The Four Failures of Macro Evolution

Science is observable, testable, and repeatable. If something is not all three of these things, then it is not science, but rather a collection of just so stories. Is evolutionary theory science, or a collection of just so stories.

  1. Evolution fails to explain life. In fact, modern medicine is entirely based on a simple fact proven by Pasteur many years ago —life does not come from non-life. This is why we Pasteurize milk, it’s why we wash our hands before eating, and it’s why surgeons sanitize their instruments before they operate. If life could come from non-life, the entire medial world would be thrown on its ear in short order. The only answer evolution can answer is that life originated under very different conditions than exist today. These conditions can’t be explained, much less replicated. Here, then evolutionary theory falls outside science and into the realm of just so story.
  2. Evolution fails to explain species. Every time some scientist changes the color of rat’s fur, there are huge articles about how this proves the theory of evolution. Here, at last, is a repeatable experiment showing the mechanism evolution “used,” to create new species. Only all the evidence is actually on the other side. Men have been breeding dogs, cats, and peas for thousands of years, and no new species has ever resulted from this out and out genetic manipulation. Evolution can’t produce one new species, so clearly no repeatable experiment has been devised to show how evolutionary processes can actually produce new species. Evolution, then, falls into the realm of just so story here.
  3. Evolution fails to explain purpose. Even if a lab experiment could be designed to show how evolutionary processes could create new species, this leaves us with the question of why evolution would do so. Our language, and our lives, overflow with purpose we even talk about evolution using purposeful words. “Evolution created…” “Survival of the fittest…” Science cannot posit purpose. Purpose cannot be tested in a lab experiment. So evolutionary theory falls into the realm of just so story on these grounds.
  4. Evolution fails to explain information. No lab experiment has been designed which shows the rise of information, complete with metadata and interlocking information systems, from complete randomness. The point of randomness is, in fact, that it has no order, and cannot have order. You can listen to white noise your entire life; you’re never going to discover a symphony there. In fact, it would be difficult to develop a repeatable experiment which can actually show information generation from truly random inputs, because we humans find it almost impossible to actually find random inputs. Here again, evolutionary theory falls within the realm of just so stories, rather than real science.

There are two “evolutions” out there, one that’s a scientific theory about change in creatures, and how those changes came to be. Here you may find the changing of a moth’s skin, or the lengthening of a bird’s beak.

Then there is the evolution that tries to say that because the length of a bird’s beak can change, that bird with a longer beak can become a new species. That, in fact, every species —even life itself— must have come from the same mechanism that allows a bird’s beak to become longer.

This second evolution, it’s not a scientific theory. It’s not even science. It’s a bunch of just so stories dressed up in a lab coat and wearing little round glasses to fool us.

No comments yet to The Four Failures of Macro Evolution