The Blind Scientist: Unmasking the Misguided Methodology of Neo-Darwinism

By Alexander J. Bonitto, John S. Knox and Brian M. Kelley

This book investigates potential neo-Darwinian fallacies, specifically regarding a priori assumptions, that may have led to weak scientific methodology and praxis. It was proposed that five concepts must be true for neo-Darwinism to be true. These are gradualism, the tree of life hypothesis, the evidence of microevolutionary change accounting for macroevolutionary change, time and chance, and methodological naturalism. Prima facie, these concepts have tremendous explanatory power. Yet, with an attempt to carefully examine these concepts, all five seem to be assumed a priori so as to dictate the outcome of neo-Darwinism rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. The evidence left by the Cambrian explosion, genomic potential, genetic entropy, irreducible complexity, genetic limits, cyclical change, probability theory, the epistemology of information, and the law of causality seems to pose a dilemma for neo-Darwinian assumptions.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Mar 5, 2024
• ISBN: 9781666783193

Alexander J. Bonitto

Alexander J. Bonitto is a Christian apologist and mathematics teacher. He has an MA in Christian apologetics from Liberty University and received a BS in health science and an MBA in sports management from Franklin Pierce University. He is currently pursuing doctoral studies in theology.

Book preview

1

The Relationship Between Science and Facts

You cannot enter into an investigation with a philosophy that dictates the outcome.—J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity

When investigating anything scientifically—whether it is a cold-case homicide, identifying office-work thievery, or determining the foundations of all life forms, it is quintessential to put aside all presuppositions to fairly ascertain the truth. If one’s preconceived notions are unsupported by a lack of corroborating evidence (such as falsely accusing someone of murder or rape because of the complexion of their skin or presuming someone ate your lunch out of meanness), it may result in undesirable, even disastrous consequences for the parties involved. Even more so, if a group of scientists assumes that the origin of life can only come about via natural means because they reject the possibility of the existence of a higher deity (or life form), the scientists risk the integrity of the scientific endeavor, damaging the validity and reliability of their findings. These are common problems experienced historically and regularly wherein people assume something a priori.

In fact, many people assume something prior to the evidence as the result of their previous experience or presuppositions. These a priori assumptions often go unverified, which can be problematic; and yet, not all a priori assumptions are innately wrong. In fact, one can theoretically argue that no a priori assumptions are wrong, but only those that cannot withstand careful examination.

To illustrate, it is reasonable to assume (a priori) that all people are mortal, even if one never investigated every single person’s death. One can make a deductive argument with the following syllogism:

1.All men are mortal.

2.Socrates is a man.

3.Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The previous example illustrates deductive reasoning. Deductive reason occurs when the premises guarantee the truth of their conclusions.¹ Traditionally, all scientific, empirical facts are based on deductive theory (more on this in the next section). A scientific theory, however, is based on inductive theory, which occurs when the premises render a conclusion more probable than its competitors.²

This can be seen in the following example:

1.All the cars that I have seen in America have four wheels.

2.Therefore, every single car has four wheels.

Here, it is easy to see how assumptions play a more prominent role in the process of making inferences. One can quickly see that just because all cars in America have four wheels, it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of cars in other countries having three wheels (or five). Notice, however, that this does not mean that the argument is wrong, but rather that it lacks an exhaustive consideration since cars in other countries were not included while inferring the conclusion.

Respectively, this book will discuss what assumptions in the postmodern world of science can or cannot withstand careful examination.³ Specifically, it will focus on the a priori assumptions that are necessary to arrive at neo-Darwinian conclusions (macro-evolution). This statement is quite charged. It can presuppose that 1) neo-Darwinism is not based solely on empirical data; 2) that assumptions shape the conclusions of neo-Darwinism; and 3) that there is debate on the veridicality of neo-Darwinism. This may sound like scientific heresy since the study of neo-Darwinism is a scientific theory that is considered a scientific fact among most scientists today. However, consequently, all of science relies on some form of assumptions. The question is, which ones are