Science Versus Evolution

Evolution is a theory that has not been proven by science. Anyone that claims otherwise uses a non-traditional definition of the word science. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, science is defined as follows: "A branch of study which is considered either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated and brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."

One applies the scientific method by first of all observing and recording certain natural phenomena. He then formulates a generalization (scientific hypothesis) based upon his observations. In turn, this generalization allows him to make predictions. He then tests his hypothesis by conducting experiments to determine if the predicted result will obtain. If his predictions prove true, then he will consider his hypothesis verified. Through continual confirmation of the predictions, (e.g. by himself and other parties) the hypothesis will become a theory, and the theory with time and tests, will graduate to the status of a (scientific) law.

After citing evolutionists who confess that evolution is not scientifically provable, Dr. Randy L. Wysong observes, "...evolution is not a formulation of the true scientific method. They (scientists) realize (that, in effect), evolution means the initial formation of unknown organisms from unknown chemicals produced in an atmosphere or ocean of unknown composition under unknown conditions, which organisms have then climbed an unknown evolutionary ladder by an unknown process leaving unknown evidence."

In other words, to the extent that the findings of science hinge upon demonstrated truths and observed facts, evolutionary theory has little to do with the findings of science. Evolution is more properly considered a naturalistic philosophy or worldview that seeks to explain the origin of life materialistically. As the late A. E. Wilder-Smith, who held three earned doctorates in science observed, "As Kerkut has shown (in his The Implications of Evolution), Neo-Darwinian thought teaches seven main postulates. Not one of these seven theses can be proven or even tested experimentally. If they are not supported by experimental evidence, the whole theory can scarcely be considered to be a scientific one. If the seven main postulates of Neo-Darwinism are experimentally untestable, then Neo-Darwinism must be considered to be a philosophy rather than a science, for science is concerned solely with experimentally testable evidence.

Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel, research associate in Developmental Genetics, Ultrech, Netherlands, with the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, points out in his article The Scientific Character of the Evolution Doctrine, "It is becoming increasingly apparent that evolutionism is not even a good scientific theory." This same Dr. Ouweneel concluded that evolution is actually a materialistic postulate rather than a credible scientific theory.

All but the first two sentences of this have been taken from pages 146-148 of John Ankerberg and John Weldon's "Handbook of Biblical Evidences".