Is evolution really 'science'?

A interesting article if ya care to read it…

As a scientist in academia and in industry, and having taught at the university level, I really enjoy science. In science we have something called “The Scientific Method.” The Scientific Method is an approach good scientist take to make discoveries and establish theories for understanding things in our world.

The classic Scientific Method is as follows: 1) You make an observation; 2) you classify facts concerning this observation; 3) you develop a hypothesis (educated guess) as to why this observation occurred; 4) you experimentally test your hypothesis in the laboratory; and 5) you develop your theory based upon the results of your lab tests.

So a “theory” is a tested hypothesis based upon an observation.

Now let’s consider evolution. Who has ever observed it? And by evolution I mean the changing of one species into another. The answer is “no one has ever observed evolution” – because it is stated that it takes billions and billions of years for this to happen.

So no one has ever actually observed evolution whereby one species changed into another.

Another question that must be asked is, “Who has tested evolution in the laboratory?” The answer, again, is “no one,” for the experiment would take billions and billions of years to occur – as it is a slow process.

So since no one has ever actually observed evolution and no one has actually tested evolution in the laboratory, then that means that evolution – by scientific definition – cannot be a theory.

According to John Suchocki, in his book “Conceptual Chemistry,” published by Pearson Benjamin Cummings in 2007, page 5, a “hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis when, and only when, it can be tested.” So since evolution cannot be tested, it cannot even be considered a scientific hypothesis.

I am sure I have some people’s blood boiling by now, but these are simply facts – by definition.

So if evolution, the changing of one species into another, is not science, what is it? Sir Karl Popper, Ph.D., a leading philosopher of science of the 20th century, is quoted as saying, “Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science.”

Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, stated, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint – the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

So according to these scientists, evolution is not science, but in fact evolution is an alternative religion to Christianity.

Now, I understand that staunch evolutionist grab on to Charles Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species,” but did you know that that is not the entire title of the book? Why do they never mention the entire title?

Let’s look at the title of Darwin’s book and see what we can learn. Darwin’s book in entitled, “On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Oh, so the book is really about the “preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.” Surely, no one would consider this book a racist book, would they? Well, Darwin did. He is quoted as saying, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” (Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man,” chapter 3, and World Book Encyclopedia 1952, p. 336)

Let me see, what else was popular in 1859 when Darwin’s racist book was published? Oh yeah, now I remember. It was slavery. Darwin’s book was used as a justification for slavery and has been used ever since to justify “ethnic cleansing” and Hitler’s thoughts behind creating an Aryan race.

Darwin is quoted as saying, “Often a cold shudder has run through me and I have asked myself whether I may have devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, “Life and Letters,” 1887, vol. 2, p. 229)

So if evolution is not science, then why is it being taught in our schools as science? When asked in a television interview why the scientific community jumped at Darwin’s ideas, Sir Julian Huxley, head of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), one of the world’s leading evolutionists said:

“I suppose the reason why we lept at ‘The Origin of Species’ was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual morés.”

“Morés” is defined as “fixed morally binding customs of a people, moral attitudes.”

So the head of UNESCO stated that the push to teach evolution in the schools is because the idea of God interfered with sexual proclivities.

I remember hearing beloved pastor Dr. D. James Kennedy talk about this. He said he knew that this was the reason secularists pushed the teaching of evolution, but when he actually saw Huxley utter that statement on television he nearly fell out of his chair, because Huxley actually had the audacity to admit it.

Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the foreword to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species,” in 1959, stated: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

So if evolution is not science, why is it being taught as such? If people are taught they are simply evolved animals, why would you expect them to act different from an animal? On the other hand, if people are taught they are made in the image of God, and God has had a plan for their life since before the foundation of the world, the mindset is totally different, with much different results.


Nah, this doesnt go far in my book. Can anything that doesnt fit into a lab or into a timeframe manageable by human being be tested? Yes, it can. 1stly, there is micro-evolution, like generational changes in germ cultures or fruit flies, those can and have been tested directly. There are also transitive fossils, that had been predicted and later found, testing macro-evolution over periods of 100s of millions of years.
So, theory of evolution is living science, it is not set in stone, nor does it contradict Intelligent Design (sorry, hardcore atheists). Darwin had pretty big omissions in his version, e.g., he accounted for competition, but not symbiosis and co-evolution between species (flowers and bees), and his view of the Tree of Life was that it only branches as time goes by. Well, we know it is a more complicated picture, not shaped like a “tree”.
There are other questions. E.g. the climate changes, the ecosystem changes, species change tremendously - but some do not (like bank crabs). Or the living cell, it is not a mere bubble with a membrane, there is a system of spacers and tension strands inside - how did this evolve, out of what? Serious evolutionary scientists will describe these open questions to you.




