When scientists put men on the moon, people marvelled. When
scientists developed computers, people were amazed. Scientists’
achievements encourage people to trust their learning and
statements.
Millions believe that science has now irrefutably proved that the
universe started with a ‘big bang’. It is common to assume that life
came about by the process of evolution.
If this assumption is true, it follows that the Bible must be wrong in
talking about our world being created. But is this assumption true? We need to think about this a little more!
If we can put men on the moon, shouldn’t
we also know how we came into being?
Facts and opinions in Science
Science has to work from
facts. A far-away nebula,
observed through a
telescope, is a fact.
A rock formation is a fact.
A fossil in that rock
formation is a fact.
Then there are opinions based on facts: when we observe one thing, we may observe other things
that appear to be related. There are always clouds when rain starts to fall. Usually a drop in air
pressure means that clouds will appear. But the appearance of clouds is not always followed by
rain. Clouds and lower air pressure are facts, but to say it is going to rain is an opinion.
It is a fact that there are similarities and dissimilarities between all living things. We can put
creatures into a classification system – monkeys and humans in one group and fish in another, for
example.
The theory of evolution provides one possible explanation of how living things came to be how they
are. But we must be careful not to then confuse facts and opinions. We could then say that because
the classification is a fact, then the evolutionary explanation that all life developed from simple
forms by gradual change is also a fact. But this would be overstating the case. An equally valid
explanation of the common features would be to say that some intelligent power created them all.
The dissimilar features would then be explained as individual design.
Neither the evolutionary nor the creationist explanation has any more intrinsic validity when used
solely to explain similarities and differences between life forms. They are both opinions when
considered from this viewpoint.
Interpreting the facts
Science is based on facts. Scientists will develop an “idea” that might explain the facts. They then
have to test the “idea”. They think up experiments and try to predict from the “idea” what the
outcome should be. If what is predicted happens often enough in different experiments, the “idea”
becomes a “theory”. If not all of the results confirms the “idea”, it is modified and adapted it until it
predicts correctly what happens in all experiments.
We are able to have satellites in space because scientists
can predict the conditions needed to launch the satellite and
keep it in orbit. This is because scientists in the past have
done many experiments to decide how to predict what the
conditions are. They can then use the proven theories to
calculate speeds and distances, etc.
Observable facts must be differentiated from people’s opinions
Opinions should not be treated as facts
A theory is a possible explanation of observed facts to which
no exceptions are known
The theory is developed from extensive testing to gain confidence
The fossil record
The fossil record is one of the main sources for the
facts behind the theory of evolution.
Going back to what we saw about the scientific
method of establishing theories, we could say that:
The rocks contain the fossil record that
should support the theory of evolution
“The theory of evolution should be the best possible explanation of the observed facts in the
fossil record”.
Assuming life has evolved continuously, we should expect the “facts” to show a continuous
progression through all these stages. We should expect to find fossils of many plants and animals
part way between different species.
But what are the “observable facts”?
All fossils appear to come from well-defined species
No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional, or part way between the
major groups
All fossils come from
well-defined species
Darwin himself in his Origin of Species acknowledged this problem:
“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all
nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined
species? … The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection
of the geological record”.
Darwin was honest enough to admit the reality of
the “missing links”. He hoped that in time the
gaps would be filled.
But some recent quotations from scientists bring
us up to the present day:
“There is no need to apologize any longer for the
poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has
become almost unmanageably rich, and
discovery is outpacing integration … The fossil
record nevertheless continues to be composed
mostly of gaps”. (emphasis ours)
G. T. Neville in “Science Progress”
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of the … facts. The fossil
material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the
scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled”. (emphasis
ours)
Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record … [is] the trade secret of
paleontology” (the study of fossils).
Stephen Jay Gould
“We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual
adaptive change] all the while knowing that it does not.
