Biophysicist and Discovery Fellow Cornelius Hunter scrutinizes the evidence used to support Darwinian theory. Not only does Hunter find that the scientific evidence for Neo-Darwinism is weak, but he exposes that much of evolutionary theory has historically been built upon dysteleological arguments against design. In other words, evolution grew in popularity because it argued against a particular theological position, not because of its overwhelmingly powerful evidence.
Darwin argued that the best way he could explain suffering in the natural world was through natural selection. Darwin’s theological motivations behind evolution are revealed when he asks “what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time?” This theological objection is the “problem of evil,” which theologians have been addressing for millennia.
Modern biologists have repeated dysteleological arguments, writing that a creator would not re-use the same genetic codes in different organisms. Questioning this assumption, Hunter also finds that the very existence of a genetic code “implies that two distinct entities — the sender and receiver — must know the code before the message is sent.” This in itself strongly challenges an evolutionary explanation.
A similar pattern is seen in the arguments for evolution from the fossil record. Darwinists have claimed that the fossil record shows a progression of complexity which “cannot be reconciled with creationism.” Yet Hunter recounts that progression or not, the fossil record contains many transitionless jumps in biological form which challenge Darwin’s theory. Darwinist speculations are “religious, not scientific” and they “hinge on one person’s concept of God.” (pg. 84)
Hunter also tackles tough objections to design. Pseudogenes have been called by Darwinists the “proof” that humans share a common ancestor with apes. But here again, dysteleology fills the mind of the Darwinist. Darwinists assume that these pseudogenes are nonfunctional, and that their nonfunctionality arose in a common ancestor. Most importantly, they say a designer “wouldn’t do it that way.”
Right or wrong, Hunter reveals the large number of theological arguments that Darwinists make to bolster their theory. This intriguing book shows that Darwinism really does have a large interest in theology and that even Darwinists don’t always treat Darwinism as a science.