A wise man once said it is not people who are wrong that concern him, but people who know they are right. Enter the evolutionists who are sure that evolution is a fact just as gravity is a fact. Of course we constantly see gravity in action--it is an observable, empirical fact. To deny gravity would be to deny the reality of our existence. Only by claiming that this life is one big dream can we avoid the fact of gravity. Otherwise the fact of gravity is certain. It is this level of certainty that evolutionists attach to their theory.The problem with evolution is not that a few scientists are toying with a far flung idea with substantial evidential problems. The problem is that evolution is a dogma. It is held with a conviction that can match any religious movement. The problem is not that evolutionists are wrong--it is that they know they are right.
Evolutionist Graeme Finlay's article on human evolution is a typical example. He introduces the article with this:
Even as some Christians deny that new species can evolve, that macroevolution has taken place, and that complexity can develop through natural genetic processes, the genomic revolution of this century has established the truth of all three evolutionary concepts.
Now whether or not some flavor of evolution is true is a difficult question. That was a long time ago. But it is unequivocal that scientific evidences--genomic or otherwise--do not prove evolution to be a fact as Finlay and the evolutionists mandate. Quite the opposite, while there are evidences for evolution (as there also are for a flat earth), there are monumental scientific problems with Darwin's idea.
For example, Finlay appeals to opsin genes which code for light-sensitive membrane proteins which are used in our vision. Finlay interprets similar patterns in similar species as unequivocal signs of evolution:
This breakpoint is common to apes and OWMs [Old World Monkeys], and demonstrates that the duplication arose in a unique event, and that it has been inherited by all the species that now possess it. This finding indicates that trichromatic vision arose in a random DNA duplication event.
As I have discussed here, this argument ignores profound problems. And as we shall see, there are more problems with this reasoning.
