Science vs. Macroevolution | The Institute for Creation Research
 
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
CREATION PODCAST
What Can You Expect from the ICR Discovery Center?
ICR scientists and scholars share their perspectives on the soon-to-open ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History. The Grand Opening for...

NEWS
Australopithecus Ate Like an Ape
Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. Secular scientists are continually trying to humanize ape fossils in an attempt to bridge the wide...

NEWS
DNA Repair Research Reveals Astounding Complexity
You have been designed with many trillions of cells. Within the nucleus of each cell (except for red blood cells) is the “molecule of life”...

NEWS
Photosynthesis: Clearly Designed from the Beginning
Unique structures in rare bacteria suggest the amazing process of photosynthesis is much “older” than evolutionists assumed. Photosynthesis...

NEWS
Under the Stars at ICR
On the evening of Friday, August 2, 154 creation enthusiasts attended an astronomy-themed evening at the ICR Discovery Center for Science and Earth...