When people say “Scientists believe… or Science teaches…” the statement that follows is likely to be erroneous, or at least a gross oversimplification. All scientists cannot be lumped together any more than all preachers or teachers or truck drivers can be lumped together. It is virtually impossible to get even the scientists within a specific branch of inquiry to agree on their research conclusions. So it should come as no surprise that scientist in different branches of science may disagree as well.
So when an atheist says they “know” that evolution is a fact, or they “know” that the universe is 14 billion years old, that atheist is speaking for himself or herself. When they say scientists agree that evolution occurred, they are at best uninformed, or at worst deliberately lying. There are hundreds of thousands of very intelligent, scientifically trained individuals who would disagree.
When we put our faith and trust in science, we should be aware of a few facts. Science is quite good at telling us how high, or how far, or how big, or small or hot an object might be. Science can develop wonderful ways of evaluating this marvelous world, and seeing into the vast reaches of the universe. But “Science” also brought us the Titanic, the Hindenburg, methamphetamine, LSD, and the Atomic bomb.
Some people say they “trust science” and so they believe in evolution and abortion and global warming. Does that mean they also trust science and want to take meth while enjoying a ride on the Hindenburg? No, probably not. But each statement is equally illogical. You see, science makes many claims. Some are easily verifiable and others are not. Take the science of pharmacology. The belief in “better living through chemistry” has been both a blessing and a curse. Pharmacology has both saved millions of lives with medicines like insulin and antibiotics, and destroyed millions of lives with opiates, LSD, and addictive benzodiazepines.
So when it comes to the age of the universe or the origin of life, it is reasonable to question “scientists” who claim they have an intimate knowledge of such things. Especially when they change their minds at least every 50 years when new findings require a whole new theory. It is far more likely that they are spouting a popular opinion than offering a proven or time-tested Truth. Behind closed doors, most scientists frankly admit they don’t really know much about the origin of the universe or how life originated. “This matter is far from being settled by astrophysicists and cosmologists, so stay tuned. There could be radical new developments in the future.” (From the site Stringtheory.com. Article entitled “How old is the universe”.
Consider that fact that scientists and astronomers (the same ones who say they know exactly how old the universe is) quite literally cannot find or measure 90% of the universe. Yes, we can observe, see, or measure less than 10% of the mass of the universe. The scientists have no idea what comprises the other 90%, but according to their calculations “it must be there”. According to author Vera Rubin in Scientific American, “As much as 90 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible. Detecting this dark matter will help astronomers better comprehend the universe’s destiny.”
So here is the latest, as the astrophysicists continue their guessing games. “Overall, dark energy is thought to contribute 73 percent of all the mass and energy in the universe. Another 23 percent is dark matter, which leaves only 4 percent of the universe composed of regular matter, such as stars, planets and people.” SPACE.com Senior Writer Clara Moskowitz. So like I said, over 90% of the universe is missing. The very scientists who claim they KNOW there is no God, cannot find over 90% of His creation. I don’t know about you, but I think I will wait for the other 90% of the facts to arrive before I make any conclusions.
Nehemiah 9:6 “You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.
If you watch and listen closely, you will notice a remarkable thing. Each time evolution proponents are cornered with facts which scientifically disprove their position, they change the subject. No scientist or educator who believes in evolution can support their position with facts. Rather they resort to opinion, interpretation, and theories. When the ice on which they are treading is full of cracks, and they are about to fall through and drown, they will quickly change the argument to another subject. Many times they will bring up natural selection as one of their diversionary tactics.
In an argument attempting to overcome the statistical impossibility of evolution, evolutionists almost inevitability inject the concept of natural selection. Natural selection has this wonderful and “magical” power to convince the listener to ignore the statistical facts. They imbue NS with great powers to rescue the otherwise impossible theory of evolution. But let us evaluate exactly where and how and why NS operates. And let us examine exactly what magic power it might have to support a biochemical process such as evolution.
Natural Selection is indeed a very attractive theory. In fact, it can and does occur in the natural world. But whether Natural Selection proves evolution is entirely another matter. We have already discussed some of the differences separating natural selection and evolution in another thread. But we will now address the idea of whether natural selection even supports evolution at all… or whether in fact, it is much more supportive of the creationist viewpoint.
