This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
11-22-11 icr scientist

Just How Well Proven Is Evolution?

Posted on

Recently I was a guest on CNN’s Lou Dobbs program, discussing the difference between evolution, intelligent design, and creation. The other two guests were well- known ID spokesmen, Dr. Jon Wells, and famous evolutionist, Dr. Michael Ruse.

In the middle of the discussion, Dr. Ruse claimed that evolution is a proven fact, just as “proven” as 2+2=4. When challenged, he insisted the two statements are equivalently true. Is this so? If not, what is the difference?

Here’s a simple experiment to verify one of the statements. Extend two fingers on your left hand, and then extend two on your right hand. Lay them all on the table in front of you, and count them. You should get four. If you are careful, every time you count them, you will get four. It’s an observational fact.

Now devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one. I suspect even Dr. Ruse would be unable to propose an experiment to verify evolution like we verified our mathematical equation. Even if both statements are facts, obviously they are not the same kind of facts.

That’s because evolution is not something we can observe. If it’s happening today, it’s going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can’t return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know? Certainly not in the same way we know 2+2=4.

Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don’t bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don’t insult us by thinking that we will believe that they are.

It makes you wonder if evolutionists really believe what they say or if they are purposively trying to mislead. I suspect there are some of both….

Continue Reading on

Print Friendly and PDF

This entry was posted in Creation Worldviews, Dating Methods, Education, Ethics, Evolution, Origins, Philosophy, Theology, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Andy94538

    Don’t forget that the “evidence” for evolution ASSUMES evolution. Circular logic at its best.


    Student: How old is this fossil?

    Prof.: Fifty million years old.

    Student: How do we know this?

    Prof.: It came from a strata fifty million years old.

    Student: How do we know that the strata is fifty million years old?

    Prof.: It contains a fossil fifty million years old.

    If you really want to irritate the heck out of these clowns, ask “How do we know that the INDEX FOSSIL is fifty million years old?

    Special Creation is a theory because the Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist. Evolution is a THEORY because it cannot be replicated in a lab, it takes too long to be observed, Etc.

    There are two differences. First, We have the WORD of GOD with respect to Special Creation. Second, the evidence for evolution is loaded with secondary assumptions and weasel-worded logic. For example, the gaps in the fossil record requires secondary assumptions and weasel-worded logic. These gaps are PREDICTED by the Special Creation model. God created each in its own kind.

  • Nils Jansma

    Unfortunately this, I believe, may be an example of a misunderstanding regarding the definition of the word “evolution.” Such a misunderstanding is easy to make and so I am not being critical of that aspect of the comments made. The real problem, in my opinion, are statements like, “Either way, it can lead to ludicrous statements, such as “evolution is as true as 2+2=4.”.
    If one believes that evolution represents “adaptive change,” then any animal adaptation is, by definition, “evolution.” It should be clear to most people that such adaptations are as much a fact as 2+2 = 4. If this is what Dr. Michael Ruse meant, and I think it is, is such a statement really “ludicrous?” It would seem to me that, before you start insulting your critic, you should first determine if you really understand what he is talking about.
    However, it may be that the context of the interview did distinguish between micro and macro evolution and the reference by Dr. Ruse was clearly intended to include the latter. Under those circumstances, then I think the author should have given us that important piece of information as verification of the appropriateness of his criticism.

    • PaulN

      Micro-evolution is as elusive a target as macro-evolution. Even Darwin’s Finches of the Galapagos Islands proved to be no more than bio-diversity! Do not be suckered into ANY form of evolution. NONE have shown any proof of a net change within a species, let alone from one to another!

  • PaulN

    Interestingly, Creation has had more proof in a lab then evolution! Modern medical science has manipulated genes to produce variations on strains of bacteria . Ironically, some even attempt to use this as proof of micro-evolution?!? Science has even claimed to (get this) CREATE the building-blocks of life in lab expiriments! . I get the point; just not the one they want me to!

Proudly built by WPDevelopers