Impossibility of Scientific Proof of Origins
The following is from Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. - a book I highly recommend to all!
"'The preceding section has stressed the vital importance of studying the subject of origins. At the same time, it must also be emphasized that it is impossible to prove scientifically any particular concept of origins to be true. This is obvious from the fact that the essence of the scientific method is experimental observation and repeatability. A scientific investigator, be he ever so resourceful and brilliant, can neither observe nor repeat origins! This means that, though it is important to have a philosophy of origins, it can only be achieved by faith, not by sight. That is no argument against it, however. Every step we take in life is a step of faith. Even the pragmatist who insists he will only believe what he can see, believes that his pragmatism is the best philosophy, though he can’t prove it! He also believes in invisible atoms and in such abstractions as the future. As a matter of observation, belief in something is necessary for true mental health. A philosophy of life is a philosophy, not a scientific experiment. A life based on the whim of the moment, with no rationale, is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Thus, one must believe, at least with respect to ultimate origins. However, for optimally beneficial application of that belief, his faith should be a reasoned faith, not a credulous faith or a prescribed faith. To illustrate more exactly what we mean when we say origins cannot be proved, a brief discussion is given below on each of the two basic concepts of origins, creation and evolution.
A. Creation cannot be proved
B. Evolution cannot be proved
Since it is often maintained by evolutionists that evolution is scientific, whereas creationism is religious, it will be well at this point to cite several leading evolutionists who have recognized that evolution also is incapable of being proved.
Evolution operates too slowly for scientific observation
One of the nation’s leading evolutionists, Theodosius Dobzhansky, has admitted: "The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for ‘proofs’ of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory." Note the tacit admission that "the experimental method" is an "impossibility" when applied to evolution.
Evolution is a dogma incapable of refutation
Two leading modern biologists have pointed out the fact that, since evolution cannot in any conceivable way be disproved, therefore, neither can it be proved. "Our theory of evolution has become'one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus outside of empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it'(Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." - Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch.
Similarly, Peter Medawar recognized the problem entailed by the fact that no way exists by which to test evolution. "There are philosophical or methodological objections to evolutionary theory…It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formulae of neo-Darwinism."
In other words, both the long neck of the giraffe and the short neck of the hippopotamus can presumably be explained by natural selection. A theory which incorporates everything really explains nothing! It is tautologous. Those who survive in the struggle for existence are the fittest because the fittest are the ones who survive.
Evolution is an authoritarian system to be believed
Thomas Huxley, probably more responsible than any other one man for the acceptance of Darwinian philosophy, nevertheless recognized that: "'creation' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days' in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being." -Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, (London: Macmillan, Vol II, 1903), p. 429.
The reason for favoring evolution is not because of the scientific evidence
An outstanding British biologist of a number of years ago made the following remarkable observation:
The only reason for saying that special creation is incredible would be if one had certain knowledge that there was no God. Obviously, if no Creator exists, then special creation is incredible. But since a universal negative can only be proved if one has universal knowledge, such a statement requires omniscience. Thus, by denying God, Dr. Watson is claiming the attributes of God himself.
There are some scientists, at least, who find it easier to believe in the deity of an omnipotent Creator than in the deity of Professor Watson.
It is, as shown in the previous section, impossible to demonstrate scientifically which of the two concepts of origins is really true. Although many people teach evolution as though it were a proven fact of science, it is obvious that this is false teaching. There are literally thousands of scientists and other educated intellectuals today who reject evolution, and this would certainly not be the case if evolution were as obvious as many scientists say it is.
The same is true of creation, of course. Although many believe special creation to be an absolute fact of history, they must believe this for theological, rather than scientific reasons. Neither evolution nor creation can be either confirmed or falsified scientifically.
Further more, it is clear that neither evolution nor creation is, in the proper sense, either a scientific theory or a scientific hypothesis. Though people might speak of the "theory of evolution" or of the "theory of creation," such terminology is imprecise. This is because neither can be tested. A valid scientific hypothesis must be capable of being formulated experimentally, such that the experimental results either confirm or reject its validity.
As noted in the statement by Ehrlich and Birch cited previously, however, there is no conceivable way to do this. Ideally, we might like to set up an experiment, the results of which would demonstrate either evolution or creation to have been true. But there is no one test, nor any series of tests, which can do this scientifically.
All of these strictures do not mean, however, that we cannot discuss this question scientifically and objectively. Indeed, it is extremely important that we do so, if we are really to understand this vital question of origins and to arrive at a satisfactory basis for the faith we must ultimately exercise in one or the other.
