Rational Faith


Science Without Observation Is Deception

 
 

 


As I've pointed out before atheist high priest Richard Dawkins has famously said,


"The Universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

 

Given that I've often wondered why atheists care what I say or what I write about? If I'm wrong, it's not evil (there is no evil) and doesn't matter (there's no meaning or purpose). (But if I'm right, as Pascal has pointed out in his wager, and they continue in their atheistic ways, when their time comes, there will be literal hell to pay. Isaiah 66.24)

But for some reason, though their worldview should tell them what I say doesn't matter, they like to comment on what I say. Much of what they say are easily ignored ad hominem attacks that only prove they can't address what I write about with reason or science. So they resort to attacking me instead of even attempting to address the points I make.  But sometimes they make claims about science and faith that, as I've written about throughout this blog, are clearly and obviously wrong. And occasionally they'll write something that is so obviously wrong it's laugh out loud funny.

That is a case with a recent response to this article. The tweet by this atheist troll is so clearly and obviously wrong I had to laugh. I had already pointed out why in the article, but I suspect most trolls never read the articles, they simply respond tweets, which only carry headline-type info to pique interest. But it occurred to me the troll who sent it apparently actually believes it to be true. Worse, such trolls may deceive some innocents into believing their foolishness is true. So for the sake of believers who need to know the truth I thought it would be helpful to respond to this one since it is so obviously wrong and easy to refute.

Having a clear view of what is being discussed will be key to understanding why the troll is so obviously wrong - laughably so.  That will require definitions. But before we get to the definitions, let me show you the response about macroevolution that made me laugh:


 

So this atheist claims:

  1. Macro-evolution has been observed and
  2. It has been observed in the following places:
    1. Fossils
    2. DNA
    3. "In real time"
  3. Macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution.

Okay, so let's start with the needed definitions:

Defining the Terms

Observation:
To observe something, particularly in science, you must witness the item in question from beginning to end. You cannot, for example, see the last second of a decade long event and claim you "observed" it.

The Scientific Method:
Among other things, the scientific method requires direct observation, and the ability to test what is observed. Without observation and the ability to test a hypothesis, the theory or hypothesis in question cannot be called "science." Science is not like a ball game where the only thing that matters is the final score. Since scientists make claims about what happens along every step of the way, for it to be actual science those steps must have been observed from beginning to end.

Both creationists and secular, evolution believing scientists acknowledge real science requires observation.

Here is big bang and evolution supporting astrophysicist Alex Filipenko affirming science requires observation and testing.

Here is evolution supporting biologist P.Z. Myers agreeing that science requires observation.

Of course creation scientists agree that observation is required for science as well. Here's a sample.

MacroEvolution

As explained in the article the troll is responding to, macro-evolution refers to large scale changes described as "molecules to man" evolution in the article. In the video with P.Z. Myers, Ray Comfort refers to it as a change in kinds, like a change from dinosaurs to birds, or land mammals to whales - both of which evolutionists claim happened.

The popularly cited Darwin's finches is an example of variation - or microevolution, not macroevolution. The finches are still finches.


Darwin's finches - an example of variation (microevolution)

Following is a picture of Dawkins talking about supposed whale evolution. Had it happened, it would be macroevolution (going from a four legged mammal the size of a sheep to a whale), but (spoiler alert) notice the timeline - which is the failure for all claims of macroevolution being observed. What human was there 55 million years ago to observe it? (See the time line below.)


Dawkins on supposed whale evolution over 19 million years

 

The Evolutionary Time line

Key to claims regarding observation is the evolutionary timeline. We'll use this diagram as a reference for the evolutionary timeline. Let me identify a few reference points: (ybp= years before present)

Modern Man (Homo Sapiens) 200,000 ybp

Austrolopithicus Afarensis (Lucy) 4 million ybp

Protoprimates 65 million ybp
 

To answer the question above on who was there to see whales evolve (supposedly) - that would be no one - modern humans didn't even exist at the time according to evolutionary theory.

Refuting Spurious Evolutionary Claims

Has MacroEvolution Been Observed?
Let's start with the claim that macro-evolution has been observed. For that to be true, some person would have had to been around for the entire time it was happening and would have had to watch it happen. I highlighted four million year old Lucy as an example, but since modern man is the most recent thing to emerge on the chart I could have picked anything before modern man.

Was modern man there to see Lucy or anything else evolve? No, of course not. Modern man, according to evolutionary theory, did not exist at the same time as Lucy - or anything else before him - so he could not have observed macro-evolution happen. Clearly, macro-evolution has never been observed.

Has Macroevolution been observed in Fossils?

