Rawlings School of Divinity


Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics (MA)


John Steven Knox


neo-Darwinism, Darwinism, fallacies, a priori assumptions, presuppositions, scientific method, gradualism, tree of life, methodological naturalism, materialism, causality




This paper investigates neo-Darwinian fallacies specifically regarding a priori presumptions, leading to weak scientific methodology and praxis. It was found that five concepts must be true for neo-Darwinism to be true. These are gradualism, the tree of life hypothesis, the evidence of micro-evolutionary change accounting for macro-evolutionary change, time and chance, and methodological naturalism. Prima facie, these concepts have tremendous explanatory power. However, with an attempt to carefully examine these concepts, all five seem to be assumed a priori in order to dictate the outcome of neo-Darwinism rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. Coincidentally, it appears that the evidence does not support any of these five concepts. The evidence left by the Cambrian explosion, genomic potential, genetic entropy, irreducible complexity, genetic limits, cyclical change, probability theory, the epistemology of information, and the law of causality seems to provide contrary evidence to the five neo-Darwinian a priori assumptions. Additionally, potential biases for pushing neo-Darwinism were also examined and were found to play a significant role in the arrival of neo-Darwinian conclusions.

Included in

Philosophy Commons