A Question I Was Asked:

Surely Science Has Now Proven Evolution and Darwinism. Why go on Denying it?

Surely science has now proven evolution and Darwinism. Why go on denying it? I think you are pathetic.

UK Apologetics Reply:

Actually your claim - despite being quite a popular claim today - is simply incorrect.

Darwinism (or, 'Neo-Darwinism' which is the current model) is not an empirical science, it cannot be tested in any experiment, nor any series of experiments. It is a historical theory based on how one interprets certain evidence. Science has not "proven" macro-evolution to be true, neither is it even capable of doing so. All good scientists worthy of their salt recognise this fact. Only propagandists (like Richard Dawkins, for example) might venture into making such wild statements. The origin of life on this earth is obviously not testable and/or repeatable like testing some sort of chemical reaction in a laboratory. So we speak here of a search to find out what happened in a specific point in time in history. That point was a long, long time ago and none of us witnessed it. More importantly, as science will usually admit, nothing like that is happening today. Therefore this can quite reasonably be described as a 'faith-based belief.' Indeed, it has been said that both evolution and creation science are faith-based beliefs.

The only thing which evolutionists can grasp at is micro-evolution (so-called). This is simply the variation within kinds which we see all around us, that is, various cats, dogs, plants, vegetables, people, etc., but nothing changes, that is, nothing becomes a new species; strict barriers are found, you just have the variation possibilities and, of course, plant breeders and animal breeders work with these variation possibilities.

If Neo-Darwinism were correct, the fossil record might be a very strong area for them, I mean, this is what one may dig up and uncover from the earth itself. But evolution is in big trouble here because the fossil record does not provide the clear evidence which evolutionists would like it to, and which Charles Darwin himself probably expected that it would do so within about a hundred years of his death. This is not just my opinion, of course, but a well-noted fact.

So science has not"shown" evolution (macro-evolution is what is meant) to be true, neither has it "proven" it - not in any shape or form. In fact, despite all the naturalistic propaganda we get these days, it remains the case that the evidence for macro-evolution is incredibly weak and the creationist remains in a very strong position, I just wish that some of my fellow-believers would take confidence from this rather than continually ducking the issue.

So the question here is based on a false assumption; Macro-evolution is a theory about the past - it is not empirical, nor testable science.

Robin A. Brace. July 15th, 2015.