Evolution is Easy to Falsify

That was the title of an online discussion I recently participated in; the title was actually written by an evolutionist. In a previous blog, I mentioned that a good theory should be falsifiable. This particular evolutionist agreed with me (at first) and even made the following remarks:


I am interested in clarification of terms because our friends on here in a few threads have shown some great misunderstanding of key concepts of a scientific theory and the scientific method.

Evolution IS falsifiable, it is science after all..

One of the requirements of a good scientific theory is falsifiability. [bold in original]


Needless to say, my ears perked up. Typically evolutionists are loathe to recommend a way ToE could be falsified but here was someone who seemed ready to do just that. He went on to say:


How can we falsify evolution you ask?Simple, we define a hypothesis from the question that we will should not find fossils in the strata out of order, and thus there should be no fossilized dogs in the Pre-Cambrian layers.

If we find a fossilized dog there, then evolution is over and we need to rethink the entirety of it and retool it, basically 'back to the drawing board'.
Ugh. It’s not like I’ve never heard that one before. Well I gave him kudos for trying but I reminded him of a quote I read on TalkOrigins (a pro-evolution web site):


“In order to falsify a theory, you need to know what the theory says. Finding an out-of-sequence fossil or an "impossible" animal may not falsify evolution, but it would falsify the particular theories (in this case historical theories) about that group of organisms - for example, if we found a modern rabbit in the Cambrian Era, we would have a massive problem with existing phylogenies. We might even say that if the program of constructing phylogenies based on the theory of common descent were that wrong, there might be a problem with common descent, and abandon that theory. But this, in itself, would be insufficient to falsify the entire set of theories of evolution, although it might be enough to make people think twice about the general set of assumptions on which they are based.” [Bold in original].


So, for the devout evolutionists, even a rabbit (or a dog) in the Cambrian would not be enough to falsify their theory. But I didn't want to let it go that easily. After all, this guy had said it was “easy” to falsify evolution so I asked him or other posters for some other ways we might falsify the theory. Here are some of the suggestions I got. I kid you not - these are actually quotes from real evolutionists (some of who claim to be scientists):


Find a mammal with a plant cell-wall.

you could demonstrate that speciation does not occur;

1. Visit every case study or scientific article of observed evolution in the wild and in the lab. This should keep you busy for quite some time
2. Show that in every case the experimental design was flawed, or the data was wrong, or the analysis was wrong. etc.

This is not like disproving parentage with a DNA test, it's like proving the entire science of Biology is wrong. [bold added]


There you have it folks, if I can find a mammal with plant cell-walls, prove animals don’t speciate, read every technical paper ever written about evolution and prove them all wrong, AND overturn the entire science of biology, maybe I’ll falsify the theory of evolution.


There are only 2 possible explanations for the origin of life and the universe: we are either here as the result of a supernatural Creator or we are here by entirely natural processes. If you disqualify one option a priori, you have no choice but to cling blindly to the second. True believers in evolution aren’t really interested in seeing their theory falsified. Is ToE a scientific theory or not? If so, there should be a clear way to falsify it. But when you ask an evolutionist how, these are the kinds of answers you’re going to get.

The Dating Game: How Old Ages Are Assigned to Rocks

During old fashioned revivals, red-faced preachers have often said that some people are more interested in the ages of rock than the Rock of Ages. I guess that’s true to a point but some people believe that there are rocks that are billions of years old. We need to be able to address this and not simply sweep it under the rug as if we’re not concerned with it. If the old dates are correct, it’s direct evidence against a young earth. This undermines the clear reading of Genesis. Then how do scientists date rocks? There are actually several methods. We’ll discuss a few here and also point out some of the flaws in those methods.

First, some rocks are assigned ages based on which fossils are found in them. If you find fossils of trilobites, for example, then scientists will assume the rocks around it are approximately 300 million years old. That’s because they believe trilobites lived 300 million years ago. However, this is a dangerous form of circular reasoning. Consider this hypothetical discussion:

Evolution Scientist: “Those rocks are 65 million years old.”
Creation Scientist: “How do you know that?”
ES: “Because they have dinosaur fossils in them and dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago.”
CS: “How do you know dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?”
ES: “Because they’re found in rocks that are 65 million years old!”

So we see dating rocks according to the fossils in them assumes the dates assigned to the fossils are correct.

Another method of dating rocks is radiometric dating. Rocks contain unstable isotopes such as uranium and potassium. Over time, these unstable isotopes decay and turn into stable isotopes (uranium decays into lead and potassium decays into argon). The decay rate can be very slow and is measured in terms of half-lives. When a rock of unknown origin is found, scientists can measure the ratio of uranium/lead, for example. Then, they can calculate how long it would take for that ratio to be reached and that becomes the age assigned to the rock.

However, there are a few assumptions that make radiometric dating suspect:

1) It must be assumed that decay rate has always been constant (not faster or slower in the past).