As I point out on my museum tours fossils don't come with little tags telling you how old they are. And radiometric data won't reveal those dates either as explained here. For this point I'll add they also don't come with little movies to show you what happened to the creature that caused the fossil to be created (in most cases that would be the global flood), and they certainly don't come with something like a time-lapse video to depict the macroevolution that supposedly happened to create the creature that left the fossil in the first place.

As Ken Ham points out - fossils exist in the present. And just as age is not a property that can be measured by tools, evolutionary history is not something that can be observed from bones that exist in the present. Any guesses based on homology are just that: guesses. Aside from the point we've been making in this article - that such supposed evolution has never been observed, see this article on why such story telling is not science, but rather merely guessing.

Has Macroevolution been observed in DNA?

Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA in 1953. Prior to that the complex molecule was discovered in 1869. Is it possible to observe a process that takes millions of years to complete, when you have only had an understanding of the structure of what you're observing for less than 100 years? Obviously not.

Any macroevolutionary changes that anyone thinks they see in DNA has not been observed happening. DNA has not been known for the required amount of time much less observed. And humans have not existed for that amount of time to do the observing. Thus any such claims that "macro-evolution has been observed in DNA" are deceptive and are made on the basis of uninformed guesses and story telling based on a secular world view.

Has Macroevolution been Observed in "Real-time"

If you've read the article this far, you know it is impossible for macroevolution to have been observed in real time. If you've been skimming the article, please read from the definition of "observation" down to this point to see why it is plainly obvious that macro-evolution has never been observed, much less in "real-time." Also please be careful to distinguish macroevolution from variation (microevolution).

Is Macroevolution just lots of "microevolution?

I dealt with the differences between microevolution and macroevolution at length in my article: Microevolution: Dispelling the Myths and Misconceptions. The short answer is no, macroevolution is not just a lot of microevolution (variation).  Let me highlight a couple of points here:

  • Another evolutionary high priest - Theodosius Dobzhansky - recognized the problem of equating macroevolution with variation (I'll keep repeating that variation is microevolution to help people remember). He did  so anyway, invoking the logical of fallacy of an argument from ignorance in so doing. Thus all who argue the same equivalence are making the same logical error. So much for evolutionists arguing from superior reason.
  • For macroevolution to occur would require a change in body plans. Philosopher of biology Paul Nelson makes a strong case for why macroevolution cannot occur based on the impossibility for body plan changes to occur without killing the creature before the change is complete.

     “Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years – research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework – has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is over-whelmingly likely to be false – and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood."[1]
    Paul Nelson

 

Assessment

Not only is the claim "macroevolution has been observed" wrong, it is clearly and obviously impossible. Anyone who understands how science is conducted and understands the terms knows observing macroevolution is impossible. Further, anyone who knows that science requires observation - from beginning to end, and also knows that macroevolution is impossible to have been observed, yet continually makes such claims is obviously being deceptive. Scientific claims not based on  observations are not science and are thus by definition deceptive

People who continue making such claims are either ignorant of what they speak, confusing variation(microevolution) which has been observed with macroevolution (large scale changes such as land mammals to whales evolution) - which has never been observed; either that or they are being willfully deceptive.

For those doing so willfully, why would evolutionists continue to make such obviously deceptive claims? Likely for the same reason they create frauds like Piltdown man, Haeckle's embryos and Archaeoraptor - because there is no evidence for evolution since "In the beginning, God created." (Gen 1.1) So they have to make up evidence. And since the evolutionary worldview denies morality exists, clearly they have no problems with perpetrating such deceptions.

So here are three take-aways from this discussion:

  • Science without observation is deception
  • Macroevolution has never been observed, and is impossible to have been observed
  • Don't get your morality (or science) from those willing to use deception (or from atheists).


There's just one final question for the atheist troll who prompted this discussion:

Are you so ignorant of evolutionary teaching that you don't know the difference between variation which has been observed, and macroevolution which has never been observed, or do you know the difference, and prefer to be willfully deceptive?

Duane Caldwell | July 6, 2022

Notes

1. Paul Nelson, Ref. From Meyer, Stephen C.,  Darwin’s Doubt – The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, New York: HarperOne, 2013, p. 264

A Summary of the challenges to the creation of new body plans Nelson points out:

"1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in the process determine what follow.
2. Thus, to evolve any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, must be viable, and must br stably transmitted to offspring.
3. Such early-acting mutations of global effect on animal development, however are those least likely [emphasis his] to be tolerated by the embryo and, in fact, never have been tolerated in any animals that developmental biologists have studied."
p. 262

Thus Nelson states:
"If the only kind of mutations that can conceivably produce enough morphological change to alter whole body plans never causes beneficial and heritable changes, [emphasis his] then it is difficult to see how mutation and selection could ever produce new body plans in the first place."
p. 263

Back

Image
Photo 152977331 / Deceiver © Kiosea39 | Dreamstime.com