billions of other similar galaxies in a universe of unimaginable size and scope, merely tells us that to discover reality in the natural world we sometimes have to dig deeper than mere phenomenal observation at a glance.  That the earth fully rotates once every twenty-four hours, giving the phenomenal appearance that the sun orbits the earth, tells us that appearances at first glance can be deceiving.

We now know that the earth’s position within our solar system is in what is referred to as the “Goldilocks zone” of being in just the right distance from the sun to support liquid water…one of the essential ingredients to allow for the existence of complex life.  This is but one of about twenty complex and extremely fine-tuned relationships regarding the unique positioning and physical aspects of our planet earth, which far surpasses in value the incorrect and archaic thinking 500 years ago that the earth is the center of the universe, initially based upon phenomenal observation alone.

It was the technical invention of the telescope, and some original thinking by the Polish astronomer Copernicus, that eventually led to correcting our wrong assumptions about the cosmos.  It is this unsurpassed quality of the arrangement of all of the intricate factors making complex life like ourselves possible that validates mankind’s high value, which we now understand much better today through the advances of scientific research.

From the Christian viewpoint, the same God who created the laws that govern the mass and motion of non-living objects like stars and planets in the cosmos also created equally precise journeys of faith.  Both were in operation and brilliantly functioning thousands of years before we understood either one correctly.

The magnificent orderliness of complex information that goes into the workings of the material particles of our physical world, as large as spiral galaxies and as small as microscopic living cells, is a music-like variation upon a theme of the same precisely ordered, complex, intelligible information that explores the morals and values of life in God-composed journeys of faith as recorded in the Bible.

God creates journey of faith life-scripts without prior collaboration from humans, but He does not set them in motion then depart the scene.  The Holy Spirit is active in leading Spirit-born people into “all truth” according to precise game-plans.  Jesus invites us to take up our cross and to follow Him within the dynamic action of Holy Spirit led life-events and circumstances.

We have access to the mind of God through God-composed journey of faith life-scripts, both in the Bible and in our own walks of faith following Jesus.  This is supernatural and the direct opposite of the philosophy of naturalism. 

All the hairs of our heads are numbered, meaning that God knows everything about us (Lk. 12:7).  A sparrow will not fall to the ground without God’s knowledge, telling us that He cares about the seemingly smallest, inconsequential things (Mt. 10:30).

The Cambrian Explosion, the Big Bang, and DNA

In the Cambrian Explosion of 530 million years ago, the information that went into the body plans of complex creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record, without any previous transitional intermediates found in the Precambrian rock layers below the Cambrian level other than very small sponge-like creatures, represents a top-down arrangement of information…not a bottom-up arrangement of gradually simple to complex.  In the Cambrian Explosion, the bulk of body-plan information is front-loaded at the beginning of the emergence of life-forms on earth 530 million years ago, creating most of the recognizably distinct groupings of well-defined characteristics in living creatures that form the basis for the modern scientific fields of classification and taxonomy today.

This sudden appearance of bizarre, complex, stranger than fiction, Cambrian creatures possessing most of the body-plan features of modern phyla groups still in existence today, during what scientists believe to be a 5 to 10 million year period (about 2 percent of the 530 year total for complex life on earth), is in direct contradiction to the macroevolution half of Darwin’s original thinking proposed in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species.  The hard, empirical evidence for the sudden appearance in the fossil record of fully formed, complex creatures requiring the input of upfront design information is in complete contradiction to the contrary notion of gradual, incremental genetic and physical body-plan improvements generated over long periods of time.

The Cambrian Explosion likewise refutes the idea of the blind, random chance mechanism of cumulative natural selection acting upon a series of infinitesimally small genetic mutations to create the vast diversity of life on earth.  The geologically brief time period of 5 to 10 million years for generating the functionally beneficial accumulation of the large numbers of required variations, without the lead-up presence of transitional intermediates in the Precambrian rock strata as developmental precursors, is scientifically considered to be much too short for gradualistic development.

