Why Evolutionism Is Running Scared by Ready2Rapture Blog entry

Blog: Forbidden Knowledge
by Ready2Rapture

Why Evolutionism Is Running Scared

Point/counterpoint excerpt from Apologetics Press

Date: 9/8/2005 11:31:45 AM ( 19 y ) ... viewed 2636 times

In an article that begins with a statistical analysis of the views of most Americans on the creation/evolution issue, we learn the reason the evolutionary community has been working so hard at getting creationism outlawed: they consider it a threat. Quote from the article: "In a center-column, front-page article in the June 15, 1979 issue of the Wall Street Journal, there appeared an article by one of the Journal’s staff writers commenting on how creationists, when engaging in debates with evolutionists, 'tend to win' the debates, and that creationism was 'making progress.'" Here is a point-by-point look at some of the most prominent issues.

=====================================================
An excerpt from http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/1979

Argument #1: Creation is not scientific, because creation is not testable, reproducible, or repeatable. Evolution, on the other hand, is scientific, and should be taught in science curricula, while creation should not.

Response: For a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties that can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. In addition, the theory must be capable of falsification. That is, it must be possible to conceive of some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory. It is on the basis of such criteria that most evolutionists insist creation be denied respectability as a potential scientific explanation of origins. Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is nonfalsifiable. Notice, however, that the General Theory of Evolution (organic evolution) also fails to meet all three of these criteria. No one observed the origin of the Universe or the origin of life. Similarly, no one has observed the conversion of a fish into an amphibian or an ape-like creature into a man. Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, both evolutionists, have stated:

Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349).

In a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (on the mathematical probabilities of evolution actually having occurred), Murray Eden, in speaking about the falsifiability of evolution, said:

This cannot be done in evolution, taking it in its broad sense, and this is really all I meant when I called it tautologous in the first place. It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be ingenious or not in proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms which you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable theory (1967, p. 71).

Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally. Both, however, can be stated as scientific models. It is poor science, and even poorer science education, to restrict instruction solely to the evolution model. When evolutionists attempt to depict evolution as the only scientific model, they are no longer speaking in the context of scientific truth. Either they do not know what the data actually reveal, or they are deliberately attempting to deceive. Evolution fails to answer more questions than it purports to answer, and the creation model certainly has as much (and often more) to offer as an alternative model. It is not within the domain of science to prove any concept regarding ultimate origins. The best one can hope for in this area is an adequate model to explain circumstantial evidence at hand. When one observes the undeniable design of every living thing, the complexity of the Universe itself, and the intricate nature of life, the creation model becomes quite attractive. It at least possesses a potential explanation for such attributes. The evolution model does not, but instead asks us to believe that design, inherent complexity, and intricateness are all the result of chance processes operating over eons of time.

Argument #2: Even though it may be true to say that evolution cannot be demonstrated, at least it is based on natural processes, whereas creation is based on supernatural processes. This, in and of itself, proves that creation is intrinsically unscientific.

Response: Actually this argument is intended to be two-fold in its thrust. First, it is intended to convey the idea that since “creation” occurred in the distant past as the result of events not now able to be studied in the laboratory, it is outside the realm of empirical science. Second, it is intended to convey the idea that only those things that are purely naturalistic are of a scientific nature and therefore can be studied scientifically. Let us examine these two concepts.

First, creation and evolution both share one fundamental similarity—the idea that the Universe and life are the products of one or more unique events. Evolutionists speak of such things as the Big Bang and the origin of living from nonliving. Neither of these events, however, is occurring today. In a similar fashion, creationists speak of the Universe and life as the products of divine creative acts, and of a worldwide Flood that helped shape the present Earth. These events also are unique.

Science (in the sense that most people understand the word) normally deals with empirical events and processes—things that can be observed with the five senses. Furthermore, science usually concerns itself with those things that are universal, dependable, timeless, and repeatable. That is to say, a scientist in China can use the same methodology as a scientist in America and obtain the same results today, tomorrow, next year, or at any time in the future.

