Evolution and the Myth of "Only Scientific Alternative"

Must one believe a false explanation because it is the presented as the only alternative?

[If you like what we write, we would love for you to subscribe and share. Enjoy!]

When questioned about the role of natural selection, we find that many responders cannot fathom the question, much less any answers. Simple questions directed to time-honored examples of natural selection like the Peppered Moths invoke knee-jerk responses attacking God, the Bible, and the motives of anyone daring to question the fact of evolution.

Consider a typical comment from our Facebook page, Creation Reformation World. We presented The Richard Dawkins Challenge in which we asked a simple question about the role of natural selection in creating organized complexity in nature. Here is a reply in our comments section:

Let me explain. Darwin's theory of evolution is both a fact and a theory. There simply is no scientifically valid alternative to this theory. Creationism is a religious idea of no scientific merit. Bizarrely creationist seem to think that by discrediting evolution their alternative idea will take its place. Creationists have been doing this for over 150 years without success. You cannot replace a scientific fact with a religious idea. Hence my entirely reasonable point that yours is an argument from stupidity.

Commenter at Creation Reformation World (bold emphasis added.)

We must accept evolution because, "There simply is no scientifically valid alternative to this theory”?

This very common—if not unscientific—idea (held among one particular set of the scientific community) seems sacrosanct. Must we accept it?

Is it proper rational decision making to accept an idea simply because there is "no scientifically valid alternative to this theory?" What if Copernicus took that approach about the solar system? What if Johann Joachim Becher took that approach about phlogiston? What if Einstein took that approach about ether in the universe? What if Louis Pasteur took that approach about spontaneous generation?

What if you take that approach about anything?

Is not the entire scientific enterprise (supposedly) built on questioning the status quo? What better way to question the status quo but with a question? And why should a question be treated with contempt and labels of "stupidity"?

We find the responses to our questions both entertaining and illuminating. They are entertaining because we experience a bit of satisfaction in seeing evolutionists triggered. When faced with a simple question that they should be able to easily answer, they instead resort to motive hunting and name calling. That seems to be the nature of the evolutionists beast. Interestingly, it is also the nature of many religiously dogmatic beasts.

But more than entertaining, we find such responses illuminating. Are people really willing to swallow everything they are told? Must one believe any theory even if it is true that there is currently "no scientifically valid alternative to this theory?"

Why? If that was the right thing to do we would all be defending geocentricism, phlogiston, an ether-filled universe, and spontaneous generation. (And calling questioning these things "arguments from stupidity.")

Even if creation by the God of the Bible was not true, is it rational to unquestionably adhere a theory and yell at those who question it?

Rational? No.

Normal among evolutionists? Yes.

Why?

Think about it.

For more, visit our website: Creation Reformation or our Facebook page: Creation Reformation World.

© Creation Reformation