The theory of organic evolution is represented as a scientific theory, or even as a scientific fact; but it is neither. It is in fact not scientific at all, for it violates the rules that govern the sciences. First, it substitutes imaginary constructs for facts. Second, it substitutes fallacies for proofs.
Imagination vs. Observation
For the first, the natural sciences are founded upon careful observation and systematic recording of observed facts by the eye-witnesses. A fact is something true, something that can be witnessed to; as opposed to something which may be true, which is thought to be true, or even which is likely to be true. The supposed evolution of non-living substances into living things (if true) would have occurred at a time when there was no scientist around to observe and record the fact. Hence, the hypothesis is incapable of scientific proof. It can never be more than speculation. And speculation is the antithesis of science, which absolutely requires observed facts.
But, you say, scientists are on the brink of creating life in the lab. On the brink, indeed! When they have made a single fully-functional, self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing real living cell – and only then – will sensible men admit the claim that life can be created by man. I confidently assert that it will never happen.
But even if they were actually to accomplish that unimaginable feat, it would never prove that life came into existence in that way. There is a big difference between, on the one hand, a team of highly-intelligent and highly-trained persons producing primitive life in a lab, by employing all the advanced technology at their disposal and, on the other hand, life emerging spontaneously, without any guiding intelligence, in a primitive, chaotic world that never had a trace of life anywhere before!
And by the way, they would still have to demonstrate that the particular version of “life” that they produced in the lab could have evolved, and did evolve, into the higher animals and man.
Evolutionists must believe that matter and energy are eternal; but this cannot be confirmed by human observation. Their theory requires them to believe that life arose from non-life, but they can never produce one witness to the fact! They must believe that the marvel of self-consciousness somehow appeared by chance in a world that was wholly dead and devoid of consciousness; but no one has ever observed anything like that happening. We only see things moving in the opposite direction.
The same is true of every “beneficial mutation” that they claim has led to higher and higher forms of life. There must have been untold numbers of these, and yet not one has been actually observed. And where there is no observation, there can be no science.
Fallacies vs. Proofs
But, second, evolutionists are poor philosophers. Why does this matter? Because science must be able to demonstrate its validity on a philosophical basis, or else it is mere alchemy. None of the academic disciplines can be allowed to undermine the premises that allow it to exist. For example, if there is not an orderly universe, then science is impossible. Yet evolutionists cannot explain how the order we observe in nature got there in the first place. How can there be physical laws if there is no Lawgiver? How can there be universal order when there is no entity capable of enforcing it? How can scientific study be done at all in the evolutionists' world, where randomness ultimately reigns?
Evolutionists, however, too often do not seem to understand the difference between right reason and sophistry. For they constantly employ logical fallacies to compensate for their lack of a factual basis. A good example is their insistence that time and chance can account for what would otherwise be impossible: the inevitable progress of nature from chaos to order, from the simple to the complex.
Time and Chance
The first thing to be said is that time and chance have never been known to produce orderly complex systems. Everything man has been able to actually observe tells him that devolution – not evolution – is what really occurs in the world. In the normal course of events, things tend to deteriorate, run down, wear out, and in the case of living things, die. Something wholly unique and foreign to human experience must have occurred at some point to account for both the extraordinary vitality that has sustained life for thousands of years in a world that is “winding down”, and the extraordinary mathematical complexity we find in everything we study.
The second thing is that time and chance can never “account for” what can not be shown to have happened at all. It still remains for evolutionists to produce the eyewitnesses to evolution. We have the Eyewitness to creation, the Author of it, still living, Whose character is impeccable and Whose testimony cannot be impugned; and we have in our possession faithful copies of His written record of the event. But they have nothing! Their appeal to time and chance avails them nothing if they cannot produce observers who can verify that such a process has in fact occurred.
The third thing is that time and chance can never account for what is impossible in itself. And the evolution of a chaotic universe into a highly-complex ordered system without a guiding intelligence and omnipresent, unlimited power is simply impossible. That nothing ever occurs without an adequate cause is one of the pillars of true science. If it were not true, then anything might occur at any time under any conditions whatever; and science (even survival) would obviously be impossible. But the whole human race through all time has constantly observed this rule in action. Dogs do not paint Mona Lisas. Children do not lift houses. No one can leap miles into the air. Such things are impossible because there is no adequate cause of those effects. A Da Vinci can paint a Mona Lisa because of his rare skill and imagination and his knowledge of the technique of painting. We use great jacks to raise houses because we need force and power proportional to their weight to lift them. Only small children, political liberals, and evolutionists believe that anything can be accomplished with nothing, given enough time and dumb luck.
The fact is, neither time nor chance are causes of anything. Time is merely a necessary condition of existence; and chance is a word we use to refer to the (humanly) unpredictable. Nothing really happens by chance, for all things are perfectly ordered by the infinite wisdom of a sovereign God.
What Evolution Is
No, evolution is not science. What is it then? It is the wishful thinking of men whose minds are oppressed with the knowledge that Almighty God is opposed to their evils desires and designs. It is the great lie of the Enemy of men's souls. It is the official mythology of the religion of secular humanism. It is the party line of the corrupt academic establishment. But it should never be confused with science.
Only the existence of the God of the Bible can account for the world as it is. Only One infinite in wisdom, power and goodness could have created something out of nothing.
Only the miracle-working God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets could have made all the incredible variety and complexity and beauty and wonders of the natural world! And it did not take Him long – He did it in just six days! Only the Living God could have made the living soul of Adam and given a self-conscious, rational voice to creation in the form of its first prophet, priest and King! Anyone who thinks different is lying to himself.
