Science is observational and it must be testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. Naturally evolutionary ideas, fell under the category of historical science that are NOT testable, falsifiable, or repeatable because they are simply not observable.
What criteria must be met for a theory to be considered scientific?
George Gaylord Simpson, Professor at Harvard and perhaps the foremost writer on evolution, has stated that: “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by OBSERVATION are not …. science.” George Gaylord Simpson, Science, Volume 143 , p.769. And a definition of science given by the monumental OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY states: “A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of DEMONSTRATED truths or with OBSERVED facts systematically classified.” Thus, SCIENCE deals with “demonstrated…..Observed” data arrived at by experimenting in a laboratory or observing in the real world of nature.
Evolution cannot be studied in a laboratory or seen in nature, since its assumed mechanisms operate so slowly as to require millions of years for demonstrable results. This fact is admitted by David Kitts in Evolution Magazine: “Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.” Also, the notable evolutionist Richard Dawkins, adds in a 2009 interview, “We can’t see evolution happening because we don’t live long enough.” Thus we may conclude that the evolution theory is not a scientific fact.
In fact, the whole question of ORIGINS is really outside the limits of science, not being subject to scientific experimentation and analysis. Both CREATIONISTS and EVOLUTIONISTS alike agree that no human observer witnessed the origin of our earth and its life, so the observational aspect of scientific investigation is automatically ruled out in any consideration of origins.
Check out our Bible Answers page for more information on a variety of topics.
In His service,