“Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish … It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction … In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process … After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back … Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.”
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
If you have spent any time in a science classroom, you were no doubt taught that the formal process for the formulation and testing of ideas is known as the Scientific Method. Time spent in science class no doubt also introduced you to Theory of Evolution. From kindergarten, when the first dinosaur book the teacher read said “millions of years ago…”, to high school science when you dissected something, to comparative anatomy in college; we have been immersed in the “theory” of evolution. Please note the use of the word “Theory”, and not “Law” since evolution is not a fact.
The Law of Gravity is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is not a fact.
However, does the Theory of Evolution pass muster according to the Scientific Method?
In the scientific method, there are 4 different steps you must take to prove your theory. They are:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Evolution Theory has only reached Step #2.
This means that from observations that were made (Step #1), the formulation of a hypotheses was made to explain how we got here. It is at this step that we stall because the hypothesis for the observations does not pass scrutiny. As more is learned by observation, the hypothesis can be refined. We therefore have a continual process of going from Step #1 to Step #2 and back again.
In science, this will usually get you to Step #3 eventually. For evolution though, it has not, and they are not even close. Under normal circumstances, the hypothesis would be discarded as rubbish. However, when it comes to evolution, the personal stakes are way too high. Without the idea that we evolved, we are forced to conclude that we arrived by special creation, from the hands of a Creator, and that means He’s God, and we are not.
“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” – Sir Julian Huxley
What’s the hold up accepting Christ, man?
The difference between a theory and a law is not one of evidence but of how concise and mathematically that idea can be expressed. Physics is typically mathematical in nature so most of its fundamental concepts can be expressed as laws. Conversely biology rarely describes things using pure maths as such an approach is either useless and/or impossible.
As such most of its fundamental concepts can’t be expressed as laws, despite having lots of evidence for them. Instead they are called theories. Cell theory; germ theory, evolutionary theory etc. aren’t labelled theory for lack of evidence but just because they aren’t mathematical expressions.
“Conversely biology rarely describes things using pure maths as such an approach is either useless and/or impossible.”
It sounds like you are saying that the scientific method has no basis in the bio-sciences. I do not know a biologist who would agree.
A famous example of the scientific method in action in the bio-sciences involved an outbreak of cholera in Soho in London in 1854. It was not known how cholera spread, or that it was due to dirty water. A doctor named John Snow used the scientific method to try and stop the cholera. He plotted all the cholera outbreaks on a map of London. He then made some observations and proposed a hypothesis, which he tested.
First Observation: He noticed that most of the cholera outbreaks were near a water pump in Broadwick Street; he also observed that cholera affected the digestive tract (victims got diarrhea and died).
Second Observation: He interviewed people who lived on the street (collected data) and discovered that all the cholera victims had drunk from the pump. He also discovered that visitors to Broadwick Street who had drunk from the pump died. People nearby who drank beer instead of water did not get cholera.
Hypothesis: He suggested that the cholera was picked up from the water in the pump in Broadwick Street.
Experiment: He blocked off the pump by removing it’s handle.
Result: The cholera epidemic died out.
Also, regarding the DNA molecule that you so proudly display on the your web-header, almost everything we have come to discover about the structure of DNA has been discovered through the scientific method.
You can’t use Ohms to determine the success of a medical study or Newtons to work out the replication of cells. Different areas of science produce different results which are measured and expressed in different ways. In the case of biology, this is not in short mathematical statements (aka “laws”).
Science can still be applied very successfully, it’s just the resulting finding can’t be expressed in the same way as a finding from physics. That doesn’t stop it being perfectly valid (so I suspect we’re in perfect agreement).
Fun fact: Cholera was already on the decline in the area before the pump handle was removed since nearly everyone had left the area!