Science and Technology
If Only They Would Listen to Themselves!
In the February 2007 edition of the evolutionist magazine Scientific American is a review of a book about an 18th century scientist named the Marquise du Chatelet. In the book review is a fascinating statement that shows how someone can ignore what he or she doesn’t want to see. The reviewer wrote “If antievolutionists today understood the scientific method as well as this woman of the Enlightenment did, perhaps they wouldn’t glibly say, ‘It’s only a theory’ “. If evolutionists understood what a theory actually is, they wouldn’t be so quick to call evolution a theory.
A theory is a well-tested hypothesis, but evolution is a claim about what happened in the past, it doesn’t even rise to the level of hypothesis. Evolutionism is a worldview, an interpretive framework, a religion; it is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. The closest that anyone has ever come to testing evolutionist claims was work done with fruit flies. For decades scientists have been subjecting fruit flies to every substance they can think of in order to get the fruit flies to mutate and they have succeeded. After thousands of generations of mutations they produced fruit flies that developed extra wings, eyes, legs and other bizarre features. What they could never do was to get the fruit flies to evolve into anything else, they couldn’t even manage to create a different species of fruit fly. All of true science shows that evolutionism is not just unscientific, it is anti-knowledge.
“No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory , all practical biology would stand just as it is. No major corporation has a “Department of Evolution” because scientists who have to produce results don’t use it.
In fact, I would like to challenge the readership of this publication to come up with one practical application of biology that would have been impossible were it not for the hypothesis of evolution.
In the meantime I think that scientists should leave the important questions, such as what is the meaning of life and is there a God, to religion, which knows how to answer such questions, and to stick what they know how to do, such as breeding insect-resistant corn and curing cancer.” Avrahim Sonenthal, The Scientist 11(14):10, 1997.
If evolutionism were judged by the same standard as other ideas, evolutionism would have been discarded decades ago.