It’s not Science if it’s not Falsifiable

Evolution advocates support a “theory” that refuses the criterion of falsifiability. On occasion, some of the “faithful” have proposed a “test.” When such tests have produced failure, the evidence is ignored or the “theory” leaps happily to an opposite point of view.

One of the foremost advocates and workers in human evolution is Richard Leakey. In an interview, he once said, “I think the study of early man (physical anthropology in a paleoanthropological sense) is a science that is just reaching its adolescence. I do not think the science has matured. I think we are still doing a great deal of guessing.”

This is a remarkable admission, quite different from the typical evolutionist’s assertion that evolution is both science and fact. Another ardent evolutionist, Carl Sagan, said this about how science works: “The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged . . . (and the prevailing hypothesis) . . . must survive confrontation with observation . . . Appeals to authority are impermissible . . . (and) experiments must be reproducible.”

Evolution does not act much like a science at all. Donald Johanson, the discoverer of “Lucy,” once commented that “. . . only those in the inner circle get to see the fossils; only those who agree with the particular interpretation of a particular investigator are allowed to see the fossils.” This is evident from the way that human fossils are kept in vaults and restricted from viewing. “Researchers” typically have to work with plaster sculptures, drawings, and photographs. Is there any other “science” that is so protective of its evidence?

A scientific theory must be consistent with observational evidence. The only physical evidence available for speculations in human origins must be in the fossil record. There are thousands of ancient human fossils. So there is, in fact, data to be observed. What might contradict evolutionary theory? If two different types of fossil humans are found at the same place and at the same stratigraphic level, it falsifies human evolution. There are a number of examples of this. Do the textbooks get rewritten? Do human evolutionists go find an honest job? Of course not. Evolution is a philosophy that supersedes any evidence.

Consider the quote from Mark Ridley, an evolutionist at Oxford University: “. . . no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.” The heading of Ridley’s article reads: “The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record.”

Wow! Then what does it depend on? I guarantee that the public perception of the “fact” of evolution has missed the point that you don’t have to depend on the fossil record.

But Darwin, himself, was aghast at the gaps in the fossil record. He wrote that “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?” He was aware that the gaps are “the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

But evolutionists have been preaching for a hundred years that fossils are the basis of evolutionary evidence. In the decades following Darwin, true believers hoped that additional fossil finds would fill in the gaps. But presently, it is clear that fossils are in abundance on this planet. There are plenty of fossils. They just don’t support evolution.

The famous evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane noted in 1949 that “various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect,” could never arise through evolutionary mutation and natural selection. He was taking a rare gamble by actually identifying the type of evidence that would falsify evolution. This isn’t done much in the field because of the obvious dangers.

Haldane would have been crushed at more recent discoveries of both wheels and magnets. A perfect rotary motor drives the flagellum of a bacterium. A wheel is also found in the vital enzyme responsible for manufacturing ATP, the energy-carrying molecule used by all living creatures. Regarding magnets – turtles, monarch butterflies, and bacteria use magnetic sensors for navigation. These involve more than “simple magnets,” but rather complex systems in which magnets are integral components.

The bottom line – evolution is not honest enough to qualify as a “science,” not to mention “fact” or “truth.”


Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention – A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker Books, 1992.
Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 1999.


What do you think?

0 points
Upvote Downvote

Leave a Reply


DNC Official Tweets ‘Repeal the 2nd Amendment’

Trump Sends National Guard to Secure Southern Border