Christian Women Online

In my previous post on this subject, I discussed the fact that evolution is not science.

For science to be science, it must be observable, provable and repeatable.  Evolution is none of these things, but most of us have been brainwashed into believing it is, nevertheless, science.

There are however, some evolutionary scientists who are prepared to admit that evolution is NOT science.

On the matter of science needing to be observable, David K (Ph D in Zoology) wrote in a scientific journal, “Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer”.

On the issue of proof and repeatability, Dr Colin P wrote in a personal letter, “It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another …… But such stories are not part of science for there is no way of putting them to the test.”

Professor Louis B summed up evolution’s lack of scientific credibility nicely when he was quoted in The Advocate as saying, “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless.”

So, what is evolution if it isn’t science?

So far, we have the above evolutionary scientists themselves admitting that it is ‘a fairy tale’, ‘useless’, ‘a story’, ‘a theory’.

But some of these evolutionary scientists take their admissions even further.  Take Harrison M who wrote in an introduction to a more recently published “Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin says, “The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it therefore a science or a faith? Belief in evolution is therefore exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, have been capable of proof.”

I said in my first article on this subject that special creation cannot be proven.  However, what we do observe in nature and in science is strong evidence for a young earth, birthed spontaneously.  In fact, David K PhD says, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”

Professor G.A.K. in “Implications of Evolution” and H.S.L. in “A physicist looks at evolution” also recognise that belief in evolution is not based on scientific fact, but on faith.

G.A.K. says, “It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.”

And H.S.L. states, “in fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend their observations to fit in with it.”

So, let’s ask the question again.  ‘If evolution isn’t science, what is it?’

I think you should be beginning to get the picture.  By their own admission, it is not only ‘a fairy tale’, ‘useless’, ‘a story’, ‘a theory’, but is also ‘scientific religion’, ‘an unproved theory’, a ‘belief’, and ‘a matter of faith’.

Once I realised that, I also realised I didn’t have to be intimidated by this so-called ‘science’.  It’s NOT science.  It’s a world view.  It’s a belief system.  It’s held to with religious fervour by its proponents.  But it’s ISN”T science.

It cannot be proven, any more than Special Creation can be proven.

Over the years ahead, I’m going to introduce you to articles from Creation.com.  It was the accumulation of these types of articles that has armed me with answers to many of the commonly asked questions that people have on the subject of Creation and Evolution.

If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to arm yourselves also.  My family and I have found it to be an informative, encouraging and most enjoyable journey.