Is Evolution Science?

Posted On May 28, 2021

---

Introduction

The answer is yes, in a sense. But also no, depending on how the term “evolution” is being used. In our last post, we saw that “evolution” is often used to refer to two very different kinds of change, which can be confusing.

First, we have short term change, which I’ll call adaptation, or natural selection. Second, we have the alleged long term change from simple to complex over the course of millions of years. I’ll call this Darwinism. These are very different, in part because they are two different kinds of science.^[1] Let’s take a closer look at these two kinds of science.

Operational Science

Operational, or experimental science is what we think of when we think of normal, every day science. It deals with cause and effect in the present time, through observation and experimentation.

For example, if we want to determine the temperature that water boils at sea level, we can do an experiment to find out. We can even repeat that experiment as often as we want to gain confidence in our answer. This is the scientific method, in which scientists will test a hypothesis to see if it’s true by conducting experiments.

Operational science is responsible for all of our technology and innovation, from refrigeration, to medical care to smart phones.

Natural selection, or adaptation, is operational science and an established fact. It can be observed in the present, and confirmed through experimentation. The scientific method applies.

In our prior post we briefly discussed Darwin’s finches. Darwin was able to observe in real time the changes in their beaks over a short period of time.

Consider animal and plant breeders. For centuries, people have been intentionally breeding for different kinds of desirable traits. Examples would be the domestic dog breeds, fancy pigeons, or even varieties of corn. This can be called selective breeding or artificial selection.

Historical Science

Darwinism, on the other hand, is historical science.

When we shift our investigation into the past, we are no longer dealing with operational science. We have moved into historical, or forensic science. In this case, we are looking for past causes of effects that we observe in the present. The scientific method no longer applies.

In dealing with historical science, scientists and historians use a process of abductive reasoning, or “theory to the best explanation.”^[2] Considering all the observable evidence in the present, they develop an idea, explanation, or story of what might have happened to cause it all. Then, they carefully examine that evidence against what we know today to see how it all fits the story.

If the proposed explanation is true, then all of the evidence will nicely fit the story. If any of the evidence does not fit, or needs to be force fit somehow, then there’s a problem with that explanation.

An example of historical science would be investigating how the Grand Canyon formed. No one was there to see it happen, and we can’t do any experiments to repeat it.

The same is true of Darwinism. When talking about change over millions of years, we have obviously shifted into a question of historical science. No one can observe the process, and no one can do any experiments to repeat it.

The historical science in this case is an investigation into the origin of life on earth. Darwinism is just one possible explanation. The next step, of course, would be to study how the evidence fits the story.

Presuppositions and Bias

Since historical science means coming up with an explanation or story to explain the evidence, then very often presuppositions and biases enter the picture. The worldview of the investigator will influence his opinions of what happened in the past.

For example, a scientist who is a Christian will start with a biblical worldview, presupposing that God exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe.

Secular science, today, is also unapologetically biased.^[3] During the Enlightenment period of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, there was a growing desire to reject the Bible as a source of truth, and look to our own reasoning instead. As a result, the philosophy of Naturalism became a new underlying foundation upon which science was based.^[4]

Naturalism is a worldview that says nature is all there is; there is no supernatural. Science to this day is founded upon a presupposition of Naturalism. It means that any suggestion of the supernatural is strictly excluded from any investigation in the present or into the past. So any explanation of origins that suggests the supernatural is rejected as not scientific.

We have an early example of this. Sir Richard Owen (1804-1892) was an English biologist and paleontologist; and a contemporary of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Owen disagreed with Darwin concerning anatomical similarities in living things.^[5] Owen argued that similarity was evidence of a “plan of creation.” Darwin didn’t respond to the argument; he didn’t have to. He simply dismissed it by saying, “but that is not a scientific explanation.”^[6]

So when it comes to historical science, it’s not a question of who is biased. Everyone is biased. And everyone has the same evidence. It’s a matter of how well the evidence fits the different possible explanations.

Why Is Darwinism Often Presented As Fact?

There’s no question that we see Darwinism presented everywhere as an established fact. We see it in magazines, documentaries, even science classes and textbooks. Why? I’ll offer two reasons.

First, consider that Darwinism is the idea that small changes driven by natural selection add up to large changes over time. Since natural selection is an established fact, then it is assumed that Darwinism happens.

Remember that the term “evolution” is used to describe both natural selection and Darwinism. This kind of wordplay is known as equivocation, which can be defined as follows:

In logic, equivocation, or “calling two things by the same name” is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expressions in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.^[7]

Some people who understand this call it a “bait and switch” tactic. “Evolution” (natural selection) is a fact, so “evolution” (Darwinism) is a fact. All of what “evolution” means must be a fact. But this is not true.

The second reason that Darwinism is considered a fact is simply due to the anti-supernatural bias in science. If we start with a presupposition that there is no God, then Darwinism must be true. It’s simply the best and only explanation available for life on earth, if there is no God.

Conclusion

Natural selection is operational science and is a well established fact. The scientific method applies. Darwinism is a matter of historical science, and despite claims to the contrary, is not an established fact. It is impossible to observe Darwinism in action, and it is impossible to conduct any experiments to prove that it’s true. Darwinism is just one explanation for the existence of life on earth. Whether or not it’s a good explanation depends on what we know today, and how the evidence fits. We’ll look at this in our next post.

---

^[1]For further reading, see “It’s Not Science” at https://creation.com/its-not-science, accessed 5/14/21.

^[2]There are many fields in which abductive reasoning is used to study the past, for example, forensic science, archaeology, and paleontology. Scholars and historians use this method to study the Resurrection of Jesus, as discussed here: https://gregenos.org/did-jesus-really-rise-from-the-dead-part-1-the-facts/; accessed 5/14/21.

^[3]For further reading, see “Evolution and Creation, Science and Religion, Facts and Bias” at https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias, accessed 5/14/21.

^[4]Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (2021), 51-62.

^[5]Anatomical similarity is known as homology, and is often used as evidence for a common evolutionary ancestor. But interesting, homology can also be interpreted as evidence for a common designer. It can equally go either way.

^[6]Darwin, The Origin of Species (2003), 414; as cited in Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (2021), 61.

^[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation, accessed 5/13/21.