The greatest argument against continual evolution is the lack of any evidence of positive mutations. In order for evolution to occur, there must be vast, incalculable numbers (quintillions upon quintillions) of positive mutations. Worse yet, these positive mutations must occur more or less sequentially. In fact, for any one single protein to be upgraded or changed in any way would require dozens of simultaneous positive point mutations. Such a thing is impossible. It has never been observed, and nothing even approaching it has ever been documented in a laboratory. But don’t worry, NS to the rescue. Evolutionists say that it occurs because of natural selection. It is as if by believing it, atheists can make it so. Kind of like Peter Pan and Wendy’s ability to fly with Pixie dust. It’s magic.
The proteins which make up humans and other living beings are complex, 3-dimensional structures. Their function is usually dependent on their shape, not just their chemical nomenclature or chemical/atomic sequences. As a result, a mutation of one or two genes is vastly more likely to result in a dysfunctional protein or a nonviable organism, than a new functional protein. For example, if you mutate a gene/DNA that controls a protein in a bird, the first thing that will likely happen is the DNA will not function at all. The second thing that might happen is it would change the shape of the protein so that the protein cannot function at all. But to imagine that it would suddenly cause a bigger, better, new and improved version of the bird is laughable. It is totally unscientific.
So the argument of the evolutionist falls flat on its face again. and the reproducing organism either reproduces itself, or it recreates a damaged, defective, or deficient version of itself, or it does not reproduce at all. There is no newer, better, more advanced version. There is NO evolution. And this is exactly what we see in nature!
If it cannot happen even once, in the very simple example of a single protein, it certainly cannot happen quintillions of times (which is what is required to advance and evolve a species into another species). No amount of magical evolutionary pixie dust can change the facts.
Oh. And one more thing. Of course evolution proponents will NOT tell you that NS would actually prevent evolution, if it were possible for evolution to occur. Picture for a moment the supposed intermediary form (missing link) between dinosaurs and birds. in order to progress from rugged dinosaur to delicate bird, many changes must occur. Hind legs must shrink or atrophy. Forelegs must lengthen, lighten, and become both stronger and more flexible (wings). Bones must become hollow (heavy birds can’t fly). Lungs must enlarge. Heart must become more efficient. Brain (cerebellum) must enlarge and reflexes improve on a vast scale to control flight. Scales must undergo hundreds of changes to develop into feathers, and skin must develop oil glands to lubricate and keep feathers from breaking down. And for that matter the “bird” must learn to preen to distribute the oil among the feathers.
Enter the term “hopeful monster” first used by German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. Picture now a creature halfway between. Picture the “dinobird”. Perhaps it has small hind legs but no wings yet. Or wings but no larger brain. Or hollow (fragile ) bones without flight yet. Perhaps it has ALL these things, but no feathers. Or perhaps it has even developed (magically) all these things plus feathers, but doesn’t have the oil glands necessary to keep the feathers from rapidly breaking down, or the inherited coordination to fly. This could go on for pages and pages. The point is NATURAL SELECTION would eliminate all these “hopeful monsters” from any evolutionary line long before they could propagate. They would never be able to keep up with or out-compete the other birds or dinosaurs or small mammals already present. Every intermediary form would be LESS likely to survive, and would be ELIMINATED by natural selection.
So even if abiogenesis (life from nothing) were possible and even if evolution were biochemically possible (which it is not) and even if a self replicating unicellular organism could have created itself from a bunch of left handed amino acids, Natural Selection would come along and immediately snuff it out.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
1 Cor. 13:4-6 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Fossils disprove evolution. Twice.
First, paleontologists discovered many decades ago that life appeared SUDDENLY on Earth. They cannot, of course, say that life appeared suddenly on earth. That would sound too much like creation, so instead, they made up a term called the Cambrian explosion. They postulated (guessed) that maybe for some reason there was a bunch of radiation and maybe it suddenly caused all life to appear. Then they postulated (guessed) again that maybe it wasn’t so sudden. Maybe it lasted 20 million years. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, in cosmological terms, 20 million years even if it were true, would maybe allow for an amoeba to “evolve” to a more advanced amoeba. If evolution were even possible. Of course it is not.
