Evolution’s Unscientific Language
Posted on July 15, 2010 by Kris
Filed Under Evolution/Creation, What I'm Studying... | 2 Comments |
Today I have been working on some class material that my dad, David Brewer, is going to be putting out soon. It has to do with Evolution, and helps to expose some of the doctrine that is taught to almost every child in the public school system today. One thing in particular is standing out to me: the unscientific language that is used to “prove” evolution! Science is supposed to be about facts. Facts can be expressed in definite language. However, when the truth is told about evolution, very indefinite language must be used. Interestingly enough, this indefinite language is still presented as proof for the theory of evolution. Consider one quote from Paul Gastonguay in his book Evolution for Everyone:
Man has produced in the lab NEARLY all the chemical substances found in living cells, learned, TO SOME EXTENT, how cells are put together, but only with parts from already living cells; and devised a scheme to describe how simple chemical substances COULD have progressively adapted to become so complex as to be called alive, and has PROVED in the lab… that this scheme is not impossible. (As quoted in the the soon to be published This is My Father’s World by David Brewer.)
Notice the words in all capital letters in the quote! His point is that they have almost been able to do (which is ambiguous at best) what they think might possibly produce life, and therefore they have solidified some proof for evolutionary theory! Unfortunately, when this type of doctrine is being taught to school children (and often even when it is read by adults) it is presented in a very convincing way, so that the indefinite language is never even challenged. In reality, the way in which this is presented tells the honest reader that they have not proven anything.
Evolution is the most unscientific of the scientific arenas. It is an unprovable science and always will be. How can it be replicated? Even scientists who believe in the theory of evolution admit that it had to occur against astronomical odds. Since no one can prove that life came from non-life (a necessary tenet of the theory of evolution) and no one can prove the long periods of time necessary, and no one can prove even one link between two distinct species, one must admit that belief in the theory of evolution is a faith. And that, my friends, is what the evolutionist mocks the religionist for! But, until the scientist can produce evidence through the scientific method to support his theory of evolution, he will remain in the same boat. Until that proof can be put forth, the indefinite language of Evolution is simply not good enough!
Popularity: 2% [?]
Related Posts:
Comments
2 Responses to “Evolution’s Unscientific Language”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe Here
Evolution is like a dirty word. I’m taking a class on environmental science, and there’s that word “science”. The very first class I was in the teacher an the class book started out that the earth was billions of years old. I could not hold my tongue in my cheek. To make a long story short, I mentioned Gen 1:1 and let the class know where I stood on this issue. Very good article.
Thanks Jimmy. There is no doubt that the doctrine of evolution has permeated almost every area of academia. It’s always good to have the example of others standing up for truth!