The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’
that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories.1 The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution
in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’.
Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s
look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics,
with just one example of each.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than
observation or empirical investigation.
Photo stockxpert
In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists
is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While
the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally
accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’2 [our emphasis]
We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful.
But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization
or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’.
Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.
The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution
happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we
haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re
expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took
blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster
do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION
in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.3
So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under
artificially accelerated conditions.
Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution
has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s
happening.’4
Some can’t be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state
of affairs in the empirical world.
The next is essentially the same:
… [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned
to fit the theory.
Photo stockxpert
Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species.
Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate
tails? Evolutionists explain, ‘If a peacock can … find food and evade
predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals
do’ this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus
makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most
elaborate tails.5
But the same article also says, ‘it’s hard to figure what possible advantage
these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer … in the grim business
of survival.’ If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would
surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for
survival (in escaping from predators, for example).
Evolution is just as good at ‘predicting’ things that never happened
as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain
anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.
Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they
seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to
sustain them.
Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim
to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the
fossil record with no evolutionary past. ‘Something quite bizarre happened
at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding
variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at
once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new
life forms, known as the Cambrian explosion.’6
So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence.
One popular theory is ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which says that sometimes
evolution happens so fast that there are too few ‘intermediate’ generations
for any to have much chance of being fossilized.
We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot
see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly!
Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends …
Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although
evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such
as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC).7
Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes,
intuition, and examples of confirming instances.
Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their ‘evolutionary tree’.
In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar
body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is
this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed ‘first
horse’, which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution,
the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist
Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous
only in the textbooks’.8
Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never
been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary
tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that
sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between
a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits ‘prove’ evolution as
much as occasional good guesses by a psychic ‘prove’ that he can read
your mind.
Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.
Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. ‘Evolution
does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.’9
But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the
Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on ‘Science, Ethics,
and Religion’, with statements like, ‘Evolution is the creation myth
of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. …
In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has
great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate
to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word.
I have chosen it deliberately.’10
Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist’.11
Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use
ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.
A pro-evolution web site states, ‘Until the 19th century, it was
commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances,
a process known as “spontaneous generation”. This belief was due to
the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when
organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances
commonly observed, life only arises from life. … No life has ever been observed
to arise from dead matter.’12
But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this
well-established law of science. ‘Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever
come from non-living things? No, he didn’t, and this is because you cannot
disprove something like that experimentally … ’.13
The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their
theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’s possible that
there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.
Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may
even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled
experiment is inadequate.
Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science
Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s
a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact
of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature
of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success
of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which,
on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and
then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast,
the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past.
The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific
Method”.’14
So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which
actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling,
simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific
method has anything to do with ‘science’.
Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s
Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences—astrology,
astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet
so many.
Related article:
“It’s not science” (How the claim that evolution is science and creation is religion does not stack up.)
Posted on homepage: 8 September 2008
References and notes
Carroll, R.T., Pseudoscience, The Skeptic’s Dictionary,
<skepdic.com/pseudosc.html>, 19 June 2006. Return to text.
National Academy of Sciences, Evolution resources from the
National Academies, <nationalacademies.org/evolution>, 19 June 2006. Return to text.
Barrans Jr., R., Ask a scientist: microevolution
[sic—the article is actually about macroevolution] United States Department
of Energy, <www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99509.htm>, 19 June 2006.
Return to text.
Richard Dawkins, PBS interview with Bill Moyers, 3 December
2004, <www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html>, 8 November 2006.
Return to text.
Stewart, D., The importance of being flashy—feathers,
International Wildlife, September 1995, <www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1170/is_n5_v25/ai_1738
6021>, 8 November 2006. Return to text.
Friedman, R., The Cambrian explosion: tooth and claw,
Astrobiology Magazine, April 2002, <www.astrobio.net/news/print.php?sid=134>.
Return to text.
Duggan, G.H., Review of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard
Dawkins, Apologia, 6(1):121–122, 1997. Return to text.
Wilkins, J.S., Evolution and philosophy: does evolution
make might right?’ The Talk.Origins Archive, 1997, <www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html>,
19 June 2006. Return to text.
Midgley, M., Evolution as a religion: a comparison
of prophecies, science, ethics, and religion, <www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/midgley_
1987shtml>, October 2005. Return to text.
Dawkins R., The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin, London,
p. 6, 1991. Return to text.
Absolute Astronomy. Biogenesis, <www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/bi/biogenesis.htm>,
19 June 2006. Return to text.
See Wilkins, John S., Spontaneous Generation and the Origin
of Life, The Talk.Origins Archive, April 2004, <www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html>,
19 June 2006. Return to text.
Cooper, R.A., The goal of evolutionary instruction:
belief or literacy?, National Center for Science Education, <www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1132_the_goal_of_evolution_instruct_12_30_1899.asp>,
19 June 2006. Return to text.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.
Feedback Guidelines
Be constructive & courteous. Don't attack individuals, denominations, or other organizations.
Stay on-topic. We're not here to debate matters like eschatology, baptism, or Bible translation.
Links to external sites and articles will be removed from your submission.
Privacy & Content Ownership
Comments become the property of Creation Ministries International upon submission and may be edited for brevity and clarity.
CMI may choose not to publish your comment depending on how well it fits the guidelines outlined above.
By submitting your comment you are agreeing to receive email updates from Creation Ministries International. You may unsubscribe at any time.
CMI records your real name, email address, and country as a sign of good faith. Privacy Policy
If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as ""
Cancel
Accept & Continue
Close
You are leaving CREATION.com
We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.
Readers’ comments
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.