Certain statements which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, should make us prick up our ears:
- “No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another” (R. Dawkins” [D2 p 287]).
- “Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person . . . been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin” (K. Lorenz).
Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics. On the contrary, authors in these disciplines are inclined to comment reservedly on their results. Nietzsche’s maxim seems to apply to evolutionary philosophy: “Convictions are worse enemies of truth than lies.”
Science-theoretical analysis along the lines of theorems P1 to P10 leads to the conclusion that the “theory of evolution” does not qualify as a scientific theory. Some examples will clarify this statement:
- No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter has ever been observed. Neither is this possible in the most spectacular or costly experiments (contradiction of theorem P10).
- No transition from one basic kind to another has ever been observed (contradiction of theorem P10).
- The “hypercycle theory” devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory (compare P7 and P10), neither is there any relation with reality.
- The frequently quoted transitional forms and “missing links” have never been found. All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.
If evolution is false . . . then numerous sciences are built on a false foundation.
It has also become clear from the scientific objections discussed above (OB1 to OB20) that evolution cannot “deliver the goods” as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside, as is, for example, done by Dawkins [D2, p. 316]: “The Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from excrement of ants.” But Dawkins himself declares in a clear statement of preconceived belief (p. 337): “If I am correct, this means that, even if no factual evidence for Darwin’s theory is available, it is certainly justifiable to accept it above all other rival theories.”
If evolution is false, as we have stated many times with the aid of scientific and biblical arguments, then numerous sciences are built on a false foundation. Whenever they conform with evolutionary views, they arrive at a misrepresentation of reality. If the biblical doctrine of creation is true, then we can practice a better science based on the truth. Creation research is therefore mandatory on the following grounds:
- The formulated theories are based on biblical statements; they are believed to be true, “a priori.”
- We will be able to practice a far better and more correct science in all those areas where biblical statements provide us with unassailable basic information (e.g., sin, Noah’s flood, human nature).
- Results obtained in creation research will be in accordance with the central teachings of the Bible. This feedback provides us with a true understanding of the Bible.
- If we can abundantly demonstrate with scientific results that the Bible establishes itself exactly there where it is at present questioned and disbelieved most, then it becomes clear that its statements on salvation are equally certain.
- Behind and in all works we see the power and wisdom of God (Rom. 1:19; Col. 2:3).
- Research brings joy: “
Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them” (Ps. 111:2).