I submit that evolution, as presented today, is a “just so” story. A Just So story is one that must have a very fantastic set of events in order to be true. Our evolutionist friends seem to have an answer for everything, whether there is any evidence for it or not. Whenever a question arises, they come up with a Just So story to explain it. For example, the fossil record has what has been described as the “cambrian explosion” where the fossil record begins in the cambrian or pre-cambrian era with highly developed fossils, numerous, complex phyla, with no precursor species evident in the fossils. Despite the lack of evidence, they simply say “it could be that that was the first time hard shells developed, increasing the odds of fossilization.” Then they proceed as if an “it could be” explanation has actually explained things. Everything has a Just So account that must at all costs have a root in purely naturalistic causes.
Of course, it really could be that development of hard skeletal bodies happened across many species in many diverse animal groups all in a relatively short period of time, causing mass fossilization in the ancient fossils. It would have required the same mutations in a myriad of species in a short period of time, but it could have happened. That’s not my point. Rather, the fact that such an explanation is so widely accepted with such little evidence is proof that the evolutionists are readily accepting Just So stories and not really seeking true evidence.
Let me illustrate. Years ago in Boston the populace woke up to find a police car parked atop a domed building in the middle of downtown. There was a bag of doughnuts in the seat. Now, such an event really could have had a completely naturalistic explanation. “It could be” that a tornado picked up a police car and set it down perfectly on top of the building while disturbing nothing else, leaving the doughnuts in place. It could be, but that reeks of a Just So story that few would accept. It seems much more likely that MIT students pulled another of their famous pranks. But if one approaches the problem with ironclad presuppositions that only naturalistic causes are admitted, then of course natural causes could be the only explanation. The possibility that intelligent forces from MIT were the cause is eliminated without consideration.
While we don’t want to be guilty of “God in the machine” fallacy (deus ex machina), which explains all unknown events by putting God in the machine, we also do not want to have the equally bad fallacy of eliminating supernatural causes by presupposition. Such a fallcy uses purely natural observations to try to disprove supernatural causes, a logical impossibility. Naturalism is a philosophical view that cannot be tested empirically, but is the dominant view in technical circles today. Natrualism makes increasing use of Just So stories to explain away pesky problems that seem to not go away.