Part II D: Naturalistic Evolution: Faith or Fact?

With that in mind it is time to broach the subject of evolution.   As stated earlier, because evolution has been a scientific discipline, much in the way of understanding biology, anatomy and the constructs of basic life has come to light.  This helps humanity on many levels including man having the ability to combat and overcome disease.  One very recent possible breakthrough for scientists is figuring out the correct binding of proteins that will in turn bind to another protein that is central to the influenza virus.  With this binding comes new information that will help man battle the common cold as well as strains of influenza that are more difficult for our immune systems to manage.  This does not explain in detail the pain staking difficult work scientists had to go through to have a brake through.  Not only do proteins have to bind to the infectious based protein, they have to be the right kinds of protein that bind.  They not only have to be the correct kinds of protein, but they must bind to the infectious causing protein in the correct place.

              It took the most cutting edge technology to accomplish this; just right environment and many thousands of hours of research and development for scientists to get to a desirable outcome.  It begs the question, if it takes so much time, energy, research and intellectual know how to produce proteins that are affective in combating one disease, how then does one explain away a purely naturalistic process for the origins of life and evolution?  

              Evolution at an earlier stage in its history was a simpler concept than it is today.  One did not have to clarify whether or not they were talking about evolution from one species to another or talking about the origins of life.  Today, because of many factors, evolution theory is a much bigger dilemma than it was.  In the beginning evolution had a simple base; something along the lines of simple less complex organisms evolved into bigger more complex ones.  Today, because of technology we can see a lot of similarity in one celled organisms and multi celled complex organisms.  Scientists look at the more complex organisms and determine, based on DNA, RNA, and Genome mapping which organisms look to be most closely related.   Because of very close relations for particular species scientists determine which species evolved from others.  This in and of itself appears to have value, if evolution had already been proven at a base level.

              Looking at evolution from a purely logical point of view one needs to ask a more in depth question; how did the first single celled organism get here?  Until that question can be answered fully, all other conjectures of purely naturalistic evolutionary processes as the only possible explanation is blind faith based.  If, by chance, a natural process is found it doesn’t prove that natural origins are the only answer to the origins of life, it only changes the faith from blind faith to substance based faith.

              At this point it must be stated that some scientists have moved back into the Deist camp because of the difficulties posed with the question raised in the last paragraph.  Depending on an individual’s interpretation concerning Deism (the belief in an entity outside of the known universe is the “first cause” of the universe) one of two belief systems emerges.  One belief is that the entity was the first cause of the universe only; the other possible belief is the entity is the first cause of life as well.  If an individual determines that the entity was the first cause of life as well as the universe, that individual cannot believe in a purely natural origin to life, thus does not believe in purely naturalistic evolution as the only possibility to life’s inception.  This line of thinking also leaves open the possibility for the entity to be the first cause on many levels that are not personal in nature to man.  It is no more personal for the entity to make a fish than for the entity to make a one celled organism.  This could mean that the entity made everything up to the point of man and then allowed man to evolve from one of the things it made.  Therefore the entity would have been more personal with every creature then it was with man.

              It would appear that Deists would not take things that far, therefore most believe the entity was the first cause of the universe and everything else happened by pure natural processes.   But this leads back to the question of how did the first single celled organism come into being?   Who or what caused life to begin on our planet or the universe at large?  Atheists do not have a legitimate answer to these questions.  Every single hypothesis presented that purports a natural origin has difficulties to say the least, in fact these difficulties are so severe a better word to define this process is, impossible.  To truly grasp this material, one would have to study every possible scenario of how a naturalistic origin to life has been presented.  There are many volumes of material that have been written concerning this matter and if one would like to determine whether or not putting their faith in naturalistic pursuits alone is worth it, becoming informed is essential.  

              Instead of trying to regurgitate something that others have said much better than I can, it will suffice to say that those who have made this pursuit their life’s work have become frustrated with the lack of evidence.  As I have done my research I have found that some leading scholars in this field have actually written about their findings with disappointment or after having presented their findings they state something along the lines of, though the findings make naturalistic origins to life more difficult to explain the findings should not necessarily line up with what is preferred (what is preferred by the researcher and his audience).   Some researchers have gotten so frustrated that they start trying to figure out if certain things such as homochirality are even necessary for life.  The reason they want to find a legit reason to question this is because it is absolutely needed for life and it cannot happen by purely natural means alone (to study this subject on a more complete level a wonderful resource is Origins of Life by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross).

              This is why I question evolution being ported as a theory (something that is true or recognized as the best explanation).  If we compare the Big Bang Theory with the Evolutionary theory we see that the more tests that are devised and the more understanding we have the more apparently true the Big Bang Theory appears to be.  With the Evolutionary Theory, the more tests it goes through, the more understanding that we have; the more difficult and fragmented it becomes.  Does this alone prove Evolution to be false?  I’ll leave you to do the research for yourself to come to your own conclusions.  However, as things sit today it takes blind faith to believe in a purely natural origin for life.