Niles Eldridge
It would seem that the basic “observable facts” which we would expect to
find when considering the theory of evolution are not there
This should make us careful in accepting the theory with the same
confidence we attach to other scientific laws
To explain this problem, some evolutionists have suggested that major changes in evolution have
occurred over very short periods of time. This is sometimes referred to as “punctuated equilibrium”.
They suggest that there was not time for fossils of the intermediate forms to be produced. This is
not an acceptable explanation for the majority of evolution scientists. This is because the accepted
process of evolution (natural selection working with millions of tiny genetic changes) requires long
periods of time.
Evolution and natural selection
Grey form of the
Peppered Moth
There is no doubt that animals can change slightly as a result of competition for
survival. The classic case that is often quoted is that of Peppered Moths. About
150 years ago, most Peppered Moths were various shades of grey in colour.
Their wings were predominantly light grey with a few black areas (hence the
name “peppered”). As early as 1811, however, the species also included some
black forms. During the industrial revolution, the proportion of black forms
increased, and by 1900 more than 90% of the Peppered Moths near the
Industrial city of Manchester in the UK were black.
A similar increase in black forms was reported in many other species of moths,
ladybird beetles and even some birds. The increase in black forms was also
reported near other industrial cities such as Birmingham and Liverpool.
The increase in the black variety of Peppered Moth is believed
by many to be due to the fact that black moths would be less
visible on black sooty trees. Hence predatory birds would find
more light-coloured moths on the black sooty trees, resulting in a
percentage increase in population of black moths. This is an
example of natural selection causing slight changes in animal
populations.
This is not proof however, that natural selection causes one
species of animal to evolve gradually into another. The species of
animal has not changed at all.
Black form of the
Peppered Moth
Scientists have done many experiments with fruitflies to try and show how evolution could have
occurred. They have succeeded in producing four-winged fruitflies. However, the extra set of wings
have no flight muscles and would thus be a considerable disadvantage in the fight for survival.
Again, there is no fundamental change in the species of animal.
Dog breeders can selectively breed dogs to produce small woolly dogs and huge smooth dogs and
many other varieties in between. This can be regarded as “Artificial Selection”. But again, they are
still breeding dogs. The species has not changed at all.
Natural (and Artificial) selection can be seen to cause minor
variations in a particular species
This cannot be used as evidence that natural selection causes
one species to develop gradually into another
The origin of the universe
The “Big Bang Theory” is now the dominant scientific
theory about the origin of the universe. According to
this theory, the universe was created sometime
between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a
cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions.
The big bang theory was initially suggested because it
explains why distant galaxies appear to be travelling
away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts
the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow
left over from the explosion itself).
These are opinions based on the facts of the universe
as we see it today. There are no known facts about the
origin of the universe as no one was there at the time. An equally valid explanation of the facts is
that the universe was created.
Science cannot comment on how the
universe started
The origin of life
Science has no facts about how life started
The theory of evolution is all about the
development of living things. Life has to be there
in the first place to be developed. That being so,
evolution has nothing to say about how life
began. It does not help at all in answering the
question of how life started.
Although there are many theories about how life
might have started, scientists have no way of
knowing which is the most plausible. They have
no facts to go on. The origin of life is an area of
pure speculation. Yet again, an equally valid
explanation is that life was created.
Science can only work with the facts of the universe as they are today
No scientific comment can be made on the origin of the universe or life
as there are no facts to work with
An equally valid explanation of the facts is that life was created
There is no doubt that dinosaurs once
existed on the earth. The facts of the
fossil records show that. The picture
shows two dinosaur skeletons in a
museum.
When it comes to deciding when these
animals existed, there are many
opinions expressed. But it is very
difficult to be certain because all dating
methods make assumptions. We have
no way of knowing whether the
assumptions are correct or not. There is no mention of these animals in the Bible record. This
means that no facts are given in the Bible. It is the opinion of some that they existed before the
time referred to in Genesis 1 verse 1 when the present order of things came into being. Others are
of the opinion that they lived before the flood of Noah’s time and were destroyed in Noah’s flood.
