No comments


Raise your hand if you’ve ever heard the phrase, “the theory of evolution.” I’m going to go out on a limb and say every hand is up. In fact, I’m sure I’m not the only one who has heard some brave (albeit delusional, or else lying) soul refer to it as an established, scientific “fact.” The hierarchy of scientific investigation goes like this: Hypothesis—Theory—Law. Let’s put the concept of evolution to the test. Oh, wait… you can’t. Well, we’ll just put it to another kind of test, then.

Is “Evolution” a Scientific Law?

Science is “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method.”¹ There are some people who refer to the concept of evolution as “scientific fact,” (i.e., law), and the manner in which evolutionary scientists speak of it implies that they know it happened, whether or not they directly call it a “fact.” What does this mean, though? “A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.”² Since evolution has never been observed even once, it follows that there is no possible way one could legitimately refer to such as “scientific anything,” much less scientific “fact.”

Furthermore, the defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions.”³ POP QUIZ! True or False: Organic evolution includes the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. Trick question! When it comes to “testable predictions”—or testable anything for that matter—the “evolution” team is currently sitting at, well, nil. No, not a single element of the concept of evolution is testable or verifiable in any way whatsoever. This does not, however, imply the opposite. For the concept of evolution is certainly not lacking in the falsifiable departmentIn fact, every piece of the evolutionary puzzle is not only able to be falsified, but they have already been falsified (see #3)!  Thus, it goes without saying, that, to refer to “evolution” as a fact is, at best, laughable, and, at worst, damnable. In fact, to be strictly factual,the only fact that science tells us about evolution is that it did not happen. Not a single, solitary spec of evidence has been found in support of “evolution,” and with every shovel-load of dirt they lift in search of it, there is a “big bang’s” worth of evidence to the contrary. No—”evolution” is not, and cannot be, scientific law or fact.

Is “Evolution” a Scientific Theory?

But that’s not all—just as “evolution” fails to meet the requirements of a law or fact, it does not meet the requirements of a theory either—at least, not a scientific theory. At a movie store where I worked several years ago, we frequently received phone calls from a local—shall we say, disturbed—man who had several theories, not the least of which was the theory that gremlins were living under his couch. That is a theory, indeed—but it is not a scientific theory. Ironically, however, the theory that gremlins live under your couch is more scientific than the concept of evolution, for it is, in itself, easily verifiable or falsifiable!

Moreover, a scientific theory is “a plausible or scientifically acceptablegeneral principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomena.”3 The concept of evolution is neither plausible nor scientifically acceptable, as was demonstrated in the previous installment. Objective science accepts the concept of evolution about as warmly as the proponents of such accept the word of God.

Or consider this, per Wikipedia, that a “scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation… Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions…”4

“No further questions, your honor.” The concept of evolution fails at every point of the above description. It is not a scientific theory.

Is “Evolution” a Scientific Hypothesis?

But, it gets still worse for poor old Darwin and his ghouls—for “evolution” doesn’t even meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis. Similar to a law and theory, in order for a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, “the scientific method requires that one can test it.”5 This eliminates the fantasy of evolution; for, as already shown above, it cannot be tested. But it is even simpler than that—for a scientific hypothesis must be based upon something that been observed—otherwise, whence came the hypothesis in the first place? The observation upon which the fantasy of evolution is based is simply “We are here.” Scientific law states that every effect must have an adequate cause. But that’s as far as science can take us. Any questions a person might have regarding the origin of things is not a question for science—but history.

“Evolution” is Not Science

You see, in the realm of science, there are certain processes employed that we all learned in grade school (no Ph.D. required), collectively known as the scientific method. As the above definitions clearly state with perfect unanimity, the scientific nature of any given thing stands or falls upon the first three steps of this scientific method:

1. Observation
2. Questions
3. Hypothesis
4. Testing
5. Results
6. Conclusion

Where there is no testability, and, thus, verifiability, there is no science.

Recall the example we noticed in our previous installment (i.e., maggots appearing on dead meat), and notice the scientific process as it is supposed to look:

ObservationRaw meat becomes infested with maggots after a short period of time.
QuestionsWhat is the source of these maggots? From where or what do they arise?
HypothesisThe source of the maggots is the raw, dead meat, via “spontaneous generation.”
Testing(For one) Two hunks of raw meat: one exposed; one submerged (etc.).
ResultsExposed meat had maggots; submerged meat did not (etc., etc.).
ConclusionThe maggots are not spontaneously generating from the meat.

Now, here is what it looks like with the concept of “evolution”:

ObservationLife exists.
QuestionsHow did it begin?
HypothesisLife originally arose from nonliving matter billions of years ago. [Invalid: Untestable]
ResultsN/A (Established, scientific law, however, says life cannot arise from non-life.)
ConclusionLife originally arose from nonliving matter 5-10 billion years ago.

This, friends, is not science. It is science fiction; it is propaganda; it is fantasy; it is absurd. In fact—for our daily dose of irony—evolution is religion.

Hey, remember that time when science was about discovering the truth?  Yeah, me either. I wonder what that was like… But hey, at least they get to look scientific in their angelic lab coats and sound “scientific” as they make statements that schizophrenic crack addicts spout off all the time. However, schizophrenic crack addicts typically aren’t pulling six-figures at ivy league universities…

¹ “Science.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th Ed. 2011. p. 1112. Emp. added.
² “Scientific Law.” Wikipedia. Web.
3 “Theory.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th Ed. 2011.  p. 1296. Emp. added.
4 “Scientific Theory.” Wikipedia. Web.
5 “Hypothesis.” Wikipedia. Web. Hypothesis. Emp. added.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.