Is It a Fact?
WHAT SAYS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
MANY EVOLUTIONISTS ARE DOGMATIC, BUT IS THERE ROOM FOR REASONABLE DOUBT?
IS EVOLUTION a scientific fact? Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier is very dogmatic. At the last annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he said: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world. That’s a hundred million facts for evolution.” How 100,000,000 fossils, admittedly not the transitional ones the theory demands, constitute 100,000,000 facts proving evolution, is not at all clear. Kier then adds that, while evolutionists may argue over details, “they agree that evolution is a fact and should be so labeled.”
Famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky is not so dogmatic. In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their truth can never be conclusively established.” Using Dr. Karl Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical [experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.” Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: “A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”
Why is all of this relevant to our discussion? Because it is on this basis that Gould and others eliminate creation as a science and therefore say it should not be included in science classes. Creation is not testable, not falsifiable by scientific experimentation. Creationists say ‘God did it’ and there’s no way to test that or prove it false. “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase,” Gould says, “precisely because it cannot be falsified.” But he is adamant that evolution is a fact.
Very interestingly, however, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Since it is not testable, the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions. Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method. Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not only describes it but also shows its value: “The most important thing about science is the scientific method—a way of thinking systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one’s own errors, a way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific method.”—Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same premises evolution also must be unscientific.
Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”
The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride? Atheist Aldous Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?
Please see the following article.
[Blurb on page 18]
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program”
[Box on page 19]
IS THERE CAUSE FOR REASONABLE DOUBT?
Is it reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish, lizards? or that lizards turned into robins and wolves?
The book “Evolution,” by Dobzhansky, said that while the truth of evolution could never be established, it was a hypothesis “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt.” “Reasonable doubt” is legally defined as “such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent man in the graver and more important affairs of life to pause and hesitate to act upon the truth of the matter charged [or, claimed].” One judicial decision ruled: “A ‘reasonable doubt’ is such a doubt as an upright man might entertain in an honest investigation after truth.”—“Black’s Law Dictionary,” p. 580.
In court if there is reason to doubt a crucial piece of evidence, no conviction follows. Is it reasonable to have doubts that life spontaneously generated by chance? Reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish lizards? or lizards turned into robins and wolves? Is doubting evolution reasonable doubt or unreasonable doubt?
If you believe evolution, when alone in your own bedroom in front of your mirror, where you will not lose face before anyone, ask yourself: Why do I believe evolution? Can I cite the evidence for it? Can I prove it to my own satisfaction? Or do I believe it only because others have told me I should? Is it really true, “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt”?