Is Evolution Unfalsifiable?

While I'm contemplating my next full-length post (and please don't point out how long it's been, I'm quite aware of the recent lull), I thought I'd just throw my latest gripe out there for you guys to look over...

After giving the issue much thought, I've concluded that the theory of evolution must be one of two things:

1. Entirely unfalsifiable

2. Very close to being entirely unfalsifiable

So, since I'm sure you're wondering, here's the question that sparked this train of thought (this is a question for evolutionists, obviously):

"If, hypothetically, evolution were false, what evidence would you need to see in order to convince you of it?"

Or perhaps more specifically:

"What hypothetical evidence in opposition to evolution could exist that the theory would not be able to offer an explanation for?"

Try looking at it this way:

1. Take a piece of "evidence" in favor of evolution.

2. Reverse it (i.e. suppose the exact opposite had been discovered instead).

3. Ask yourself if, coming at it from a new angle, this new piece of evidence would have any negative impact on the theory whatsoever.

Let's take a look at this formula in action:

1. The fossil record is considered evidence for evolution, because creatures appear in the fossil record in the same order in which they are believed to have evolved.

2. Suppose the fossil record was jumbled (not in the correct order)

3. While it would no longer technically be 'evidence,' evolutionists would remain unphased (ironically, the fossil record is jumbled, by the way, that's how I know they would remain unphased).

So, if any evolutionists out there are up to a challenge, I challenge you to give a specific (hypothetical, of course) example of how evolution could potentially be falsified.

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

Useless Limbs?

A recent article from Live Science provides a list of the top ten "useless limbs," two of which caught my eye. The article includes the human tail-bone among its other "useless limbs," which, contrary to popular belief, does indeed have a function. There are nine muscles attached to the tail-bone in humans which are extremely important for certain activities, including: sitting, certain bowel movements, labor movements, and supporting certain internal organs. Why are these functions so often ignored? Because the "useless" tail-bone in humans is often used as evidence to support the theory of Darwinian evolution.

Another "useless" organ mentioned in the Live Science article is the pelvis and "thigh bones" found in whales, another alleged evidence for evolution. I won't delve too deep into the details here, but I did find this one rather amusing as the pelvis and "thigh bones" (trust me, that's not what they are) are vital to the structure of the whale and if they were to be removed, the whales would be incapable of reproduction.

A couple other "useless" organs cited by evolutionists as evidence:

Human Tonsils: The tonsils are important both to antibody production and cell mediated immunity, as well as being an important lymphoid organ in the upper respiratory tract.

Human Appendix: The appendix filters and removes bacteria and protects the intestines from infection. The appendix also produces antibodies.

This information is not difficult to come by, it would seem that evolutionists would rather continue to cite false evidence than admit they may have been wrong.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Vatican Celebrates Charles Darwin

The Vatican is planning a conference in 2009 to honor the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species. Cardinal Paul Poupard, former president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, says Darwinian evolution and the book of Genesis are "perfectly compatible" so long as one reads the Bible correctly, also stating, "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," and that the true meaning of the Genesis account was in fact quite simply that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator."

Are the Bible and Darwinian evolution compatible? Let's examine the facts...

1. According to the Bible, man brought death into the world through his sin. According to evolution, death brought man into the world through natural selection.

2. According to the Bible, the oceans were created before the dry land. According to evolution, the dry land came first, then the oceans.

3. According to the Bible, light was created before the sun. According to evolution, the sun came first, then the light.

4. According to the Bible, plants were created before the sun. According to evolution, the sun came first, then the plants.

5. According to the Bible, birds were created before reptiles. According to evolution, reptiles came before birds.

Does that sound compatible to you? Somewhere along the line, some brilliant genius came up with the idea of "Theistic Evolution," easily one of the most absurd theories ever introduced. In an attempt to please everyone by saying that God created the universe over billions of years through evolution and the Big Bang, ultimately no one is pleased as it leaves evolutionists having to believe in God and Christians completely throwing out the Genesis account of creation.

Let me leave you with one last chilling thought: The Bible says man was created in God's image. If you say man evolved from apes and that he was created in God's image, then what are you saying about God? This is a dangerous theory to try and reconcile your faith with...

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Transitional Species Found?

Has one of the many long sought-after "transitional species" finally been found? According to this article from Live Science, a transitional species between the salamander and the frog was discovered in Baylor County, Texas a few years ago, though it was only recently looked over by paleontologists. According to the article:

Called Gerobatrachus hottoni after its discoverer Nicholas Hotton, a
paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution, the creature represents a transitional amphibian, sporting features of both frogs and salamanders.

So is this indeed evidence of macro-evolution? Some evolutionists certainly think so. One in particular stated that the next Christian who claimed there was no evidence for macro-evolution would now officially be a "liar for Christ." It is at this point that I feel the need to stress a very important (and not too difficult to figure out) point: If you dig up a bone in the dirt which looks similar to that of both frogs and salamanders, this does not prove that humans evolved from apes! In fact, it doesn't even support "the idea that frogs and salamanders evolved from one ancient amphibian group called temnospondyls" as the article claims. While the find is compatible with the theory, it isn't evidence because we still have not been provided with any reason to believe that any creature was ever capable of doing something that the creatures of today are incapable of: to reproduce something other than it's own kind. The only "evidence" for this that the evolutionists continually proclaim from the mountain-tops is genetic mutation, and there has never in known history been even one documented "beneficial mutation."


Take, for instance, the "four winged fly" once featured in many text-books as a "beneficial mutation." What they often-times will not tell you is that the mutation was caused by human interference in the development of the fly (i.e. this was not a naturally occurring mutation). And more importantly, the mutation wasn't beneficial because the "fly" was incapable of flying.


It would seem to me that all which has been discovered is a new species of amphibian, and that to insinuate it is anything other than what it is would be folly.




"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." - Sir Arthur Keith.


In Christ’s Love,
Matthew

Willingly Ignorant

2nd Peter 3:3-7 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Sound familiar? What was once largely undisputed is now largely counted as foolishness: that the Lord formed the earth and all creatures which live upon it. While the Bible tells us that God created us in His own image, it was Charles Darwin (author of The Origin of Species) who said, "We must, however, acknowledge as it seems to me, that a man with all his noble qualities...still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." Lowly origin? Ironically, the great "scientist" Charles Darwin only had a degree in one subject... Theology. So why is this theologian regarded so highly by the atheistic community? Because he told them what they wanted to hear. With or without evidence, evolution will continue to be believed so long as there are those who are desperate to believe it. Ironically, Charles Darwin also once said, "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long". How many false facts are used to support evolution in public school science textbooks? The list is endless. While not all evidences for evolution can be falsified, the fact that so many long disproven lies are still purported as 'evidence' by the evolutionist community suggests that they have something to hide. What are they trying to hide? Perhaps the lack of any of the thousands of 'transitional species' that Darwin promised would be found...

In Christ's Love,

Matthew