In other words, the jump from tiny sponge fossil embryos in the Precambrian period, to jellyfish, sponges, and Ediacaran plants at the transition from Precambrian to Cambrian, to complex creatures in the Cambrian having compound eyes, spinal cords, nervous systems, skeletons, and predator/prey relationships…with exotic names like Marrella, Opabinia, Wiwaxia, Hallucigenia, Anomalocaris, and Trilobite, should reveal a long, continuous progression of clearly intermediate transitional forms.  The Precambrian fossils reveal instead only a large void where these intermediates should be prevalent and numerous.

The paradigm shifting discovery in 1929 by Edwin Hubble of the “red shift” in the light spectrum coming from distant stars in the cosmos that first postulated an expanding universe, led to the unavoidable conclusion of the Big Bang creation of the universe at a single point in time around 13.7 billion years ago.  This discovery carried with it the logical need to also postulate a transcendent, intelligent creator outside of time and material space capable of bringing the universe into being.  The unimaginably vast information content that went into the near instantaneous creation of the universe, including all of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and time itself, was likewise front-loaded into the Big Bang within the first split-seconds of creation.  This again is an example of the insertion of top-down information which requires an explanation of where the information came from and how was it first introduced so precisely into reality.

Another major mystery of nature still unsolved today which refutes the gradualistic premise of Darwinian macroevolution is the dilemma of which came first in the microscopic structure of the living cell…the DNA or the protein.  The information contained within the DNA molecule is required to construct proteins, but proteins are required to manufacture DNA.  People have attempted to imagine a scenario where transitionally incomplete versions of DNA construct transitional, imperfect proteins, or the other way around, but the errors in transcription and translation of the coded genetic information would lead to auto-destruction rather than increasingly beneficial development.  Like a poor quality photocopy machine, each copy would get more out-of-focus in detail and resolution rather than clearer and brighter with each successive copy.

The recent “RNA world” approach has also turned out to be an unsatisfactory dead-end explanation for the origin of life, as RNA molecules do not have the complex capacity to fulfill the vast number and variety of functions that DNA, proteins, and amino acids can perform.

The DNA, the proteins, and all of the surrounding biological machinery in the living cell must be up and fully functioning at the outset for complex life like plants, trees, insects, fish, birds, mammals, and human beings to exist.

We do not find any “simpler” transitional versions of DNA anywhere in the living world.  The abbreviated four letter alphabet A, T, G, and C combinations of nucleic acids that comprises DNA is the same in plants, trees, bacteria, and in mammals like elephants and human beings.  Yet the enormous gap in complexity in the information content of DNA going from nonexistent pre-DNA to fully functional DNA, in small incremental steps, is like taking a running leap across the Grand Canyon in small incremental jumps.  The huge gulf in traversing the path to fully functioning DNA and proteins in living cells, through gradualism, is difficult to envision even through the use of theoretical, creative imagination.

This top-down arrangement of complex information that is specified towards a definite function, in the biology of the living world, has to be in place at the front-end of their initial existence to establish function, and not gradually and progressively developed over long periods of time as Darwin postulated in the biology of living things through common descent.

An Originally Unique Idea

I believe that one of the great ideas in all of human history is the concept of a God-composed journey of faith life-script, beginning around 4,200 years ago with Abraham.  This is the “narrow gate” spoken of by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 7:13-14) that few people find.  A liberated journey of faith following Jesus Christ, wherein our ways are displaced by God’s higher plans through the way of the cross, is central to Christian discipleship, but anathema to worldly conventional thinking.

This is the truth that no one wants to hear (Isa. 53:6), because it runs contrary to our human nature.  Taking up our cross, for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (Mk. 8:34-35) is in direct conflict with worldly conventional normalcy.

But the way of the cross uniquely defines the originality of a biblical-styled journey of faith, producing priceless spiritual life through God-guided experience.  This makes it one of the singularly great ideas in human history, yet by its divine origin also falling outside of the pride-filled hubris of humanistic invention.

