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 creation.com/notscience#distinction (Sourced from 15
Questions for Evolutionists)
_____________________________________
http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html,
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?
Clues:
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.
Evolutionists:
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’
