Is Evolution Scientific? Excerpt:
In February 1999 a judge ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because creation science is "not science." Lothar pointed out that the court used a definition of science that was so biased that it precluded creation from the outset. Given that definition of science, there was no way any lawyer could have won the case for creation.
The court used the following (flawed and biased) definition of true science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
1.It is guided by natural law;
2.It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
3.It is testable against the empirical world;
4.Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5.It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
But, by the definitions used by that court, Darwinian evolution isn't scientific, either. Here is the court's definition of evolution.
"Evolution-science'' means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
1.Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2.The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3.Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4.Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5.Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6.An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" guided by natural laws that really exist? There are no natural laws that turn apes into men. It is true some men have made monkeys of themselves, but only figuratively. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" correctly explained by natural law? No. How can it be, since there are no such natural laws? Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Absolutely not. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" tentative? Will evolutionists ever believe we evolved from pigs? We don't think so. No matter what the evidence, evolutionists will dogmatically insist that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" falsifiable? What experiment could anyone do that would prove, to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, that men and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor. If you know of one, we would love for you to tell us what it is. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of man component of the theory of evolution fails all five of the court's criteria for being scientific.
Origin and Age of the Earth
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" guided by natural laws? This is debatable. Sedimentary rocks may have been formed over long periods of time at the bottom of an ocean. The existence of fossils in these rocks more strongly suggests that they were formed rapidly, and not uniformly slow, however. But, we must admit that there are natural laws that could be used to explain present geologic formations. Although we don't believe these natural processes did form the present geologic formations, we admit that the explanation is natural and possible. Evolution passes this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" correctly explained by natural law? We don't think so, but some people do. Since we are kind, generous, and magnanimous, we will give them a pass on this one. Evolution passes this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" confirmed by tests in the empirical world? The young-earth interpretations of geological evidence tend to be as good, or better, than the old-earth interpretations, so one really can't say that the old-earth explanations have been confirmed by laboratory tests. There have been no tests that have proved that life has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" tentative? Yes, it is. Evolutionists are always accepting new dates for the formation of the earth and appearance of particular life forms (as long as those dates aren't dangerously close to 6,000 years). Evolution passes this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" falsifiable,? There is abundant evidence for a young age of the earth. Catastrophic (rather than uniformitarian) formation of some rock formation is gaining acceptance. But we know of no test that any scientist could do that would prove (to the satisfaction of evolutionists) the Earth is young. Therefore, this doctrine is not falsifiable. Evolution fails this test.
The origin and age of the Earth components of the theory of evolution fail two out of five of the court's criteria for being scientific.