Evolutionists on Evolution: Pt. 1

To search for conclusions about theories, it is necessary to ask the experts in the field of those same theories. When searching for conclusive proof, one stone can not be left unturned upon another. It is by empirical knowledge that scientific theories and hypothesis are confirmed. And it is the business of science to move forward and continually modify or eliminate particular scientific theories or axioms that have been either proven true or proven false, conclusively. However, belief systems and scientific facts are not always the same thing.

Let's put the theory of evolution under experimental, observational or scientific testing to empirically, conclusively prove it. Or is this possible? I suggest that it is not. I give you this example. The test of whether something is scientific is as follows [1.]:

1. Observable. The act of seeing with the human eye the phenomena in question.

2. Falsifiable. The ability to setup a test or experiment to determine the validity of the thesis.

3. Repeatable. Any experiment must be repeatable to be valid and produce data that can be accepted.

4. Null hypothesis. Statistical analysis of the data to fall within a given acceptable range that makes the data of use and value. This allows further predictions based on the model used in the experiment.

5. Laws of operation. The laws of science (physics, chemistry etc.) must apply to both the phenomena and the thesis.

Darwin struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? [2.]" So evolution does not appear observable, nor repeatable, etc. The Cambrian explosion, where the major flora, fauna, phyla and most life forms first appear, fully formed already!

Darwin continued, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (Darwin, pp. 260-261). Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. Darwin believed that evidence would show up later. It has not. Since there is not sufficient transitional fossil evidence for evolution, where does this leave the opinions of the experts?

The lack of fossil evidence is not a paleontologists trade secret anymore. Science writer Richard Milton is not alone in noticing that the missing links are "...included in every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to Bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibians-living partly in the sea and partly on land-and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans [3.]."

The Curator of the invertebrates department at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge, and who is also adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is a vigorous supporter of evolution, however he openly admits that the traditional evolutionary view is not supported by the fossil record. He say, "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," he writes. "It seems never to happen. Fastidious collecting of fossil, from the bottom upward, up sheer cliff faces, zigzags, minor oscillations..."all showing the same results. That life forms all appear, fully formed, complete in body parts, at their first discovery [4.]. "When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (p. 95).

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959. )

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, it is no surprise that A. Lunn summed it up saying, "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.)

Evolution is no omniscient scientist axiomatic truth. It remains both empirically and evidentially, inconclusively proven. Perhaps Professor George Wald (Harvard University) has an explanation, saying "I will not accept that (creation) philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generations arising to evolution".

There is more than ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. [5.]" Does that sound like objective, rational science? It sounds like it requires a great deal of faith.

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light." The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

There is general consensus in the scientific community that matter did not exist 14 billion years ago. We have evidence from the background radiation and other tests, for example, that the sky is dark at night, that at that time there was said to be a "Big Bang." Prior to that, there was no matter. It seems ironic that the term "big bang" came from Hoyle who maintained till his death that we had a steady state universe, even though no scientist accepts the eternal state of matter, today. So the belief that matter is eternal must come from some outdated concepts. Knowing this, the new Biology textbooks state that "The General Theory of Evolution (macroevolution) states that matter is eternal" while general scientific consensus is that it isn't [6.].

Entropy is an example of energy being used up and then running out. It is defined as "when a system's energy is defined as the sum of its 'useful' energy (energy that can be used, for example, to push a piston), and its "useless energy" (that energy which cannot be used to do external work), then entropy may be visualized as the 'stray' or 'lost' energy whose magnitude over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the system. is a measure of the disorder of a system. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy]"

Belief in a theory" is theology, not science. Even belief in the scientific method is stretching the point. Science works by observing phenomena, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis. If the test fails, a new hypothesis is constructed. It is time to speak openly and honesty about this theory. A theory that by scientific definitions and standards, can never be proven conclusively. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light." The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. Here they can only theorize too.

If you read Webster's definition of the word "theory", you will likely not find more subjective terms and descriptions given to describe a single word in the entire dictionary. Notice all of the subjective terms that Webster uses to define the word theory: General principle "drawn from" any body of facts; is "plausible" or scientifically "acceptable"; "general principle" offered to explain observed facts; "hypotheses"; "guess"; "abstract thought" [my favorite].

There are yet more experts in the field of science yet to quote on evolution than just Darwin who bluntly said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". I will not choose to use Darwin's own words against his own theory, even though there are a plethora of such statements in his "Origin's". No, there are biologists, anthropologists, nuclear physicists, astro-physicists, many Nobel Prize winning scientists...even Richard Dawkins and others who also have difficulties reconciling the evidences with the theory. And those problematic difficulties will be covered in due time.

　

1. This is from the Helen Curtis (Macmillan Publishing) book Biology used for the past

28 years as the standard text for AP biology in high school and Bio 101 & 102 in

most colleges and universities.

2. The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137.

3. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253.

4. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95.

5. Life: How did it get here?, 1985, page 51, Reference to: Scientific American

6. (Helen Curtis (Macmillan Publishing) book Biology used for the past 28 years as the standard text for AP biology in high school and Bio 101 & 102 in most colleges and universities.)