It should be obvious to all concerned that neither evolution nor creation falls into such a category. Certain of the basic concepts involved (the Big Bang, the creation of man, etc.) cannot be tested using these criteria. Yet there are certain things about both creation and evolution that can be tested. In order to distinguish the things within each model that can be tested from those that cannot, some authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two distinct categories. For example, in their 1984 book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen recommended separating operation science from origin science. Others (e.g., Geisler and Anderson, 1987) have followed suit.

Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature that require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.), while origin science deals with singularities that may or may not require a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term “origin science” may be new but, in fact, it works by the time-honored, standard principles of causality and uniformity. The principle of causality says that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and adequate cause. The principle of uniformity (or analogy) says that similar effects have similar causes. In other words, the kinds of causes that we observe producing effects today can be counted on to have produced similar effects in the past. What we see as an adequate cause in the present, we assume to have been an adequate cause in the past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the present, we assume to have been an inadequate cause in the past.

None of us denies that creation occurred in the distant past as the results of events that now are unable to be studied experimentally in the laboratory. In this sense, creation is no more a “fact” of science than evolution. But the same limitations are inherent in evolutionary scenarios. Anyone familiar with the works of evolutionists like Robert Jastrow and Fred Hoyle is aware of the fact that these scientists, and others, have pointed out that the origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly scientific manner. Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, both evolutionists, also have addressed these issues.

Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349).

The origin of the Universe (and evolution, which is linked inextricably to it) is alleged to have begun in the pre-human past under conditions that are not now reproducible. That, it would seem to the unbiased observer, would put both creation and evolution on equal footing. It will not suffice to simply say that “creation is based on supernatural processes in the past” and is therefore not scientific. The “supernatural” beginnings of creation are no less available for scientific examination than are the “unique” (though allegedly “natural”) beginnings of evolution.

That would seem, to the unbiased observer, to put creation and evolution on equal footing. Evolutionists likely will disagree, as Trevor Major has observed:

Still, evolutionists may argue that creationists have done themselves no service by making a separate science out of singularities. Defining a nonempirical science is one thing; proposing supernatural causes is quite another. For this reason, they will always view creationism as unscientific. But the idea that history consists of an unbroken stream of natural causes and effects is merely a presumption on their part. Perhaps they fear a new generation of doctoral students invoking God when they cannot explain something in their research projects. Yet this fear is unfounded. As stated earlier, most scientists of the past had no problem with divine intervention. Indeed, one of the driving forces of early Western science was the idea that the Universe, as God’s creation, was open to rational investigation. In doing good operation science, these scientists would seek natural causes for regularly occurring events. Many of them recognized, however, that unique events may require a cause beyond nature. Only analogy with the present can determine whether the cause is miraculous or naturalistic (1994, 14:21, emp. in orig.).

It is not a justifiable criticism to say simply that “creation” is based on supernatural processes in the distant past” and therefore is not scientific. The “supernatural” beginnings of creation are no less available for scientific examination than are the “unique” (though allegedly natural) beginnings of evolution.

Second, whoever defined science as “naturalism”? The word “science” derives from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge.” Scientists are supposed to be men and women who are on a lifelong search for truth and knowledge, regardless of where that search may lead. Science is based on an observation of the facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data.” There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order!

To assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism, and that only those items that might have come about “naturally” may be studied, is to beg the question entirely. It is at least possible that creation could be the true explanation of origins, and thus it is premature and bigoted for certain scientists to exclude it from the domain of science by definition, all the while leaving the theory of evolution within that domain.

Argument #3: Creationists actually are nothing more than pseudo-scientists, and should not be regarded as “real” scientists like evolutionists.

