Evolution’s Conundrum

What is science? When someone claims to be a “scientist” does that hold them accountable to a strict way of discovering new principles, and how those discoveries are verified? Then, because others trust them to maintain this accountability, does what they claim as fact carry a certain weight of certainty?

Science (by loose definition) is the result of testing theories and obtaining the same results. By repeatedly applying experiments which have consistent and reproducible results, these results are then considered to be facts. Anyone should be able to validate them for themselves. You must, repeat must, use known principles and facts when testing theories, otherwise it’s just guesswork, meaning what you propose is just theoretical. Using these principles point out evolution’s conundrum.

An example is this; if you drop a marble will it fall to the ground? Well, first we must start with a finite object (a marble of s specific weight and shape), then drop it. If all the other elements in the test, such as wind and height, are the same, then you should get the same result, right? That is a reproducible result. That is, in its basic form and essence, science. You get the same results when all the variables are constant. If that’s the case in real science, then this produces a huge problem for those who believe in evolution! Evolution’s conundrum is found in the very principles of science itself!

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact. Many also claim that, because evolution is a ‘fact,’ then there is no God. Richard Dawkins is one of the most outspoken of those who make such claims. But is what he claims real science? Is what he claims verifiable? The answer is no, not by a long shot! Evolution’s conundrum prevents these ‘facts’ from being proven, and actually disproves them. If we use the definition of science, then evolution is impossible.

I’m going to include pieces of a chat I’ve been having with some evolutionists to bring the point home. While they may be sincere in what they believe, sincerity doesn’t have anything to do with adhering to scientific principles. Follow along with this conversation;

“Chemistry is one of the foundational pillars of the mythos of evolution. You can’t have a logical, rational evolutionary mindset without first proving the process of incremental chemical progression supporting the formation of the foundational compounds found in life. Wouldn’t you agree this is true? So, if this is indeed the case (and if evolution is the reality so many think it is), we would find this process currently extant throughout creation. The simple fact is that we don’t.

The first problem is that not only are we unable to find this evidence anywhere in the known universe, we find a number of physical laws which actually PREVENT this imaginary process. You should look up terms such as solid mechanics, Rheology, Charles’s Law, fluid mechanics, Boyle’s Law, and many others I’m sure you can find on your own. The simple fact is that, should you use the real and accepted methods of scientific study, evidence shows conclusively that evolution is an impossibility; starting with the very foundational steps, such as basic chemistry, and going on up from there. If the basics don’t (indeed CAN’T) work, then nothing else in the system is valid.”

The response was; “There is something clearly wrong with what you’re saying. I cannot argue with what u say, as stated chemistry isn’t my strong suit.” So my answer was this;

“How can you claim “something is clearly wrong” if you can’t enumerate what is right? Doesn’t that sound prejudicial to you? There have been, in fact, many papers published which show the fallacy of evolution. The problem is the mindset which most others have. Truth is inconvenient to them, so they go out of their way to ‘disprove’ the same set of facts they use to distort those facts.

I have asked the same basic questions of nearly everyone I know who claims to be an evolutionist. I also get the same response, which is the one you just provided. They cannot argue against the things I state because THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AGAINST THEM. Instead they offer what you just did; “I cannot argue with what you say.”

Here is a serious question for you, and one which you really, truly need to answer; If the basic, fundamental scientific principles of a system are shown to be faulty, how can you claim the system is valid?”

The response I got was surprisingly honest (no disrespect intended);

“I can claim what u have said is wrong based on what’s being taught.”

I had to read that a couple times. How many times have you been told something is a ‘fact,’ only to realize later that it wasn’t factual at all? Plenty of times, I’m sure. Science doesn’t operate that way, as I tried to explain;

“What you, me or anyone else can “see” should be secondary to facts which we CAN see. Would you agree with that statement? This precept is especially important when you claim to deal with scientific matters, and what you claim as scientific fact should be demonstrable for anyone. Would you also agree with that statement? If you agree with those statements then how can you possibly think that evolution is a scientific fact?

Science is based upon observable and repeatable testing/results, which escapes application when applied by those trying to ‘prove’ evolution. If you can’t answer the basics, then you can’t logically advance beyond them – unless you’re an evolutionist. It seems they have their own set of malleable guidelines.”

Here is a (very) brief summation about evolution versus science. Please apply the previous statements [about real science, remembering that we need to use KNOWN facts and not guesses] to these assumptions and let me know what you come up with;

1. The universe exists (but we don’t know how old it is)
2. The Earth exists (but we don’t know how old it is)
3. Life began on Earth through natural means (but we don’t know when this happened, neither do we know the chemical, atmospheric or cosmological circumstances when this happened)
4. Random chemical formations increased in complexity, in sufficient quantity, in sufficient approximation and with sufficient time, to allow this to happen (but we don’t know how, don’t see that process today and can’t even replicate it under strict, controlled situations)
5. These newly formed chemical structures continued to merge (‘evolve’) into ever-increasingly complex formations and became amino acids, proteins, etc. (please refer to the caveats of #3 and insert them here)
6. This “primordial soup” then became DNA/RNA (insert caveats #3 and #4 here), available in just the right combinations and proximity, along with the catalyst needed to initiate replication, to become the precursors what we would consider a ‘living organism’
7. These DNA/RNA strands then morphed and combined in ever-increasing intricacy and complexity until they became a functional cell (insert #3 and #4 again here)
8. From this point on it gets so complex and mind-boggling that you can’t even pretend to use science as a way to show the progression towards increasing complexity. You have to violate so many scientific LAWS to come up with this stuff that no one in their right mind could call it science. It is ludicrous.”

I purposefully used the most basics steps of ‘evolution’ as a way to show how ridiculous those assumptions are. A detailed analysis is even more damning!

Please make no mistake; the ‘facts’ people use to ‘prove’ evolution are not facts, at least not in the way they are applied, when trying to ‘prove’ evolution is true. They are merely guesses and assumptions. How can you claim to use science to prove something when you have so many variables? You can’t, at least not in a legitimate way. You are left to guess, assume, manipulate what little you actually know and otherwise operate in faith that what you believe is true. That doesn’t sound like science, it sounds like a religion. Hmmm, maybe there’s a point to be made there? Then again, that’s a subject for a later post.

In any event, evolution’s conundrum continues on…