Evolution – To a Scientist, it is a Matter of Worldview
Columbus sailed with the outlook of discovering India by a new route. When he reached the new world, he did not recognize it as such, but thought it must be part of India, or islands near India. He named the natives "Indians." It is like that with some evolutionists. They have their minds set with the idea that there is no Creator. Things had to happen without supernatural intervention. Having determined this in their thinking, absolutely nothing can cause them to consider anything that is not a materialistic explanation. No matter how hard-pressed such a person may be for lack of evidence or logic, especially in the light of recent discoveries in microbiology, he must search around for some way to explain things without an intelligent inventor. This is a primary reason for the persistence of evolution. It is a chosen worldview or philosophy of life, rather than science.
Without a strong advance commitment to the philosophy of evolution, would any reasonable person ever stretch logic so far as to believe, for example, that the ponderous jaw bones of reptiles evolved into the delicate, intricately matched bones of the inner ear, whose exact length and precise hinged motion transmit sound to the inner eardrum, not even to mention the irreducible complexity of the chemical and electrical system in ear and brain that allows us to actually hear the sounds? Those who thus believe should at least refrain from ever criticizing the most unreasoning devotee from any religion for his persistence in finding explanations which fit his belief, even if his particular religion happens to be a false one.
The Christian may now not be able to give ideal answers to some questions, but the evolutionist is in far worse shape when it comes to solutions for difficult questions. In fact, only belief in an intelligent Creator can provide a really adequate worldview or cosmic philosophy that can encompass the whole range of things. Although there are still problems, recent discoveries have, for the Bible believer, solved several that formerly had no explanation. For any mysteries remaining, consider this statement by Pierre Lecomte du Noüy:
Evolution - A Matter of Responsibility
Many materialists seem to fear the idea that there may be purpose or design in nature. This fear appears to be based on aversion to considering that there may be Someone in charge of the universe, to whom we would be responsible. Even intelligent people will sometimes resist the sensible but humbling knowledge "that they are parts and not masters of the awesome mystery called creation."2 The new company vice-president who likes to give the impression that he owns the company is an example. The night custodian who relaxes with his feet on the boss' desk exemplifies also this human tendency to want to exalt ourselves. The pride of man is a well-known fact to the students of human nature. If there is no God, man can take all the credit or give it to something less than himself, such as "chance." He can then do as he pleases, without being limited by ideas of a future accounting, a judgment, a heaven and hell.
Science cannot create the truth of reality. Nor can religion. They have only two choices: either describe and conform to the actual reality, or create a false reality and pay the price for the consequences of being wrong. Many scientists close their minds to considering God; they are like the small boy who shut his eyes and told others: "You can't see me." Dr. Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."3
By deciding there is no God, man thinks he is rid of Him. The loss is enormous. It is a poor substitute when man turns to chance as his god. To depend on mutations as the raw material of evolution, for example, is to postulate "creation by mistake" because the assumed development would arise from errors and injuries involving DNA. Evolutionary scientists, nevertheless, spend lifetimes searching for the reasons for various organs and life processes -- never doubting that there are such reasons.