Sunday, March 4, 2012

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as operational science?

Question #14:

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)
_____________________________________, 3 December, 2004.

A question for the eminent Richard Dawkins, “Sir, if evolution hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, then how can you say it has been observed at all?”

If evolution has been observed, but not while it was happening, then what was actually being observed? 

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed?
DAWKINS: The consequences of... It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

It seems a detective such as Richard Dawkins would likely arrest, prosecute and jail the wrong person for the crime, and be rather proud of himself for doing so.  A massive clue?  How many massive clues does it take for Mr. Dawkins to state a lie to be true?


1)  Abiogenesis has never been observed to happen in nature anywhere at any time.
2)  Life has always been observed to come from previously existing life absolutely 100% of the time.
3)  Natural selection “chooses” only the “most fit” traits to pass on, eliminating “weaker” traits and preserving “stronger more fit traits”.  Neither of these adds the new traits necessary for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal.  Natural selection is known to strengthen a given kind of animal, not cause it to become a new kind of animal as required by evolution. (i.e., the breeding of more fit dogs will still only produce a dog)
4)  Mutations corrupt and destroy the information in DNA, causing the organism to “devolve” not “evolve”.  Mutations cause the loss of information giving birth to a lesser animal that will be weeded out by natural selection; not the increase in information which would be necessary for the evolution of one kind of animal to evolve into a more complex, more fit, greater kind of animal.
5)  There are no examples of transitional forms ever existing in nature.  The only transitional forms believed to exist are in the imaginations of scientists and artists.  The massive lack of transitional forms is a clue testifying that evolution did not happen.
6)  By Mr. Dawkins’ own admission, evolution has never been observed while it is happening.  If you cannot observe something while it is happening, how do you know it ever happened?  You need irrefutable evidence before the event, observation and irrefutable evidence during the event, and irrefutable evidence after the event.

Mr. Dawkins, these clues are testable and confirmable, as required by science.  The evidence is against you and your belief in something, which according to your own statement, has never been witnessed to happen.

Evolution is indeed a theory about history.  Evolutionists claim evolution is science, even though evolution directly opposes actual, real, operational science.


1)  Where in nature can we observe any animal of any kind reproducing another kind of animal that is more than the original kind and not just a variation of the same kind of animal?  To observe this happening today would make it plausible that it happened in the past.

2)  Where in nature can we observe non-living chemicals evolving into living organisms?  To observe this happening today would make it a plausible explanation for believing it happened in the past.

3)  Science involves conducting experiments and observations to figure out how things operate.   If you cannot conduct experiments on or observe evolution while it is happening, how can it be science?

The belief in evolution is a belief about the history of the universe, from nothing to the “Big Bang” to gas clouds to stars and planets to elements to chemicals (still non-living) to the first living organism(s) to all life we see in existence today.  Evolutionists continually attempt to minimize and change their definition of evolution when part of the overall idea of evolution is shown to be false.  Continuous bait-and-switch changes of definitions continue to show the weakness and bankruptcy of the belief in evolution and its lack of scientific foundation.

Related Articles:
‘It’s not science’

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.