Second, fossils disprove evolution by showing a complete lack of undisputed transitional forms. There are hundreds of millions of fossils. So by any account there should be at least millions of transitional fossils (Fossils showing animals in the “in between stages of evolution”). However there are few if any. Now at this juncture some will complain that we have a very detailed history of the evolution of the house in the fossil record. That is indeed what evolutionists teach. In fact they are so evangelical in there cause that they preach that EVERY fossil ever found is transitional. But what do the facts show?
Since it would require many pages of explanation, and since it has already been done so beautifully, with illustrations and timelines included, I will defer to the article by Mats Molen, “The evolution of the horse,” found on the Creation.com website. Suffice it to say that the evolutionist timeline makes no sense, and there are at least three species of horse involved. They all lived at about the same time, were all buried at about the same time, and do not support the theory of evolution at all.
But what about all those nice drawings in the textbooks about “ape to man” evolution. Well evolutionists cannot find any evidence of direct descent. They can only find “shared or similar DNA”. (Which could just as easily mean the Creator used similar DNA to do similar things.) What about the fossils which have been used to “re-create” the missing links? They were fragments, or partial skeletons. Sometime of the entire drawings of transitional forms were “imagineered” (like Disney movies) from how a paleontologist viewed a single bone from a wrist or hip or ankle or jaw. Sometimes a single tooth has been used to “rebuild” an image of how the imagined creature might have looked.
We will have much more to discuss about evolution and fossils. Some of the greatest fakery in science has occurred in the area of paleontology. But that is for another day. As I have said before. I am not a proponent of teaching creation rather than, or in place of evolution in the public schools. However it think it is essential for scientist to admit that we do not know (as scientists) much at all about the origins of life. It would be far better to educate our youth in honest intellectual observation and analysis, rather than an inaccurate agenda based on full and total rejection of the possibility of Creation.
There has been so much written about the interpretation of fossils, the age of fossils, the origin of fossils and proper dating of fossils that we will return to some of these topics in future writings. The facts, it seems, are subject to various interpretations. Few people will acknowledge that many of the suppositions on which fossil dating is based are questionable, and some are patently false. But more and more well trained scientists are coming forth to question these presuppositions.
Jeremy L. Walter, who has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, and received the prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, writing of the sedimentary layers, states; “The vast horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the region…By contrast the catastrophic processes observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time… The canyon walls resemble others that are assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be less than 20 years old.” (1)
If that is not enough, let me add just one more illustration. A December 2018 article in Nature describes the findings of an analysis of the soft tissue remnants of a supposedly 180 year old Ichthyosaur. No reputable scientist would have predicted intact, well preserved skin and soft tissue remnants in a fossil that is 180 million years old. They would have been laughed out of the room. But that is just what Johan Lindgren, the lead researcher on this study states they found. (2)
Finally, consider the following description of the Fox Hills Formation, one of the many “dinosaur boneyards” in existence, and see if the findings mesh better with a great flood, or with a series of extinction events described by secular paleontologists.
“The bottom line is that the Fox Hills Formation directly below the HCF is accepted as a marine deposit (Figure 1), and the unit immediately above the HCF, the Cannonball Member of the Fort Union Formation, is accepted as a marine deposit, yet Hell Creek itself is claimed to be terrestrial solely because it contains dinosaur fossils. But it’s filled with marine fossils from top to bottom.” (3)
This is nothing new for the global rock record. We see this same fossil mix across all continents. Even most European Cretaceous dinosaurs are found not just mixed with marine fossils but in actual marine rocks like chalk and limestone.8 Spinosaurus, the largest theropod dinosaur ever discovered, was found in Morocco with car-size fossils of coelacanth fish, which today are only found in the deep ocean.(4)
Psalm 95:4-5 In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. 5 The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.
Job 12:7-10 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; 8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. 9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.
(1) Steven A. Austin, “Mount St. Helens and Catastophism,” Impact, Article No. 157, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (July 1986)
There are so many misconceptions in the public arena about evolution that it is difficult to even know where to start. The terms evolution and evolve are used and abused so incessantly that I can only scratch the surface of how these terms have “evolved” over time. But let’s look at a few points I have seen or heard or read that illustrate the points.
