It is commonly believed that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation of origins and that the theory of special creation is based solely on religious beliefs. It is also widely accepted that evolution is supported by such a vast body of scientific evidence, and encounters so few contradictions, that it should be accepted as an established fact. Consequently it is maintained by many educators that the theory of evolution should be included in science textbooks as the sole explanation of origins but that the theory of special creation, if taught at all, must be restricted to social science courses.
Actually neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that there are a number of irresolvable contradictions between evolution theory and the facts of science, and that the mechanism postulated for the evolu theory’s contradiction of one of science’s most firmly established laws — the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that “There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder . . .” That evolution could be scientifically upheld in contravention of a fundamental law of dissipating energy is an embarrassing aberration of science.
On top of this, the fossil record is hostile to evolution but favourable to a creation model. The conclusion of this article, written by a highly accredited scientist, is interesting indeed.—Ed. Corn.tionary process could account for no more than trivial changes.
Creation has not been observed by human witnesses. Since creation would have involved unique, unrepeatable historical events, it is not subject to the experimental method. Also as a theory it is non-falsifiable seeing it is impossible to conceive an experiment that could disprove its possibility. Creation thus does not fulfil the criteria of a scientific theory, but that of course ‘does not question its ultimate validity. Furthermore, creation theory can be used to correlate and explain data, particularly that from the fossil record, and is thus subject to test in the same manner as other alleged historical events by comparison with historical evidence.
Evolution theory also fails the criteria of a scientific theory. It has never been witnessed by human observers; and is not subject to the experimental method.
The world-famous evolutionist, Dr. T. Dobzhansky, while endeavouring to proclaim faith in evolution, admitted . . the occurrence of the evolution of life in the history of the earth is established about as well as events not witnessed by human observers can be’.
Dobzhansky also stated, ‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter, and yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory’.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich and Dr. L. C. Birch, biologists at Stanford University and the University of Sydney, respectively, have said, “Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it”. Thus it is ‘outside of empirical science’, but not necessarily false. No-one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most as an item in their training.
Evolutionists protest, of course, that these weaknesses of evolution as a theory are not necessarily due to weaknesses of the theory, but are inherent in the very nature of the evolutionary process. It is claimed that this is so slow that it simply cannot be observed during the lifetime of a human experimenter, or during the combined observations of all recorded human experience. Dobzhansky is incensed that creationists should demand that evolution be subjected to the experimental method before any consideration could be given to evolution as an established process.
Yet it is for precisely this reason that evolutionists insist that creation must =be excluded from science textbooks and from the whole realm of science, as a viable alternative to evolution. Their reason is that creation theory cannot be subjected to the experimental method, but this is a characteristic that it shares in common with evolution theory. Thus, if creation must be excluded from science texts and discussions, then evolution must likewise be excluded.
Furthermore, an increasing number of scientists are becoming convinced that there are basic contradictions between evolution theory and empirical scientific data as well as known scientific laws. On the other hand, special creation provides an excellent model for explaining and correlating data related to origins which is free of such contradictions.
The core of modem evolution theory, known as the neo-Darwinian theory, is the hypothesis that the evolutionary process has occurred through natural selection of random mutational changes in the genetic material, selection being in accordance with alterations in the environment.
Mutations are random changes in highly ordered structures. Any process that occurs by random chance events is subject to the laws of probability. It is possible to estimate mutation rates and how many favourable mutations would be required to bring about certain evolutionary changes. Making further assumptions concerning the ratio of beneficial to lethal and deleterious mutations, it is possible to calculate how long an evolutionary process would have required to convert an amoeba into a man. This, according to a group of mathematicians, all of whom are evolutionists, turns out to be billions of times longer than the assumed five billion years of earth history.
One of these mathematicians, Dr. Murray Eden, stated, ‘It is our contention that if “random” is given a serious and crucial interpretation from the probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical and biological.’ What Eden and these mathematicians are saying is that the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain more than trivial change and thus there is no basis at present for attempting o explain how evolution may have occurred. ;o on the assumption that evolutionary process was dependent upon random chance processes, we can simply state that it would have been impossible.
