F
flinx
Guest
Well, this is my very first post to this forum. Hopefully I won't just be repeating what others have already said. Anyway, here goes.
One of the main criticisms that evolutionists throw at creationists is to claim that creation is based on religious belief while evolution is based on science. But is this actually the case? No it isn’t. I think it is quite easy to show that at its core the theory of evolution is not based on scientific evidence. To see that evolution is not science you just have to realize what foundational process has brought about all the scientific knowledge we have today. Every true scientific fact that humanity has developed over the centuries has come about through the experimental process.
In the experimental process a scientist first observes some phenomenon in the world that interests him, and he develops a hypothesis about what might cause that phenomenon. Then he designs an experiment that will test whether his hypothesis is valid or not. He runs the experiment several times and observes the results. He records the data he has observed and makes whatever calculations might be necessary and then he draws conclusions from his observations as to whether his hypothesis is an adequate explanation for the results he obtained. And finally he lets other scientists examine his data and conclusions to see whether he has made any errors or omissions in his analysis. When everyone agrees that the conclusions are valid then those conclusions become part of humanity’s store of scientific knowledge. Those conclusions are only changed if further experimental evidence comes along that modifies or contradicts the earlier results.
So all of our scientific knowledge is based on repeated experimentation and observation. But is the theory of evolution based on the experimental process? Not at all. The evolution of life from non-life supposedly happened in the far distant past and then stopped happening once life was established. No scientist was there to observe the evolution of life from non-life and no scientist was around to observe the evolution of simple life into complex life. No one was there while it was occurring and the process of evolution can never be repeated again. And in our world today we don’t see evidence that evolution is currently taking place. There simply are no animals present on earth that are partway evolved into completely different animals. And when we study the anatomy of animals we never find organs that are changing into different organs with new functions. Every animal is already complete and functional in the environment in which it lives. So it is obvious that evolution is not based on repeatable observations. No one saw evolution happening and no one can make it happen again. That means that evolution is not based on scientific empirical evidence.
What evolution is actually based on is historical evidence. That is, the historical evidence gleaned from geology and the evidence derived from fossil bones dug up from the ground. But historical evidence has one big problem – it is always incomplete and fragmentary. In other words, it is always full of holes. In order to draw conclusions from historical evidence a scientist must attempt to fill in the holes in the record. But no scientist is truly objective when it comes to filling in the missing evidence. The way that a scientist fills in the gaps will always be dependent on that person’s biases and presuppositions. An atheistic scientist who bases his worldview on materialistic naturalism will always come to conclusions that support his naturalistic bias. Just as a creation scientist who bases his worldview on the existence of the omnipotent Creator of the Bible will always come to conclusions that support what God has told us about the world in His word.
Evolution is not based on repeatable, testable observations. It is based on the interpretation of circumstantial, historical evidence. So at its core evolution is no more scientific than creationism is. Both evolution theory and creationism make use of the very same historical evidence. But creationists interpret that evidence based on a theistic worldview filtered through the teachings of the Bible while evolutionists interpret that evidence based on their naturalistic worldview that is most often coupled with an anti-god bias. Both evolution and creation are belief systems that are entirely dependent on the presuppositions of those who believe in them. I’ve seen atheists in this forum claim that evolution is a proven fact of science but I’d have to say that that is just bluster on the part of the evolutionists. Any theory that is based on unobserved, unrepeatable and untestable evidence can never be considered a fact. Evolution is based just as much on faith as creation is. A faith that believes that materialistic processes are an adequate explanation for all the complexity we see in living systems.
One of the main criticisms that evolutionists throw at creationists is to claim that creation is based on religious belief while evolution is based on science. But is this actually the case? No it isn’t. I think it is quite easy to show that at its core the theory of evolution is not based on scientific evidence. To see that evolution is not science you just have to realize what foundational process has brought about all the scientific knowledge we have today. Every true scientific fact that humanity has developed over the centuries has come about through the experimental process.
In the experimental process a scientist first observes some phenomenon in the world that interests him, and he develops a hypothesis about what might cause that phenomenon. Then he designs an experiment that will test whether his hypothesis is valid or not. He runs the experiment several times and observes the results. He records the data he has observed and makes whatever calculations might be necessary and then he draws conclusions from his observations as to whether his hypothesis is an adequate explanation for the results he obtained. And finally he lets other scientists examine his data and conclusions to see whether he has made any errors or omissions in his analysis. When everyone agrees that the conclusions are valid then those conclusions become part of humanity’s store of scientific knowledge. Those conclusions are only changed if further experimental evidence comes along that modifies or contradicts the earlier results.
So all of our scientific knowledge is based on repeated experimentation and observation. But is the theory of evolution based on the experimental process? Not at all. The evolution of life from non-life supposedly happened in the far distant past and then stopped happening once life was established. No scientist was there to observe the evolution of life from non-life and no scientist was around to observe the evolution of simple life into complex life. No one was there while it was occurring and the process of evolution can never be repeated again. And in our world today we don’t see evidence that evolution is currently taking place. There simply are no animals present on earth that are partway evolved into completely different animals. And when we study the anatomy of animals we never find organs that are changing into different organs with new functions. Every animal is already complete and functional in the environment in which it lives. So it is obvious that evolution is not based on repeatable observations. No one saw evolution happening and no one can make it happen again. That means that evolution is not based on scientific empirical evidence.
What evolution is actually based on is historical evidence. That is, the historical evidence gleaned from geology and the evidence derived from fossil bones dug up from the ground. But historical evidence has one big problem – it is always incomplete and fragmentary. In other words, it is always full of holes. In order to draw conclusions from historical evidence a scientist must attempt to fill in the holes in the record. But no scientist is truly objective when it comes to filling in the missing evidence. The way that a scientist fills in the gaps will always be dependent on that person’s biases and presuppositions. An atheistic scientist who bases his worldview on materialistic naturalism will always come to conclusions that support his naturalistic bias. Just as a creation scientist who bases his worldview on the existence of the omnipotent Creator of the Bible will always come to conclusions that support what God has told us about the world in His word.
Evolution is not based on repeatable, testable observations. It is based on the interpretation of circumstantial, historical evidence. So at its core evolution is no more scientific than creationism is. Both evolution theory and creationism make use of the very same historical evidence. But creationists interpret that evidence based on a theistic worldview filtered through the teachings of the Bible while evolutionists interpret that evidence based on their naturalistic worldview that is most often coupled with an anti-god bias. Both evolution and creation are belief systems that are entirely dependent on the presuppositions of those who believe in them. I’ve seen atheists in this forum claim that evolution is a proven fact of science but I’d have to say that that is just bluster on the part of the evolutionists. Any theory that is based on unobserved, unrepeatable and untestable evidence can never be considered a fact. Evolution is based just as much on faith as creation is. A faith that believes that materialistic processes are an adequate explanation for all the complexity we see in living systems.