Why Evolution is Not Scientific

For our purposes, the Oxford American Dictionary's definition of "science" is adequate:

 

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.

 

Scientific work involves things like observation, predictability, control, and data collection.

Per Dr. Randy Wysong's The Creation/Evolution Controversy (1976),

 

"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 test his hypothesis by conducting experiments to determine if the predicted result will obtain. If his prediction 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"

 

Per Dr. Randy Wysong also observes

 

". . . evolution is not the 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 findings of science hinge upon demonstrated truths and observed facts, evolutionary theory has little to do with science. Evolution is more of a naturalistic philosophy or worldview that seeks to explain the origins of life materialistically.

A.E. Wildersmith (a well known chemist with three earned doctorates in science) observed

 

"As Kerkut has shown [in his The Implications of Evolution]. Neo-Darwinism thought teaches seven main postulates. Not one of these seven theses can be proved 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 a philosophy rather than a science, for science is concerned solely with experimentally testable evidence."

 

Dr. William 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." He argues that evolution should not be considered a scientific fact, theory, hypothesis, or postulate. For example, concerning the latter, evolutionary theory is not strictly properly designated a scientific postulate because this must:

  1. Be in accordance with the principal laws of mathematics and natural science.
  2. Not be more complicated than necessary for the explanation of the observed phenomena.
  3. Give rise to conclusions which can be controlled by further experimental observations and testing.
  4. Confirm to the general data of science
  5. Alternate hypothesis must be shown to be wrong or less acceptable
  6. The reliability of a scientific conception is inversely proportional to the number of unproved postulates on which it is founded. Evolution fails all criteria for categorization as a scientific postulate

This is why Dr. Ouweneel concludes that evolution is actually a materialistic postulate rather than a credible scientific theory.