What Science Really Reveals About Evolution

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

8/9/2010

What, exactly, qualifies as SCIENCE?? According to the scientists themselves (and I know that many of you we dialog with ARE scientists, so this won’t be new to you. Be patient. :)) :

Science deals with facts, not opinions or judgments. Facts are verified experimentally, and experiments can be repeated. (Bethell, vii)

Science deals only with the natural world, collects and organizes, looking for patterns and connections, and makes proposals based on evidence, not belief. (Miller & Levine, 5)

The great goal of science is to discern and describe the laws of nature. (Bethell, 197)

Good scientists are skeptics: they refuse to accept explanations without evidence. (Miller & Levine, 10)

Pure science does not include ethical or moral viewpoints. Science aims to be objective. (Ibid, 14)

“Don’t just memorize today’s scientific facts and ideas. And please don’t *believe* them!” (Miller & Levine, 15) {Demand, require scientific evidence for a scientific claim!}

One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed. Material causes only are admitted. (Bethell, 202)

Alright, with that definition, we can proceed and decide which theories and ideas are valid and actually scientific, and which are not.

Is evolution a fact? Let’s break it down, scientifically.

The similarity of structures in different species can be demonstrated by concrete evidence.

The real question is: HOW did the similarity of structures among species arise?

There is no test yet known to prove the beginning.

This is the related, concrete, demonstrable evidence:

If all living things are gradually modified descendants of one or a few original forms, then the fossil record should demonstrate this. However, the fossil record shows the major groups of animals appearing fully formed at about the same time. The greatest differences in groups appear right at the start.

How did complex biochemical systems come into existence in the first place? This question preoccupied Michael Behe. He researched the technical scientific literature only to discover that this question had scarcely ever been addressed, let alone answered. He began to see that in graduate school he had assumed that molecular biologists know more about the origin and development of life than they really do. In fact, they don’t have any idea how the mechanisms they study came into existence. (Bethell, 212)

Behe examined a number of complex biochemical systems in detail: the biochemistry of vision, the blood-clotting system, and the cilium (the whip-like device that propels cells through bodily fluids). If all the parts have to be present and correct from the beginning, then Darwin’s explanation of numerous, successive slight modifications doesn’t hold. For example, a mousetrap is relatively simple, but all the parts must be properly aligned before the trap can catch even one mouse. It is irreducibly complex. (Bethell, 212-213)

Unlike Darwin’s time, matter can now be examined at the submicroscopic level. This eliminates the ability to fill in the gaps with assumptions regarding that which is invisible to the naked eye in studying the systems and structures of the human machine.

In the 1920’s, geneticist Hermann Muller used x-rays on fruit flies to produce an “eyeless” fruit fly, but ten generations later, its descendants were found to have reverted to normal.

Horticulturist, Luther Burbank, spent almost fifty years hybridizing fruits and plants. He concluded after all this experimentation that “there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law.” “Plants and animals all tend to revert, in successive generations, toward a given mean or average”: the Law of Reversion to the Mean. (Bethell, 233-234)

In the 1970’s, Peter and Rosemary Grant made a study of the finches in the Galapagos Islands. They observed a 5% increase in beak size after a severe drought, understood to be the adaptation necessary to survive on only hard-to-crack seeds. Notably, “the finches’ beaks returned to normal when the rains returned. Thus, no net evolution occurred. In fact, several of these finch species now appear to be merging through hybridization rather than diverging through natural selection.” (Bethell, 230)

By their own definitions, scientists have proven that there is no support for the proposal of evolution made originally by Darwin and conveniently propagated by all who like it to this very day.

Similarity of structure is not an explanation for how that similarity arose! The studies that have been performed demonstrate, instead, a restriction upon the genetic code for each species which allows only minor adaptations to current conditions, while never deviating from essential characteristics. There is no scientific evidence for evolution, for all species to have originated from the same substance—none!

Be educated scientists—you will be surprised by many claims which have no place in science, no doubt! ; )

—sl