you're reading...

Evolution has one big taboo problem


Let me first say this… I don’t like the word “debunked”.  I think it radiates an attitude of pride and arrogance.  I have not debunked evolution, but I do believe I have assembled a logical deduction as to why evolution is not scientific.

In today’s age a respected scientific status is synonymous with a belief in evolution as the natural process that is to show for every living thing we now see on the planet.  There is only one very large mostly unspoken problem:  it is unfalsifiable.  That’s right – unfalsifiable.

As a Christian apologist I am often slammed by unbelievers by being told that my religious claims are unfalsifiable and therefore illogical or unscientific.  Webster defines unfalsifiable as “not capable of being proved false”.1 In Christianity this applies to the fact that one could never prove that God does not exist, therefore the claim that He does exist is unfalsifiable.

When it comes to science, concepts must be falsifiable to be considered scientific.  Carl Sagan once talked about the unfalsifiable claim that someone has a dragon in their garage:

“Sagan also used his dragon analogy to illustrate the logical fallacy known as special pleading – inventing a unique and special reason to explain why each type of evidence that could potentially validate a claim is lacking. There is no reason to speculate ahead of time that the phenomenon in question should have such features, they are just invented ad hoc to explain away the lack of evidence. For example: question: ‘Can I see the dragon?’ answer: ‘No, it’s invisible.’ Question: ‘Can I feel it?’ Answer: ‘No, it is non-corporeal.’ ‘Can I measure the heat of its fiery breath?’ ‘No, it breathes heatless fire.’ Etc.”   2


So how does this apply to evolution?  Recently, a “scientific discovery” was made that found a certain species of fish had developed what appeared to be legs that it has learned to maneuver with and should be considered a missing link between aquatic and land-walking animals in the map of evolution. 3  Only one very big problem in this conclusion:  it assumes evolution to be true to start with.  That is confirmation bias.   If we look at the evidence outside of that bias, it is just a fish with a set of odd tentacles or fins that has developed an ability to move with.  Forgive me if I don’t see the amazing evolutionary breakthrough… perhaps it was because I wasn’t looking for it to start with.  Is it possible that this is a case of seeing what you were looking for?

This can best be exampled with cueing up Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album with The Wizard of Oz.  There are striking similarities in tones and moods between the two.  Perhaps the scientific conclusion is that Dark Side was manufactured to accompany Wizard?  It sure looks like it.  But is that just how we want it to work?  This theory is falsifiable, because we have surviving members of Floyd that have personally “debunked” the idea.

Confirmation bias… perhaps this example above with the miraculous “fish with legs” is not the first case.  You see evolution is majority-wise uncharted.  There are certain connections that have been deduced, as-in this creature led to this creature, etc. – but technically it is all open to new information.  This is what I am told all the time.  All we have to do is find evidence contrary to evolution, and it will be worldwide news!  I don’t agree – if all the evidence is being accessed through the presupposed idea that evolution is true, how will any piece of evidence falsify it?  If it is mostly uncharted won’t we always be able to find a place for each new creature… or even re-arrange everything for that creature?

In other words, it is my deduction that nothing can falsify evolution.  And if evolution is unfalsifiable, then it is unscientific.  At this point it practically joins the rank of religion.  I agree that religious claims are unfalsifiable, but argue that the evolutionist needs to concede this as well.  Therefore, evolution is now more religious than scientific.  Well, if that’s the case – then we probably need to throw it out of schools all together, right?  Nah, I’d say leave it in, but include other theories such as creation and intelligent design – and call them what they are: unfalsifiable theories about our origins.

You see the big difference is that we have equated the historical sciences with observational science.  Observational science is how we cure diseases, put men on the moon, and a computer on your desk.  Historical sciences are educated guesses about the past that can never be proven.

Another example of this is radiometric dating.  Those dating methods use assumptions about the past conditions of the sample that simply can never be verified.  In discussions with evolutionists, I often cite a list of 22 time clocks that by using modern-day recorded numbers extrapolated back through time “prove” that the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand to at most a few million years old – not 4.5 Billion. 4  Both of our methods use modern-day calculations and apply them to the past.  Both of our methods make assumptions about the past that can never be verified.  Both of our methods return conflicting results.  How is one more scientific than the other?  Or are both, as I said before, unfalsifiable?

Many states have now adopted high school assessment tests that require their students to confirm evolution as fact. 5  Whenever you hear someone in authority speak about science, evolution is in the next breath.  We have equated unverifiable historical assumptions about the past with modern-day observational hard science.  We need to divorce these two concepts and realize that evolution is unproven, and ultimately unproveable.  We need to admit that bias is unavoidable in research.  We all have a preexisting set of beliefs we bring into the research lab.  They are our lens that we now filter all new information through.

I have my biases too, and am willing to admit them. I start with what I have deemed a reliable authority 6 – the Bible.  I have looked at all the evidence through that lens, and deemed the concept of creation holds up, and in my opinion is the only rational explanation for our world. 7

In conclusion, evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.  All new evidence is not come to unbiased; it is filtered through a preexisting belief that evolution is correct – and therefore prelabeled.  This is confirmation bias and proves nothing.



1     http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable

2     http://www.scientificanews.com/2009/07/what-is-science-unfalsifiable.html

3     http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16157835

4     http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

5     http://www.kentucky.com/2011/12/13/1992514/kentuckys-plan-for-biology-tests.html

6     https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/is-the-bible-really-reliable/

7     https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/creation-the-only-rational-explanation/



About Tim



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: