If science is to be defined as "empirical, observable & testable" then that definition should apply to evolution too! But what elements of evolution are "empirical, observable & testable"?
Duplicity: (Dictionary.com) “deceitfulness in speech or conduct; speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive; double-dealing.”
Surveys continue to reveal about two thirds of responders believe that God created the universe and life. Evolutionists argue that science is not performed by vote, thus what the majority believes does not matter. Yet the evolutionists often boast of the vast majorities of scientists that accept evolution as fact. They even have a running parody about the number of scientists named Steve who accept evolution as “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Since science is not established by vote or popularity then the evolutionists argument for the majority of scientists is completely invalid.
Evolutionists claim that scientists who favor Intelligent Design (ID) should send their papers through peer review. Talk Origins states, “Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low”. But as the movie Expelled has thoroughly pointed out, the secular scientific journals do not publish papers that support ID. In fact, it is very well established that those scientists who come out in favor of ID will themselves be expelled, heavily criticized, lose their jobs, prevented from attaining tenure and the publisher would be stomped on if they should publish something in favor of ID. (Dispite the persecution so some papers have been peer reviewed). The story of Richard Sternberg is just one case showing the veracious nature of the ideological evolutionists against anyone who should allow for an ID foot in the door. Thus the argument of the evolutionists that their ID counterparts should publish through peer review is astoundingly duplicitous.
What about the double standard? Since science is to be defined as “empirical, observable & testable” then evolution should to be put under this standard as well. Yet evolution fails in this standard. Where do the laws of physics come from, or matter or energy? Where does life come from? Evolutionists admit that these are metaphysical questions yet evolution is founded on the assumption that all these things came about naturally, without any intelligence behind it! While evolutionists howl that ID is religion, their belief requires absurd and utterly unscientific conjecture that is untestable and unfalsifiable — thus according to Judge Jones “religion”. For every child knows that something (the universe) can not come from nothing, not to mention the laws that govern it. Louis Pasteur has proven that life only comes from life and so to assume otherwise is completely based in faith and I would say it is an absurd faith. Evolutionists do not demand that evolution be limited to what is “empirical, observable & testable”, because they would have nothing more than natural selection which ID scientists agree with. A perfect example is evolutionists who propose that life began from non-life (chemicals) under conditions different than what we have today.
The book, On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859; it was Charles Darwin’s first book and it immediately became a best seller. The bold claims of evolution were controversial in his day and they are controversial still today. Darwin proposed that all of the diversity of life came about by common descent through the mechanism that he called natural selection. Evolutionary ideas soon incorporated mutations which were first identified by Gregor Mendel. Today additional mechanisms for evolution include migration and genetic drift. It has been more than 150 years since the book was published and the hard sciences (testable science) continues to reveal more and more dramatically that evolution is a dead end. Though natural selection, genetic drift, migration are mechanisms that account for varieties within animal kinds, it does not account for a common ancestor. While there are many species of birds, evolution does not account for the origin of birds.
Evidence for Creation is all around us. I remember Richard Dawkins saying that he could not understand that if there is a God why He has made it so hard to see His creation. I find that odd since Dawkins has said many times that though living things have an appearance of design they really are not designed. So if they look designed, then what do they have to have in order to be designed? For those who are willing to be open to the evidence this site will demonstrate that creation shouts design.
Modern scientists have discovered the nature of the cell, its inner workings and that it is built from the instructions found in DNA, a complex code, more complex than any code known to humans. One information scientist, Dr. Werner Gitt, describes information in five categories: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. These are clearly described in my book, Evolution Shot Full of Holes. So when one comes to understand what each of these five levels are and realize that DNA is a code that reflects all five levels of information this gives us a deeper appreciation for the nature of information as absolutely designed. A book is only written by a person, an author. The DNA code likewise was written by a person, a super intelligence whom we call God. The Bible reflects this in Psalm 119: 13 & 14, “For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well.”
Suppose a detective discovers writing in the sand. This writing has more information (words) than an entire WorldBook encyclopedia set. Would the detective ever think that this volume of information came the waves, wind or from some natural means? This question may sound subjective and unscientific but it is not. All of science research is a process of illiminations and approximations toward the truth. There is no perfect headache medicine but some medicine works better for certain situations. William Dembski developed a formula for determining design. When an object is both highly specified and highly complex that we can have high assurance that this object was designed. Read this article to learn more.
Science must encompass many formulas for understanding the cosmos. Specified complexity is also a formula.
The evolutionists pound the idea that ID has nothing new, they have no scientific evidence to prove that living things were designed. But it is not true. Evolutionists are not willing to be objective. They are not willing to consider the evidence. Specified Complexity is perfectly testable. When it comes to things like DNA, there is nothing that reveals design more clearly and it can be done scientifically.
Evidence Press is here to encourage and embolden those who already believe in a six-day creation and to challenge those who don’t. This web site consists of articles and resources to help defend creation and expose evolution (the Darwinian view that there is a common ancestor for all of life) as a dead end.
