alism cannot possibly explain the complexity of the human mind and that those who adopt Darwin’s theories as science are harboring naturalistic ideologies that encourage their support of it, “Neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology is the fruit of naturalistic philosophy. He does not believe that naturalistic explanations of the origin of living things are adequate. God created: possibly out of nothing, but possibly making use of evolutionary processes…the case for evolution is not proven” (Tyler 1).
Yet, science tends to formulate a hypothesis and then try to design investigations to disprove it. The creationist ideology embraces Scripture as the source of ultimate truth, verification of God’s authority and his creation of man. But experiments conducted by evolutionists may not prevent individuals from conceiving of a God who uses evolution as a tool of development, but it certainly has proven if such a Being exists, it is not the God of Scripture. As Darwin himself argued after his studies in the Galapagos Islands, “Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray” (Tyler 1).
Still, there are others who argue evolutionary biology is as much a product of human perceptions, values and ideologies as any non-subjective discipline like philosophy, religion or the arts. One philosophy and zoology professor argues that the paradigm of evolutionary biology houses an inherent value that is subjective and cultural, not objective and scientific, “The idea of Progress, that there w
...