Is Believing in Evolution the Same Kind of Thing as Believing in Gravity? | The Institute for Creation Research

Is Believing in Evolution the Same Kind of Thing as Believing in Gravity?

An article appeared in the Jan./Feb. 2004 issue of The Professional Geologist by paleontology Professor, James S. Mellett, with the intriguing title, "Question: Do You Believe in Evolution? Answer: Do You Believe in Gravity?" While the article brought nothing new to the debate, and indeed belied a substantial misunderstanding of creation thinking, its title indicates a profound misunderstanding of evolution as well and merits a response.

Let me remind you that "science" has always relied on human observation. Obviously, observations occur in the present, even if they relate to things in the past. For instance, paleontologists, who exist in the present, make observations in the present of fossils, which exist in the present even though the fossils are the remains of organisms, which lived in the past. Science is done in the present.

The study of gravity involves science, for the effects of gravity can be observed today. In fact, each and every time someone observes anything, gravity operates. Gravity is more than a theory, it is a law, and has never been known to fail. It seems nonsensical to ask, "Do you believe in gravity?" because we know for a certainty that gravity works.

Contrast this with evolution. By "evolution" I mean "macro-evolution," or big changes such as the transformation of a fish into an amphibian or a dinosaur into a bird or an ape into a man. On a grander scale, evolution implies the common ancestry of all life, including amoeba-to-man. Evolution means that dogs evolved from a non-dog ancestor.

Today we observe dogs with many adaptations, even having speciated into domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc., all inter-fertile, but this observed variety in the present does not address the ultimate origin of dogs in the unobserved past.

Evolutionists claim that large-scale evolution occurs too slowly to be observed today. The question remains, did it happen in the unobserved past, when no human was there to observe it? While gratuitously called a "historical" science, evolution thinking obviously differs from observational, empirical sciences such as the study of gravitational effects. In reality it is a historical reconstruction, attempting to decipher what happened in the unobserved past to make things get to be the way we observe them today.

While the evolutionary reconstruction of history may have some appeal, providing a way to arrange today's array of life, it is far from proven. Creationists contend there is another, more scientifically robust way to understand history, i.e., that each basic type of life appeared abruptly, without having descended from some other type, and remained substantially the same, varying within limits, until either becoming extinct or surviving into the present. This view much better fits the observed facts.

The claim that evolution is as well proved as gravity surfaces repeatedly in evolution discussions. But the statement does not stand the test of scrutiny, nor does evolution fare well in comparison to the alternative.

Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2004. Is Believing in Evolution the Same Kind of Thing as Believing in Gravity?. Acts & Facts. 33 (3).

The Latest
NEWS
Many Martian Volcanoes May Be Mudflows
Tens of thousands of volcano-looking features exist across the northern lowlands and other areas across Mars.1 In the past, these volcanoes...

ACTS & FACTS
A Believer's Response to Challenging Times
As I write this, stay-at-home mandates due to the COVID-19 pandemic are still in force across much of the country. The resulting economic turmoil has...

APOLOGETICS
The Bird That Walks and Flies Under Water
The official bird of Norway is Cinclus cinclus, the white-throated dipper, an ordinary-looking bird that behaves in very extraordinary ways.1...

ACTS & FACTS
Does Scripture Say Anything about Climate?
Climate change conversations squeeze their way into so many different topics, yet climate research is rife with confusion. Which scientists are right—those...

ACTS & FACTS
Missing Ice Age Forests Fit Flood/Ice Age Model
Secular scientists say Earth has experienced many Ice Ages. But the evidence for multiple Ice Ages is very weak.1 There is strong geological...

ACTS & FACTS
How Not to Date Hominid Remains
A recent Neanderthal study in the journal Science mixed detailed archaeological finds with stories about human origins. As is typical, the report’s...

ACTS & FACTS
An Ocean of Viruses
A virus is a very tiny structure that, in its simplest definition, is some nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA) packed inside a protein coat. Viruses can’t...

ACTS & FACTS
Revisiting the Isochron Age Model, Part 1
Radioactive dating is based on the decay rate of a starting radioactive isotope (the parent) into its stable counterpart (the daughter). An age is assigned...

RESEARCH
Flood Model Solves Antarctica Rainforest Mystery
A recent study published in Nature has evolutionary scientists baffled. The researchers reportedly found an ancient rainforest in Antarctica, of all...

DISCOVERY CENTER
Free Online ICR Live Science Presentations
Use Zoom or Facebook to attend free ICR events online! Discover how science confirms creation even when you’re at home. At the time of this...