From:Evolution Facts,Fallacys, and Implications
Evolution: Neither Theory nor Fact?
The first assumption is the gradual
transition to referring to the theory as a
tested and proven scientific fact-in
essence, assuming evolution to be fact.
The certainty with which such statements
are made would leave most feeling
sure that these scientists must have
the evidence to support their claims.
One statement from Theodosius
Dobzhansky's book The Biological
Basis of Human Freedom illustrates the
point well: "Evolution as a historical
fact was proved beyond reasonable
doubt not later than in the closing
decades of the nineteenth century."
Such certainty among some evolutionary
scientists has led most schools
in North America to teach evolution as
a "historical fact."
But not all evolutionists agree with
this conclusion: "What was the ultimate
origin of man?...Unfortunately,
any answers which can at present be
given to these questions are based on
indirect evidence and thus are LARGELY
CONJECTURAL" (W. LeGros Clark,
1955, emphasis ours throughout).
Some evolutionists today make
similar statements. Pierre-Paul Grassé,
a world renowned zoologist and former
president of the Academie des
Sciences, stated, "Their success among
certain biologists, philosophers, and
sociologists notwithstanding, the
explanatory doctrines of biological
evolution do not stand up to an objective,
in-depth criticism. They prove to
be either in conflict with reality or else
incapable of solving the major problems
involved" (The Evolution of
Living Organisms, 1977).
While these quotes speak loudly, in
this first assumption, we are not trying
to disprove evolution, but to show that
it is not a tried and tested fact. A scientific
fact is defined as "an observation
that has been confirmed repeatedly and
is accepted as true." From the quotes
above, we can see that observations
and tests show inconsistencies, and that
evolutionists themselves have not
accepted evolution as true.
How could such divergent opinions
exist, yet some consider evolution to be
fact? The answer is clear. Evolution
has not been sufficiently proven in the
scientific community to be considered
Further, by true scientific standards,
is evolution even a theory? A
scientific theory is defined as a "theory
that explains scientific observations;
scientific theories must be falsifiable."
What this means is that in order for
a scientific theory to be valid, there
must exist a test that can prove it either
right or wrong. Without putting the
theory to a test, one can never prove
it-either true or false!
For example, one could observe an
orange sunset, and then theorize that
the sun is always orange. There exists
a means to either prove or disprove
this theory, therefore making it a valid
theory. Of course, if a theory is proven
wrong, it should no longer be considered
a valid theory. In this case, if one
continues to watch the sky, they will
see changes in its color.
If the same standards are applied to
the theory of evolution, we must fulfill
these two conditions. Evolution must
be able to be observed and also be able
to be put to the test. Because there
have not been any observed examples
of macro-evolution on record, the first
condition is not met. Those who support
this theory state that most major
evolutionary changes happened millions
of years ago. Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is
also not falsifiable.
Recall the logical fallacies discussed
above. When something is
dated very old to prove a point, we are
dealing with what is called chronolog-
ical snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists
know that they are not dealing
with either a scientific fact or theory,
and must resort to logical fallacies
to validate their claims.
This is best described by Dr.
Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist:
"His [Darwin's] general theory
that all life on earth had originated and
evolved by a gradual successive accumulation
of fortuitous mutations, is
still, as it was in Darwin's time, a high-
ly speculative hypothesis entirely with-
out direct FACTUAL support and very
far from that self-evident axiom some
of its more aggressive advocates
would have us believe."
As we have seen, evolution is definitely
not a fact. It is not even a scientific
theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it
is nothing more than a "highly speculative
hypothesis." Can you imagine
something so contested, even by those
who profess to believe it, taught in
schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder,
if it is not a fact or a theory, how
exactly is it scientific?
One of the most basic concepts in the
theory of evolution is "survival of the
fittest." Simply put, it is the concept
that nature selects the fittest and most
adaptable of a species to produce offspring
and therefore survive.
Sounding logical, this theory is
taught throughout schools worldwide.
By reading this series, you are beginning
to see that we must always PROVE
what is assumed to be true.
Notice: "Once upon a time, it all
looked so simple. Nature rewarded the
fit with the carrot of survival and punished
the unfit with the stick of extinction.
The trouble only started when it
came to defining fitness...Thus natural
selection looks after the survival and
reproduction of the fittest, and the
fittest are those which have the highest
rate of reproduction...We are caught in
a circular argument which completely
begs the question of what makes evolution
evolve" (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A
In other words, the fittest are those
who survive, and those who survive are
deemed the fittest. This is circular
logic! Evolutionists have assumed that
just because something survived, it is
the fittest of the species. You may now
begin to understand why properly
understanding logical fallacies
becomes so important. Evolution is
rampant with them!
The theory of "survival of the
fittest" is what is called a "tautology," a
way of saying something redundant.
For instance, "survivors survive";
"water is wet"; "matter is material";
and so on. Such a statement does not
prove anything, because it is nothing
more than a truism.
