Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Evolution Theory Is Not Scientific

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):

1-Observational data

2-Accurate predictions


4-Open to criticism

5-Accurate information

6-No presuppositions

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.

Evolution comes up woefully short in the "scientific" department.


Paul Burnett said...

Bob Ellis wrote "...the claims of creation science are entirely possible within its own framework."

Bob conveniently forgets to mention that the US Supreme Court ruled against the bogus "creation science" in 1987, saying it cannot be taught in public schools because it's religion, not science. And in 2005, a Federal Court judge ruled "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Whether you call it "creationism," "creation science," "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design creationism," it's not science but religion.

But since Bob wants to use Genesis and the Bible as if they contain scientific facts, let's consider a few other "facts"

A talking donkey (Numbers 22:28-30)

A talking snake (Genesis 3:1-5)

Stopping the rotation of the earth (Joshua 10:12-13)

Pi Equals 3.00... (I Kings 7:23)

Four-legged insects (Leviticus 11:20-23)

There's lots of other "information" in the Bible, approving ethnic cleansing and incest (Lot and his daughters) and polygamy. But would you want the above specific examples to be used in biology and mathematics and astronomy textbooks?

Bob Ellis said...

Do you know what "within its own framework" means, Paul? I thought I had done a pretty fair job of making the framework of creation science and evolution theory plain, but I know this can be tough ground to plow for someone who's used to accepting evolution without question.

Creation science assumes an intelligent designer, specifically the God of the Bible. If God can accomplish but one verse of the Bible (Genesis 1:1), the rest is a cakewalk, including talking animals and stopping the rotation of a single planet. Again, if you can speak a cosmos billions of light years across filled with billions of stars into being, a talking donkey hardly takes any focus at all. Follow me, here?

The claims of the Bible about creation and the world around us are many things at one time: theological instruction, a historical record, and, yes, scientific. If God created the universe and the scientific laws that govern it, does it not make sense that he would both understand and supersede those laws, just as, say, a computer programmer with the knowledge and access to the code can supersede the normal operation of a program?

This really isn't complicated. It's really not that hard to understand. The only thing that can explain such profound ignorance about creation science that is often seen from believers in evolution is total bias to the point of blindness to any other possibility--a state not at all conducive to scientific discovery, is it?

And no, I didn't "conveniently forget" about the decisions of biased judges. The last time I checked, while we do tolerate far more use of power from judges than they are entitled to constitutionally, even they do not get to manufacture science and arbitrarily shut off avenues to seeking the truth. In other words, their biased opinions may carry legal weight, but they aren't worth squat when it comes to science and reality.

I was once a believer in evolution theory. However, at the risk of patting myself on the back, at least I had the intellectual honesty to admit the profound weaknesses of the theory once I learned about them. And when I learned not only that, but that there are scientifically viable theories in creation science that fit the evidence much better than evolution theory, I at least had the integrity to admit I had been wrong.

Sadly, few adherents to the religion of evolution have that kind of courage, though. And really it's not so much about courage as it is a desire to not be wrong anymore.

That Guy said...

You post makes it clear that if you ever were an 'believer' in evolution, you didn't really understand it. The evidence for biological evolution and common descent is overwhelming. Read up on endogenous retroviral insertions.

Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different individuals is proof of their common ancestor. Finding it among two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.

Creationisms only answer to this is 'GOD DID IT'. That is creationists only answer to anything. This provides no avenues for scientific inquiry, no ability to test, and makes no predictions. It is an argument from ignorance and nothing more. Why does the sun shine? GOD DID IT. Where does disease come from? GOD DID IT. Why does it rain? GOD DID IT. Where did people come from? GOD DID IT!

Bob Ellis said...

When I did believe in evolution, I understood it better than the average bear. Admittedly, that was very little, because most Americans accept it blindly because the intelligentsia feeds it to them.

