What is ‘Scientific Evolution?’


I enjoy studying Evolution. I have always enjoyed Science, especially Mathematics. And I love the Cosmic side of Evolution (the Big Bang.)

But, what I often hear is “Creation is not ‘Scientific,’ because it does not make any claims which can be disproved.”


Let me work through the logic of that statement, and then show what Scientific Evolution looks like.

“Creation is not ‘Scientific,’ because it does not make any claims which can be disproved.” ‘Falsifiable’ is the usual word used for ‘disproved.’


Then ‘disprove’ gravity.

Oh? “What they meant was, the claims need to be testable, falsifiable.”

OK, test gravity. Not the reaction TO gravity, but test gravity. Touch it. Change it. Taste it even.

Oh. There are some things we really CANNOT test, we can only guess at. And just like ‘Creation,’ Evolution has many claims which cannot be truly tested. They are NOT falsifiable.

The Big Bang. How life started. Why life started.

So, why is it that the Priests of the Religion of Evolution can guess (make theories), but the Priests (& Prophets) of Judeo/Christianity cannot?

So, really? Neither Creationism, nor Evolutionism, make truly Scientific – ‘falsifiable’ – claims.

So, what does ‘Scientific Evolution’ look like to me?

Well, first, it does not deal with several realities in the real world. Big Bang Evolution is NOT the same as Evolution of Life, nor is it connected to Cosmic Evolution (stars and planets).

Everything is lumped together as if they are ‘connected.’

The truth is simple. You can have a Big Bang event without the Evolution of Life. And the reverse is true.

Scientific Evolution makes claims which may or may not be true.

The ‘missing link’ of Human Evolution, called transitional, or intermediate fossils, are missing.

Now just to be fair, there ‘could be’ missing fossils and we have not found them yet.

But, what happens in ‘Evolutionary’ theory is that we move on without finding the evidence and just assume it is out there, but we haven’t found it, yet.

From one of the ‘Professors’ of Evolution:

“these groups would be considered populations or subspecies rather than species, the reason being that there was obviously interbreeding where they met, and the “hybrid” offspring must have been fertile.” Interbreeding and fertile offspring in nature usually indicates that two populations belong to the same species.”

All ‘intermediate’ fossils would belong to “hybrid” sub-species. True “hybrids” in nature are NOT fertile. Think about the Mule coming from a Donkey and a Horse.

We KNOW THIS to be true. The ‘mule’ is an example of a living ‘intermediate’ fossil/species. But, they are NOT FERTILE.

Therefore, they cannot be an intermediate, they are a dead end.

Sadly, 98% of what we are told is ‘Scientific Evolution’ is merely propaganda – 98% is my guestimate. Maybe it is only 80%. But, the number is HUGE.

Much of what we are taught is Scientific Evolution is truly neither, it is a philosophy, which is called a religion by some. It is a philosophy which hides behind the ‘authority’ it claims is scientific.

Now. The other 2%?

There are some wonderful nuggets in the true Science involving Evolution. We have learned some remarkable things. But, it sometimes is difficult for me to wade through all the ‘guesses’ to get to the real nuggets.

How about you?

Have you found nuggets? Or, have you, also, found fallacies?



About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blogging, Culture, Politics, Society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to What is ‘Scientific Evolution?’

  1. limey says:

    Your gravity argument is false. Its not about [testing] gravity its about testing how objects interact. The effects of a mountain can be measured on objects nearby. The travel of spacecraft can be calculated because of what we know about gravity. That’s science.

    • Wayne says:

      Thank you for your comments!

      I do not disagree with that. What I disagree with is the ‘assumptions’ which are implied and we do not deal with.

      Just because Science ‘proves’ things does not mean Science has never been wrong. And it is a false dichotomy to say that either Science is right or Religion is wrong. Both make observations, both make assumptions, both make predictions, both are right sometimes, and both are wrong sometimes.

      And in my experience, when Scientists are intolerant, the Science is almost always wrong. And that is the very same argument that is supposed to be at the very heart of modern Science about ‘Religion.’


      Are we closer to agreement?


  2. ryan59479 says:

    I (and many others like me) would argue that you might be a little hung up on that semantics of the situation. Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to say that creationism isn’t scientific simply because it’s untestable. It doesn’t matter if the claims it makes can or can’t be disproved, because there’s no way to prove *anything* about it. There’s no way to observe, measure, or otherwise interact with creationism, ergo it can’t fit into the scientific process.

    • Wayne says:


      Thank you for your comment!

      I think I agree. I had hoped I was arguing much the same about ‘Evolution.’ Most of the claims of Evolution are taken as fact, simply because they are not testable.


      • limey says:

        I am certain i have raised this with you before Wayne. Speciation has been observed already. Also look up ring species as it demonstrates what would be expected of evolution. Scientists love to test things and prove them wrong. The fact that evolution survives and creationism is derided should be proof enough.

      • Wayne says:

        Actually, I am using the Science as derived by evolutionary scientists …. I can be a sneaky devil’s advocate when I fight for God, can I not be?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s