Calvin Smith has a good piece at Creation Ministries International on whether evolution theory measures up to the definition of "science" as defined by evolutionists themselves.
So is evolution "scientific?"
Smith made a short list of the elements of criteria laid out by the pro-evolution National Science Education Standards (NSES):
4-Open to criticism
Sounds reasonable, right? So how does evolution theory measure up?
Smith cites vociferous evolutionist Richard Dawkins to indict evolution theory in the area of observational data:
After being chided recently by a creationist on a UK TV program about his comment; ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening’, Dawkins attempted to parry with a prepared comment:
‘The refusal to believe in anything you can’t see yourself is absurd. Think about it, I never saw Napoleon with my own eyes, but that doesn’t mean Napoleon didn’t exist.’
And Bible believers everywhere said, Amen! However, I’d reckon atheists were figuratively banging their heads against their TV sets because of Dawkins ‘letting the cat out of the bag’. The existence of Napoleon or Jesus Christ can only be known through historical records, not operational science. So the scientific method cannot be invoked.
Once again the world’s most vocal champion of evolution and the outgoing Oxford University Chair for the Public Understanding of Science has revealed that evolution hasn’t been observed! So according to the NSES, (‘ … all scientific ideas depend on experimental and observational confirmation … ’) evolution fails their first criteria as being scientific.
But apostles of the religion of evolution can make "accurate prediction" and thus fulfill criteria #2, right? Well, not really.
The fossil record has never panned out as Charles Darwin hoped it would. Smith cites a recent National Geographic article which admits:
‘Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.'
Wow. That's a lot to build a sound theory upon, isn't it? One frame out of 1,000? Uh huh.
Speculation about vestigial organs has proven to be all wet, too. Hmm. Maybe evolution can't make the predictions we thought.
But hey, at least it meets criteria #3 and is perfectly logical, right? Well....
Imagine you open your front door and see a robot walking on two legs along the street carrying a package on its shoulder. The package is marked with an address, that the robot has followed and arrived at.
Glancing at your neighbour you say ‘Who do you think made the robot?’ To which he says ‘I don’t think anyone made it, I think it made itself!’ With even a lay person’s knowledge of basic engineering, would this be a logical conclusion?
Okay, but evolution theory and evolutionists meet #4, being totally open to criticism. After all, they have all the facts on their side. They have nothing to fear. This issue was settled a long time ago, so criticisms are no problem, right? Well...
The newly released documentary Expelled blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.
The movie reveals that even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view. A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who resigned within a couple of days after suggesting that creationism and ID should be discussed in classrooms.
Hmmm. Okay, so evolution theory has miserably failed four out of the six criteria, so far. But it can still pull in the big win with the last two, right? After all, what we know and teach about evolution relies on completely accurate information, right? At the risk of sounding repetitive, "Well...."
Those that have been around the creation/evolution debate are usually familiar with hoaxes like Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor (the Piltdown Bird!), Nebraska man and the Staged photos of peppered moths, all fraudulent ‘evidences’ used to promote the theory of evolution.
One such fraud refuses to die it seems. I was shocked days ago when flipping through my daughter’s science text book to find Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings! I knew these had still been used in textbooks up to a short while ago but couldn’t believe my eyes to see it used in 2008 science curricula. This false ‘evidence’ was created in the 1860’s
Alright, but hey: at least it isn't full of presuppositions like creation science and intelligent design theory is. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllll...
In order to be truly neutral (hold no presuppositions) regarding the theory of origins, one would have to be open to the view that life could have arisen completely naturalistically, while simultaneously accepting that it may have been intelligently designed. You would then conduct investigations to see which hypothesis is better supported. But many evolutionists are atheists or were taught by atheists. By definition an atheist is;
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.13
So how can an atheist be unbiased or hold no presuppositions when their world view pre-supposes ‘no-God’?
Smith also cites this admission of bias from evolutionist Richard Lewontin:
‘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 mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Author Aldous Huxley, grandson of "Darwin's bulldog" T.H. Huxley, admitted the license of Godlessness was central to his acceptance of this worldview:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
Smith's article also mentions a very interesting 1983 quote from the Official Journal-American Humanist Association
‘I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism …
Notice that this humanist at least had the intellectual integrity to admit that humanism is a faith, a religion?
Well, it looks like evolution theory fares no better than creation science or intelligent design in these six criteria put forth by the NSES.
So if both evolution theory and creation science can now start on a level playing field of consideration, the next step is to examine the theories and contentions of both and see how well they fit the evidence.
Interestingly, evolution does pitifully here, too. I won't take time to go into the details (which can be found easily across the internet) and make this post any longer, but the elementary implications alone are enough to doom evolution theory before it gets off the launch pad.
There are a great number of hinge-pins required to make materialism/naturalism/evolution a workable theory. They include a universe that sprang from absolutely nothing (in violation of scientific principles) with no cause (in violation of scientific principles), and required stars and other planetary bodies to form (in violation of scientific principles), and life to spring from lifeless matter (in violation of scientific principles).
And since evolutionists make an a priori insistence that there cannot be supernatural intervention or causation, they are left with events which must happen without supernatural help...yet are impossible according to the laws of nature.
Creation, on the other hand, assumes an infinite, all-powerful creator who spoke a universe into being, and had it completely ordered and fully functional--including human life--in six days.
The science of such a feat definitely inspires curiosity and wonder. Yet if one can believe Genesis 1:1, then every other truth-claim in the Bible is very easy to accept.
To put it simply, the claims of creation science are entirely possible within its own framework.
The claims of evolution, however, are impossible within its own framework.