The Theory of Change that Just Won't Change

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, November 9, 2017 2 comments

by Steve Risner

Last week we began the process of investigating common claims by evolutionists as to why non-evolutionists don't believe in universal common descent (that simple, early life forms slowly mutated into all the different organisms we see today including humans). We touched on the fact that nearly 50% of Americans reject evolution—that the largest portion of those of us in the US believe God created man in his current form. For some silly reason, militant evolutionists will suggest this means Americans are not smart or are hindering progress. This, of course, is foolishness. Progress would be hindered by devoting massive amounts of resources towards researching the humanist/atheist origins myth. Intelligent minds and large sums of money have been wasted on such things. Brilliant men and women of times past have built this thing we call science, and nearly all of them were creationists. You can read more about that in my blog post “Creation Scientist is Not an Oxymoron.” There's no denying (rationally) that science owes a great debt of gratitude to these men and women who, according to most evolutionists today, aren't smart enough to understand evolution.

I was taught evolution in junior high and high school biology classes as well as at the college level. It wasn't a major part of my K-12 education, but every biology text has a section in it that starts with abiogenesis (non-living chemistry magically coming together to make some unknown simple life form) and moves with very little explanation (because there isn't much of one, really) to the biological diversity we have today. But in college it was taught a great deal more. “Evolution is a fact!” is exactly what my biology professor, Dr. Murray, said in the lecture hall. “And there is no doubt that there is life on other planets.” Wild, I know. For a scientist with a doctoral degree of any kind to say such rubbish and especially as a teacher to young, impressionable minds is inexcusable.

Here are some things I'd like to consider. A common argument held by evolutionists is that science is not something that needs to be observable or repeatable. It merely needs to be testable and falsifiable (which means you can prove that it's false). Is this true? Does this meet the standards of science? It's been said that evolution is as much a fact as 2+2=4. Is this possible? Of course not. You can observationally verify that 2+2=4 a million different ways. Two fingers and two fingers=4 fingers. Two pizzas and two more pizzas is 4 pizzas. Two crayons plus two crayons is 4 crayons. Over and over we can verify that this equation is true. Can you think of a single experiment or test for evolution? Is there anything dealing with it as solid, repeatable, and verifiable as our equation 2+2=4? Of course not. This is because if evolution is happening, it's allegedly happening so slowly we can't see it (although the fossil record unequivocally says this is not true) and if evolution ever happened at some point in the past, we can't go back there and see it happen because we've not yet managed to reproduce Doc Brown's flux capacitor. Evolution is an idea about something that may have happened historically but it cannot be anything more than that—an idea.

There is obviously some merit to putting some facts together and extrapolating into the past using information we do know is true, but we can't confuse such speculation with solid, verifiable facts like 2+2=4. Dr. John Morris said “... ‘science’ has always relied on human observation. Obviously, observations occur in the present, even if they relate to things in the past. For instance, paleontologists, who exist in the present, make observations in the present of fossils, which exist in the present even though the fossils are the remains of organisms, which lived in the past. Science is done in the present.”

Evolution (meaning pond scum to people lineages) may be a nice way for atheists to account for the diversity we see in living things today, but creationists find it much more appealing to look at the facts. From a scientific stance, creationists have a fairly strong case if we're concerned with facts and observation. This is likely why the claim we're addressing today—that science is not about observation—is so popular among evolutionists. Now, it's obvious that creationism is contrary to the atheists' origins myth and, as a result, will no doubt be shunned as a mockery of science and all that sort of talking down they like to do. But what is really being said when the claim is made that creationists don't understand science and that creationism is not scientific is that it disagrees with atheism, so it's stupid. The fact they will never admit is that neither creationism nor evolutionism is purely scientific. They are both belief systems. One has a much stronger case based on the observable facts while the other is found, as some who adhere to it have said, in the imagination.