Point 1. “It’s wonderful to watch how a frog evolves from a pollywog.”
Point 2. “The most magical thing is seeing a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly.”
Point 3. “Natural selection proves evolution.”
Point 4. ” I believe in evolution because there is too much evil in the world for there to be a God.”
Point 5. “Where did God come from anyway? Let’s see Christians explain that.”
Point 6. “Evolution is natural. Sex is natural. I can do what I want.”
Point 7. “I have seen all the pictures of different stages of men evolving from monkeys.”
Point 8. “Evolution and the tree of life are the foundations of understanding for biology.”
Point 9. “Just look at how many breeds of dogs have evolved from the wild dogs”.
Point 10. “All of the races of humanity could not have evolved from Adam and Eve.”
I have heard or read each of the above explanations, or should I say rationalizations, and cringed at the complete lack of understanding that is required for such beliefs. The general public can be so easily misled that so-called “science education” in the public school systems becomes little more than indoctrination into socially acceptable systems of belief. Such is the case with the term “evolution”, which has been used and misused and misapplied for many generations. To the point that now it is often used to mean “change”. Nothing more and nothing less. But for the sake of completeness, and because readers may have encountered these “lines of logic” themselves, let me briefly explain what evolution is, and why the above statements sometimes border on ridiculous.
Counterpoint 1 and 2. First, when it comes to the transformation of pollywogs or caterpillars, this seemingly magical or mystical transformation has nothing to do with evolution. The seemingly less advanced caterpillar has exactly the same DNA as the butterfly. In fact, the butterfly will mate with another butterfly and create hundreds more caterpillars that are the exact same species as their parents. The frog, likewise, will mate and create more tadpoles and pollywogs. Amazing, yes. Evolutionary, no.
Counterpoint 3. Natural selection. It is real. It happens. It does not, can not, will not, and never has created a new species. And of course, evolution is all about creating new species. Natural selection only occurs in one single species, using it’s already existing DNA, and facilitating survival by allowing (for example) the long-haired dog to survive better in Alaska, and the Chihuahua to survive better in Mexico. Or the dark moth to survive better in a dark forest and a light moth to survive better (be less conspicuous) in a lighter environment. But no dog or moth was transformed or mutated or evolved in any way. A dog remains a dog. A moth remains a moth.
Counterpoint 4. Evil does not rule out God. Evil does not prove evolution. In fact the ability to determine what constitutes good vs evil points to a Higher Power. Evolved humanity (if such existed) would have no reason to choose good or shun evil. The evolutionary mantra of “survival of the fittest” was used as an excuse for the most massive genocides of the 20th century (hundreds of millions murdered under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, all evolutionists). Evil exists. If you search for goodness and meaning, and truth, you are not likely to find the answers in evolutionary circles. Instead you will likely find yourself reading the writings of avowed creationists through history.
Counterpoint 5. The question about the origin of God reveals nothing about God, or Christianity, or evolution. It shows the limited perspective of weak, frail humanity. Humans seek to understand a thing, but our intellect is as limited as our experience. If there is a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, how could any human mind hope to fathom his whereabouts or his origins? If there is an omnipotent God who created time itself, who are we to question where He was “before” He created it? Let’s see atheistic scientists and evolutionists explain that.
Counterpoint 6. Evolution and the sexual revolution are so intimately intertwined that it would require another very long chapter to begin to address that subject. Lets just say the Bible and all the worlds religions have much to say about the human proclivity to abuse others in the name of sexual self-expression. And one other factoid that evolutionists are not quick to admit is that many of the earliest proponents of evolution wrote that they were expressly rebelling against the repressive sexual mores of the day. If we are evolved, not created, then there is no “higher power” to whom we are responsible for our actions. If we are mentally advanced monkeys we are free to behave however we choose.
Counterpoint 7. Evolution and comic books. Look at any of the local school science textbooks and you will see the fanciful illustrations showing how fish transform into frogs and lizards and hippos and elephants. And there is the classic series of ape to man pictures that are reproduced ad nauseam. These pictures are just that. Pictures. Drawn from someone’s imagination. They have no examples from real life. The transformation was not found frozen in an ancient block of ice, or trapped eternally in solidified amber. Interestingly, the pictures in college textbooks seem to have led to even more fanciful and bizarre “evolutions” into the Fantastic Four, and all kinds of other “mutants” which are supposedly the next scientific steps in evolution. Yet mankind has remained the same for thousands of years. In fact many of the oldest human skulls had a cranial capacity larger than modern humans! How’s that for a change? Are we now supposedly devolving?
