The Philosophy of Evolution

Jonathan Wells was asked, “Why are the fraudulent and misleading Miller / Urey experiments purporting to produce amino acids from the components of early earth’s atmosphere still in school science books and why are well known scientists still referring to these failed experiments as proof for naturalistic evolution?”

He responded, “It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The attitude is that life had to have developed [naturally] because [if you deny the existence of God] there’s no explanation other than materialism. And if you try to invoke another explanation - then the evolutionists claim you’re not a scientist.”

It should be noted that along with the Miller / Urey fiasco,
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.

. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

If there is so much new evidence for macro evolution why is fraudulent evidence, lies really, still being used?

There is only one reason that science is still leaning on fraud and deception to build up evolution and that is because there is nothing more substantial to use. When confronted with the LACK of evidence, these “scientists” say, “Well, we know the theory is true even if the evidence doesn’t support it.”

“It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The attitude is that life had to have developed [naturally] because [if you deny the existence of God] there’s no other materialistic explanation.”
Jonathan Wells