Image from the Kolbe Center (http://www.kolbecenter.org/)
What if I tell you that Richard Dawkins is against evolution theory? Or that Darwin’s hypotheses cannot be classified as a Theory? Moreover, what if current Physics research is leaning towards creation than evolution as the origin of the universe?
Would that make evolution disappear as a possible theory?
Well, it is certainly that Darwin’s hypotheses have been rooted in our current culture that it will take more than an affirmative answer to all the previous question to make it go. Nevertheless, let me present with the answers:
1) Richard Dawkins (Famous atheist and biologist) wrote in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
“Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an
extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not
exceed 100 billion billion to one.”
What? 100 billion billion to 1 probability of evolution theory to be possible! For me, He does not believe in evolution or maybe, he has greater faith than me. Awkward that an Atheist has more faith than a Non-Atheist…
2) “In practice, evolution is neither fact nor theory. A theory is a well-supported—but falsifiable—body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power (e.g., the theory of gravity). Evolution, however, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation).” (From answersingenesis.org)
So, evolution should be considered a hypothesis and not a theory.
3) Allow me to quote Father Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D (Yep, a catholic priest):
First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).
Secondly, if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a “vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have specific characteristics and parameters, but nothing is not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.
Thirdly, nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression was, “from nothing, only nothing comes.”
Fourthly, if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.
Finally, if the universe could not have made itself something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (a “Creator”).