EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC
by Wayne S. Walker
In recent battles over whether evolution alone would be taught in public school science classrooms or whether scientific creationism (aka the intelligent design theory) would be given a balanced treatment, proponents of evolution have tried to portray evolutionary theory as "true science" and creationism as unscientific. John Ljubeknov, a marine biologist, is reported to have told the Vista, CA, school board, "You let creationism–so-called science–into the classrooms and you’ve lost education." To deal with this kind of objection, we must determine what science is.
True science is simply a systematic body of known, factual information determined by an orderly method of investigation that involves observation and experimentation. A scientist begins with a hypothesis (educated guess) as to the answer to some question. He tests this hypothesis and if it seems to work he comes up with a theory about it. If that theory appears to hold true in every instance and there is no known reason why it should not continue to do so, it is then considered a law. However, as man’s knowledge changes, scientific theories which were once thought to be virtual laws have now been relegated to the junkpile.
Real science and the Bible never contradict because the same God established both. But man’s fallible and often faulty interpretation of the facts often contradict both. Paul warned us in 1 Timothy 6.20-21, "…Avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [science falsely so called, KJV]–by professing it, some have strayed concerning the faith…." Just because a theory is promoted by scientists does not necessarily make it true nor the only possible solution to a problem.
Science has its limitations. Anthony Standen, executive editor of the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, has written, "Science has many important limitations. The idea that science is infallible and beyond criticism is a delusion, and even a dangerous one. The teaching of science only perpetuates this delusion, for it is always taught by scientists, who are so busy keeping up with science that they can never look at it from the outside. What with scientists who are so deep in science that they cannot see it, and non-scientists who are too overawed to express an opinion, hardly anyone is able to recognize science for what it is, the great Sacred Cow of our time."
The origin of life and its development on earth are not truly subjects of science because they have not been nor can they be observed and they are not subject to duplication by experiment in the laboratory. They are matters of history. When a man tells us why the grass is green, the sky is blue, or water is wet, he speaks as a scientist because these things can all be demonstrated chemically or physically. However, when he tells us how (he thinks) life originated and developed on earth, he speaks not as a scientist, because this cannot be demonstrated chemically or physically, nor even as a historian, because there is no specific record that has been left by human beings who observed these things. Rather, he speaks as a philosopher. The truth is that the general theory of evolution is neither science nor history but philosophy.
Yet, in spite of the fact that some honest scientists recognize this fact, many are still out in the public arena affirming that evolution has been proven true, or at least leaving that distinct impression. For example, William Patten (1861-1931), an American zoologist and professor of zoology at Dartmouth from 1893 to 1931, said, "Evolution has itself long passed out of the field of scientific controversy. There is no other subject on which scientific opinion is so completely unanimous. It is the one great truth we must surely know" ("The Ways of Men, Apes, and Fishes," Scientific Monthly, October, 1939, p. 290).
Thus, evolution is presented in many instances as "scientific truth." The fact that it is promoted by scientists has evidently convinced many that it must be scientifically true and that any other explanation of origins is unscientific and therefore false. Yet in so far as actual evidence is concerned, the general theory of evolution has many gaps, holes, missing links, and other scientific problems. Our next article will examine three commonly accepted scientific laws and see how evolution stands in contradiction to them. (—taken from With All Boldness; September, 1993; Vol. 3, No. 9; p. 20)