Evolution and Reason

As a philosopher, I like to see people putting together thoughts in a logical sequence. For example:

1. All men are mortal. (This is known as the major premise.)
2. Socrates is a man. (This is known as the minor premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (This is the conclusion)

It is a beautiful thing when scientists use reason and experience to reach a conclusion in this way. For example:

1. Spectral lines shift to red when objects are moving away from us.
2. The spectral lines of most objects in the universe shift to red.
3. Therefore, the universe is probably expanding.

Unfortunately, I do not see people who believe in evolution reasoning in this way.

I recently spoke with the husband of a colleague of mine, an engineer. I mentioned to him my desire to hear a reasonable explanation of evolution, using scientific evidence.

"Animals have analogous structures," he said.

Animals have similar structures. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise that would allow one to reach that conclusion? He had no answer.

"E. Coli and fruit flies adapt to their environments in the laboratory," he said.

E. Coli and fruit flied adapt to their environments in the laboratory. Therefore, higher animals are descended from lower animals. Where is the major premise? No answer. (This is besides the fact that, after all their adaptations, e. Coli are still bacteria and fruit flies are still flies.)

"Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs," he said.

Scientists have discovered fossils of a fish with four limbs. Therefore, tetrapods that walk on land are descended from fish. Major premise? None. (This is besides the fact that there are four-limbed fish swimming around to this day: they use their limbs to push themselves off the bottom of the sea or swamp.)

This is not logic, it is superstition. ("I wore this sweaty cap three saves in a row," thinks the closer, "so wearing a sweaty cap will help me get the next save.)

Now how might someone, using reason and experience, use the example of homologous structures to reach a different conclusion?

1. In the case of works of art and music, similarities in structure usually indicate a common author.
2. Animals have similarities in structure.
3. Therefore, animals probably have a common author--namely, God.

How about fruit flies and e. Coli?

1. An intelligent Creator would create animals capable of adapting to their environments.
2. Fruit flies and e. Coli adapt to their environments in a laboratory.
3. Therefore, fruit flies and e. Coli probably were probably created by an intelligent Creator.

These are not definitive proofs, but at least they make use of actual observations and take the form of a logical series of statements. That is more than can be said for the ideas of evolutionists, at least in the way that I have seen them presented.

Until someone can do better, I'll need to assume that the theory of evolution is unsupported either by reason or experience.