A. The Scientific Method
Much has been debated on the biological, geological, and anthropological history of this world. On the one hand is the idea of creation; that God created the Heavens and the Earth, all the stars and planets in the sky, all the creatures of the ocean, land, and air, and finally man himself. On the other hand is the idea of atheistic evolution; that all life was generated by chance and changed over millennia into the many species covering the Earth, including man. Somewhere in the middle is a combination of the two; that God created everything, sent it into motion, and over millennia changed the first living things into a wide variety of different species, leading eventually to man.
With such diversity of opinion, can we ever know who is right? What can we really know about the propagation of life in this world, it’s biological and geological history, and the history of man? Atheistic evolutionists contend that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, just as with the pagan myths of old. They say that it and the stories in Genesis are nothing more than old stories used to explain the origin of things, since man at the time it was written was too undeveloped and simple to understand proper science. Theistic evolutionists say that the story of Adam and Eve and the subsequent series of events throughout Genesis are true in the sense that the events are true, but that the stories are told in an allegorical manner, so as to teach a lesson in morality. Finally, those who hold a more literal interpretation of Genesis posit that the Earth really isn’t that old at all and that man really did live for hundreds of years.
Can we ever know for certain which position is the True one? Not overtly. In other words, it is impossible to know with scientific certainty what the world was like. However, as with any hypothesis, logical and scientific scrutiny may be used to determine whether one’s ideas regarding our origins is tenable or not. So let us begin with the very foundation for the hypothesis of evolution.
The alleged process of evolution requires four given premises in order to work. The first given assumption is time. Evolutionists believe that the process of evolution is a gradual one, where minor changes take place over millions of generations. For instance, if a dinosaur evolved into a bird, many changes would have to take place. The snout would need to change into a hard beak, the bones would have to change from solid to hollow, it would need to change from cold blooded to warm blooded, it’s forelimbs would have to change from arms or legs into wings, it’s hind legs would have to change from walking or crawling legs to grasping and perching claws, it’s skin would have to change from scales to feathers (and even the feathers would require bazillions of minute changes), etc. In short, since observation and testing is quite clear in showing us that no species has ever produced an offspring of another species (horses have never given birth to dogs, sharks have never given birth to alligators, etc), evolution requires a VERY long amount of time in order to make bazillions of minor adjustments which amount to a slow transformation from one species into another. So, the first assumption of evolution is time. They need a very old earth in order to support their theory.
The second given assumption is abiogenesis, which is nothing short of spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Now, this given is hard for atheistic evolutionists and easy for theistic evolutionists. For one thing, nowhere in the history of man has life ever been observed to spring forth from non-life. For another, no experiment in a closed environment has ever been able to create life from non-life. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, would chalk such life up to a divine miracle which set the whole thing in motion, but then again, that isn’t science, is it?
The third given assumption is that gradual changes within a species are caused by mutations. Evolutionists believe that a mutation within the genetic code of a species can account for such variations as scales, feathers, hair, fur, warm bloodedness, cold bloodedness, and so forth.
The fourth given assumption of evolutionists is that natural selection works in tandem with mutations within a species. In other words, as a species mutates, the mutation will either be beneficial, detrimental, or benign and as such will provide an advantage, disadvantage, or neither to the survival of the species. If the mutation is beneficial, then those without the mutation are believed to die out or become less dominant within the species. If the mutation is harmful, then those with the mutation will die off. If the mutation is benign, then it may simply act as a stepping stone to another mutation which will eventually build into something that is beneficial.
Now, my intent is not to get into too many of the particulars of the debate. Too much has already been written about it for me to be able to add anything new. My intent in addressing the fundamental assumptions of evolution is simply to present a philosophical approach to what many claim is more scientific than a literal interpretation of Genesis. As such, I will tackle each assumption one at a time in order that we may determine whether or not evolution is a tenable, scientific “theory” or not. The reason I wish to address only these four assumptions is because without verification in any or all of them, evolution cannot be verified. As such, no matter what other information is put forth in order to support the notion of evolution, if these four assumptions are not verified, then the so-called process of evolution cannot be asserted.
In science, there are three basic levels of knowledge, and they are hypothesis, theory, and law. The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. An hypothesis is nothing more than an observation and an educated guess. For instance, I may observe that strawberry juice turns white cotton pink. From there, I may hypothesize that strawberry juice would make a good pink dye. Based upon that hypothesis, I would run a series of experiments to test whether strawberry juice makes a good dye. I would soak white cotton fabric in strawberry juice at different intervals, give varying drying times, and use different fabric detergents to see if the stained fabric would hold its color. If my tests were positive and well founded, I could then present a theory that strawberry juice makes a good white-cotton dye. Now, if my observations are based upon assumptions, my experiments or my experimental methods yield questionable or inconclusive results, or my conclusions do not logically follow the data, then I am left only with an hypothesis and no theory at all.
So, the question is, can evolution be properly called a theory? Has it actually presented ANY data that is not assumed, questionable, or inconclusive? As any student of logic knows, in order to prove a syllogism, the premises must be factual. The same is true for the scientific method. Let me explain:
1) All A is B.
To state that all A is B is a given fact. It is something that is observable and provable in and of itself. If one claims that all A is B, it is possible for someone to examine what A and B are and see whether it is true or not. It may be easier to place concrete qualities to our premise, so let us say that “A” is jelly beans and “B” is candy. Therefore, our first premise would be that all jelly beans are candy. This is observable and verifiable. Now, let us introduce a second premise:
2) All B has C.
For ease of thought, let us say that by “B” we still mean candy, and by “C” we mean sugar. This is another observable fact that may be determined to be true or false.
Given that all jelly beans are candy and all candy has sugar, we may come to a direct conclusion based upon the facts: All jelly beans have sugar. In this way, we will have moved from hypothesis to theory.
Now, suppose it was not verifiable that all candy has sugar. In fact, suppose it was found out that some candy did not have sugar, but had some sort of alternative sweetener. At such a point, our conclusion would be false because one of the premises was found to be false. In fact, even if we were to adjust the syllogism to look like:
1) All jelly beans are candy
2) Some candy has sugar
We would not be able to conclude that jelly beans had sugar; based upon the given facts, the jelly beans could just as easily be the candy that does not have sugar. Even if it were determined that jelly beans had a high probability of possessing sugar, it would not be conclusive that jelly beans had sugar, and so therefore the premise that “all jelly beans had sugar” could not be used as a given for some other syllogism. So, what may have been a theory drops back down to the level of hypothesis.
Now, taking that little lesson in logic, let us apply the same sort of premise to some of the “evidences” given by evolutionists to support their hypothesis of evolution (remember, without solid evidence, evolution is not a theory).