2) We must assume that the beginning ratio of parent element/daughter element was 100/0 – that is, there could be no daughter element present at the forming of the rock.

3) It assumes an entirely closed system. None of the parent element could have leeched out of the rock and none of the daughter element could have entered in.

If any of these assumptions are shown wrong, this entire method of dating is proven unreliable. Is there a way to see if these assumptions are valid? Actually there is!

Dr. Steven Austin, a young-earth creationist and PhD geologist, tested (via potassium/argon testing) some of the rocks formed during the Mt. St. Helens eruption to see what dates the samples would yield. His samples were only a few years old, yet yielded ages between 350,000 and 2.8 million years old! (source here). Needless to say, this is strong evidence against the reliability of radiometric dating. If rocks of known ages cannot be dated correctly with these methods, how can we put any faith in the dates of rocks of unknown origin?

Still another method of dating is radiocarbon dating. Similar to radiometric dating, radiocarbon dating can only be used on organic substances. Carbon-14 (C14) is an unstable isotope found in all living organisms. Once the animal dies, C14 decays into C12. By measuring the C14/ C12 ratio, we supposedly can estimate how long ago the animal lived.

But radiocarbon dating has its own shortcomings. C14 has a very short half-life, only 5730 years. This means that after about 60,000 years, there should be no C14 left in organic material. Scientists estimate diamonds to be millions or even billions of years old. However, recently the RATE project found detectable amounts of C14 in 12 samples of diamonds. The only conclusion is that diamonds cannot be millions or billions of years old for there should be no C14 left in them!

There’s a lot more that could be said about dating rocks. I’m sure I’ll touch on some of these tangent issues in future blogs. However, the fact of the matter is clear: the current methods scientists use to date rocks are riddled with difficulties. How they can use them with a straight face remains the harder question!

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution

I’m not in favor of teaching Special Creation in public schools. The simple fact of the matter is, I don’t trust non-Christian teachers to represent the creation argument fairly. But I do get annoyed when evolution is presented as “fact” and no arguments to the contrary are allowed.

A few years ago, the Cobb County (GA) School Board inserted the following disclaimer into their science textbooks:

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Now, you’ll notice there’s no mention of God, Genesis, or creationism. However, this benign statement was enough to send militant evolutionists into a tizzy. The ACLU sued Cobb County on behalf of six parents and had the sticker nixed on the grounds that it was religious in nature. //RKBentley scratches his head//

Anyway, the opponents of creation are at it again. This time it’s in TX and they’re up in arms over the words, “strengths and weaknesses.” According to the New York Times, while deciding next year’s curriculum, the TX state school board is considering allowing schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. Let me repeat that: Schools are allowed to teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. It doesn’t say they can’t teach evolution.

I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough for the left-leaning New York Times or for staunch evolutionists. To them, evolution is a fact and it has no weaknesses. You cannot tell a child there’s any part of the theory we haven’t figured out because that child might suspect evolution isn’t true!! Shock, gasp, gulp!! No! We must tell them evolution is a fact and not allow any evidence to the contrary.

This is the kind of “education” groups like the National Center for Science Education want. They don’t want a rigorous debate of the theories. They don’t want critical thinking or healthy skepticism. They want indoctrination into evolution - plain and simple.

I’ve always said that evolution is the ONLY scientific theory protected by law. We’ll see that evidenced again if this wording makes it into the Texas school curriculum. I can almost hear the ACLU pens scratching as they're already preparing their briefs.

Matthew 5:27-28: A Lesson in Grammar: The Power of Participles

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

“You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Matthew 5:27-28

In the King James Version of the Bible, verbs that end in “th,” like “looketh,” (βλέπων) are participles. In English, participles are verbs that end in “ing” (like walking, sleeping, standing, flying, etc). Participles (in both Greek and English) don’t act like a normal verb but act like adjectives or adverbs. If there is a room full of men, and I want to identify a certain man, I might say, “Do you see that man standing by the door?” My emphasis then is not necessarily on what he is doing, I’m just using that as an adjective to describe which man I’m talking about.

A good example of this is seen in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (ὁ πιστεύων) in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Believeth” is a participle (in this case an adjective) describing who will be saved – the one believing in Jesus.

So, when we look at Matthew 5:27-28 above, we gain a little more insight into who Jesus was talking about. The word “looketh” doesn’t exactly emphasize what the person is doing, it's describing who the person is: He is the person looking (ὁ βλέπων) at women to lust after them. When he commits adultery, the act doesn’t make him an adulterer. Jesus makes it very clear that he’s already an adulterer even before he commits the act. When he does commit the act, he’s just doing what adulterers do!

Proverbs 23:7 says, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Therefore, the ones who hate are murderers, the ones who envy are thieves, etc. We’re not sinners because of the sins we commit. We’re sinners and so we commit sins. Some people think they’re OK because they haven’t committed a “major” sin. They need to understand that they need Jesus nonetheless.