1. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and therefore unable to be critiqued by faith-based arguments. It is not something that can be
understood through a completely literal, biblical interpretation.
2. The theory of evolution is not associated with the origin of life itself. It does not attempt to explain the process that created life, only the
process of how existing life is observed to adapt with its environment over time.
3a. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is at best a hypothesis that cannot be used to make falsifiable predictions, and at worst,
3b. The highly influential philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper, in his now classic; The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), focuses upon one
major criterion for distinguishing between legitimate science and pseudoscience. He labels this criterion "falsifiability" and contends that any
theory claiming a legitimate scientific status must be, at least in principle, falsifiable. That is, there must be some conceivable observation that
could disprove the theory. It is most relevant to note that Popper explicitly recognizes that a legitimate scientific theory may be falsifiable in
principle but, due to limitations of time, space, or technology, unfalsifiable in practice.
I think it is safe to say that for most modern scientists and philosophers of science Popper's concept of falsifiability has come to completely
replace the concept of proof as the major criterion for evaluating the worth of scientific theories. It is now generally recognized that the concept
of proof was improperly transferred from the domains of pure mathematics and logic, where it still retains its legitimacy, to the realm of the
The reason for this is basically a logical one; given that every theory is a product of human reason and thus potentially fallible, it therefore
follows that there is always the possibility that someone may develop a superior theory. That is, one that explains more or one that explains better.
Hence, as long as there is this logical possibility, we now realize that no legitimate scientific theory can be "proven" in any kind of absolute
sense. (in fact, it is really superfluous to qualify the word proof with the modifier absolute.)
Hence, when we do run across the use of the term "proof", or some variation on it, we should automatically translate the language into a form
consistent with this modern view. For example, the claim that some theory has been "proven" should be read to say no more than that there is
"overwhelming evidence" supportive of the theory.
The basis of a theory being "scientifically proven" is the amount of evidence in support of it and the lack of evidence opposing it. If one were to
evaluate the hypothesis of creationism by scientific standards, it is not only "unproven", it is also unprovable
In light of this modern view of the superiority of falsifiablity over the concept of proof, it is in a very basic sense illogical or reflective of a
deep ignorance of the modern scienctific method to demand that any theory must be "proven" before it can be considered legitimately scientific. Yet,
one of the most persistent claims to be found in the literature of "scientific creationism"
is the contention that the theory of evolution is
not a valid scientific theory because it has not been "scientifically proven".
It is important to note that Popper pointed out that a theory is to be judged just as much for what it predicts will not occur as for what it predicts
will occur. In other words, a legitimately scientific theory not only predicts various allowable observable events but also forbids the occurrence of
a whole domain of possible events. While the occurrence of one of the allowable events does not prove the theory (because the same event could have
been predicted by other theories as well), the occurrence of one of the forbidden events does falsify it. (it should be pointed out, however, that,
when confronted with one or a few such falsifying events, a theory that has withstood numerous attempts at falsification and which has no serious,
legitimately scientific competitor, will still be retained, in spite of such anomalies.)
Let us now consider how "scientific creationism" on the one hand and the theory of evolution on the other stand up to the criterion of falsifiability.
Here we shall see the most basic reason why "scientific creationism" is forever doomed to remain in the realm of pseudoscience.
By definition, "scientific" creationism is irrevocably grounded in an appeal to the existence and operation of an obviously omnipotent supernatural
being—that is, a being that by its very nature is capable of virtually anything. It therefore follows that there is literally no conceivable
observation that cannot be reconciled with the virtually limitless actions of such a being. "Scientific" creationism thus lacks the central defining
characteristic of all modern scientific theories. It is absolutely immune to falsification. Literally any problem confronted by "scientific"
creationism as it is applied to the empirical world can be resolved through an appeal to unknown and unknowable supernatural operations. And although
"scientific" creationists are extremely fond of pointing out various alleged problems with the theory of evolution (problems that are more often than
not the result of their own strawman conceptions of both science and evolution), they appear to remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that any
legitimate scientific theory must generate problems. (apparently, once again under the influence of their theology, "scientific creationists" feel
that "true" science is some kind of quest for absolute certainty—a conception of science that is totally rejected by modern scientists.) It is
extremely important to emphasize again that "scientific" creationism is not, as is the case with some legitimately scientific theories, only
unfalsifiable in practice; it is also unfalsifiable in principle.
The same point can be expressed in another way: Science is concerned with explaining why the world is one way rather than some other way. The
introduction of an omnipotent supernatural being into any explanation immediately precludes this possibility. As the scriptures tell us, "With God,
all things are possible." This may be fine theology, but it stands in direct opposition to the central goal of all science. This is why "scientific
creationism" actually acts as a brake on any valid scientific research. It is an antitheory; a void which has the function of knowledge but which
Thus, The Theory of Evolution can be accepted as a method of divine creation, (ala Theistic
) or rejected completely in favour of a biblical literalist perspective. It can not be evaluated or dissected in any meaningful way
from a fundamentally Creationist perspective, even when it is masquerading as "scientific creationism".
All debate on the Theory of Evolution should be made in the Science and Technology forum and only from the standpoint of scientific enquiry and
discussion, not dogmatic theological fundamentalism. Scientists don't argue with or attempt to undermine theology, theologians shouldn't argue with or
attempt to undermine scientific findings. /rant
edit on 23-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)