Sign Guestbook | View Guestbook  

I Corinthains 2:5- "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
The Pseudoscientific Nature of Darwinism

Published in Creation Matters, Nov./Dec. 2001. vol 6(6):8

In Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species", in chapter six, "Difficulties on Theory", he states that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." On the surface this sounds as if Darwin is telling us what we need to do in order to disprove his theory. However, this statement is highly deceptive for at least two major reasons. First, it requires the would be disprover of evolution to do the impossible - to demonstrate how something could not happen. Demonstrations, by nature, demonstrate how things do happen; not how they do not happen. If someone were to set up a set of circumstances and observe that evolution of a particular complex organ did not happen, does that mean that it could not have happened? Of course not. It could only be demonstrated that evolution of such an organ could not happen if every possible set of circumstances were set up and observed. Even if every conceivable set of circumstances were set up and no evolution was observed, this would not disprove Darwin's theory. Darwin could argue that there must be another set of circumstances, not thought of, that would produce such an organ. The bombardier beetle's defense mechanism is often set forth as an instance of a complex organ which could not have come about by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". It seems impossible for such an organ to develop in such a way because the insect would likely fail to reproduce if the mechanism were present in an incomplete form (he would likely blow himself up!). However, just because we can not imagine a scenario that would gradually produce such a mechanism does not mean that there is no such scenario. So even this amazing mechanism fails to meet the impossible demands of Darwin's theory. His theory is unfalsifiable, and therefore is not scientific.

The second reason that Darwin's challenge is deceptive is that it diverts the would be disprover's attention to looking for the impossible (how Darwin's mechanism could not work) while Darwin is allowed to escape without having himself offered any demonstration of it working (a complex organ being formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"). To this day no one has demonstrated any complex organ coming into being by observing "numerous, successive, slight modifications" over many generations. If demonstrating how this could not have happened would disprove his theory, then certainly demonstrating how this could happen would have to be considered evidence for the theory. Even if there were many such demonstrations of evolution happening in the lab, however, this would never conclusively prove Darwin's theory; since just because an organ could be produced in such a way does not mean that it necessarily was produced that way in history. But many such actual demonstrations would certainly offer support for his theory. However, there has not been one such demonstration. Therefore Darwin's theory is utterly without any empirical evidence; and those who claim that it has been proven as well as any law of science are greatly mistaken.
2001 Arthur Manning

Back to Writings

Writings | About | Contact | Home

This site was created and maintained by Sarah. Design 2002-2004 Sarah.