Evolution–Science or Religion?

By Arlo E. Moehlenpah, D.Sc.
July 31, 2000

When I wrote my book Creation Versus Evolution: Scientific and Religious Considerations, I pondered over several other possible titles. Among these titles were “Evolution–Hoax of the Centuries” and “Have You Been Brainwashed By Evolution?”  I do not know how marketable the book would have been with one of these titles, but still feel these phrases have some merit.

The reason I believe that the theory of evolution is a hoax is that the public has been brainwashed into believing that it is supported by scientific evidence. In most of the school boards and courts considering creation versus evolution, the issue has been presented as religion versus science.  They argue that creation should not be taught in public schools because it is religion, but that evolution can be taught because it is science.

The truth is, the theory of evolution is not scientific. It is important that we know what science is and are able to distinguish between “science” and what is “falsely called science.” A typical definition of science  is that it is a branch of study concerned with observation and classification of facts, especially with the establishment of verifiable general laws, chiefly by induction and hypothesis. Webster defines science as “Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation…”. You can look at various dictionaries and get slightly different definitions, but the key words will be “observation,” “experimentation,” “verifiable,” “testable,” and “repeatable.” In other words, if it cannot be observed, repeated, verified or subject to experimentation, then it is not scientific. Evolution has never been observed, repeated, or verified, nor has an experiment ever been performed regarding it. Thus, evolution is not scientific. 

The theory of evolution contradicts known scientific laws such as the law of biogenesis, the law of kinds and the second law of thermodynamics. These laws are indisputable.

·        The Law  of Biogenesis states that life can only come from other life. Life does not spring from non-living things. This is what we observe and what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1, where various forms of life were created to reproduce. Perhaps the most difficult problem that evolutionists face is the question of how self-replicating life systems could form from non-living, non-replicating systems. Some evolutionists propose that in the beginning small inorganic molecules such as water, methane, ammonia, and somehow-by-chance chemical reactions, formed amino acids. These amino acids supposedly combined to form proteins and then, eventually, living cells. The idea that living creatures can be produced naturally, from non-living substances, is called spontaneous generation. Never has this been observed, repeated or verified, and thus, this idea is not scientific.

·        The Law of Kinds states that life reproduces after its own kind. The phrase after his kind is used at least ten times in the creation account (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This applies to both the plant and the animal kingdoms. Specifically mentioned are grasses, herbs, trees, fishes, birds , beasts and creeping things. What this means is that pear trees produce pears and not monkeys, cows have calves and horses beget colts. In other words, “like produces like.” The theory  of evolution  contradicts the “law  of kinds ” by saying that one kind of creature evolved into another kind.

·        The Second Law of Thermo­dynamics shows that systems left to themselves go to a condition of greater disorder, probability and randomness. Hurricanes do not build cathedrals. Explosions in junkyards do not build jetliners. Earthquakes do not create living systems. Systems go from order to disorder. This contradicts evolutionary theory, which assumes that disordered particles eventually evolved to form ordered life. The second law of thermodynamics  also contradicts the idea that a Big Bang Explosion could have produced an ordered universe. For an ordered pattern to occur, there must be a designer and energy. The orderliness of the universe and the complexity of living organisms confirm the work of a divine Creator. Our ordered universe could not have developed from chaos. There are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists try to point out that snowflakes forming, trees growing and embryos developing are exceptions to the second law. Snowflakes and other crystals form because of the sizes and shapes of atoms, ions and molecules that predetermine the shapes of the crystals. For example, if you dropped some marbles on a Chinese checkerboard, the marbles would take the pattern of the indentations on the board. This “disorder to order” is not that at all, but is rather a reflection of the marbles falling into a pre-designed order. Likewise, the order of a growing tree or a developing embryo has been pre-encoded into the cells of these systems.

The truth is, both creation and evolution are religious views. The issue is not  religion vs. science, but religion vs. religion. Any concept regarding origins is not scientific, in that origins were not and cannot be observed, repeated or verified. Scientists can only deal with present evidence. The choice of which theory to accept becomes a matter of faith.

To accept something without evidence requires faith. The New Testament states, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (Hebrews 11:1-3)

The Christian believes that God created the universe, life and man, while the evolutionist believes that the universe, life and man somehow evolved without any supernatural direction; in essence: “Evolution cannot be proved or tested, it can only be believed.”

Considering the majesty, beauty and complexity of the earth and universe, it is relatively easy to believe in Creation. Yet to believe that dead matter could create life, and have absolutely no evidence, requires faith of another order. Some believe that a cosmic egg of energy exploded to form chemical elements, stars , galaxies and finally people. Some even have the faith to believe that life was planted on earth  by an unknown civilization from outer space. Since evolution cannot be observed, repeated or verified, it is no more “scientific” and no less “religious” than Creation. One person was asked, “Why aren’t you an evolutionist?” His reply was, “I don’t have enough faith to believe that random particles arranged themselves into ordered life.”

The zeal of Darwinists to evangelize the world with their theory makes it also seem like a religion. They see evolution as a light that illuminates all facts. To them, evolution is the god they worship.

Christians, however, recognize that the great Creator became our Savior and all of God’s fullness dwells in Him. Jesus Christ is the Light of the world and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.

ninetyandnine.com

ã 2000, Arlo Moehlenpah

--------

Arlo Moehlenpah earned Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Science degrees in chemical engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, as well as a Bachelor of Theology in Apostolic studies from Apostolic Bible Institute and a Master of Science in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota. He has taught in three secular colleges and universities and four Bible colleges endorsed by the United Pentecostal Church International. He and his wife Jane were involved in the “evolution” of three grown children, Ed, Glenda, and Sam.

Editor’s Note: All scientific references for this article can be found in Moehlenpah’s Creation Versus Evolution: Scientific and Religious Considerations, available at his www.DoingGood.org web site. The site also contains 31 challenging Bible Quizzes on various aspects of the Bible, as well as study guide questions for a number of books of the Bible.

Have an opinion