[No. 4 in a series]
This one actually starts out pretty good and the author starts out
expressing a factual understanding of science. Why it ends up among
creationist cult propaganda is explained later when the author exhibits
his or her ignorance about directly observed speciation events which
puts an abrupt end to the complaint. Since the author apparently didn't
know about directly observed speciation events, he or she assumes that
it hasn't happened yet and thus one or more of the theories which
describe the observed phenomena doesn't happen -- a bit of an exercise
in illogic but at least it starts out well. - flr
I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because, after all, it's "only a theory." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.
It's also somewhat amusing to consider the possibility that some people
feel that evolution doesn't concern them some how. It would be a bizarre
belief somewhat on a par with the notion that sunlight doesn't concern
them or that gravity doesn't concern them. Natural phenomena which
takes place isn't subject to concern or indifference. It simply happens
and doesn't care what some people think about it. - flr
Most Christians have no problem accepting the fact that evolution happens
while retaining a belief in the Christian deity constructs. Creationist
occultism is a minority opinion among all the Christian brand names to
It's also somewhat amusing to consider the possibility that some people feel that evolution doesn't concern them some how. It would be a bizarre belief somewhat on a par with the notion that sunlight doesn't concern them or that gravity doesn't concern them. Natural phenomena which takes place isn't subject to concern or indifference. It simply happens and doesn't care what some people think about it. - flr
There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time!
Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical description of this natural occurrence.
Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that seek to explain those facts. We call these tests of a theory experiments. Experimental science, better known as empirical science, is the kind of science that is responsible for the marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our life.
The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the object or phenomenon we wish to study must be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, like say the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any explanations we might propose for observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable. By this we mean that we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for a phenomenon in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong or inappropriate, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.
What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. Most living organisms and their offspring are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed to be a scientific "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, J. Savage says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook titled _Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declared that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything "except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."
What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.
The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.
In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or
refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or
In conclusion, the author is "sadly mistaken" and likely has
not bothered to keep up in his or her studies. With the advent of the
Internet, however, one would hope that the author has rectified his or
her ignorance and has acquired reference lists of directly observed
speciation events. - flr
Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.
Most Christians accept evolution because they have faith in their
occult superstitions and they don't feel the overwhelming need to try to
find scientific facts to back up a sagging faith.
Evolution doesn't care whether one believes in it or not, just as
gravitation doesn't care if one believes in it or not. Evolution -- like
gravitation -- simply is and, while it's true that one is free to
accept or deny a physical reality, denial is a species of insanity.
After that blunder, the author goes on to somewhat redeem
himself/herself: - flr
And that's complete crap, too. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution
as it's utter foolishness to try to deny observed phenomena -- not to
mention a good way to exhibit or improve upon one's insanity. Most
Christians accept the fact of evolution because they're well aware of the
fact that accepting science doesn't destroy or in any way cheapen their
beliefs in their Christian deity constructs.
Most Christians accept evolution because they have faith in their occult superstitions and they don't feel the overwhelming need to try to find scientific facts to back up a sagging faith.
Evolution doesn't care whether one believes in it or not, just as gravitation doesn't care if one believes in it or not. Evolution -- like gravitation -- simply is and, while it's true that one is free to accept or deny a physical reality, denial is a species of insanity.
After that blunder, the author goes on to somewhat redeem himself/herself: - flr
Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. In the months ahead, we will see that creation by intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of nature.
One might very well be satisfied that faith alone is enough to pretend to
believe in deity constructs. Throwing up one's hands and glibly proclaiming
"gods dun it" and wallowing in willful ignorance would be
acceptable were it not for the fact that in addition to proclaiming that
"gods dun it" and wallowing in ignorance, cultists wish to
also get their occultism taught as fact and science in the public schools
and in the colleges. That stupidity must be opposed. - flr
After admitting that "creation" was unobserable -- because there
is no evidence for either a "creation" or a "creator"
-- the author then finishes with the absurd notion that "intelligent
design" is some how a "reasonable explanation," forgetting
that the cells of living things shows anything but an intelligent
design. And that leaves without saying the utter lack of any evidence for
One might very well be satisfied that faith alone is enough to pretend to believe in deity constructs. Throwing up one's hands and glibly proclaiming "gods dun it" and wallowing in willful ignorance would be acceptable were it not for the fact that in addition to proclaiming that "gods dun it" and wallowing in ignorance, cultists wish to also get their occultism taught as fact and science in the public schools and in the colleges. That stupidity must be opposed. - flr
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
Electronically distributed through the Missouri Association for Creation sponsored BBS:
Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson
"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need
Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice
This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank