Evolution Is Not Science

Scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Before moving on, I’ll make a couple important observations about this definition. Firstly, the idea (theory, hypothesis, etc.) must be able to be tested. How is it tested? By observing the situation in question and repeating the processes involved. Without this last step (testing a hypothesis empirically), the scientific method is not being used. Keep this in mind.

Secondly, if the scientific method is not being used, science is not being done.

By this criteria, Evolution* is not science.

Hold Up

Now, before you dismiss me as stupid, let me explain what I mean by evolution. There are two meanings that I will be using: 1) the theory of Evolution (big “e”), which details our molecules-to-man history. I will call this macroevolution, or Evolution. 2) Microevolution, which is simply the fact that species adapt over time to survive in their environment. Occasionally this adaptation will lead to new species.

Microevolution has been observed. It has been tested and repeated. It is extremely scientific and I will not argue against it at all. The scientific method has been used to support it and there are no problems. Microevolution is science.

Macroevolution, or “goo-to-you” as I like to call it, has not been observed. The scientific method cannot be used to test it because apparently it is “happening too slowly”, therefore this theory is not scientific. You cannot repeat it. You can come up with hypotheses about it, but there is no empirical testing you can do to it.

Why is this theory in the science classroom? I’ll get to that after I deal with a common objection.

“Macroevolution Is Microevolution Over Long Periods of Time!”

This is the most common response to what I just wrote. People say that because one can use the scientific method to confirm microevolution, macroevolution is also scientific because it is simply microevolution over long periods of time.

This doesn’t fly because the fact of the matter is that “microevolution over long periods of time” can’t be empirically tested, which means it can't be observed or repeated. This belief is simply extrapolation.

Again, macroevolution cannot be tested or repeated, therefore one cannot use the scientific method on it. If this is the case…

Macroevolution is not science.

Where Does Macroevolution Belong?

However, there is a place for macroevolution. This place is history. If you think about it, that’s exactly where it should be. History doesn’t use the scientific method; it uses what we think we know about the past and what is available to us today to form theories about the past. Archeology, paleontology, historical accounts, and dating methods are the tools of history… and those are also the things we use when it comes to macroevolution.

Why Isn’t Evolution Taught Where It Should Be?

Why isn’t Evolution taught mainly in history? My guess is because history doesn’t carry the same weight as science. While important, relegating this theory to history would diminish its power.

Scientists are often worshiped by our culture as infallible; historians are not. Scientific ideas dominate the headlines. The words of the scientist are accepted often without second thought by us normal folk.

If you were to remove Evolution from science, it would lose this prestige. However, it needs to go because Evolution is not science.

*By Evolution, I mean only that... the "theory of life" Evolution. There are other "long age" theories (such as the Big Bang) that pertain to other things. I am not talking about those theories here.

#Evolution #Science #AQCCulture