Evolution under the Microscope, by David Swift
The premise of the book is that evolution has indeed occurred, such as the evolution of the horse, (and although the subject is not covered, I suspect that there has been evolution of whales as well) but that evolution is limited, and is the result of gene segregation, and macro-evolution (the generation of new information in the genes) has not occurred. Species are not fixed, sub species and even new species can arise from an original population, such as the American sparrow, and the lesser black backed gull, which is very closely related to the herring gull.
The stratification of the geologic column is not questioned, but it is shown that new genera arise suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, and that there are no intermediate fossils. There are two opposing views; strict naturalism, which is the current paradigm, and religious doctrine, which most scientists don’t want anything to do with, as it is thought to be associated with anti-scientific beliefs. The author makes the point that we all exist within a particular paradigm; we have been taught that Darwinian evolution is true, and we do not question that.
Knowledge is passed on, and we don’t have to rediscover everything from scratch, so what we are taught is thought to be true. The general public is taught from the earliest age, that evolution is true. The last major paradigm to be revised was the geocentric model, however, I am not totally convinced that the geocentric model is false, but heliocentrism is now the established paradigm.
The industrial melanism of the peppered moth is shown to be evolution by natural selection, due to gene segregation, evolution within limits. I skipped a few chapters, which I will go back to later, as much of the information is beyond my academic level, it is really geared towards the university student, studying biology, rather than for the layman. The author concludes by saying that biology shows design, although any religious opinions are not expressed.
For me, reading the book has been useful in trying to get to the truth of the matter; that life has not arisen according to the biblical scenario, but new species have arisen over geological ages, call it progressive creationism, although the process is not progressive, but I don’t know of any other way to describe it at the moment. The most important concept to understand, is that we are now living within a particular paradigm, and that is unlikely to change, as people abhor a vacuum, and there is nothing else to replace Darwinism, and that is why Darwinism persists, despite the evidence to show the theories limitations.
Darwin got some of it right, but he did not have the knowledge of biology that is now known. Because evolution occurs, people assume that life is the result of naturalistic processes. Most people will not think to question what they have been taught; there would be no reason to do so. The alternative might appear to be religious fundamentalism, but for me, that resembles the days of the middle ages and the church, and the persecution of people who were unable to continue to perpetuate the existing beliefs, just because that was what was believed at that time, despite the evidence to the contrary.
The premise of the book is that evolution has indeed occurred, such as the evolution of the horse, (and although the subject is not covered, I suspect that there has been evolution of whales as well) but that evolution is limited, and is the result of gene segregation, and macro-evolution (the generation of new information in the genes) has not occurred. Species are not fixed, sub species and even new species can arise from an original population, such as the American sparrow, and the lesser black backed gull, which is very closely related to the herring gull.
The stratification of the geologic column is not questioned, but it is shown that new genera arise suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, and that there are no intermediate fossils. There are two opposing views; strict naturalism, which is the current paradigm, and religious doctrine, which most scientists don’t want anything to do with, as it is thought to be associated with anti-scientific beliefs. The author makes the point that we all exist within a particular paradigm; we have been taught that Darwinian evolution is true, and we do not question that.
Knowledge is passed on, and we don’t have to rediscover everything from scratch, so what we are taught is thought to be true. The general public is taught from the earliest age, that evolution is true. The last major paradigm to be revised was the geocentric model, however, I am not totally convinced that the geocentric model is false, but heliocentrism is now the established paradigm.
The industrial melanism of the peppered moth is shown to be evolution by natural selection, due to gene segregation, evolution within limits. I skipped a few chapters, which I will go back to later, as much of the information is beyond my academic level, it is really geared towards the university student, studying biology, rather than for the layman. The author concludes by saying that biology shows design, although any religious opinions are not expressed.
For me, reading the book has been useful in trying to get to the truth of the matter; that life has not arisen according to the biblical scenario, but new species have arisen over geological ages, call it progressive creationism, although the process is not progressive, but I don’t know of any other way to describe it at the moment. The most important concept to understand, is that we are now living within a particular paradigm, and that is unlikely to change, as people abhor a vacuum, and there is nothing else to replace Darwinism, and that is why Darwinism persists, despite the evidence to show the theories limitations.
Darwin got some of it right, but he did not have the knowledge of biology that is now known. Because evolution occurs, people assume that life is the result of naturalistic processes. Most people will not think to question what they have been taught; there would be no reason to do so. The alternative might appear to be religious fundamentalism, but for me, that resembles the days of the middle ages and the church, and the persecution of people who were unable to continue to perpetuate the existing beliefs, just because that was what was believed at that time, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