Furthermore, evolution theory contradicts one of the most firmly established laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This obviously becomes evident when we compare the definition of this Law and its consequences by several scientists (all of whom, as far as we know, accept evolutionary philosophy) with the definition of evolution by Sir Julian Huxley, biologist, and one of the best-known advocates of evolution theory.
The Law is that ‘There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy’.
Huxley, however, stated, ‘Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organisation in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation’.
There is a natural tendency, then, for all observed systems to go from order to disorder, towards increasing randomness. This is true throughout, the entire known universe, both at the micro and macro level. This tendency is so invariant that it has never been observed to fail. It is a natural law—the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
On the other hand, according to the general theory of evolution, there is a general tendency of natural systems to go from disorder to order, towards an even higher and higher level of complexity, operating in every corner of the universe. So particles have evolved into people!
It is difficult to understand how a discerning person could fail to see the basic’ contradiction between these two processes. It seems apparent that both cannot be true, but no modern scientist would dare to challenge the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The creationist thus opposes the wholly unscientific evolutionary hypothesis that the natural universe was capable of generating order within itself, and maintains that there must exist, external to the natural universe, a Creator, or supernatural Agent, who was responsible for introducing, or creating, the high degree of order found within it. While creationism is extra-scientific, it is not anti-scientific, as is the evolutionary hypothesis which contradicts one of the most well-established laws of science.
Finally, but of the utmost significance, is the fact that the fossil record is actually hostile to evolution theory but conforms remarkably well to the predictions of the creation model. Life appears abruptly in the fossil record as highly diverse, highly complex forms in the so-called Cambrian sedimentary deposits or rocks. Although these animals, which include such highly complex forms as brachiopods, trilobites, worms, jellyfish, corals and starfishes, as well as other crustaceans and molluscs, supposedly required at least one and a half billion years to evolve, not a single ancestor for any one, of these animals can be found anywhere on the face of the earth. Dr. George Gaylord Simpson has characterised the absence of Precambrian fossils as ‘the major mystery of the history of life.’ This fact of the fossil record, incomprehensible in the light of evolution theory, is exactly as predicted by creation theory.
The remainder of the fossil record reveals a remarkable absence of the many transitional forms demanded by the theory of evolution. Simpson has admitted that ‘Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.’ Dr. Richard B. Gold-schmidt, well-known geneticist and a rabid evolutionist, acknowledged that ‘practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.’ Dr. E. J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and an evolutionist, stated ‘. . I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation’.
The sudden appearance of highly complex forms of life in the Cambrian rocks with the absence of required ancestors, and the abrupt appearance of each major plant and animal kind without apparent transitional forms are the facts of greatest general importance derivable from a study of the fossil record. They are highly contradictory to the predictions -of evolution theory, but are just as predicted by the creation model of origins.
Thus today we have a most astounding situation. Evolution has never been observed by human witnesses. It cannot be subjected to the experimental method. The most sacred tenet of Darwinism, natural selection, in modern formulation is incapable of explaining anything. Furthermore, even some evolutionists are conceding that the mechanism of evolution, proposed by evolutionary biologists, could account for no more than trivial change in the time believed to have been available, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution, based on present knowledge, seems impossible. Finally, the major features of the fossil record accord in an amazing fashion with the predictions based on special creation, but contradict the most fundamental predictions generated by the theory of evolution. And yet the demand is unceasing that evolution theory be accepted as the only scientific explanation for origins, even as an established fact, while excluding creation as a mere religious concept!
Such rigid evolutionary dogma, with the exclusion of the Competing concept of special creation, results in young people being indoctrinated in a non-theistic, naturalistic, humanistic religious philosophy in the guise of science. Science is perverted, academic freedom is denied, the educational process suffers, and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom are violated.
This unhealthy situation could be corrected by presenting students with the two competing models, those Of creation and of evolution, with all supporting evidence for each. They could then evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each model. This is the course true education should pursue rather than following the present process of brainwashing students in evolutionary philosophy.
We Spend too Much Time Ridiculing Evolution