The only fact we have about dinosaurs is that they existed
We have no facts to enable us to find out when they lived
The Bible gives us no facts about dinosaurs
Statements made about evolution
We need to look carefully at statements made to encourage belief in evolution. Scientific-sounding
arguments are used, but some confuse facts and opinions.
Some quotations from evolutionists will illustrate this point:
“The fossil record furnishes irrefutable proof that life on earth has changed through the
ages … Fossils prove not only that life has changed but also that it has progressed from
simplicity to complexity with the passage of time. These are the facts. To those who take
an unbiased view of the matter, there is only one conclusion – that all past and present life
has descended from simple beings”.
William Strokes and William Lee in the book “Essentials of Earth History”
If we look at this statement carefully we can see:
The facts are the fossils, both simple and complex and everything in between.
The opinion based on the facts is that life has progressed from simplicity to complexity.
There is no evidence even to suggest how one has developed from another!
Another equally valid conclusion that could be drawn from the facts is that life was
created
Here are two more statements which illustrate how some supporters of evolution like to belittle
those who question it:
“The first point to make about Darwin’s theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory,
but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution occurred, just as he
would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun”.
(emphasis ours)
Sir Julian Huxley
“Of the fact of organic evolution there can at the present day be no reasonable doubt; the
evidences for it are so overwhelming that those who reject it can only be victims of
ignorance or prejudice”. (emphasis ours)
M. J. Kenny
These quotations give the impression that evolution has the
same kind of evidence behind it as a scientific law. But, as
we have seen in “The fossil record” section on page 6, the
facts do not support the theory of evolution.
We see a hint of the reason for this unscientific bias in favour of
evolution in another quotation:
Scientists cannot find evidence in the
fossil record to support evolution
“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation
or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved
(by Louis Pasteur) 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of
supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we
choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance”.
George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize, in “Science”
This quotation indicates the reason why opinions are sometimes used as facts. The only
alternative, a special creation, is totally unacceptable to some people.
When we look closely at what some scientists have to say about evolution, we find there is indeed
more opinion than fact. The approach which scientists use in all other fields, which we looked at on
page 5, seems to be abandoned. We can see the reason for this very unscientific approach. Some
scientists are not prepared to live with the consequences of looking at the subject using normal
scientific methods.
Supporters of evolution treat opinions as facts
Evolution is sometimes asserted because the
only alternative – creation – is unacceptable
Isn’t evolution accepted by most scientists?
As Julian Huxley remarked (see earlier), it is commonly believed that all “real” scientists believe in
evolution. Those who do not are simply considered not true scientists. As we commented at the
start of this booklet, some people think that creation contradicts science.
Yet many of the great pioneering scientists of the past believed in some form of creation. Today
there are thousands of highly reputable professionals in every scientific discipline who believe in a
creation of some kind.
Sir Ernest Chain, coholder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, said:
“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a
consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts”. (emphasis ours)
Another science Nobel Prize winner, Dennis Gabor, stated:
“I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations”.
Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of the American NASA space program, wrote:
“We in NASA were often asked what the real reason
was for the amazing string of successes we had with
our Apollo flights to the moon. I think the only
honest answer we could give was that we tried to
never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of
scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of
alternative theories for the origin of the universe,
life and man in the science classroom. It would be
an error to overlook the possibility that the
universe was planned rather than happened by
chance”. (emphasis ours)
Many highly respected scientists have their doubts about
evolution
We have seen:
Observable facts must be differentiated from opinions
Opinions should not be treated as facts
The facts of the fossil record do not support evolution
Natural selection in a particular species is not evidence of evolution between species
Science can only work with the facts of the universe as they are now
No informed comment can be made on the origin of life or the universe as there are no
facts to work with. An equally valid explanation of the facts is that the universe and life
were created
Evolution is sometimes upheld because creation is an unacceptable alternative
Many open-minded top scientists have their doubts about evolution
Science and the Bible are not in conflict when considering
evolution, because evolution has not been proved scientifically.
