No one has ever observed one basic kind of plant or animal naturally change into another basic kind. Is evolution theory falsifiable? The theory has become so plastic that no matter what the data are, they can be made to fit the theory. More and more evolutionists are becoming aware of this flaw in modern evolution theorizing. This cannot be done in evolution, taking it in its broad sense, and this is really all I meant when I called it tautologous in the first place. It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be ingenious or not in proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms which you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable theory.
Thus evolution, that is, the amoeba-to-man theory, cannot be observed and the theory is non-falsifiable. It thus fails to satisfy the criteria of a scientific theory. The same can be said of creation theory.
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition.
We do not see God creating anything today, and as a theory, creation is non-falsifiable. Nevertheless, one or the other must be true. Furthermore, each can be used as a scientific model and discussed in scientific terms. We do have circumstantial evidence against which each theory can be compared — the fossil record, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of probability, evidence of design and purpose, etc.
It is true that in experimental, observational science in which we are investigating objects, events, and processes in the real world — how the sun produces its energy, the mechanics of the solar system, the cause and products of supernovae explosions, our biochemistry, physiology, etc. This is the only way a scientist can operate when he seeks to observe and explain the operation of the present universe. The evolutionist, however, insists that we must not only use natural laws and processes to explain the operation of the universe and its living organisms, but that we must use those same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the living organisms it contains.
In doing so, he steps outside the limits of empirical, observational, testable science.
He is insisting on the strict application of his worldview. Richard Lewontin, evolutionist and Harvard professor of biology, in his introduction to the anti-creationist book, Scientists Confront Creationism , states that,. Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism.
They are irreconcilable world views. Thus, Lewontin states that evolution and creation are irreconcilable worldviews. Is the possibility or conviction that a creator exists more religious than the belief that no creator exists? Both views are metaphysical, thus basically religious.
By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Michael Ruse, an evolutionist and a philosopher of science professor at Guelph University, was one of the main witnesses for evolution in the Arkansas federal trial concerning the constitutionality of the equal time law for creation and evolution passed by the Arkansas legislature declared unconstitutional by Judge William Overton.
At that time he argued strenuously that evolutionary theory was science free of any religious implications while creation theory was exclusively religious. His speech, revealing a very significant change in his previous position, stunned the audience.
Contributing to this change was an exchange between evolutionists and creationists, involving, among others, Ruse and Phillip Johnson. Ruse made clear that he was still as much an evolutionist as ever. Concerning the exchange with Johnson and others, Ruse stated,.
But we did talk much more about the whole question of metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that.
He referred to examples from T. Huxley, Julian Huxley, and Edward O. In his closing remark, Ruse stated,. But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there. The religious nature of evolution had been made clear earlier by such proponents as Julian Huxley and Jacob Bronowski. They have said, for example:.
A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. The Jesuit priest, Fr.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, well known for his involvement with Piltdown Man the latest research indicates he was not involved with the fraud and Peking Man fossils, stated that,. Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true.
Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow. Nothing could be more religious than this. But, you might say, Teilhard de Chardin was a priest, not a leading evolutionary scientist. But in his eulogy to Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala stated that according to Dobzhansky the place of biological evolution in human thought was best expressed in the passage by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin quoted above.
Nevertheless, does the teaching of the non-theistic mechanistic theory of evolution constitute a challenge or threat to traditional theistic religious commitments? The Harvard professor, Richard Lewontin, certainly believes so. In his introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism ref.
- Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.
- Mint Condition: How Baseball Cards Became an American Obsession;
- Hydroplate Animation.
- Why We Flop In Love?
- The Scientific Evidence for Creation.
Suddenly the study of evolution was in all the schools. The culture of the dominant class had triumphed, and traditional religious values, the only vestige of control that rural people had over their own lives and the lives of their families, had been taken from them. This is what occurred, according to Lewontin, following the widespread adoption of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study series of high school biology books, which are evolutionary throughout. Note particularly that Lewontin states that this constituted a triumph of the culture of the dominant class over traditional religious values of the rural people.
God, creation, science, religion: the conflicts
When students are taught that everything in the universe was produced by a series of strictly mechanistic processes starting with the hydrogen and helium gases produced by a hypothetical big bang, this does encourage a belief in a no-God philosophy and set of values. In conclusion, it can be stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory and thus evolutionary theory is no more scientific than creation theory.
Furthermore, evolution theory is just as religious as creation theory. The teaching of the theory of evolution exclusively, as is being done in most of our tax-supported public schools in the United States, violates the separation of church and state and violates the academic freedom of teachers and students. It is recommended that all of the scientific evidence supporting each of these two opposing theories, devoid of references to, or use of, any religious literature, be presented in our tax-supported public schools in an unbiased manner, allowing the students to decide for themselves which model of origins, creation or evolution, do the data fit best.
That would be good science and good education.
Science and Creation
This can be done fully in accord with the U. The truth is, evolutionists nearly completely dominate our educational system, the scientific establishment with its control of what is published in its journals, and the mass media with its control over what is published in our newspapers and magazines and what goes out over radio and television.
It is extremely difficult for creation scientists to obtain a hearing for their position. The results are predictable. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould frankly admitted this when he said:. Many advantages accrue to the victors of any dispute, military or cerebral — and chronicling rights must rank among the greatest of perks. In short, the winners write history.
The fossil record constitutes some of the most important evidence concerning origins. It is the history of life written in the rocks.
If evolution theory is true, the fossil record must be what this theory requires, and on the other hand, if creation is true, the fossil record must be in accord with that theory. Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not.
If they did not they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in fully formed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. If evolution is true, then millions of species have evolved during hundreds of millions of years as each species developed from some preceding form and in turn gave rise to a succeeding form. Furthermore, evolutionary doctrine holds that evolution proceeds by the survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that reproduce in larger numbers.