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.