BAD SCIENCE IN EVOLUTION

Evolutionists have not proved their case.

Too many educators teach the "Theory of Evolution" as though it were a scientific fact. But in reality, it isn't proved, and it isn't even a theory. Here are the real facts:

EVOLUTION IS NOT PROVED

Every time Evolution is mentioned, it is called "The Theory of Evolution".

  • If it's referred to as just a theory, it means it has not yet been proved.
  • Look at the claims made in Evolution as the origin of species. There are three claims in the theory:
    1. Life occurred by the chance coming together of the substances needed to create it.
    2. Random mutations caused by cosmic radiation subsequently made the changes which made the many different species.
    3. At the same time, Natural Selection determined which species survived and which species died out.
  • The Evolutionists then proceeded to prove the third claim, and with that, claim a proof to all of Evolution.

Natural Selection has been clearly demonstrated, both in experiments and through observations made in the wild. Nobody seriously disputes that natural selection is a scientific fact. It has been observed many times. (The problem now is that environmentalist preservations are trying to prevent natural selection from occurring, by "saving" species from becoming extinct due to natural selection.)

But having proved Natural Selection, the Evolutionists then claimed that the entire theory of Evolution was proved. But that is not the case. The other two claims remain unproved. The Evolutionists assumed that the other two cases are true, because they refused to believe that they could be false. If either one were shown to be false, it would mean that life was created by a supreme being (or some other process we don't know about). So they left them untested.

This means that the theory of Evolution has not yet been proved. A theory of Natural Selection has been proved, but the theory of Evolution remains unproved,

EVOLUTION IS NOT EVEN A THEORY

The second claim states that random mutations caused all of the different species to appear on the earth. But there is a problem with that claim. It can't be part of a theory.

There is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory:

  • A THEORY is a proposal inferred from scientific data that explains an observation.
  • A WORKING HYPOTHESIS is a theory which can be tested scientifically to determine its veracity.

At this point, more definitions and facts are needed:

  • The NULL HYPOTHESIS is the hypothesis that nothing which is not known has been observed. While the null hypothesis can never be proved true, it can be refuted by proving that the observations do not support it.
  • We have no proof that random events actually happen. We assume they are random only because we have no evidence that they are not.
  • Thus, any random event must always be part of the NULL HYPOTHESIS.
  • The null hypothesis can't be part of a theory.

The trouble with the second claim is that it is a claim of the occurrence of many random events. But random events are always part of the null hypothesis. So the second claim is the null hypothesis.

This means that the second claim can't be part of a theory. So Evolution is the null hypothesis, not a theory.

So we should really call it:

"THE NULL HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION"

EVOLUTION AS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS REFUTED

Now we turn to the first claim. It says that life originated by the chance coming together of the substances needed to create life. But, as we shall see, it takes more than a random collection of chemicals to form life that reproduces itself. It requires a minimum number of components. Let's look at what is needed to produce the first living cell:

  • The blueprint for copying the cell is needed. This is the DNA or RNA.
  • Something is needed to read the blueprint and follow the instructions. This is the ribosome.
  • The raw materials must be in such a form that the ribosome can assemble them.

But even if all of these elements by chance came together to produce one cell, there is still something that needs to be explained: Replication of the ribosome.

Let us assume that all three of the necessary ingredients listed above came together and produced one cell. Fine, now we have life. Or do we?

It's that second cell that bothers me.

One of the following must be true (in addition to some possibility nobody has thought of yet):

CASE 1:
RIBOSOME PLANS ON DNA

If we assume that instructions for making ribosomes were to be found on the original DNA blueprint, then two questions immediately come to mind:

  1. Where did the ribosome that was used to read that first DNA come from?
  2. Why are the instructions for making another ribosome on the DNA? How did they get there?

This presents a dilemma which is the logical equivalent to the following dilemma:

The only copy of the plan for the first CD recording device was found already stored on the first CD when the first CD recorder was built.

CASE 2:
NO RIBOSOME PLANS ON DNA

If we assume that the instructions for making ribosomes were not to be found on the original DNA blueprint, then two other questions must come to mind:

  1. Where did the second and succeeding cells get their ribosomes from?
  2. How did the instructions for making ribosomes eventually get written into the DNA blueprint?

This presents a dilemma which is the logical equivalent to the following dilemma:

No plans existed for complicated CD recording devices, yet many of them were made.

CASE 3:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN

If we assume that instructions for ribosomes were placed on the original DNA blueprint, and that ribosomes were provided, then the answers come to mind:

  1. The first cell by design came with everything it needed to multiply.
  2. All succeeding cells have all of the parts and instructions, because they were provided by design.

This presents no dilemma, except to people who hate the concept of a supreme being:

Engineers used plans to make CDs and CD recording devices. Then they burned the plans onto CDs.
Think about the above cases.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Evolution as the origin of life is not proved.
  2. Evolution as the origin of life is not fact. It is not even a theory.
  3. Evolution as the origin of life is contradicted.
  4. Natural selection is proved. It is a scientific fact.