Intelligent Design

Evolution= Upside Down Science

Evolution= Upside Down Science

As I have struggled to determine my thesis for my degree in Philosophy of Science, I went and reread 28 books that I had already finished and made copious notes in them.  I put Camel, Blue Cheer, Tangerine Dream and Chris De Burgh on my mp3 player and sat outside with two Yorkies (Yorkshire Terriers), and six Leghorns on an overcast day.  After about two hours of watching the clouds float by, I had my thesis: “How Abnormalities in the Long-age Geologic Column Infer a Short-age Hypothesis”.  I believe that the evidence for a short-age earth is convincing and will supplant the long established 4.5 billion years currently established.  Bear with me as I lay out the ensuing evidence in a series of articles.

I feel like I am repeating the same things that many others have, but that seems to be the process.  Nobody will deny that today’s science relies on empirical analysis— in other words, verification through repeated measurement and testing.  The “scientific method” is the basis for the common steps that biologist’s and other scientists use to gather information to solve problems.  These steps include observation, hypothesis (prediction), data collection, experimentation to test the hypothesis under controlled conditions, and conclusions.

A good question to ask, though, is what does empirical science have to do with the past and origin of life and the earth?  Empirical analysis is verification through repeated measurement and testing.  Testing conducted under controlled conditions to validate a hypothesis or perhaps even to verify a specific law of science is common.    Empirical analysis is a wonderful testing tool but its application is limited to the present— the way things are and the way they work in the present.

Science that puts men on the moon, which provides us with Wi-Fi across the nation and ever more expensive new telephones/devices, is based on scientific principles that can be tested and repeated in the present.  Theories about the origin of man, the earth, and the universe that happened in the past cannot be tested.  Therefore, they cannot rely directly on “empirical analysis.”  Howsoever, observation and empirical analysis are often used to indirectly evaluate the ‘slow and gradual’ old age assumptions of evolutionary doctrine.  It is most important to realize that secular scientists assume evolution and old age as their foundation or basis for reconstruction or interpretation— they assume that evolution and an old earth are true.

An individual geologic fact is accepted or rejected as valid only if it fits the old earth, evolutionary model.  This is a very important concept to understand.  The presumption of evolution “as fact” exists in many sciences including biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, and anthropology.  The primary difference between Intelligent Design, scientific creation, creationism, and evolution is not about the data but rather, the “interpretation” of data— for example, interpretation of observed geological landforms, the fossil record, and radioisotopes.  The question I will examine in this series of articles is, “Is evolution true or is it a great deception?”

The whole process of dating the earth (specifically its’ rocks) begins with the presumption of evolution and an old earth.  Scientists analyze the data, retain, and incorporate it consistent with evolution— and all contrary evidence and data are rejected or ignored.  At this point, certain individuals would say “There is no evidence that is contrary,” How wrong they are- the vast amount of data is ignored and brushed aside in this “scientific process”.  Contrary evidence to evolution is viewed as an anomaly or simply wrong.  An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid only if it fits the evolutionary model.

“If evolution was merely a scientific theory that was open to evaluation based on the evidence, then its evidentiary failings would be freely acknowledged and additional theories could be considered as they are warranted. But far from being a free marketplace of ideas where scientists consider themselves at liberty to pursue the evidence where it leads, the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is a fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand.”  “Evolution’s evangelists” (May 2008). Acts & Facts, 37 (5), Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 10. Copyright © 2008

Secular scientists maintain that evolution is a ‘science’ and creation is a ‘religion’.  Evolution is not testable using empirical analysis and, therefore, does not meet the definition of ‘science.’, Besides that, evolution does not meet the definition of theory, as in “evolutionary theory.” A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations based on hypotheses and verified by independent researchers— but the fact is, evolution (genuine gain in genetic information or net increase in complexity) has never been observed in fossils or living populations.  In fact, evolution is not even worthy of the term hypothesis which is an educated guess based upon observation.  At best, evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

The bottom line is that evolution has never been observed or proven by empirical science— it is just assumed true.  I emphasize that evolution is not science… it is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.  Therefore, what motivates scientists to maintain a tight grip on “supernatural” or the concept of God or creation is considered to be outside the realm of real science.

Theories of how the universe, the earth, and man originated may come and go, but the belief that it happened by chance is an “unshakeable faith” for many today. Evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations, there are no transitional types, and there are no known biological processes for evolution. Evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations, there are no transitional types, and there are no known biological processes for evolution. Divine Creation is inconceivable to many scientists because the science community is largely atheistic.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.  Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.  The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to.  It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.  Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion.  Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing.  Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

Life is here on earth, so secular scientists feel they must explain life “naturalistically”— consequently, they believe that evolutionary doctrine and ignoring data contrary to evolution is legitimate.  To avoid having to recognize God, “professing to be wise, they became fools.”  (Romans 1: 22, NAS)  But there is an even more ominous reason for belief in evolutionary doctrine.  It is tied to the ancient (spiritual) rebellion of men against their Creator as foretold in Genesis 11: 4 and found throughout biblical history.  It refers to the fact that humanity, ever since the rebellion of the first man, Adam, has had an inherited tendency to oppose the Creator’s rule or sovereignty over their lives (Romans 1: 18-32).

While neither the creation model nor the evolutionary model can be proven or disproven, these two views can be compared to see which one fits the data better.  When compared, the young earth model (creation and a worldwide flood) fits the data perfectly while the old earth model (evolution with ‘slow and gradual’ geologic events) has continual flaws— it is essentially upside down science.

Tne next  article:  ->


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s