Since the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate on February 4, there have been a lot of posted comments and articles about the the debate, both pro and con. 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 at the center of the discussion. It’s very much like a courtroom. The prosecution and defense make their cases based on the evidence. If evidence spoke for itself, there wouldn’t need to be a judge and jury sitting in judgment.
Here was my first response to the Facebook comment:
“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.”
Norman Geisler uses a good illustration to drown the materialist argument that billions of years of time make evolution a viable scientific theory:
“Dropping red, white, and blue confetti from an airplane a thousand feet above the ground will not produce an American flag in one’s yard. And going up to ten thousand feet (and giving it more time to fall) will not help. Time as such does not organize things into complex designs; it further randomizes the material. It takes an intelligent cause to form it into an American flag.”1
Here was part of the response by the evolution poster: “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 had 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 that has been demonstrated in a lab that shows nothing becoming something or that something becoming a life form loaded with organized information known as DNA. Any non-evolutionist reading the “Evidence for the Big Bang” article could offer a different interpretation of the evidence. The evidence does not necessarily lead to materialistic evolution.
William Watkins writes:
“Facts do not come with interpretation tags, telling us how to view them. . . . Both sides haggle over the facts. Both sides search for new facts to add to their arsenals. Both sides raise accusations, yet it’s a rare day indeed when both sides acknowledge that their differences stem from something much more basic than facts. Their differences are rooted in opposing worldviews, which in turn are permeated with philosophical assumptions and commitments.”2
Even evolutionists, the more honest ones, acknowledge that what they belief about evolution 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.”3
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.
- Norman L. Geisler, “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?” (2014). [↩]
- William D. Watkins, “Whose Facts Anyway?,” Christian Research Journal (24:2), 60. [↩]
- G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1960), 6, 150. [↩]