The One Thing Evolutionists Don’t Want You to Know
Since the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate on February 4, there have been a lot of posted comments and articles on the debate. I’ve written some myself, for example, “How I Would Debate Bill Nye the UnScience Guy” and “Where the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham Debate Went off Track.”
From evolutionists I hear the same refrain over and over again. Here’s a recent example:
“I feel like I am being trolled. How can anyone call evolution Faith? It’s based on scientific research and analysis.”
Let’s be clear. Scientists opposed to the molecule-to-man evolutionary hypothesis also use “scientific research and analysis.” This is not the issue. It’s the interpretation of the data that’s in dispute. It’s very much like a courtroom. The prosecution and defense make their cases based on the evidence. If the evidence spoke for itself, there wouldn’t be any trials.
Here was my first response:
“Stuff spontaneously appearing. Life spontaneously appearing out of spontaneously appearing stuff. Mind, logic, reason, morality spontaneously appearing out of life spontaneously appearing out of spontaneously appearing stuff. This is science? The age of the earth doesn’t have a thing to do with evolution. The earth could be a trillion years old and a molecules-to-man scenario still could not happen.”
Here was part of his response: “I can show scientific data and analysis to back my claims.”
That’s a bold declaration of certainty, so I wrote, “Show me the science where nothing becomes something. Show me one example of spontaneous generation. You say it’s science. Show me. It’s that simple. If you have the ‘scientific data’ to back up your claims, here’s your chance to make it known to the world.”
He tried a diversionary tactic, but then posted a link to “Evidence for the Big Bang.” I asked him if he read the article since it states, “Contrary to the common perception, BBT [Big Bang Theory] is not a theory about the origin of the universe.” And even it were a theory about the origin of the universe, it wouldn’t be demonstrable science. There are no examples of empirical evidence demonstrated in a lab that shows nothing then something or that something becoming a life form loaded with organized information known as DNA. Any non-evolutionist reading the article could offer a different interpretation of the evidence.
Even evolutionists, the more honest ones, acknowledge that what they belief is a faith commitment and not all science.
For example, Gerald Allan Kerkut writes that there are “seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution.”
“The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred. . . . This is still just an assumption. . . . There is, however, little evidence in favour of biogenesis and as of yet we have no indication that it can be performed. . . . It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.”1
Kerkut (1927-2004) taught physiology and biochemistry at the University of Southampton. He was the Dean of Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences, and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology.
So the next time an evolutionist claims to have the “data to prove something,” ask him to set up a lab and show you. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as ‘a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.’”
No one has ever demonstrated scientifically that life can generate from non-life.
- G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1960), 6, 150. [↩]