A more proper approach is to think in terms of two scientific models, the evolution model and the creation model. A "model" is a conceptual framework, an orderly system of thought, within which one tries to correlate observable data, and even to predict data. When alternative models exist, they can be compared as to their respective capacities for correlating such data. When, as in this case, neither can be proved, the decision between the two cannot be solely objective. Normally, in such a case, the model which correlates the greater number of data, with the smallest number of unresolved contradictory data, would be accepted as the more probably correct model.
When particular facts do show up which seem to contradict the predictions of the model, it may still be possible to assimilate the data by a slight modification of the original model. As a matter of fact, in the case of the evolution model, as Ehrlich and Birch said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it."
The same generalization, of course, is true of the creation model. There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model. The only way to decide objectively between them, therefore, is to note which model fits the facts and predictions with the smallest number of these secondary assumptions.
Creationists are convinced that, when this procedure is carefully followed, the creation model will always fit the facts as well as or better than will the evolution model. Evolutionists may, of course, believe otherwise. In either case, it is important that everyone have the facts at hand with which to consider both models, rather than one only. The latter is brainwashing, not brain-using!
Since the rest of this book is devoted primarily to a comparison of these two models, it is important that everyone using it, both teachers and students, clearly understand the formulation of the two models and their implications.
A. The Evolution Model
The evolutionary system attempts to explain the origin, development, and meaning of all things in terms of natural laws and processes which operate today as they have in the past. No extraneous processes, requiring the special activity of an external agent, or Creator, are permitted. The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself into higher levels of order (particles to people) by means of its innate properties.
To confirm that this is the essential nature of the evolution model, several recognized authorities are cited below, giving their own concepts of evolution.
Thus evolution entails a self-contained universe, in which its innate laws develop everything into higher levels of organization. Particles evolve into elements, elements into complex chemicals, complex chemicals into simple living systems, simple life forms into complex life, complex animal life into man.
Summarizing, evolution is: (1) naturalistic; (2) self-contained; (3) non-purposive; (4) directional; (5) irreversible; (6) universal; and, (7) continuing.
B. The Creation Model
Diametrically opposed to the evolution model, the creation model involves a process of special creation which is: (1) supernaturalistic; (2) externally directed; (3)purposive, and (4) completed. Like evolution, the creation model also applies universally. It also is irreversibly directional, but its direction is downward toward lower levels of complexity rather than upward toward higher levels. The completed original creation was perfect and has since been "running down."
The creation model thus postulates a period of special creation in the beginning, during which all the basic laws and categories of nature, including the major kinds of plants and animals, as well as man, were brought into existence by special creative and integrative processes which are no longer in operation. Once the creation was finished, these processes of creation were replaced by the processes of conservation, which were designed by the Creator to sustain and maintain the basic systems He had created.
In addition to the primary concept of a completed creation followed by conservation, the creation model proposes a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature (since any significant change in a perfect primeval creation must be in the direction of imperfection).
The two models may be easily compared by studying the table below:
The questions of the date of creation (old or young) and the nature of cosmic processes since creation (dominantly naturalistic and uniform or catastrophic) are separate issues.
It is proposed that these two models be used as systems for "predicting" data, to see which one does so more effectively. To do this, one should imagine that neither the evolutionist nor the creationist knows in advance what data will be found. They do not know what they will find but bravely make predictions, each on the basis of his own model. Scientific Creationism - pp. 1 - 12.
I believe Henry M. Morris sets out an understandable foundation from which the serious student of origins should begin his investigation into which of these two models makes the most sense in light of the evidence.
The most universal and empirical law of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that, "All matter and energy go from a state of order and complexity to a state of less order and less complexity." Evolution claims the exact opposite...and they call that science?
Evolution or Creation? Did God truly create everything from nothing in six 24 hour days or did He do it over billions of years? Did it happen all by itself with every species gradually improving itself in complete opposition to the second law of thermodynamics? Isn't creation over billions of years an awfully inefficient method by which to go about creating the universe? Doesn't the Bible teach that there was no death and bloodshed before Adam? Then how can billions of years be made to square with the Bible? (Hint: it can't.)
IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU SEE HERE, PLEASE: PASS THIS SITE ALONG TO A FRIEND OR TO SOMEONE YOU KNOW WHO HAS QUESTIONS OR IS INVOLVED IN ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS! IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, E-MAIL ME AND ASK. I AM AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR THIS PURPOSE. MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS YOU IN YOUR SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH!
Please leave me your thoughts in my guest book as well as a working email address for my reply. ALL comments are welcome as long as you are not anonymous (If you wish your email address to not be seen by anyone but me, just say so and it will be done). All non-compliant entries in the guest book will not be posted, but will be deleted, so LEAVE your email address so I can respond.