Q&A: The Validity of the Theory of Evolution
The Validity of the Theory of Evolution
Question
Hello and blessings,
In your book you accept evolution as a fact and only show that it does not refute the physico-theological argument, etc.
I would like to ask an innocent question. True, you are not an expert in biology, but I assume you did at least look into the subject a bit before taking that position:
From your general impression, is the evidence that the world developed through an evolutionary process really strong enough, or is this simply the best explanation available (which is not miraculous), and therefore the accepted one?
That is to say, are the arguments for the theory convincing in their own right, or is it reached only in the absence of an alternative (similar, at times, to theories from the field of archaeology and the like)?
Thank you
Answer
It is impossible to separate between the two alternatives you present here. For every scientific law the evidence is very strong, but if you assume that there is something miraculous operating it, you can dispense with it. The same is true of evolution.
Discussion on Answer
As I explained, if you accept a miracle as an option, there is no reason to infer any law of nature. Even the law of gravity is not because of a force or a law, but because the Holy One, blessed be He, throws whichever objects He wants to the ground.
Why? I can accept a miracle as an option and at the same time accept well-confirmed theories.
And in this case, if there really is a sequence of fossils in all the strata with all the dead ends of the intermediate creatures of all kinds (creatures that died out through natural selection), and everything is thoroughly documented, then it is indeed very reasonable to assume that there was evolution, even though ‘I can’ assume there was a miracle.
It is simply a matter of prioritizing options; I did not understand why the dichotomy is ‘everything is a miracle’ or ‘there is no miracle.’
Evolution is well established. You will never find all the stages in full. That does not exist in any field or in any theory. In science it is always a matter of generalization on the basis of examples. Therefore you can always say that the examples you saw are exceptions and that in fact everything is conducted in a miraculous way.
All right, it seems to me we have exhausted the issue.
Thank you for your answer.
This is not a scientific law but a historical argument.
Are there enough fossils confirming the theory (or many other facts that I do not know, which I assume could confirm the theory), or is this a theory from the archaeology genre, where (from some partial academic involvement I discovered that) speculative theories are adopted on the basis of the best fit to the data.
I hope I am being clear; bottom line, my question is whether the theory of evolution is accepted because of an a priori assumption that things cannot happen miraculously, and therefore the theory is adopted ‘for lack of choice’ as the best explanation, or whether there really is strong evidence confirming it (= the claim that living species were formed through it)?
Thank you