It should therefore come as no surprise to Christendom that philosophical naturalism, fueled by Darwinian evolution… accelerating as a worldview, steamroller change-agent in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species…should attack the great idea of a God-composed journey of faith life-script at its very source…the  existence of God.  A journey of faith composed by God is the centerpiece, the signature vehicle invented by God to establish a personal relationship today with each new covenant believer (Jer. 31:31-34).  The rational legitimacy of a God-composed, biblical-quality journey of faith life-script available to all Spirit-born Christians today, as argued back-and-forth within the world court of opinion, is what is at stake in the contemporary warfare of ideas between intelligent design and common descent going on within the modern field of science.

After over 150 years of Darwinian evolution pulling the culture over toward atheistic naturalism, a more powerfully compelling argument for divine intelligent agency is now presenting itself through the empirical facts of information and integrated complexity, both of which are observable and testable evidence, totally inexplicable in a naturalistic program.

Spirit-born Christians know experientially that Jesus Christ is both raised from the dead and is alive today.  This is supernatural.  The aim of this chapter is to rebut some portions of the chief modern rival and critic of the reality of a God-composed journey of faith…the atheistic philosophy of naturalism that has unjustifiably attached itself to the scientific pursuit of an understanding of our natural world.

The question in this new “age of information” in the field of science is not whether purely naturalistic explanations for phenomenon are the surest reliable knowledge, thereby unreasonably consigning “religion” like Christianity to the second-rate world of the subjective and the relative…but rather does modern scientific investigation reveal programs of complex, ordered, highly specified information in the historical sciences, which cannot be satisfactorily explained by a reduction to material particles…philosophical naturalism…alone.

The two main questions to be answered in this new age of information are…where did all of these incredibly vast programs of complex information come from…and how does this fit into a new, broader, and more accurate view of reality and reason?

The Heart of the Debate

Darwin did not propose an explanation for the origin of life.  Darwinism requires first the existence of life for evolution to then take over and apply genetic variation acted upon by natural selection to produce further development and diversity.  Not having an explanation for the origin of life, the theory of evolution must then build upon the starting point of already existing, functional life…in the reactive mode…discussed later in this chapter.

What lies at the heart of the creation/evolution debate is the question whether creative innovation is an all-encompassing evolutionary process working in the life-form from the core center outwards through genetic variation and natural selection, or instead do life-forms start with a body-plan of complex and integrated information produced by fiat creation by an intelligent designer God, with the subsequent creative innovation occurring only at the outer peripheral margins for adaptive survivability?

I think the factual evidence supports the latter viewpoint…not just because as a Christian this supports the theistic worldview…but because the facts themselves cry-out for intelligent design.

The theory of evolution today is under threat, not by religious faith, but by its own inadequacy as an explanatory paradigm to cover all of the new evidence being unearthed by modern scientific discovery over the last three to four decades.

For people who have looked at both sides of the evidence in the debate between design and descent, many recognize that after over 150 years of intense research, common descent is still merely a thinly veneered, philosophical glue…rather than hard supportive evidence… that holds the framework of Darwinian macroevolution together.  I sense that the evidence and the arguments are steadily building in favor of intelligent design and falling away from Darwinian macroevolution.

Why should the general populace be compelled to accept a mere theoretical construction superimposed upon the facts of nature, simply to support the atheistic philosophy of naturalism…when the exact same facts of nature can be better explained through the activities of intelligent agency…God?

The exuberance and enthusiasm of the Enlightenment Period “doctrine of progress” fueled by the rapid advancements in science and technology during the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, produced the heady confidence and humanistic pride that we could reduce and explain the marvels of the living world down to natural causations alone.  But this humanistic enthusiasm has not produced the empirical scientific facts to back up this enthusiasm for materialistic explanations in biology, before or after 1859.

Mountain of Evidence is Theoretically Driven 2

An analogy to an Olympics track meet might be helpful.  In the Olympics track meet competition, one event…the mile-relay…has four runners each running one lap around the track…receiving the baton from the previous runner and passing the baton to the succeeding runner…to complete a continuous and unbroken four-lap circuit around the track.

But this relay baton is not passed off to the other distinct and unconnected events outside of the mile-relay.  The baton is not passed to the high-jumpers, pole-vaulters, high-hurdlers, 100-meter sprinters, or the competitors in the shot-put or javelin throw…thereby creating an unnatural, artificial, and unwanted connection between these disparate events.  These other events are discontinuous and unconnected to each other and to the mile-relay, even though they are all a common part of the Olympics track meet.

