I put the word “theory” in quotes because the root meaning of the word has to do with looking at something, observing it somehow directly. But who has seen a dinosaur? What evolution “scientists” see is remains, fossils, objects from long ago that resemble objects of more recent origin. They assume that these remnants from long ago relate to long ago creatures in the same way (i.e., according to the same directly observed and verifiable patterns) that more recent remnants relate to the directly observed creatures of more recent times. Accordingly, they infer what they can about the physical appearance and bodily functions. Obviously, such inferences are more a function of imagination than observation.
In this respect evolutionists seem to employ deductive reasoning, like that of Sherlock Holmes in Conan Doyle’s stories. But Holmes bases his inferences on direct experiment and observation (e.g., he carefully observes the characteristics (dress, callouses, gait, speech, etc.) of people in various trades and professions to develop a catalog of correlations. Or he burns cigars and cigarettes made with various tobaccos and carefully examines the resulting ashes.
But what if he had never seen, and could never directly observe, a cigarette or a cigar? What if he had never been able to conduct properly constructed and controlled experiments to see how they burn? What if all he could do was examine the ashes? On the basis of what experimentally verified correlation could he tell you that they came from a fat Cubano, rolled on the thighs of virgins? If he did, would his “deduction” be a scientific conclusion, or romantic fantasy?
But, for the sake of the argument, let’s overlook the imaginatively speculative nature of the evolutionist’s inferences while we think through what allows them to claim any accuracy at all. This claim is based on the assumption that a regular, dynamic order, such as we can directly, observe, quantify, and analyze today, also structured events during long ago times. In the parlance of contemporary cybernetics, this roughly translates into the assumption that the same program (including in that term the language in which it was written) that produces the regular, dynamic events we observe now was running at that long ago time, and has been running in every era since then.
Where did the program come from? Did the dynamic correlations required for it to function (the words and syntax of the language in which it is written) suddenly appear out of nowhere? If so, how can we be sure that what it has produced over time is simply the result of random chance, rather then a carefully choreographed sequence of events, elaborately designed to take account of every eventuality?
But even if the material variegated universe “evolved” from nothing, how can we assume that, in the stark, undifferentiated being of its first condition, there were any ordered, dynamic relations at all? Where all is one, there is no occasion for communication; therefore, no language of communication. Even if we posit the sudden self-differentiation of that unitary being, undifferentiated nothingness is all there is to produce that first differentiation. But where there is no inkling of changeableness, no hint of reflectivity or otherness, does our way of understanding things have any meaning whatsoever.
In being at first no language exists, in any empirical sense, because no different things to exchange with one another its tokens of the undifferentiated being which informs the difference between them (for without this being, they would not be in relation to one another at all, because a) they would not be in any way at all; or b) the relation between them would not be in any way, in which event no difference would be informed by it.
No one need be ashamed to find this sort of thinking difficult to understand, for it defies the rule that is absolutely essential for our understanding, the rule that forces us to distinguish being from not being, and that insists on maintaining that distinction even though ‘not being’ still evokes a way of being.
But the move from simply being to being differentiated in and from itself requires the division of being from being. Along the way, simple being must simply cease to be, but nonetheless carry on, by way of being not itself. But what is the being not itself, if not not-being? The answer question cannot take hold of understanding such as ours.
As it escapes the law of being and not being, that which simply surely has no other law or rule to govern it. For, as far as we can know, law is just another way of being, distinguished, in the first place, from being-itself-simply by not-being-itself (i.e., not being being) at the same time that it is being-the-being (law) that governs it; which contradiction we cannot comprehend. (The sophists can pretend, if they like, that being-law in no way involves being itself, but if the law is not being itself, it is not being law. Thus it is being (law) and not-being (law) at the same time. Who claims to understand this?)
In being-itself, simply being is sufficient for it to be, and in all ways remain, exactly as it is. The sheer self-sufficiency of simply being is the first quality our understanding attributes to God, because it is all that remains once everything except being itself has been taken away. Nothing else remains. But precisely because there is nothing for it to work with, our understanding pauses before this moment of being-without-recourse-to-any-other. Being is there, but then it trips over the presence of being (the ‘is’) assumed in that acknowledgement. What is left when that assumption is also eliminated? Being being, which is very like what the Bible reports to be the name by which Moses is commanded (by God) to refer to…God.
So whether the program has always been running or, from nothing, suddenly appears, what evolutionists take for granted is the very being they pretend to do without.