The more I have learned about it, the more I have learned that evolution theory is 95% conjecture based on 5% hard evidence. I have also learned that there are key events within the materialist/naturalist/evolutionist time frame which must happen without supernatural influence in order for the theory to be viable...but are flatly impossible according to scientific laws and principles.

If endogenous retroviral insertions is the "best example" for universal common descent (i.e. evolution), it's no wonder the theory is in such trouble. You assume these sequences have no purpose (some DNA strands previously thought to be "junk" have now been found to serve a useful purpose), and that these ERVs are failed insertions. They may be similar genetic strands that serve similar purposes in different organisms that we simply don't understand yet. The fact that you'll find hex screws in the bumper of a Chevy and also in the bumper of a Ford is not proof that the Chevy evolved from the Ford. Similar element performing a similar function in a different make of vehicle.

Some believe these transposable segments may have given rise to viruses, rather than the other way around. It's hard to know either way, but evolutionists make assumptions about events they have not seen and facts they do not fully understand in accordance with their preconceived notions about origins.

Your infantile assertion that creationists only answer to anything scientific is "God did it" reveals that you know nothing whatsoever of creation science. Perhaps like I was many years ago, you've placed your faith in evolution theory because "that's where all the smart people are" (or so you're told by all those people there...whether they're smart or not).

Yes, creationists believe God did it. But they want to know HOW God did it. They want to know how God did it, at least as bad as an evolutionists wants to know how it happened by utter chance.

The Bible indicates God is a being of order, logic and law. Despite the damage done to the universe by the curse of sin, the universe still reflects God's nature of order, logic and law. The fact that the universe does conform to certain laws is the only thing that makes scientific inquiry possible. If anything could happen at any time for no reason or cause, scientific investigation would be utterly useless because today you might demonstrate that Element A in conjunction with Circumstance B = Outcome C...but without order and reliable scientific laws, A+B could result in Z. And with no designer behind this immensely complex universe, there is no reason to even expect the universe to operate according to specific laws and principles.

But because we can rely on the universe to conform to scientific laws in most cases (except for those rare cases where the super-natural God intervenes--just as a computer program with the skills and access to the code can supersede an application's default programming), we are able to make reliable study of the universe and discern why something does what it does, what something is made of and how processes do the things they do. Scientific greats who believed in God such as Bacon, Pasteur, Galileo, Keppler, Newton, Mendel and others recognized this. Did these believers in creation say "God did it" and abandon their scientific inquiry?

As a good art connoisseur can identify the author of a painting based on the style and strokes of the painting, so the imprint of God's nature and character is on creation.

In understanding creation better, we understand the Creator better. In understanding the Creator better, we understand creation better.

Don't let the "smart people" (a euphemism for "the herd") distract you from a genuine search for truth. Set your mind to throw off your preconceived notions about evolution and take an objective look at the viability of the claims of materialism/naturalism/evolution. Take a fresh look at some creation theories. Then see which ones make the most sense within their own framework.

The truth will indeed set you free!

Jim said...

The idea of evolution by natural selection is provably false. It rests on rampant assumptions, speculation, and extrapolations (such as the peppered moth obsession). It is as much a matter of faith as is creationism. It is not science. Creationist beliefs also have problems. An objective analysis of both sides reveals insurmountable problems. An alternative to both is clearly required. The evolutionists, hamstrung by “gradualism,” will never explain the origin of consciousness or of language. But if we recognize the inefficacy of gradualism, and if we recognize that the accepted interpretation of the Genesis creation account has its problems as well, and if we consider a new perspective, a rational paradigm presents itself. (Pardon my breathless sentence.) We must revise our world view.

The Bible contains many so-called myths that are true and accurate history. Among these:
The account of The Tower of Babel does not describe the creation of new languages. It is an historic record of something quite different.
Moses’ “Burning Bush” was not consumed because it was not a chemical fire but something entirely different.
The “bad science” of the Bible is typically “good history” that we do not understand because it is not within modern experience.

Check out these and many other “misunderstood mysteries” at


Clicky Web Analytics