Basic HTML Version
/S EVOLUTIONRELIGION?
1
s
SCIENCE
capable of establishing
organic evolution or creation as
an incontrovertible fact?
The basic requirement of any sci–
entific theory
is
that it be observable
and testable by repeated experi–
ments. Yet the basic processes of
neither creation nor evolution have
been proven through direct observa–
tion.
No human has ever observed, for
example, the miraculous creation of
plants and animals. But neither has
any human ever observed the evolu–
tion of new organs or the progres–
sive evolution of complex organisms
from simpler organisms.
The only scientific evidence for
either evolution or creation is in–
direct evidence - which does not
meet the standard of direct observa–
tion.
Potential for Oisproof
Scientific theories must also be
"falsifiable." That is, scientists must
be able to devise experiments or ob–
servations which could potentially
disprove the theory before they can
possibly decide the truth or fa lsity of
a theory.
Evolutionists and creationists
have tried to disprove each other on
the basis of reasoning and logic. But
scientific experiments which could
conclusively demonstrate
either evo–
lution or creation wrong and which
could be agreed upon by both par–
líes have not yet been found.
The creationist's miracles of cre–
ation cannot be scientifically tested
by repeated experiments.
At the same time, evolutionists
have hedged their theory with so
many exceptions and explanations
that apparently confiicting evidence
is made to fit into the theory sorne-
28
where. l f, for example, transitional
life forms are not to be found in the
fossil record, an evolutionist ex–
plains that these transitional forros
were not fossilized or that the rock
layers with these remains all have
been eroded away. If many new
forms suddenly appear in the fossil
record, the evolutionist hypothesizes
"rapid evolution." If two animals
are unusually simi lar and in–
explicable on the basis of the
normal theoretical pattern of evolu–
tionary radiation, then the evolu–
tionist hypothesizes "parallel
evolution" or "convergent evolu–
tion."
Dr. Paul Ehrlich and Dr. L. C.
Birch, biologists at Stanford Univer–
si ty and the University of Sydney,
respectively, summarized the prob–
lem in
Nature:
"Our theory of evo–
lution has become ... one which
cannot be refuted by any possible
observations. Every conceivable ob–
servation can be fitted into it.
It
is
thus 'outside of empí rica! science'
but not necessarily false. No one can
think of ways in which to test it.
Ideas, e ither without basis or based
on a few laboratory experiments
carried out
in
extremely simplified
systems have attained currency far
beyond their validity. They have be–
come part of an evolutionary dogma
accepted by most of us as part of
our training."
(Nature,
April 22,
1967.)
Since neither evolution nor cre–
ation has been shown capable of fal–
sification and neither can be proven
through direct observation of its ba–
sic processes, both evolution and
creation actually fall short of tbe
strict criteria of empírica! science.
Belief in either evolution or crea–
tion is thus, in part, based on
the individual's philosophical or
religious faith.
Evolution Requires Faith
Evolution qualifies as a faith from
another view. After more than one
hundred years of searching, experi–
menting, and theorizing, the theory
of evolution still Iacks conclusive
evidence from four of the most cru–
cial lines of inves tigation.
First, historical evidence for the
evolutionary
origin
of life or its di–
versification does not exist.
Second, there is a systematic ab–
sence of the transitional forms
which would show the evolutionary
development of major groups of
plants and a nimals.
Third, evolutionists do not have a
satisfactory mechanism for change.
Mutations have not been shown to
be capable of producing changes of
the magnitude required to produce
new organs and increasingly com–
plex forms of life.
Finally, evolutionists do not have
satisfactory mechanisms to explain
how the first cell could have evolved.
Since organic evolution lacks sub–
stantial support from al! four of
these critica! areas, the theory can–
not be considered an established
fact or even a highly likely ex–
planation for the origin or devel–
opment of life.
It
is evident that
evolutionary dogmatism must rest
largely on a philosophic or religious
faith.
Evolu tion qualifies as a religious
belief for one other reason as weU.
lt
delimits belief in a deity.
Evolu–
tionists must either believe that no
supreme being exists, or, that he
takes no active role in the natural
world. This conclusion
is
not scien–
tiñc but philosophic and religious.
PlAIN TRUTH
June
1973