WHERE EVIDENCE IS FOUND LACKING, NARRATIVES ARE FOUND IN ABUNDANCE
Evolution has been taught to every man, woman, and child since grade school as a factual reality. Evolution, therefore, has been well established in the classroom, in textbooks, and in universities all around the world for many decades. Evolution is supported by stunning diagrams, drawings, and seeming objective scientific measurements. The scientific consensus is evolution is factual and most all fields are pursued within such a context. Ultimately, conclusions are therefore drawn based on pure scientific evidence–right? Well- sometimes.
In reality, at least some scientific evidence is used to support the many thousands of conclusions made by evolution. Evolution as an observable mechanism of variation within the same species (during reproduction) clearly is factual. We can use dogs to illustrate this reality– all descended from the original canine of the Grey Wolf.
By contrast, to state that evolution is the mechanism that drives the variety we find in all species caused by a transmutation (macro-evolution) from bacteria to mankind is not factual but is a narrative based on many assumptions. This statement actually asserts the opposite of what is scientifically supported. It states what we do not observe. The statement is actually scientifically false. Such claims made by evolution are numerous. Each one stands in many cases contrary to observable scientific evidence.
The acceptance of such narratives are driven not by science but are based on worldviews. These narratives require the suspension of common sense because we are assured that these events which have never been observed are nonetheless factual. We are therefore expected to violate our own intuition and to accept that scientific facts exist that are the opposite of what we observe in the world around us each and every day. This serves as a form of bait and switch— stating (the bait) that observable changes caused by reproduction has given us the varieties of dogs and all species, therefore (the switch) common ancestry of all living creatures from bacteria to mankind is equally factual.
As an illustration, consider fossil layers which contain the remains of a dinosaur and another remains of a bird or bird-like feathered flyer. These fossils scientifically establish that a once living dinosaur is in a lower layer than the bird. Science can conclude factually that both living organisms died in the past and became fossilized as discovered today. The dinosaur is older than the bird because it is in a lower and older layer. However, this evidence does not establish, regardless to how similar the dinosaur and bird fossils may physically appear, that the bird trans-mutated or evolved from the extinct dinosaur. Really, such conclusions cannot be drawn from any fossils. Such conclusions that birds evolved from dinosaurs are clearly opinionated narratives and are not purely determined by scientific fact. But because the narrative supports the worldview of evolution it is repeated over and over again as “factual”.
We find that as direct observable scientific facts become increasingly less clear, the more conjecture and narrative is used to fill in the gaps. Real scientific facts are very easy to identify, establish, and explain. Consider gravity as such an example. We can toss a baseball into the air and see that while on earth, what goes up must come down. We can identify, establish, and explain that this effect is caused by gravity. Gravity is an indisputable fact– details can be debated as to causes but gravity is factual. Secondly, consider water boiling at 212 degrees (at sea level). To identify, establish, and explain this reality, simply obtain a thermometer, a burner, and a pot of water. This scientific fact is easy to replicate. Really, most any scientific fact should be conceptually as easy to identify, establish, and explain. As a contrast, lets now consider abiogenesis as an example of an opinion or a narrative.
First, “the idea that” or “proposes“. These terms clarify in advance that the entire statement regarding abiogenesis or other evolutionary conclusions are a proposition and not a scientific fact. Such terms abound in evolutionary narratives such as: It seems; In our view; In my experience; As far as we understand; It is claimed; we cannot deny that; we imagine that; we think/believe/suppose; we reason; we are sure/certain/convinced; consensus has reasoned; we find; must have…
Second, “life arose from non-life“. This statement has never been observed and actually offers no observable evidence whatsoever. Theories abound from amino acids and proteins to deep sea vents to RNA first. These are all wild conjecture because they are contrary to observable scientific realities and evidence. This violates our common sense because it has never been observed– not ever.
Third, “more than 3.5 billion years ago“. This statement is based on at least some scientific evidence from radiometric dating. However, the date of the formation of the earth and the subsequent timing of the emergence of first life are obviously quite a leap. Radiometric dating is based on a multitude of other assumptions and narratives that support the evolutionary construct but only with many subjective assumptions by the researcher.
Forth, “first life-forms…were very simple“. This is a narrative that assumes common ancestry of all living organisms which can be drawn by genetic similarities (DNA). It also ignores the massive problem of genetics emerging with or before such original life forms. While the existence of an universal genetic language has been discovered, its existence does nothing to translate even the most basic forms of life as “simple“.
Fifth, “through a gradual process“. This narrative presumes that the process is not observable in the present so it must have happened so slowly we cannot even see it. This is true, we have never seen any living organism transmutate into a new life form. The fossil record is the only evidence that can illustrate the supposed distant past and it is filled with organisms that remain largely in stasis: alive at the family level into modern day with little to no physiological changes that evolution predicts.
Sixth, “became increasingly complex“. A narrative that takes all the prior assumptions and logic and concludes that simple forms became more complex through natural processes. Again, not based on any observable science but based on the conjecture of the gradual process above. This process is explained by lining up bones, genetics, or by using artistic drawings in textbooks. It is a worldview and certainly not even touching on anything factual but assumption that may or may not be correct.