The Difference Between Science and Evolution

It is the worst sin of science. Scientists sometimes make mathematical errors. They also make measurement mistakes, logical fallacies and a host of other blunders. They even formulate hypotheses that don’t make sense. But all of these must happen, for to err is human. What scientists don’t do, or at least very rarely do, is knowingly misrepresent science. It’s a nice way of saying scientists don’t lie. It is unacceptable in science. In other fields lying may be routine. It may even be justified and expected. Salespeople lie to buyers and buyers lie back to the salesperson. And that is just one example of many. As financier Jean-Claude Juncker once said, “When it’s serious, you have to lie.” But not in science.

Evolution is often considered part of science but truth telling is one of their differences. As with politics, lying is fundamental to evolution. Evolutionists lie without even realizing it. They argue strenuously there is no lie—right after telling a lie.

For instance, when promoting evolution, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact. And when they say “evolution” they mean it in the colloquial sense. That is, bacteria are supposed to have evolved into multicellular organisms leading to fish. Fish evolved into amphibians. Amphibians evolved into reptiles. Reptiles evolved into mammals. And so forth, all in a gradual process of common descent. All of this occurred via random events and the interplay of natural laws. It is a big claim and you can see examples of such fact claims here.

Evolutionary theory is an overarching idea that is highly flexible and often difficult to define precisely. This is particularly a problem when it is found to be in conflict with scientific findings, which is quite often. In these moments, rather than admit the failure, the theory morphs in order to absorb the uncooperative findings. All of this is problematic, but at least there is a theory, even if amorphous, to work with.

But when evolutionists are trying to justify or defend their theory, they radically lower the bar by redefining evolution as mere change over time. For instance, the easily defended and uncontroversial claim that gene frequencies change over time becomes the definition of evolution. You can see examples of this here.

It is a classic bait-and-switch. Evolutionists insist that the species arose strictly naturalistically and indeed that all of biology originated spontaneously. But when justifying their claim they suddenly switch the claim to mere change over time. Their claim goes from the metaphysically-laden and undefendable to the empirical and trivial.

The problem with evolution is not the theory itself. Evolution may be true, it may be false, or it may be somewhere in between. The problem is the religious dogma that motivates evolution and insists that evolution is a scientific conclusion of the same certainty as gravity, heliocentrism and that the Earth isn’t flat. This big claim is absurd beyond measure and so when questioned evolutionists then have no choice but to play their shell game.

If this were science it wouldn’t be permitted for whereas lying is expected in some fields, it is the worst sin of science.