Counterpoint 8. The tree of life… Hmmm… The tree of life, while still illustrated and quoted in current evolutionary discussions, has been so thoroughly refuted that no reputable evolutionist should even mention it as a plausible theory, let alone a reality. It was first disproven by geology and the Pre-Cambrian explosion of life (all of life suddenly appears all together at one point in the geologic strata). It was most recently disproven by genomics and the absolute lack of continuity between most of the species evolutionists had previously thought were closely related. And it was always made questionable by the lack of transitional fossils in the geological strata. There is no Evolutionary Tree of Life. It exists only as a diagram in textbooks, and in the minds of uninformed evolutionary proponents.
Counterpoint 9. Evolution and dogs. It is amazing how many people believe that different breeds of dogs are examples of evolution in action. All dogs share the same DNA. Nearly all dogs can Interbreed. All dogs are from the genus classification Canis Familiaris. If a few have lost so much genetic material in the process of breeding that they can no longer interbreed, this is certainly NOT evolution. In order for evolution to occur genetic material must be added, not lost. Created, not destroyed.
Counterpoint 10. Human races are all one race. Human races all interbreed. Human races share the same DNA. There is no genetic or genomic evidence of evolution. Scientists who study such things may yet differ on some things, for example, the amount of supposed “Neanderthal DNA” in various modern human races, but such speculation is not a basis for any scientific proof. If you read closely you will always find such literature replete with “our evidence suggests” or “one conclusion could be”. Scientists who have already chosen their position (against creationism) will say they have “proof” while scientists who uphold creation will absolutely disagree.
saiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.”
We may be testing the limits of civility now. Discussions of this topic are frequently known to degenerate into brawls. So let me say at the outset. I do not believe that all students should be forced to recite Bible verses. I do not believe that teaching of the creationist view of science is the only appropriate material for study. In fact, I am not at all sure I want public school teachers educating my children about anything to do with the Bible. In most cases that would be worse than the blind leading the blind.
I do believe, however in an honest, level playing field. As a scientist and a supporter of science education, I would far prefer honest admissions of where science is supportive of evolution theory and where it is not. I would appreciate sincere admissions, on the part of educators, that evolution is NOT in any way settled science.(1) Far from it. There is as much evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, as there is supporting evolution. (In my opinion there is actually vastly more contradictory evidence.) No right thinking science educator should allow students to be taught things that are untrue. But unfortunately, this is the state of affairs in public education today. Classrooms should be for facts, not propaganda. And open minded discussions should be the rule when the facts are in dispute.
In schools and universities alike, students who question any of the underpinnings of evolution (for any reason) are often bullied and intimidated. They are often called science deniers, or anti-science Bible Thumpers. There are countless examples. In describing his education, Dr Evan Jaimeson describes multiple occasions when, confronted with the scientific inconsistencies of the theory of evolution, “often there was an angry reaction and feeble, if any, explanations.”(2) He goes on to say “the lack of credible answers makes me quite skeptical of the theory of evolution. After all it wasn’t an obscure theory; it was basically accepted worldwide and had been studied for many years. Simple and obvious questions should have been given simple and obvious answers — so where were they?”(2)
But suppressing classroom debate does not advance the cause of truth. Just as suppressing free speech about other topics is counterproductive, taking an “evolution or else” approach is not good for students or for the educational system. There are many unknown effects that can occur with changes in worldview, and we are seeing many of these today. Few would say that the emotional and spiritual levels of peace of mind and satisfaction with life have increased in past decades. In fact, most would agree we are in the midst of a mental health crisis. Some part of this may be attributable to our feelings of meaninglessness and hopelessness as a result of evolutionary teaching.
Dr Ariel Roth , former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda California, writes, “When it comes to answering the great questions of origins, meaning, and destiny, science has lost its credentials. This happened over a century ago when science decided to exclude God from its explanatory menu. If God exists, science will never find Him as long as it refuses to consider God as a part of reality.”(3)
Any objective scientific examination of the texts used to teach science and to “debunk creationist nonsense” will find that most of the diagrams, facts, and statistics used to teach evolution are not only out of date, many are absolutely false. So perhaps the Bible-Thumpers and the Neander-Thumpers should all get together and choose a set of non-disputable facts that all can agree on. And perhaps that is what we should use to teach our children. When all else fails, stop to propaganda and teach the facts.
Isaiah 37:16 “O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth You have made heaven and earth.”
(1) Nicholas Satin, “Sorry USA Today, Evolution isn’t “settled” science. Crisis Magazine, January 20, 2014
(2) Evan Jamieson, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, P. 324
(3) Ariel Roth, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001 p. 99.
I do not want to use any equivocal, or easily misunderstood terms. However it is important that we understand what science is, what it does, and when it can be trusted. In what areas is science relatively dependable and where is it much less dependable?
I trust science to measure and quantify a great number of things in my life, such as electrical devices, motor vehicles, and explosives. In other areas of life, such as emotions, relationships, and even the weather, science is known to be quite often inaccurate, making almost as many wrong predictions as it makes correct predictions. Let me give just three examples.
- Every year here in Florida, the NOAA scientists predict the number and severity of hurricanes expected on the basis of ocean currents, temperatures, and weather patterns. Their accuracy is far from impressive. The science requires many presumptions, and there are too many interdependent factors.
- In medicine, the study and treatment of psychiatric illness had blossomed into an explosion of new medicines. and yet the “epidemic” of depression and mental illness that was noted in the 1980’s shows no sign of abating. The human mind, it seems, is not a mere biological computer, easily fixed with an altered “brain chemistry”. Mental illness is not “just like any other illness”.
- Social scientists and educators have been studying our institutes of higher learning for many decades now. Starting in earnest in the 1960’s, they have made drastic changes in the means by which we educate our children and young adults. But virtually anyone can see that our graduates are not better educated. In spite of billions invested, and thousands of “scientific” studies, our place in the modern world of education has steadily declined, and we are now outpaced by nearly all other advanced countries.(1) So much for the benefit of “science”.
Now the fact that I can see failures among our scientific achievements does not mean I am a “science denier”. Far from it. As an ER physician I use scientific principles every day in the treatment of my patients. I depend on scientific studies in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology, radiology, and a number of other areas to provide the best services I possibly can to my patients. But If I were to believe every report that came down from every drug company, saying that their new drug is fantastic and lifesaving and wonderful, I would be a fool. Science can be wonderful and instructive. But it can also be biased. In fact pharmaceutical companies are known for picking and choosing their science to make their particular drug appear far more useful than it actually is.
The scientific method can only test existing data. It is good at testing things that are easily and accurately measured, such as pH or acidity or chemical reactions. This type of “here and now” science is sometimes called operational science, or observational science.
Dr. Johnathan Sarfati, a research scientist from Wellington, New Zealand, puts it this way. “Many people have the belief that “science” has proven the earth to be billions of years old… However science deals with repeatable observations in the present, while evolution/long age ideas are based on assumptions from outside science about the unobservable past.” (2)
The scientific method becomes much less helpful when things are less easily measured, or when it is making predictions about past or distant future events. Thus studies of emotion, intellect, or thought processes are often inaccurate. Studies of things which happened millions of years ago (so called historical science), with questions as to the intervening circumstances are equally suspect. They require many assumptions. And science in any field that is based on assumptions frequently changes when the assumptions are discovered to be false or inaccurate. This will, I hope allow the reader to begin to differentiate between strong and weak areas of “science”.
Perhaps the best, most concise explanation was by Stephen Grocott. He explains that we cannot see evolution occurring today and no one was there to observe it in the past, which means it is not observable or testable, and so it is unscientific. Creation, by these same criteria, is neither observable nor testable, and so is unscientific. He concludes “Given that creation and evolution are both outside the reams of science, why should I, as a scientist, have problems with belief in creation while really being “scientific”? I don’t.” (3)
Psalm 145:18 The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.
(2)Johnathan Sarfati, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, p. 75.
(3) Stephen Grocott, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, p. 148.