Response: This charge, which is becoming increasingly common, is nothing more than anti-creationist, humanistic propaganda intended as a “scare tactic.” However, it is easily refuted. First, many of the great scientists of the past were creationists. Men like Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin, and a score of others who founded the various disciplines of science, were creationists, not evolutionists (see Morris, 1982). Second, all real scientists are not necessarily evolutionists. There are thousands of bona fide scientists today who are creationists, not evolutionists. They have graduate degrees from accredited institutions of higher learning, and have records and credentials comparable to those of any other segment of the scientific community. There are creationist Ph.D.s, M.D.s, Sc.D.s, etc. in every branch of the pure and applied sciences—biology, geology, physics, engineering, medicine, and so on.

While it is true that the names of evolutionists such as the late Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Robert Jastrow, and many others have become household words, it likewise is true that there are thousands of creation scientists at work in the scientific community today who are equally as good at their jobs as men of somewhat greater public stature. The fact that a man is a creationist, and therefore does not agree with evolution, does not make him by definition a “pseudo-scientist.” Evolutionists admittedly are upset by the recent popularity of creation, and thus have resorted to this sort of name-calling in an attempt to undermine the credibility of some creation scientists. But when such men as the late Wernher von Braun, the late A.E. Wilder-Smith, Walter Lammerts, Dean Kenyon, and others like them step forward to espouse creationism, the argument that creation scientists are nothing but “pseudo-scientists” suddenly pales into insignificance, and easily is seen to be devoid of any truth whatsoever.

Argument #4: The creationists’ “ulterior motive” is simply to be able to get their own religious views taught in public schools, under the guise of “creation science.”

Response: This is yet another of the scare tactics offered by evolutionary humanists, and again, easily is shown to be false. Anyone who has examined books on creation written by creationists for use in public school classrooms quickly will notice the conspicuous absence of any religious overtones. There is no mention of God, there are no quotations from religious literature (including the Bible), and there are no references to religion in general. It is going to be a bit difficult for evolutionists to convince the public that creationists simply want to get “religion into the public schools” when some of the most outspoken critics of religion in the public schools (e.g., religions like secular humanism, etc.) are creationists.

Argument #5: The creationists are unable to support their own case with scientific evidence. All they can do is attack the evolutionist’s case with “negative evidence.” Why don’t creationists have any scientific evidence to support their case?

Response: This argument is parroted carelessly by evolutionists who ought to know better. In multiple debates with evolutionists, creation scientists have affirmed piece after piece of positive evidence for the creation model. Evidences from the various fields of science are piled one on top of the other to make the strongest possible case for creation. In fact, entire books have been written on the subject. Creationists continually point out to evolutionists that the Law of Biogenesis states explicitly that life comes only from life of its kind, and that this law is the cornerstone of all biology. Creationists continually point out that the fossil record is replete with gaps, and is devoid of the transitional forms that evolution must have if it is to preserve its case. Creationists continually point out that there are a multitude of evidences pointing to a young Earth (e.g.: oil well fluid pressures, the helium inventory in the atmosphere, population kinetics, the Earth’s rapid magnetic decay, polonium halos in the “oldest” rocks, etc.) that by definition would preclude evolution. Creationists continually point out that genetic mutations reduce viability, rather than changing one species into another. Creationists continually point out that natural selection preserves the status quo and eliminates those organisms that are “changed” from the norm. Creationists continually point out that the laws of thermodynamics clearly indicate that the Universe: (a) could not have created itself; and (b) is running down and becoming less ordered, not building up and becoming more ordered. Creationists continually point out that the Universe is contingent, and that contingent entities ultimately are dependent upon a non-contingent entity—a concept that fits the creation model perfectly, but that is something the evolution model cannot explain.

One by one the arguments of the evolutionist can be, and have been, answered. Name-calling, special-pleading, begging the question, and other such tactics ultimately are inadequate in responding to the scientific evidences presented by creationists. Eventually the subterfuge employed by evolutionists is seen to be both illogical and meritless. The arguments offered by creationists remain unrefuted.