Science is observable, testable, and repeatable. If something is not all three of these things, then it is not science, but rather a collection of just so stories. Is evolutionary theory science, or a collection of just so stories.
- Evolution fails to explain life. In fact, modern medicine is entirely based on a simple fact proven by Pasteur many years ago —life does not come from non-life. This is why we Pasteurize milk, it’s why we wash our hands before eating, and it’s why surgeons sanitize their instruments before they operate. If life could come from non-life, the entire medial world would be thrown on its ear in short order. The only answer evolution can answer is that life originated under very different conditions than exist today. These conditions can’t be explained, much less replicated. Here, then evolutionary theory falls outside science and into the realm of just so story.
- Evolution fails to explain species. Every time some scientist changes the color of rat’s fur, there are huge articles about how this proves the theory of evolution. Here, at last, is a repeatable experiment showing the mechanism evolution “used,” to create new species. Only all the evidence is actually on the other side. Men have been breeding dogs, cats, and peas for thousands of years, and no new species has ever resulted from this out and out genetic manipulation. Evolution can’t produce one new species, so clearly no repeatable experiment has been devised to show how evolutionary processes can actually produce new species. Evolution, then, falls into the realm of just so story here.
Whereas the blogger I have linked to here thinks that the Theory of Evolution is not science, I tend to have a more neutral view of the Theory of Evolution. I think the theory is interesting, but unproven. What bothers me is not the theory. What bothers me is the religious devotion to the assertion that the Theory of Evolution is proven science. As the post the Thinking in Christ post demonstrates, that “proof” is vastly overstated.