Questions for a Sympathetic Witness

Misconceptions about evolution abound and Todd Wood, who is not an evolutionist, wants to set the record straight. Wood rightly points out that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, that it is not a theory in crisis and that it does provide a research framework. But Wood also says that evolution is not a religion and "there has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory."

The question for Wood is: How are we to understand the religous foundation of evolution? How are we to understand Darwin's writings which were loaded with religious and metaphysical mandates for evolution? How are we to understand the writings of evolutionists since Darwin who have used these same arguments? How are we to understand Darwin's Principle? How are we to understand the consensus position that evolution is a fact, and the religious arguments that are used to arrive at that conclusion? Evolutionists claim their idea is a fact, and their justifications for this eyebrow raising claim--in every case--entail metaphysical claims. How are we to understand this?

And regarding the science, how are we to understand the many fundamental predictions of evolution that have gone wrong? Evolution consistently leads us down the wrong path. Its ideas about what we should find in biology so often turn out to be wrong. Yes, there are successful predictions, but there are a many important predictions that were flat wrong. How are we to understand this?

It certainly is true that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but there is also plenty of evidence the earth if flat. There are also monumental scientific problems with both ideas. Religion drives science and it matters.