Howard Douglas King
Imagination vs. Observation
For the first, the natural sciences are founded upon careful observation and systematic recording of observed facts by the eye-witnesses. A fact is something true, something that can be witnessed to; as opposed to something which may be true, which is thought to be true, or even which is likely to be true. The supposed evolution of non-living substances into living things (if true) would have occurred at a time when there was no scientist around to observe and record the fact. Hence, the hypothesis is incapable of scientific proof. It can never be more than speculation. And speculation is the antithesis of science, which absolutely requires observed facts.
But, you say, scientists are on the brink of creating life in the lab. On the brink, indeed! When they have made a single fully-functional, self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing real living cell – and only then – will sensible men admit the claim that life can be created by man. I confidently assert that it will never happen.
But even if they were actually to accomplish that unimaginable feat, it would never prove that life came into existence in that way. There is a big difference between, on the one hand, a team of highly-intelligent and highly-trained persons producing primitive life in a lab, by employing all the advanced technology at their disposal and, on the other hand, life emerging spontaneously, without any guiding intelligence, in a primitive, chaotic world that never had a trace of life anywhere before!
And by the way, they would still have to demonstrate that the particular version of “life” that they produced in the lab could have evolved, and did evolve, into the higher animals and man.
Evolutionists must believe that matter and energy are eternal; but this cannot be confirmed by human observation. Their theory requires them to believe that life arose from non-life, but they can never produce one witness to the fact! They must believe that the marvel of self-consciousness somehow appeared by chance in a world that was wholly dead and devoid of consciousness; but no one has ever observed anything like that happening. We only see things moving in the opposite direction.
The same is true of every “beneficial mutation” that they claim has led to higher and higher forms of life. There must have been untold numbers of these, and yet not one has been actually observed. And where there is no observation, there can be no science.
Fallacies vs. Proofs
But, second, evolutionists are poor philosophers. Why does this matter? Because science must be able to demonstrate its validity on a philosophical basis, or else it is mere alchemy. None of the academic disciplines can be allowed to undermine the premises that allow it to exist. For example, if there is not an orderly universe, then science is impossible. Yet evolutionists cannot explain how the order we observe in nature got there in the first place. How can there be physical laws if there is no Lawgiver? How can there be universal order when there is no entity capable of enforcing it? How can scientific study be done at all in the evolutionists' world, where randomness ultimately reigns?
Evolutionists, however, too often do not seem to understand the difference between right reason and sophistry. For they constantly employ logical fallacies to compensate for their lack of a factual basis. A good example is their insistence that time and chance can account for what would otherwise be impossible: the inevitable progress of nature from chaos to order, from the simple to the complex.
Time and Chance
The first thing to be said is that time and chance have never been known to produce orderly complex systems. Everything man has been able to actually observe tells him that devolution – not evolution – is what really occurs in the world. In the normal course of events, things tend to deteriorate, run down, wear out, and in the case of living things, die. Something wholly unique and foreign to human experience must have occurred at some point to account for both the extraordinary vitality that has sustained life for thousands of years in a world that is “winding down”, and the extraordinary mathematical complexity we find in everything we study.
The second thing is that time and chance can never “account for” what can not be shown to have happened at all. It still remains for evolutionists to produce the eyewitnesses to evolution. We have the Eyewitness to creation, the Author of it, still living, Whose character is impeccable and Whose testimony cannot be impugned; and we have in our possession faithful copies of His written record of the event. But they have nothing! Their appeal to time and chance avails them nothing if they cannot produce observers who can verify that such a process has in fact occurred.
The third thing is that time and chance can never account for what is impossible in itself. And the evolution of a chaotic universe into a highly-complex ordered system without a guiding intelligence and omnipresent, unlimited power is simply impossible. That nothing ever occurs without an adequate cause is one of the pillars of true science. If it were not true, then anything might occur at any time under any conditions whatever; and science (even survival) would obviously be impossible. But the whole human race through all time has constantly observed this rule in action. Dogs do not paint Mona Lisas. Children do not lift houses. No one can leap miles into the air. Such things are impossible because there is no adequate cause of those effects. A Da Vinci can paint a Mona Lisa because of his rare skill and imagination and his knowledge of the technique of painting. We use great jacks to raise houses because we need force and power proportional to their weight to lift them. Only small children, political liberals, and evolutionists believe that anything can be accomplished with nothing, given enough time and dumb luck.
The fact is, neither time nor chance are causes of anything. Time is merely a necessary condition of existence; and chance is a word we use to refer to the (humanly) unpredictable. Nothing really happens by chance, for all things are perfectly ordered by the infinite wisdom of a sovereign God.
What Evolution Is
No, evolution is not science. What is it then? It is the wishful thinking of men whose minds are oppressed with the knowledge that Almighty God is opposed to their evils desires and designs. It is the great lie of the Enemy of men's souls. It is the official mythology of the religion of secular humanism. It is the party line of the corrupt academic establishment. But it should never be confused with science.
Only the existence of the God of the Bible can account for the world as it is. Only One infinite in wisdom, power and goodness could have created something out of nothing.
Only the miracle-working God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets could have made all the incredible variety and complexity and beauty and wonders of the natural world! And it did not take Him long – He did it in just six days! Only the Living God could have made the living soul of Adam and given a self-conscious, rational voice to creation in the form of its first prophet, priest and King! Anyone who thinks different is lying to himself.
Howard Douglas King
RSS Feed