Evolution: Fact or Fiction?
The doctrine of evolution is regarded today as an established fact of science. In 1938 H. G. Wells wrote “no rational mind can question the invincible nature of the evolutionary case.” About the same time others wrote “. . . at the present time, no unprejudiced student can possibly reject what the authors of THE SCIENCE OF LIFE have termed ‘the incontrovertible fact of evolution,’ and no responsible scientist does reject it.” For at least four decades evolution has been widely regarded as a fact of science. At least many so regard it.
Ready for a shock? Evolution is neither fact nor science! How’s that for an ignorant statement? Before the men in white come to remove me from my typewriter, let’s consider two basic thoughts.
First, evolution deals with matters of philosophy. It is a philosophy of origins. The origin of humanity, having occurred in prehistoric antiquity, is not capable of scientific observation or experimentation. Evolution lies outside the scope of science. In short, it is a philosophy—it is not a science.
Second, most who accept evolution assume that it has been scientifically proved. My question is: where is the scientific proof I am told to “look in the science of paleontology—that the fossils prove evolution.” So, I look. Paleontology, I found, unmercifully destroys the evolutionary premise of transmutation of the species. “Well,” I’m told, “look at archaeology and anthropology.” So, I looked. I found that Dr. Richard Leakey, a noted anthropologist-archaeologist recently unearthed in East Africa a human skull of such antiquity that his finding literally annihilates the timetable of evolution. Dr. Leakey stated: “Either we throw away the timetables, or we throw away the skull I hold in my hands.” Such a predicament does not lend support to the “factual nature” of evolution.
Dr. G. A. Kerkut, a bio-chemist and an evolutionist, discussed the seven basic assumptions of the general theory of evolution. This discussion is found in his book, Implications of Evolution. He states: “The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification” (7). Concerning the ‘proof’ of the theory, Dr. Kerkut states: “We can, if we like, believe that such an evolutionary system has taken place, but I for one do not think that ‘it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt’” (Introduction, vii). Concerning the assumption that spontaneous generation occurred and that it occurred only once, he states: “. . . [N]othing is definitely known about what did happen; all is hypothesis . . . [T]here is no reason why this simple explanation is the correct one” (17).
Thus, we observe that evolution is proved by investigation to be far less than a fact of science. It is nothing more than a hypothesis. While many men of science are content to teach what they have been taught, to repeat what they have heard, and to assume evolution has been proved by others, the scientists and the non-scientists alike, who continue to investigate, know that evolution is definitely not a fact of science. A true scientific attitude of mind has been responsible for taking many scientists away from acceptance of the theory of evolution.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Roy H. Deaver is the son of Roy C. Deaver (1922-2007), who was a longtime associate of Dr. Thomas B. Warren. Warren often described Roy Deaver as the best Bible scholar he knew. He served as moderator for Dr. Warren’s debate with Professor Wallace Matson in 1978 and also his debate with Professor Joe E. Barnhart in 1980.