The November 2004 National Geographic issue argues that the Theory of Evolution
should be considered a scientific law. It compares this theory to the Theory of Relativity,
which is well established and well supported by a large body of evidence. Creationists
should be disturbed by such a claim - if they unconditionally accepted it. It's CSA's
mission to encourage our readers to think critically and examine the evidence
evolutionists present. Evolutionists Eugene Scott says, "In my opinion, using creation
and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is
virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one
of the major themes in science." That's right - even critically-thinking children wouldn't
be able to accept the "theme" of evolution! Evolutionists have done their best to prevent
the contradictions in their theory from entering the public debate by censoring anything
that contradicts their point of view - even known hoaxes.
As is the case for other so-called evidences CSA has examined, the arguments of NG
(National Geographic) are misleading. In all other sciences, one must gather
information to compose a hypothesis and a valid theory is born. This theory must stand
up to the test of time and be subjected to four criteria: the evidence must be observable,
repeatable, predictable, and falsifiable before it can be considered truly scientific. In the
case of origins, that is not possible. We can't go back in time and actually see what
happened. Therefore, the same rules that apply to "normal" science can't apply to
origins science. In origins science educated guesses about what happened in the past
need to be made, and evidence should be gathered to support these "educated"
guesses. Human nature dictates that these guesses always rest on one's belief system.
Our worldview dictates the way we think. That is true in Christianity as well as Secular
Humanism. If a creationist discovered the skeleton of an ape in Africa and a human toe
bone ten miles away, they would conclude that they found the skeleton of an ape and the
toe bone of a human. If evolutionists find the same remains, they conclude that this ape
was a "missing link" in the evolutionary chain. If this seems far-fetched to you, read the
Time magazine article entitled How Apes Became Human, July 23, 2001, where a good
case is made (based on the toe bone) that this ape walked upright. However, buried on
page 61 of the publication, we find that this all-important toe bone was found ten miles
away from the skeleton of the ape.
The NG article makes similar claims in citing "overwhelming evidence" for evolution. In
its depiction of Pakicetus (a supposedly amphibious whale), they neglect to report that
the illustration is based on drawings by Paul Gingerick, who claims this whale walked on
four legs. Of course NG doesn't mention that no four-legged whale has ever been found
(not living now or in the fossil record), nor do most scientists accept this is possible. If
you think critically and look at their illustration, you would be hard-pressed to believe that
the small detached pelvis area and legs that are pictured could support the weight of
such a creature - unless you're an evolutionists. Did you notice that we said "detached
pelvis"? That's right. The pelvis and tiny legs pictured were not part of the skeleton. So
how does an evolutionist explain that the now amphibious whale retreat back to the
water? Don't they claim that life forms began in the water and evolved into land
creatures? How do they explain a creature capable of living on land going back into the
water? We're not done yet! They claim to be scientists. Do they have any idea about
what is involved in going from a water-breathing creature with gills to a land creature with
a fully developed circulatory system? Where are the many transitions required to make
such major physiological changes? What about the change from fins to legs? Are they
aware of the complex bones, joints, and circulatory structures required for fins to change
into legs? Where are those transitions in the fossil record? We won't even go into the
inadequacy of the tiny pelvis to give birth to a creature the size of a baby whale. NG
states, "Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999
of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (page 25). If you
examine everything else they offer as evidence, you'll find it's all flawed - without
exception! So, where is their "overwhelming evidence"? It doesn't exist! We do agree,
however, with NG that, "no-one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as
a matter of faith" (Page 8). We believe it should be accepted as a fanciful fairy tale,
complete with artistic drawings and whimsical assumptions. Calling evolution a "theory"
gives it much more credit than it deserves.
Permission to copy this article with proper acknowledgements is
granted.
should be considered a scientific law. It compares this theory to the Theory of Relativity,
which is well established and well supported by a large body of evidence. Creationists
should be disturbed by such a claim - if they unconditionally accepted it. It's CSA's
mission to encourage our readers to think critically and examine the evidence
evolutionists present. Evolutionists Eugene Scott says, "In my opinion, using creation
and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is
virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one
of the major themes in science." That's right - even critically-thinking children wouldn't
be able to accept the "theme" of evolution! Evolutionists have done their best to prevent
the contradictions in their theory from entering the public debate by censoring anything
that contradicts their point of view - even known hoaxes.
As is the case for other so-called evidences CSA has examined, the arguments of NG
(National Geographic) are misleading. In all other sciences, one must gather
information to compose a hypothesis and a valid theory is born. This theory must stand
up to the test of time and be subjected to four criteria: the evidence must be observable,
repeatable, predictable, and falsifiable before it can be considered truly scientific. In the
case of origins, that is not possible. We can't go back in time and actually see what
happened. Therefore, the same rules that apply to "normal" science can't apply to
origins science. In origins science educated guesses about what happened in the past
need to be made, and evidence should be gathered to support these "educated"
guesses. Human nature dictates that these guesses always rest on one's belief system.
Our worldview dictates the way we think. That is true in Christianity as well as Secular
Humanism. If a creationist discovered the skeleton of an ape in Africa and a human toe
bone ten miles away, they would conclude that they found the skeleton of an ape and the
toe bone of a human. If evolutionists find the same remains, they conclude that this ape
was a "missing link" in the evolutionary chain. If this seems far-fetched to you, read the
Time magazine article entitled How Apes Became Human, July 23, 2001, where a good
case is made (based on the toe bone) that this ape walked upright. However, buried on
page 61 of the publication, we find that this all-important toe bone was found ten miles
away from the skeleton of the ape.
The NG article makes similar claims in citing "overwhelming evidence" for evolution. In
its depiction of Pakicetus (a supposedly amphibious whale), they neglect to report that
the illustration is based on drawings by Paul Gingerick, who claims this whale walked on
four legs. Of course NG doesn't mention that no four-legged whale has ever been found
(not living now or in the fossil record), nor do most scientists accept this is possible. If
you think critically and look at their illustration, you would be hard-pressed to believe that
the small detached pelvis area and legs that are pictured could support the weight of
such a creature - unless you're an evolutionists. Did you notice that we said "detached
pelvis"? That's right. The pelvis and tiny legs pictured were not part of the skeleton. So
how does an evolutionist explain that the now amphibious whale retreat back to the
water? Don't they claim that life forms began in the water and evolved into land
creatures? How do they explain a creature capable of living on land going back into the
water? We're not done yet! They claim to be scientists. Do they have any idea about
what is involved in going from a water-breathing creature with gills to a land creature with
a fully developed circulatory system? Where are the many transitions required to make
such major physiological changes? What about the change from fins to legs? Are they
aware of the complex bones, joints, and circulatory structures required for fins to change
into legs? Where are those transitions in the fossil record? We won't even go into the
inadequacy of the tiny pelvis to give birth to a creature the size of a baby whale. NG
states, "Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999
of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (page 25). If you
examine everything else they offer as evidence, you'll find it's all flawed - without
exception! So, where is their "overwhelming evidence"? It doesn't exist! We do agree,
however, with NG that, "no-one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as
a matter of faith" (Page 8). We believe it should be accepted as a fanciful fairy tale,
complete with artistic drawings and whimsical assumptions. Calling evolution a "theory"
gives it much more credit than it deserves.
Permission to copy this article with proper acknowledgements is
granted.
This Newsletter was published by Creation Science Alive in January 2005. If you would like a copy of a newsletter not listed on our site, please contact us at: creationfacts@aol.com |
The "Un-Scientific" Method