Darwin Spectacles and Irrational Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Proponents of vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution tend to overreach when they assemble facts, or things they believe are facts. It is illogical to extrapolate or over-generalize that if something is true in one place or thing, it is true in all similar places or things. In reality, we only know so much from what we observe, then we have to build on it to attain further knowledge.

Credit: Pixabay / ghcassel
Let's suppose that we had concrete, irrefutable evidence that an organism developed from simple to more complex, a textbook example of Darwinism. Okay, you got one. Evolutionists would put on their Darwin spectacles and see the world through their limited vision. However, evolutionary evidence of one thing, one time, one place would not prove that anything else evolved. Any other critter's evolution would have to be demonstrated, not assumed because of what was observed in something else.

We've seen many times how evolutionists get themselves (and especially the lapdog science press) all worked up as if some alleged evolution proved all of Darwinian evolution. Not hardly. Secularists can get themselves into a lather and make unwarranted implications that some "evidence" of evolution means that the Creator does not exist.

Here's another instance of Darwin spectacles interfere with clear thinking. There is considerable disagreement regarding feathered dinosaurs. Think I even heard one creationary scientist say that he believes that some dinosaurs had feathers (all creationists are not in lockstep, neither are all evolutionists), but he was working from the same weak evidence that secularists use and reaching a conclusion from insufficient data. Even so, let's give you another one: a dinosaur fossil was found and its feathered status was irrefutable. What would that prove? That one particular critter had feathers. It would not be evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds — there are too many other steps involved that evolutionists cannot explain.

We can play "Let's Suppose" a bit more. This time, life was found outside of Earth. Some fungi, a few plants, and then a critter hopped up to the space probe and said, "Meep", clear as day. Darwinists would be ecstatic, put on those special spectacles and "see" that since life evolved out yonder, then it must have happened here, too. Nope. Although evolutionists tend to reject or ignore inconvenient data and alternative explanations, it still doesn't mean that such life evolved, or that it was not created. Materialists reject creation out of hand because of their limited worldview and rebellion against God.

I'm pointing out in this simple article that people can extrapolate beyond the observed data and reach conclusions that are unjustified or just plain wrong. Creationists frequently point out where Darwin's disciples reach erroneous conclusions and ignore pertinent data. This site alone has a passel of examples, as well as the sites that are referenced. Don't be strung along by scientists and their air of authority. We have minds, and our Creator wants us to use them, as logic comes from the mind of God. Evolutionists have minds, but their thinking is fuzzy.