Chuck Nelson

A “true” Darwinist is an individual who embraces naturalistic or materialistic philosophy and evolution theory at a metaphysical level. The Darwinist views naturalistic philosophy and biological evolution as the essence of reality and, consequently, the only possible starting and ending place for a proper understanding of the physical world we live in. These philosophical (if not religious) presuppositions are the essence of the Darwinist worldview, which has been embraced by much of academia as well as the popular media. Today, the modern concept of science (neo-science) is so closely identified with Darwinism that evolution theory is assumed while any model of origins involving creation or intelligent design is excluded from consideration – on philosophical rather than scientific grounds.

With this philosophical background, let’s look over Darwinism’s shoulder and see how origins “science” is influenced by Darwinian presuppositions. Contrary to popular belief, science, particularly historical (origins) science, is not always practiced in the context of sterile objectivity. Scientists are first people and then scientists. People are influenced by their beliefs, presuppositions and peer pressure. Accordingly, when we observe the practice of science, we find that scientists often see what they want to see, expect to see or what they are expected to see. This is most apparent in historical science – that area of science that involves the study of unobserved and unrepeatable past events such as the supposed Big Bang, creation, the origin of life and macroevolution.

One of the most hotly debated topics within Darwinism is the subject of human evolution. Darwinists don’t doubt the “fact” of human evolution; it’s fundamental to their worldview. However, just as creationists divide themselves into camps, Darwinists tend to divide themselves into closely guarded camps based on their allegiance to one or another particular theory of human origins. The evidence for human evolution is so lacking that each new significant fossil find tends to attract a great deal of attention and the finder is often afforded the opportunity to rewrite the story of human evolution – yet again.

The competition to be the paleoanthropologist who finds a truly significant and definitive “missing link” in the “evolving” story of human evolution is exceptionally strong. The pervasive interest in human origins ensures that each new significant fossil find will generate substantial publicity and where there is publicity, generous funding is likely to follow. With naturalistic evolution serving as a philosophical framework and fame and fortune in the offing, it’s no wonder that scientific objectivity is too often the real missing link when it comes to human evolution.

5/10/04