Borrowing Credibility: An Audit of Evolutionist Arguments

I recently went through a seminar called Redeeming Darwin: The Intelligent Design Controversy.[1] The four sessions give a clear analysis of the problems of the Neo-Darwinian model of explaining the universe, and summarize the case for Intelligent Design (ID). The latter is a research model on the obvious design and engineering that is evident in living organisms and the ideal conditions for life on our planet earth. ID is a “big tent” approach that collects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator and Designer but does not specify the Who and how origins (God’s identity and a particular creation model).

A concern that is underscored in this seminar is this: Darwinian evolutionists “borrow credibility” (my expression) in their indoctrination of natural selection as a valid explanation for our life in this universe. Let’s consider three examples of this “borrowing”.

1. Macroevolution “borrows credibility” from microevolution.

Microevolution involves what is observed in biology, including change over time, changing gene frequencies in natural populations, and natural populations changing in response to environmental changes.[2] Recognition of this kind of adaptation is common ground on both sides of the origins debate. However, Neo-Darwinism “borrows credibility” from this agreed upon facet of microevolution to postulate macroevolution. The latter category is not evident in observable data today. Macroevolution postulates that all new adaptations are due to natural selection and that all organisms descended from a common ancestor.

2. Macroevolution “borrows credibility” from operational science.

Since prominent advocates of Darwinism are scientists, the public assumes that the scientific method supports natural selection as a valid explanation of life in this universe. But such is not the case. Whether one is arguing from evolutionism or creationism, this aspect of the quest for knowledge is properly “Origins Science.” Note the distinction. Origins science (whatever the model) cannot reconstruct the event of the origin of earth or of life forms, nor can operational science test an origins hypothesis in the process of investigation. Therefore, how matter came to exist, how life came from non-living matter, and how intricate, functional biological mechanisms came into being in such a variety of species cannot be known as proven facts! The atheist and theist, evolutionist and creationist are all functioning with a degree of faith in their model of origins. Dr. Ray Bohlin states, “The best a scientist can hope for is to get beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’, and that level of certainty is very unlikely given the complexity of the universe.”

3. Macroevolution “borrows credibility” from metaphysics.

Metaphysics refers to “a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology [consideration of what exists], cosmology [consideration of the universe], and often epistemology [how we obtain knowledge].[3] A closer look at some of the Darwinian arguments reveals that some of their assumptions are based upon a secular philosophy and or atheistic belief system. Note that philosophy and beliefs about God are outside of (meta) the actual realm of scientific knowledge (physics). In The Panda’s Thumb, an evolutionist declared: “If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes…”. Apart from questioning the author’s interpretation of “junk DNA” etc., note that he is borrowing from his conjecture about theology in the logic of his argument against Intelligent Design. Charles Darwin did this kind of “borrowing” often in his Origin of Species.

When Legal professor and ID pioneer, Philip Johnson, wrote his seminal book, Darwin on Trial, the kind of objections he received in a secular scientific journal surprised him. Admittedly, he was writing as an outsider (outside the sphere of professional scientific scholarship), so he may have been subject to correction on some of his scientific data. But instead, a prominent negative book review resorted to philosophic and theological objections (such as the problem of evil, etc.) but did not contradict is scientific information.

So, we have considered three categories in which proponents of Neo-Darwinianism “borrow credibility” in advancing their model. This blurring of micro and macro evolution, operational and origins science, and scientific and philosophical reasoning have allowed the proponents of evolution to appear to have a stronger case than they have. Such borrowing was instrumental in the pro-evolution ruling of Judge John E. Jones III in the Kitzmiller et al .vs. Dover Area School Board case. His errors in ruling included his belief that the Intelligent Design had been refuted by science, which was false.[4]

Hugh Ross has cataloged 93 parameters which must be just right to support life on earth. The probability of these conditions converging on a planet like earth without a Designer is estimated to be less than 1 in 10 with 282 zeros!! And that impossible “chance” deals with the environment being fine tuned to support life without explaning the existence and complexity of living organisms.[5]

Since such “borrowing” of credibility has been going on, almost 50% of Americans (who believe God created human beings in their present form with no apelike ancestor) should demand an “audit”! The handwriting is on the wall. It’s time to cut off the unwarranted borrowing so the theory of Darwinian evolution can be weighed in the balance and found lacking of credibility (Dan. 5:27).

The biblical verdict stands:

“[against those] who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…” (Rom 1:18-22).

The creationist can conduct scientific inquiry with admiration and humility, echoing Psalmist:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;…
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;…

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer” (Psalm 19:1-7,14)

[1] Redeeming Darwin: The Intelliegent Design Controversy was produced on DVD and notebook by Probe Ministries and EvanTell. /

[2] “Microevolution happens when genetic information from the male and female of the same “type” (e.g., dogs) combines during reproduction. This results in different gene combinations, resulting in differing characteristics such as hair color, skin color, hair thickness, eye color, height, and many more, so that distinct changes are observed in the offspring. However, microevolution does not result in a change from one kind to another. It merely results in differentiation within the same kind.”- Daniel Parkes

[3] bracketed words added.

[4] Discovery Institute has over 700 signatures of credentialed scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism.


For evidence of academic censorship of ID research, see

The article is copyrighted 2013 by John Woodward; permission is granted to reprint for non-commercial use if source information is included. Biblical quotations are from The New King James Version (copyright by Thomas Nelson).

Posted in