So we are clear here: we have observed in the fossil record organisms showing up abruptly with no evidence of ancestors that were “simpler.” We find that organisms remain relatively the same over time with only minor changes able to be found and these changes are clearly limited. We find no evidence whatsoever of transition fossils linking one major kind of organism to another. This all fits with creation and contradicts evolution.

It is repeatedly brought up by evolutionists that evolution (from a single common ancestor) is as scientific and well-founded as gravity. However, under even the most slack of standards, this statement and others like it are found to be extremely misleading. In fact, I would suggest that anyone claiming such things is either ignorant or deceptive. They either have no idea how science works or, possibly, they are just repeating something they heard someone else they respect say without any idea of the meaning OR they are willfully trying to deceive someone who may not have a good grasp on the subject matter. Neither is good, but one is obviously worse since its intent is to mislead. If there's another option, I'd be willing to hear it.

The most basic foundational principle of modern science is the scientific method. This is taught to children all the way to graduate school. The scientific method was standardized first by Francis Bacon, a creationist, and has stood the test of time as a reliable way to draw conclusions about the world around us. The above link to the scientific method was included to give an overview of the process. You'll note that within the page, evolution is used as an example of a field of study that incorporates the scientific method, which is comical but sad at the same time. I'm sure it can easily be seen why the process called the scientific method cannot possibly be applied to past events that no one witnessed. If you have questions about that, please feel free to leave a comment below.

Another staple of scientific ideas is that of falsifiability. Unfortunately, Darwinism has stood the test of time not because it has managed to pass all tests of falsifiability but because it is modified to accommodate any and all evidence, or evidence is simply rejected and ignored. For example, if an organism is found to have slight modifications over what is alleged to be millions of years, that's heralded as evidence for evolution. If an organism is found to be exactly the same over alleged eons of time, this, too, is spoken of as evidence for evolution. In other words, if something changes it's because of the process of evolution and if something doesn't change it's because of the process of evolution. A “theory” that accommodates any and all facts is not a scientific one. Universal common descent is not falsifiable. Frank Sherwin states, “It would seem that evolution is so plastic that there's nothing this philosophy cannot do.” This is especially true since it's a process too slow to see, not found in the fossil record, and can't be tested empirically to any degree. Evidence that is contrary to evolution can cost you your job if you're a scientist and will, at the least, get you ridiculed. That evidence will then either be explained away (generally fairly hollowly) or will be ignored. For some reason, it turns out occasionally that the evidence is not only ignored but the discoverer of the evidence is attacked personally. This is what passes as “science” these days.

Then they'll tell you that the fact that we can't see evolution happening today is proof that it takes too long to see it! I've read such absurd statements from evolutionists. It's amazing! This is akin to saying, “We can't see evolution happening and that's proof that it is happening.” You can't make this stuff up. If it's happening slowly, we would expect the fossil record to be LOADED with evidence of these changes. Yet we find not only is the fossil record not filled with transition fossils, they are completely absent. Sure, they have a few things that they speculate may be a transition, but they're hardly represented enough to suggest they're a transition from anything to anything. Very frequently, we find that these “transition fossils” that are proof positive for evolution from a single common ancestor consist of a single tooth or 3 spinal bones and a pebble that's supposed to be a skull fragment. In other words, they've got 1-2% of an organism's skeletal remains fossilized and can write volumes on it from what it ate, how it lived, what it looked like (color and all), what it sounded like, how it walked, who its ancestors were and who its offspring became. This, again, is called “science” by some. Lucy is another great example of a few pieces of bone chosen from a pile and ranted about being some sort of advanced ape like ancestor to humans. You see, evidence for evolutionism is manufactured or imagined. It's not discovered. It's really just a scam, but since it's the only thing they have to stand up against creation as told by the Bible, it's been sticking around.

I hope this was a thought provoking read. I'll be continuing to work on common claims by evolutionists as to why people don't believe it/understand it over the next few weeks.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.


JD70 said...

Thank you Steve for posting the Creationist Orchard in this post!
Great job.

ashleyhr said...

This non creationist recent blog post should interest you (I've just added a comment underneath):