The scientific establishment argues strongly for evolution. Apparently the “evidence is overwhelming”, though I remain underwhelmed, among others. I won’t speak for everyone, just myself—why is this little guy holding out against the crowds of evolutionists, who undoubtedly know a lot more about biology and genetics than I could ever hope to? Why won’t I put my trust in evolutionary science?

In this part 1, I contend that the current scientific institutions are not set up to honestly consider the possibility of divine creation.

Evolution in one limited way is compelling: if there is no God, then evolution assuredly is the only conceivable explanation of the development of life as we see it.

However that “if there is no God” is a very big “if”. So my next question is, what is science doing to figure out that “if”? The answer as far as I can see it is: very little. Which is surprising. One reason given is that anything that must be attributed to miraculous or beyond-nature explanations is, by definition, not able to be explored by science. TalkOrigins summarises it here, and seems to make some good points. However, in the discussion of origins, it seems science is still not being honest with the big questions.

Evolution, as portrayed to the general public by David Attenborough and many others, attributes life and its marvels to evolution alone. The implication is that no God is needed—evolution can do just fine by itself. That betrays an anti-God bias, which isn’t good science.

When I look at the amazing and complex structures, functions, and communities of organisms that we see, personally it seems to so positively suggest a designer. Not only a designer, but a fabulous one. Humans, who are intelligent and focused on an outcome, cannot create anything as magnificent as what is in nature. Humans frequently find inspiration in nature when trying to break new technological ground. So why is the super designer option not given attention as a viable possibility? It just doesn’t make sense to ignore it, despite special creation being awkward to “test with science”. Rather, it seems to be an axiom of evolutionary science: there is no super designer; look for a naturalistic explanation. But that’s bad science. If you start with that axiom, inevitably you’ll come to a naturalistic conclusion.

Even if creation by God is hard to test, it’s sensible science to ask the question of whether evolution is a feasible explanation. Is it probable or possible for evolution to make what we see, in the time that was available, with the conditions available? Again, I don’t see this question being honestly asked; rather it appears that it is assumed as axiomatically true. That’s bad science.

The way evolutionary science pushes ahead without considering these basic questions, makes me think that evolutionary science doesn’t really want to ask these questions. The way it pushes ahead, confident that evolutionary science will eventually find all the answers, makes me think that the minds are closed to the possibility that evolution isn’t viable; that we actually needed a God to put us here. There is an anti-God bias. That alone gives me confidence that they could well be making a grand error. They’ve already made up their minds. If God made everything, then evolutionary science as it is being practised is not going to discover it. And that is bad science.

In part 2, I examine the idea that “religion is scientifically untestable”, and the consequences of that philosophy.