Darwin evolution was not a result of sincerely seeking truth by observation nor simply the logical result of observation.
Nor should we assume is the case with much of modern science.
As what the following details :
" In 1830 the English geologist Charles Lyell published the first of three books on geology, which still form the foundation of the discipline. Lyell basically excluded from his deliberations the possibility of such catastrophes [reported in the Bible as the flood.., which imply the supernatural involvement of God and which where unacceptable to the burgeoning scientism of the time. He]...attempted to explain the rise of different geological strata through processes which are still observable today...
Now it is a historical fact of considerable importance that these new insights were not essentially grounded in new scientific discoveries. These would come later, for when one is unconditionally bent on finding something, then sometimes often crops up which appears to be the thing being looked for.
The impetus for development of the evolutionary conception of geology was, then, philosophical deliberations. That is highly significant. The point of departure of this new outlook was not changes in facts but rather changes in the presuppositions with which the facts were regarded.
It was just the same with Charles Darwin, who as a young man read Lyell's books and found an indirect answer for a question which had exercised him greatly. For he refused to accept the assumption that all living things had come from God's creative act; yet he could not conceive of an alternative possibility. Now he became familiar with Lyells ideas. In them he found the notion that our world must be very old, for the gradual formation of the geological strata would obviously have required a great deal of time.
And it was precisely such long spans of time which Darwin would later require for his view of the origin of the species. For the development of life forms necessitated billions of years; otherwise Darwin's ideas would have been absurd from the start.
These notions exerted mutual influence on each other. Later Darwin Published his theory of evolution-likewise not essentially on the basis of new scientific discoveries, but rather based on philosophical considerations...14
He was looking for another solution to the problem of "the origin of life" for he did not want to believe any more in creation. He had a long period of doubting his faith between the ages of 22 and 29, and during this time he read an essay by the clergyman Thomas Robert Malthus on overpopulation.
Malthus taught that wars, famines, and epidemics were necessary, for that was the only way for overpopulation to be dealt with. there is said Malthus, a struggle for existence, the survival of the strongest or the fittest.
"And than it suddenly dawned on me," reported Darwin later. all at once he realized what the correct solution to his problem was. The next 20 years, until 1859, he spent gathering arguments for his new theory.
Do you see how Darwin's views originated ? Actually, it originated in the same manner that science in general operates. Science begins not so much with making observations and then constructing a theory. Rather, it begins with a conception, with an idea....
Perhaps you have the erroneous notion that scientist are entirely rational persons who function totally objectively, who gather and organize facts in an unbiased fashion. Well, Darwin is not the only one who operated as he did : all scientist employ these methods.15
W.J Ouweneel, Der Untergang des christlichen Abedlands (2d ed., Heykoop, The Netherlands, 1978) 25-30
add : as recorded in Eta Linnemann's book : Historical Criticism of the Bible Methodology or Ideology