A network schedule of logic-lines connecting the start-times for each track and field event…simplified into printed program schedules for the spectators…would have to be created ahead of time to organize the track meet.  But these organizational lines connecting the start and finish times head-to-tail would never be confused with the fundamental differences between pole-vaulting, high-jumping, the long-jump, the triple-jump, and the 5,000-meter run.  The essential characteristic of each distinct event creates a discontinuous gap between each event that is unbridgeable in terms of mixing and blending…other than their logical sequencing for time and spacing within the overall management of the track meet competition.

The passing of the baton between all of the track and field events to create an artificial connection…a connection that does not logically exist…simply because at a general level all these events belong to the same track meet…would be non-sensical.

To attempt to blend and mix all of these disparate track and field events together into a connected whole through small, incremental, transitional phases using the relay baton as the connecting link…would be a forced arrangement falling so far outside of the intentionally designed, fundamental discontinuity gaps between each of the individual events of an athletic track meet…as to render the entire competition gradualistically indecipherable and thus incomprehensible.

If all of the track meet events were blended together in infinitesimally small incremental steps…it would be difficult to determine when and where one event finished and another started.

Each track and field event also has a predetermined goal…an outcome…that entails a different “lifestyle habit” program of training and technique.  Even though running hurdles, the pure sprints, and the long-distance running events share similarities, they are vastly different in their “lifestyle habits” of length of distance, agility requirements, pure speed, endurance, time-span, and the physical characteristics of the competitors.  Specified function…running fast, leaping high, jumping far…are inseparably connected to the lifestyle habits unique to each athletic event.

Common descent must, by definition, have the relay batons at each branching node of the expanding tree of life…safely passed from one species to the next without falling to the ground (becoming extinct).

But fitness in “lifestyle habits” in each track meet event does not carry over into fitness in lifestyle habits in another event.  The Olympic gold medalist in the high-jump cannot pass along gold medal proficiency to the pole-vaulter simply by handing off a relay baton.  The gold medal “lifestyle habit” proficiencies in each event are too different and discontinuous to be connected by the unrelated, inadequate element of a relay baton.

The tautological statement that the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring…the fittest organism being defined by circular reasoning as being the one that produces the most offspring…stays entirely within the boundary lines of a single, track meet event like high-jumping.  It describes the proficiency level attained through the microevolution of that single track meet event of high-jumping.

Macroevolution hypothetically producing diversity (in our track meet analogy) has absolutely nothing to do with the gold medal high-jumper passing the relay baton to the pole-vaulter.  How the high-jumper reaches gold medal proficiency…fitness in lifestyle habits…has no correlation to reaching an equivalent level of technical proficiency in the entirely different track meet event of pole-vaulting…although they each share the similar goal of going as vertically high as they can.

Identifying fictional nodes in Darwin’s tree of life…in the physical characteristics side of the equation alone…using creative imagination, would not explain the diversity of lifestyle habits for the hundreds of billions of living organisms on earth.  This would only get us half-way there.  Simply identifying where and when during the track meet the high-jumper passed the relay baton to the pole-vaulter…would not explain the vast differences in gold medal “lifestyle habit” techniques between these two events.

This is a part of the illogic of the tree-of-life of Darwinian common descent.  The empirical relay baton of explanatory mechanism must connect each discontinuity gap between the dots being birds, fish, mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, plants, trees, bacteria, and fungi…which are analogous to discontinuous track and field events like pole-vaulting, discus throwing, high-jumping, and the mile-relay.  These connections between hundreds of billions of distinct (and thus classifiable by human taxonomists) life-forms must account for both physical and lifestyle characteristics.

The discontinuous lifestyle habits of the multitudes of living creatures renders the hypothetical “relay baton” connection through common descent to be implausibly forced, stretched, and logically unbridgeable.

