Is Evolution Bad Science?

is evolution bad scienceEvangelical Christians often look to the Bible to defend the creationist view against the theory of evolution; however, to engage in objective discussion with those whose approach is scientific and naturalistic, we must be able to speak their language. Therefore it is important to be able to debunk the evolutionary myth based on its faulty scientific approach.
While there are many scientific arguments involving the age of the earth, the time frame of the beginning and the size of the universe, let’s take a look at the theory of evolution based on the validity of its science alone.

 

What is science?

Science is a process in which we procure knowledge from empirical data. The data are based on what we observe and record with our senses. Science is a systematic study of the world around us based on observations, classifications and descriptions that can lead to experimental investigation and theoretical explanations. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are employed in the scientific process. The National Academy of Science in the 1998 publication Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science confines the activity of science to the empirical evidence, stating, “Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science” (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 27).
Valid science must have integrity, dependability and reliability. It must be trustworthy. How can one come to true conclusions with experimental data that are not verifiable? Testing and measuring are also important tools for verification. When scientific research is reported in scientific journals, it should be written so that experimental procedures can be repeated since repeatability is another tool used for validation. Science can be seen as theoretical as well as strictly experimental. Experimental science relies on the process of factors referred to as the scientific method, e.g. observable, hypothetically testable, theoretically verifiable or repeatable, and falsifiable or possibly untrue.
There is nothing in the empirical data or the fossil record that proves or disproves either evolution or creation. We must look to faith or science, or both, for our answers. Based on that tenet, let us examine the credentials of the theory of evolution to see if it qualifies as true science.

 

The process of evolution is unknown.

It never has been observed in the process. According to Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and evolutionist, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it was happening.” We are therefore relegated to examining the evidence, much as a forensic expert searches for clues at a crime scene.

 

There is no known acceptable mechanism.

“While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet and life evolved and continue to evolve” (National Academy of Sciences). In other words, none of the top scientists who believe in evolution have any idea how it works. Would anyone take their car to a mechanic who had no idea how the motor and ignition system worked? Or would anyone with a heart condition go to a cardiac surgeon who had no clue as to the workings and mechanism of the human heart?

 

Darwinian natural selection demoted

Attempting to discover “the elusive process of evolution,” 16 evolutionary scientists got together behind closed doors at a by-invitation-only symposium held at Altenberg, Austria, in July 2008. Suzan Mazur, an evolutionist and journalist, also attended and interviewed many of the brilliant scientists gathered there and asked them many difficult questions. Most of them were open and honest and admitted that the process and mechanism for evolution as they believe are “unknown” and not verifiable. Mazur wrote a book about the symposium entitled The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, published by First Edition, Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand.
One of the top evolutionists in the country, Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona, stated, “The point is … that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.”
Suzan Mazur was expected to side with her fellow evolutionists and denounce intelligent design and creationism, and instead she wrote an exposé on the evolutionary industry. Here are a few quotes from the book:
“The Altenberg 16 … recognize that the theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence [emphasis added]” (p. 19).
“A wave of scientists now question natural selection’s role though fewer will publicly admit it” (p. 20).
“Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory … In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry has been hijacked by an industry of greed with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival” (Introduction).

 

Random mutations are generally harmful

Because red blood cells have undergone a genetic transformation or mutation to form into a sickle shape to better equip them to fight malaria, this is sometimes said to be an example of a beneficial mutation. Yet over 20,000 children worldwide die each year from sickle cell anemia. Fruit flies that undergo genetic mutations usually end up blind or wingless.

 

Evolutionary changes tend toward chaos

Without at least an Intelligent Designer to select the beneficial changes instead of the harmful mutations, random processes tend toward chaos rather than increased complexity and order. Left to the natural order of things, our neatly manicured lawn becomes an unkempt bed of weeds, our face becomes a dirty, scruffy bearded mess, and the universe will someday be a homogeneous, gaseous vapor at low temperature. The universe is running down and is not evolving or becoming more complex.
Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer at Cambridge University stated, “The chance that the higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

 

What then do we believe?

Since neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven and no human being was there to witness and record the origin of the universe, we are in the position of choosing to believe the Word of the One who was in fact there to record it or to believe the conjecture of scientists and philosophers who admit in so many words that they just don’t have a clue.
While the first few chapters of Genesis are often used to defend the creationist view against the theory of evolution, the fact that God created the heavens and the earth is stated explicitly throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments including Romans 1:18-32, which explains why people reject the Creator and the consequences. See also Isaiah 45:18, Revelation 4:11, Colossians 1:16 and Nehemiah 9:6.
Creation Studies Institute will explore this topic further during a dinner with special guest speaker Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, of Creation Ministry International, on Friday, November 7. Visit creationstudies.org for information.

Bob Woods is a senior project manager at AECOM Technical Services, as well as a published Christian author. He can be reached at [email protected]

 

Tags:

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.