Darwinists are Modern Alchemists, Only with Less Credibility

Since the great enemy of Darwinism Phillip Johnson went to be with the Lord recently, I’ve been listening to talks and interviews he gave over the years, and seeing again why he was such a formidable opponent to those espousing the bankrupt theory of evolution. He uncovered how the “scientific consensus” in favor of Darwinian evolution is one big project of begging the question, or assuming what you are ostensibly trying to prove. In one interview he compared Darwinism to alchemy, “a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life.” Alchemy proved to be a fool’s errand, as is Darwinism.

What killed both as credible scientific theories was the advance of scientific knowledge itself. What is becoming increasingly clear is that it is impossible to explain the complexity and functionality of the natural world in terms of blind “natural” processes, matter of itself, by itself, creating (as if something could create itself) all the utility we find in nature. Not even to mention how life itself could have “evolved” out of non-life in the first place. Evolution as defined by Darwin is an unguided process of random mutation and natural selection that is responsible for everything that exists. As things change in nature by random processes, mutations occur (alterations in the fundamental makeup of matter), and what results is the useful stuff that remains, and everything else disappears, the “survival of the fittest.” This process is our Creator, not God.

I’ve often asked my children, how does randomness create anything useful? By definition, all would agree that random means, “Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: synonym: chance.” So for example, please hold the laughter, the human nervous system came about as a result of “no specific pattern, purpose, or objective,” merely by chance? Really? You want me to believe that? That doesn’t even take us down into the ridiculously complex rabbit hole of the informationally dense little life maker known as the cell. This and everything else in the universe a product of random chance? As Johnson so adroitly explains in his work, the only reason you can believe such absurdity is that first you assume a God-less material universe, and then you have to find some way to explain it. Thus the whole enterprise which controls the heights of secular Western culture is a futile exercise in a logical fallacy.

This absurdity, though, doesn’t embarrass the gatekeepers of secular culture at all. In fact, they guard their precious “fact” of evolution with an alacrity that would make old Joe Stalin seem like a softy. Yes, that is hyperbole, but not by much. Get rid of the blood, and I’m not too far off. Anyone who questions the “scientific consensus” in academia will lose their reputation and career. The “consensus” doesn’t allow “science deniers,” who are probably fundamentalists young-earth creationists anyway. They must be made persona non grata! But like the secularism that holds it up, Darwinian evolution is every bit an intellectual, philosophical, and scientific Berlin Wall; it too will come down some day. Truth always wins, eventually.