Science vs. Macroevolution

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).

The Latest
TESTIMONIALS
A Firm Foundation
Hello, I’m Don Barber, Director of Enterprise Technology at ICR. After serving here in a variety of roles for many years, I’m so glad to...

NEWS
Data Leads to Correct Post-Flood Boundary
For decades, creation scientists have debated the level at which the Flood ended in the rock record. In the past, many have based their conclusions...

NEWS
More Problems with Iconic Milankovitch Paper
Secular scientists have a difficult time explaining an Ice Age, even though there is strong geological evidence that one occurred. In fact, creation...

NEWS
More Evidence Lucy Was Just an Ape
Certain evolutionary scientists have talked of Lucy since the 1970s as a supposed ape-like ancestor of humans. It’s probably the world’s...

NEWS
Sixtymile Formation Part of Genesis Flood
For many decades, creation scientists have included the Sixtymile Formation in Grand Canyon as part of the Sauk Megasequence that marks the onset of...