‘It is absurd to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything’ G. K. Chesterton.
Among the first things one notices when he studies earnestly and extensively in a given field is that the experts in that field frequently contradict one another. I refer here not merely to a complementary diversity of approach and conclusion (this diversity is also present) but to logical contradictions. That is, what one scholar affirms another denies in the same sense and meaning.
Astronomers disagree among themselves as to the age of the universe, and the disagreement is not slight. The usual estimate lies somewhere between fifteen and eighteen billion years, but recent astronomers consider this estimate a mistake. They place the age at about nine billion years. If this latter opinion is correct, it will upset many other theories about the age of the stars and the development of visible creation. Many astrophysicists, perhaps the large majority of them, hold that there are such things in space as black holes, and that the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy is a real possibility. Now comes along a group of American scientists, Frank Tipler et al., who say that the way atomic particles behave predicts either that black holes will never be formed, or if they do form they will explode immediately and catastrophically. Tipler et al. likewise deny the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. A scientific periodical tells us that ‘in the past decade virtually everything that was supposedly known about the sun has been cast in doubt – from the fires that warm its heart to the explosions that rack its outer layers’ (Discover magazine ‘The Sun turns savage’ by D. Overbye). There are many more examples and my purpose is not to decide who is right and who is wrong in all these matters but simply to show that disagreements among experts is common indeed.
For years and years scientists have proclaimed the Darwinian explanation of evolution as being undoubtedly true, and they dismissed as benighted anyone who suggested otherwise. Now we find among the most prominent in the field many who are sure that Darwin’s explanation just does not fit the evidence of the paleontological record and have proved it. Today, a large number of proponents of evolution (not only the sizeable group of scientists who reject it) hold that the paleontological strata by no means support the idea of gradual change. These researchers now can openly prove that what the strata do show is the sudden appearance of new forms complete according to their kind, some slight changes among some species with no intermediate forms and the unchanged perdurance of many species over millions of years, even to thirty and seventy million years.
All this is of course totally incompatible with Darwin’s explanation, then why hasn’t this fact yet filtered down into the popular literature and ordinary school textbooks?