Science vs. Macroevolution
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.
One finds many in the secular community constantly equating the word science with macroevolution, or large change. This has led to gross misunderstanding of those who are trying to fathom the origins issue. If macroevolution and science are used synonymously, then of course creation science would be “anti-science.”
Let’s address this issue by first defining our terms. Although many definitions have appeared, science can be described as what we really know to be true mainly through observation. The late G. G. Simpson of Harvard stated in Science magazine that “it is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science.”
But the origins debate centers around macroevolution, and macroevolution has never been observed. One of the architects of neo-Darwinism agrees: “It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957).
One can clearly see that according to secular sources, macroevolution and true science have nothing to do with each other. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding continues to be propagated by those who should know better and they perpetuate it for their own secular agenda.
For example, staff writer John Tedesco of the San Antonio Express News reported (11/08/99) Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg as saying, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that.”
John Maddox, the former editor of Nature magazine, observed, “. . . it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science.” This is true, if by the word “science” Maddox means “macroevolution.” True Biblical worship has never meshed with the particle-to-people philosophy (macroevolution). Indeed, not long ago a creation scientist (and Nobel prize winner) stated, “Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything” (A. H. Compton [d. 1962]).
Cite this article: Frank Sherwin, M.A. 2001. Science vs. Macroevolution. Acts & Facts. 30 (1).