Article – November 10, 2003
Posted/Updated: 2008-04-16 12:42:05
EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?
Part 1
Many voices in the scientific community are questioning the validity of the theory of evolution. Others state it as fact. What is the truth about this theory?
BY BRADFORD G. SCHLEIFER
Evolution. It has been called the basis for many fields of scientific study. Be it biology, geology or biochemistry, the scientific world bases many of its modern concepts and theories on the theory of evolution.
But how has evolution become so established when it is only a theory? Certainly, it must have a firm and proven foundation. But does it?
Article Tools
Text Size:
A A A
Printer-Friendly
Email Article-
Share
Email Updates
Contact Us
As you read, you may find that certain parts of this article are confusing or difficult to understand. Make no mistake, the rationale invented to bring supposed support for evolution is bewildering and complicated—to the point of even being boring. The facts get left behind, and the tortured and tedious scholarly language used by evolutionists stops most from examining this subject in detail. Left frustrated, most people assume evolution to be true.
However, this subject defies true logic, so it is to be expected that you will periodically become lost.
We will demystify this subject. You will see convoluted—and illogical—theories simplified in a way never presented before. While some parts are technical, the more you understand about evolution, the more you will begin to see through its “smoke and mirrors.” Although it may appear complicated, it easily breaks down in the face of simple logic.
You may wish to read:
Clarity will come from understanding what evolution is not. This opens the door to what disproving evolution truly points to—the real origin of the universe!
But before we can show what really happened, we must prove what did not happen.
Even a cursory study of this topic shows that it is still hotly contested! After many decades, much study has gone into it. The results are best summarized by a quote from the late Colin Patterson, once the world's foremost fossil expert: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.”
He addressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?” Each time, he was met with nearly complete silence.
The only comment came from the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.”
This led Mr. Patterson to comment that “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it.”
But what are the real facts about the theory of evolution? What do we actually know? What is the basis for its nearly universal acceptance? We will cover in detail the facts, myths and suppositions that make up the body of the theory of evolution. You will be amazed at what the evidence actually shows!
The Science of Logic
In the realm of science, logic is fundamental in interpreting data. Before delving into the raw data about evolution, it is important to understand some of the methods used to explain it. Rules of logic cannot be circumvented and, by extension, common logical fallacies should never be employed.
It is these fallacies that confuse data and leave the general public uncertain about what is being explained. Clear, simple logic should never leave one confused. Once you are aware of these logical fallacies, you will begin to notice how often they are employed in other fields—advertising, for instance. The following examples are illustrations of logical fallacies commonly employed in science. Keep these fallacies in mind while reading this article.
Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all cars everywhere are red.
Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle, or circular logic. When an assumption or conclusion is used to validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.
Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts”to validate a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.
Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.
Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.
Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible to be verified or proven.
This is just a sampling of the many logical fallacies covered in A.J. Hoover's book, Don't You Believe It. They will be reiterated as we come to them in this article. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to explain the subject of evolution—a subject that is thought, by many, to be proven!
What Is Evolution?
The question of evolution, per se, comes in many shapes and definitions. In its most basic form, it is the brainchild of Charles Darwin. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previous, simpler substances. The example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes.
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from, yet at times overlaps, cosmic evolution.
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow other species to form.
This may sound complicated—because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the lines of these particular disciplines start and stop. This has led to much confusion among the general public on which research and evidence is related to which particular discipline of evolution.
For instance, there is ample evidence to prove that micro-evolution is constantly happening around us. When a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is demonstrating micro-evolution. Often, this evidence is used to “prove” macro-evolution. Such a case would be a perfect example of a hasty generalization.
This has led to much confusion in the general public, and to heated debates among evolutionists. But the problems in evolution go even deeper. Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.
So, if any aspect of these evolutionary “pillars” can be shown as unprovable assumptions, no other conclusions can be based upon them. We will cover twelve basic pillars of the theory of evolution. Most are so important to the theory that disproving them causes the whole theory to collapse.
As we cover each point, the logical fallacy that it employs will also be pointed out. You will be amazed at the “science” used to substantiate this nearly universally believed theory.
Assumption No. 1: Evolution is more than a theory—it is fact!
The first assumption is the gradual transition to referring to the theory as a tested and proven scientific fact—in essence, assuming evolution to be fact. The certainty with which such statements are made would leave most feeling sure that these scientists must have the evidence to support their claims. One statement from Theodosius Dobzhansky's book The Biological Basis of Human Freedom illustrates the point well: “Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”
Such certainty among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools in North America to teach evolution as a “historical fact.”
But not all evolutionists agree with this conclusion: “What was the ultimate origin of man?...Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural” (W. LeGros Clark, 1955).
Some evolutionists today make similar statements. Pierre-Paul Grassé, a world renowned zoologist and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated, “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an object, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977).
While these quotes speak loudly, in this first assumption, we are not trying to disprove evolution, but to show that it is not a tried and tested fact. A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From the quotes above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that evolutionists themselves have not accepted evolution as true.
How could such divergent opinions exist, yet some consider evolution to be fact? The answer is clear. Evolution has not been sufficiently proven in the scientific community to be considered fact!
Further, by true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”
What this means is that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false!
For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color.
If the same standards are applied to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. We will cover supposed examples later in our coming brochure on this subject. Those who support this theory state that most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.
Recall the logical fallacies discussed above. When something is dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to logical fallacies to validate their claims.
This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: “His [Darwin's] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”
As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly is it scientific?
As you continue through the coming brochure, something will happen to your knowledge of evolution. The facts will deflect the clever arguments of evolutionists. You will be able to prove what is true—not just assume it to be.
That is the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution—proof! God's Word teaches us to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21). Proving something means to prove it either true or false. By the end of this brochure, you will have proven creation true, proven evolution false and, by the knowledge you will have obtained, be able to debunk silly assertions.
Evolution will go from something “understood only by the scholarly,” to an utterly illogical fallacy, believed only by the blind, foolish—and ignorant!
The concept of evolution implies a starting point—a beginning—from which all matter, and then life, formed. This event supposedly started with the big bang!
But what does the evidence show? Did the big bang actually happen? To learn about this assumption of evolution and ten others, the many misconceptions about creationism and some proofs of intelligent design, read our free brochure Evolution – Facts, Fallacies and Implications.
