Is Evolution
a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
— Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
This version copyright (c) 1994 by:
Missouri Association for Creation
[No. 4 in a series] October 1993, Vol. 3, No. 10
I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because, after all, it's "_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term "theory," at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable _facts_ of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.
There is a widespread misconception
that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good
ones finally become laws. But these three categories of
scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually
exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can
be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at
the same time!
Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a
"fact" of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational
force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time
we drop something. There is also a _theory_ of gravity that
addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really
works. While we don't know how gravity works, there are theories
that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known
_law_ of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a
believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation
that shows a relationship between mass, distance and
gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific fact_ is an
observable natural occurrence; a "scientific theory" is an
attempt to explain how a natural occurrence works; and a
_scientific law_ is a mathematical description of a natural
occurrence.
Science itself is the whole process of making careful
observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing
and testing theories that seek to explain those facts.
Scientists call these attempts to test their theories
experiments. Experimental science, better known as "empirical
science", is the kind of science that is responsible for the
marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier.
One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery
without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical
science to our lives.
The most important requirement of empirical science is that any
object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be
"observable". While we may assume the existence of events not
witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to
study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we wish to study
should be "repeatable". Unique and unrepeatable
events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of
history, not empirical science. Finally, any theory we might
propose as an explanation for an observable and repeatable event
must be "testable": we must be able to conceive of an experiment
that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to
propose an explanation for an event in such a way that no one
could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a
theory at all, but rather a "belief". Beliefs, of course, are
not necessarily wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by
empirical science.
What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell
us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too
rarely, to be "observable" in the lifetime of human observers.
The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to
remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even
millions, of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do
occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by
nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky
concludes that the "applicability of the experimental method to
the study of such unique historical processes is severely
restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes
that the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible
observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed by the
scientific community to be a "fact" and those who dare to doubt
it are not endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_
confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to
the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage
says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate
the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the
existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook, "Outlines of
General Zoology", H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution
has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything
"except the outworn and completely refuted one of special
creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and
the prejudicial."
What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you
should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of
"evolution" --microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't. So called "microevolution" is
a process of "limited" variation among the individuals of a
given species that produces the sort of variety we observe among
dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical
process of "unlimited" variation that evolutionists believe
transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally
different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds
or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed
anything remotely like this transformation.
The very name "microevolution" is intended to imply that it is
this kind of variation that accumulates to produce
macroevolution, though a growing number of evolutionists admit
there is no evidence to support this. Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for
which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to
be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for
evolution.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable, repeatable, or
refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact
or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its
believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the
power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of
creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man.
Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe
that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of
men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for
their "compatibility" with what we "do" observe of the facts of
nature. In future essays we will see that creation by
intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for
the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is
evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of matter.
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University.
He has been involved in biomedical research and education for
over 30 years.
Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for
Creation, Inc.
Originally published in:
St. Louis MetroVoice
PO Box 220010
St. Louis, MO 63122
Corrections and revisions have been made by the author from the original published essay.
This text file prepared and distributed
by the Genesis Network (GenNet).