That answer is actually “many people”

A fantastic read for answers to that and other questions.


Pardon the run-on sentence, but…

Granting that evolution is true, I find it astounding to firmly believe that through that process alone, self-aware organisms can evolve that discover mathematics, logic, the scientific method, the laws of physics, and then in a certainly self referential way (since they arose/evolved form WITHIN that system), state definitively that evolution by natural selection is the final world on the matter.


I have always thought that the Theory of Evolution was evidence against evolution. You see a lot of species that have been around for a long time which have changed very little (insects like ants, reptiles like crocodiles, even octopus). They seem to prove that once the adaption reaches a point where it can eat and reproduce to maintain a sustainable population the adaptation slows down or stops. Humans reached that level of adaptation long before written language, farming, space flight, and the internet came about. Thinking about questions like evolution doesn’t put food on the table so what drove us to put the time into the question?



I’ve been trying to figure out what evolution has to do with concealed carry. I think I’ve finally got it.

If we see some creature evolving into some new mutant creature, we should shoot it!

Am I right??? Huh? Did I get it right???


Sorry, but no. Theories are tested and proven when results can be replicated at will.

Read the book I linked. You’ll see. It’s more in depth than I can answer in this post, but, the information is all out there for that answer and others if you’re willing to learn (and have a little time for some readin’)

You dont have to go to human beings to be astounded, a cell is enough. There are multiple other examples, like mimicry which is extremely improbable, yet happens a lot in nature.

If I had enough talent to write a sci-fi book (any other format would be laughed at), I’d dare to predict a discovery in near future. Remember that movie where Pocahontas is blue in the face, really liberal and an alien? Similar to “eiwa” in that movie, I would predict there is some kind of information field that interacts with evolution of living beings. Whether the field is physical or metaphysical in nature, I dont know, but it would explain some riddles, like the one I mentioned about mimicry, or coevolution of species.

On a side note, the theory of evolution has one improper use - it is employed to attack religion by haters. As a result, both evolution and Darwin get bad rep they dont deserve. Darwin wasnt an atheist. He didnt find his theory at odds with his Christianity.

1 Like

thanks for all the replies… is as always an interesting subject to many people


I’ve worked with plenty of scientists who were religious (Christianity or something else). And plenty who weren’t. I can’t think of a single instance in my own experience where one scientist said “that other person isn’t a real scientist because he believes in Allah.”

That kind of antagonism seems to come from people who fundamentally misunderstand either religion or science, and probably both.


I have a fairly unique outlook on this. I believe that Creationism and the Theory of Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Flame on :fire::shorts::fire:


Science tells us that childbirth is so painful among humans because we evolved to walk upright on two legs, and because we have big brains.

That’s basically what God told Eve.

BTW, evolution is more than just what we call or consider ‘natural selection’, although that is certainly a big factor

I’m working on this one now, had it in my Kindle library but hadn’t started it until this topic reminded me it was waiting

I also previously enjoyed this one:

1 Like

I’ve argued before that the biggest cause of evolution skepticism is not religious opposition, but the stupid way evolution is taught in public schools. Throw in the way evolution is portrayed in the movies, and it’s a wonder that anyone understands it at all.

You’re right, natural selection, adaptation, and evolution are all related concepts, but they’re distinct.

1 Like

My comment on evolution was a bit of a teaser on consciousness, and the materialist assumption that the brain (as evolved entirely from inanimate matter) can give rise to any given conscious experience, including rational thought, the scientific method, etc. But that’s a whole different can of worms and I basically withdraw the comment.

BTW, at least people can’t say all we talk about is guns.


The study of Evolution is Science. I do subscribe to the theory of evolution. What is a theory? It is the best explanation based on the evidence and observations provided. Does that mean that God acted and everything was created all at once? No. But it does not mean that creation didn’t occur or God wasn’t influential in the process? No.

Evidence of evolution:

  1. Fossil Record
  2. Examples found in the observation of Nature
  3. Geology
  4. Astronomical evidence in the science of cosmology
  5. Computer Models

Computer science has actually “proven” evolutionary theory though simple computer programs that utilize information in a running program that builds more complex “organisms” can “evolve” over a length of time.

I do not feel that belief in God and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. Ultimately science may give us the irrefutable proof that God exists.

With that said I do not fault anyone for foundational belief in the Bible. I do not think people who have a foundational belief in the Bible, the Koran or any religious beliefs are dumb, or even anti intellectual. Some of the smartest people I have known take the Bible and Bible study very seriously. Also, sane people who study the Bible typically tend to appear to be happier, more productive and act better towards others than many of the sane atheists I have met.


Mutation or Adaptation? That is the real question!

1 Like