The
One Thing Evolutionists Don’t Want You to Know
by Gary DeMar
Since the Ken Ham v. Bill
Nye debate on February 4, there have been a lot of posted comments and articles
on the debate. I’ve written some myself, for example, “How
I Would Debate Bill Nye the UnScience Guy” and “Where
the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham Debate Went off Track.”
From evolutionists I hear
the same refrain over and over again. Here’s a recent example:
“I feel like I am being
trolled. How can anyone call evolution Faith? It’s based on scientific research
and analysis.”
Let’s be clear. Scientists
opposed to the molecule-to-man evolutionary hypothesis also use “scientific
research and analysis.” This is not the issue. It’s the interpretation of the
data that’s in dispute. It’s very much like a courtroom. The prosecution and
defense make their cases based on the evidence. If the evidence spoke for
itself, there wouldn't be any trials. Here was my first response:
“Stuff
spontaneously appearing. Life spontaneously appearing out of spontaneously
appearing stuff. Mind, logic, reason, morality spontaneously appearing out of
life spontaneously appearing out of spontaneously appearing stuff. This is
science? The age of the earth doesn't have a thing to do with evolution. The
earth could be a trillion years old and a molecules-to-man scenario still could
not happen.”
Here was part of his
response:
“I can show scientific data and analysis to
back my claims.”
That’s
a bold declaration of certainty, so I wrote, “Show me the science where nothing
becomes something. Show me one example of spontaneous generation. You say it’s
science. Show me. It's that simple. If you have the ‘scientific data’ to back
up your claims, here's your chance to make it known to the world.”
He tried a diversionary
tactic, but then posted a link to “Evidence
for the Big Bang.” I asked him if he read the article since it states, “Contrary
to the common perception, BBT [Big Bang Theory] is not a theory about the
origin of the universe.” And even it were a theory about the origin of the
universe, it wouldn’t be demonstrable science. There are no examples of
empirical evidence demonstrated in a lab that shows nothing then something or
that something becoming a life form loaded with organized information known as
DNA. Any non-evolutionist reading the article could offer a different
interpretation of the evidence.
Even evolutionists, the more honest ones, acknowledge that what they believe is
a faith commitment and not all science.
For example, Gerald Allan
Kerkut writes that there are “seven basic assumptions that are often not
mentioned during discussions of Evolution.”
“The first assumption is that
non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation
occurred. . . . This is still just an assumption. . . . There is, however, little
evidence in favour of biogenesis and as of yet we have no indication that it
can be performed. . . . It is therefore a matter of faith on the
part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever
method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did
happen is not available.”
Kerkut (1927-2004) taught
physiology and biochemistry at the University of Southampton. He was the Dean
of Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences,
and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology.
So the next time an
evolutionist claims to have the “data to prove something,” ask him
to set up a lab and show you. The Oxford
English Dictionary defines the scientific method as ‘a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century,
consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation,
testing, and modification of hypotheses.’”
No one has ever demonstrated
scientifically that life can generate from non-life.
No comments:
Post a Comment