Yet, even with such information,
PART ONE: FACTS AND FALLACIES
evolutionists willingly ignore the facts:
"Most evolutionary biologists seem
unconcerned about the charge and
make only a token effort to explain the
tautology away. The remainder... simply
concede the fact. For them, natural
selection is a tautology which states a
heretofore unrecognized relation: The
fittest-defined as those who will
leave the most offspring-will leave
the most offspring."
"What is most unsettling is that
some evolutionary biologists have no
qualms about proposing tautologies as
explanations. One would immediately
reject any lexicographer who tried to
define a word by the same word, or a
thinker who merely restated his proposition,
or any other instance of gross
redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized
that men of science should be satisfied
with a major principle which is
no more than a tautology" (G.A.
Peseley, The Epistemological Status of
But some scientists may argue, "We
have seen natural selection. It happens
around the world on a daily basis. This
theory is provable!" But is it? These scientists
point to natural selection removing
the unfit. But this does not create
new attributes in a species or, for that
matter, create a new species! For evolution
to be valid, better, more advanced
creatures would have to survive, lending
to the creation of new species.
A famous Dutch botanist best
explained the problem by stating,
"Natural selection may explain the survival
of the fittest, but it cannot explain
the arrival of the fittest" (Hugo
deVries, Species and Varieties: Their
Origin by Mutation).
Since all systems in nature are well
balanced, there must be a mechanism
that keeps those systems balanced.
Therefore, natural selection is very
effective for removing the unfit from a
species. This can be witnessed by the
instinctive actions of a lion attacking
the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra
herd remains healthy, because the weak
Interestingly, the idea of natural
selection did not form in the mind of
Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection
was documented 20 years earlier,
by creationist zoologist/chemist
Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the
concept from the "natural process of
selection" to the "natural means of
selection." He changed it from a readily
understood and accepted theory to a
circular logic truism!
Like all such truisms, the concept of
natural selection attempts to explain
everything, but, in reality, it explains
nothing. Falsely assumed by so many,
this aspect of evolution is nothing more
than a redundant statement.
An Eternal Universe
No matter how science tries to simplify
the theory of evolution, there is
always the problem of explaining how
and when the universe began. What is
There are only two possibilities: (1)
It appeared at a certain point in time, or
(2) it has always existed.
Both of these ideas require some
investigation. Is the universe eternal?
Did it form? And is this possible to
prove either way?
Since we are unable to travel back
in time, you may quickly think that it is
impossible to know if the universe had
a beginning. Matter has an amazing
property. It decays! In fact, everything
is moving into a further state of decay.
You see this principle at work all
around you. If you clean your house, it
will eventually become messy again.
Even if you are not living there, dust
will form and its general state will
decay. Your body also evidences this
concept. Keeping yourself in shape is
work. If you stop exercising or eating
properly, you will quickly get out of
These are just everyday examples
of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. But how does this
prove that the universe is not eternal?
With the coming of the Atomic Age,
beginning with Madame Curie's discovery
of radium in 1898, came the
knowledge that all radioactive elements
continually give off radiation.
Consider! Uranium has an atomic
weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it
releases a helium atom three times.
Each helium atom has an atomic
weight of 4. With the new weight of
226.0, uranium becomes radium.
Radium continues to give off additional
atoms until the end product eventually
becomes the inert element called
lead. This takes a tremendous amount
But, what does this mean? It means
that there was a point in time when the
uranium could not have existed,
because it always breaks down in a
highly systematic, controlled way. It is
not stable like lead or other elements. It
always breaks down. This also means
there was a specific moment in time
when all radioactive elements came
into existence. Remember, none of
them-uranium, radium, thorium,
radon, polonium, francium, protactinium
and others-have existed forever.
This is the Second Law of
Thermodynamics at work! As Henry
Moore stated, "The Second Law
requires the universe to have had a
beginning" (Scientific Creationism).
And it represents absolute proof that
the universe came into existence-or,
in other words, that the universe is not
eternal! That leaves only one possibility.
At one point in time, something-or
someone-caused the universe to
come into existence.
This brings us back to the concept
of cause and effect. In this case, the
universe is the effect-but what is the
CAUSE? We have seen that every effect
must be less than the cause. So, as vast
as our universe is, something greater
must have caused it. This is consistent
with the scientific laws we have
Of course, scientists have also come
to similar conclusions-the universe is
not eternal and there needs to be a "first
cause." Ignoring the TRUE first cause,
they attempt to explain the universe in
many other ways. The most common is
often referred to as the "Big Bang
Big Bang-or Big Hoax?
At its very core, the Big Bang Theory
states that a particular event caused the
formation of matter, with our modern
universe expanding from that initial
event. After the big bang, another theory
takes over. The "inflationary model"
was created to explain how a single
event caused the expansive universe
that exists today.
~There are no true atheists in Christian newsgroups.~