Naturalism is the philosophy that superimposes an unnatural “relay baton” to connect all of the track meet events.  Naturalism creates the evidence that supports naturalism.  This is circular.  Take away the common descent interpretational framework and we are back in time to the neutral facts of pre-1859…the “standard Olympics track meet” of typological and discontinuous life-forms…which did not point toward macroevolution at all, prior to Darwin’s book The Origin of Species.

Mountain of Evidence is Theoretically Driven

Without the hard empirical evidence for the methodology and mechanism of how macroevolution changes a fish into a land reptile into a bird over time…having wings, feathers, and a totally unique breathing capacity to enable sustained flight…the philosophical overlay of Darwinian naturalism does not produce “overwhelming, mutually supportive evidence.”

The Darwinian model produces nothing more than the hypothetically connected structure of common descent…supported by circumstantial arguments alone…whose artificially connected structure falls apart when the concept of the discontinuities between the varied body-plan architectures and lifestyle habits of hundreds of billions of life-forms on the planet…is introduced.

The theoretically unimaginable jump across the gap of running and leaping along the ground or in the branches of trees, then “evolving” into winged flight through small, incremental, progressive steps, without any detailed supporting explanation as to the massive anatomical changes that would have to occur, is alleged by Darwinists to have happened simply because this is what is required to have happened according to the philosophical paradigm of naturalism.

The theoretically unimaginable jump from the functioning respiratory system of the gills of fish extracting oxygen from water under the surface of oceans, lakes, and rivers, to the fully functioning system of lungs in mammals breathing air above the water, must take place in a matter of seconds or immediate death follows.

This is an enormous gap of discontinuity.  Small incremental change here is unimaginable.  Yet for macroevolution to be valid, this discontinuity must be plausibly explainable within the unifying theory of common descent taken from Darwin’s hypothetical “tree of life” connecting all living things.  Darwinists allege that this type of jump in development and diversity from living underwater to living above water…had to have occurred in small, incremental, progressive steps because it simply had to happen this way according to the paradigm philosophy of naturalism.

This type of secularly skewed argumentation is then stretched to apply to the enumerable discontinuities large and small of the billions of different life-forms on the planet, mixing the dissimilar ingredients of diversity and likeness into the theory of common descent…based in large part upon its appeal to scientists of being a unifying theory of biology, and at the same time offering a non-theistic explanation for the origin and diversity of life.

But from the start Darwinian macroevolution could not explain the Cambrian Explosion…the sudden appearance of a diversity of complex life-forms in an instant of geological time…which should also have had an accompanying and complimentary backstory of transitional intermediate life-forms appearing in the Precambrian rock strata.

Over time, the many difficulties with the theory of macroevolution should have resolved themselves.

Instead, the idea of common descent has not bridged the enormous gaps of discontinuity in the living world between the major groups like amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, insects, or mammals, or the discontinuities in the subdivided lower levels of each of the major groups…like the large African mammals separated by the unbridgeable lifestyle gaps between elephants, giraffes, water buffalo, rhinoceros, zebras, lions, leopards, cheetahs, and Thompson’s gazelles.

One major factual problem for Darwinism is that there is no evidence for the actual existence of the transitional “nodes” at the apex junctures of Darwin’s branching “tree of life” between the major groups and their subdivisions, which must be there for common descent to occur.  These nodes do not exist now and they do not exist in the fossil record…unless artificially created through a fictional, philosophical overlay of common descent crafted through human imagination.

Darwinian evolution is a classic example of being a half-truth.  It explains microevolution which occurs within a species.  It explains variation over time within a species.  But the extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution…the origination of new species using genetic variation and natural selection…is an over-reach…an extension of philosophy rather than an empirical product of science.

This is why Darwinian macroevolution is subtly persuasive but vacuous.  The “mountain of evidence” is artificially produced through circular reasoning…the philosophy must first be superimposed on the evidence to rescue the philosophy…rather than the evidence itself independently standing on its own to formulate the philosophy.

It is the theory of common descent that connects the dots into the forced linear arrangement of an ascending “tree of life”…the dots do not logically align themselves to connect that way on their own.  The connections between dots are by philosophy…not by explanatory, scientific evidence.