This topic sounds very similar to one that wrote on just a little while ago which was entitled “Is Evolution A Science“. If we consider any area of study to be a science, then some people would call evolution a science. But if a subject must be empirically studied, that is, experiments are proposed with observable results hypothesized and recorded then we would have to answer the question, “Is evolution science?” with a resounding, “No!”
Why was evolution promoted as science?
When Charles Darwin began his promotion of evolution with his publication of On the Origin of Species, it was believed that the simplest form of life was just that. It was simple. It was believed that single cell living things were no more than just a glob of “jelly”. It is almost needless to say that there is nothing simple about even the simplest form of life. The simplest form as is now known consists of a minimum of 256 proteins. So we can see why it was fairly easy to promote evolution as science when things were thought to be very simple.
How evolution was supposed to work
The evolution that Darwin proposed was a process that began when certain chemicals and minerals came together by chance under perfect conditions and the first life form came into being. Of course, at the time this was proposed there was no way of producing a situation that would bring about those results. Now, over 150 years of scientific advancement, we still can not set up a situation where everything involved in the life process can come together and produce a living thing. Not that it has not been tried, because it has been, and without one bit of progress toward producing life.
Because this goes against the Law of Biogenesis, that should make it unscientific. But there is more. Because the beginning of life from non-life has never been observed we would think that evolution would be deleted from the categories of science, but it is not.
So, how do evolutionists get around this problem? They simply “kick the can down the road”. They are confident that with enough funding and experiments that someday in the future they will find the key to “creating life from non-life.” So they convince those who still want to see evolution work that it will work one day.
By side stepping the origin of life problem they move on to how life developed from that first living cell.
The first living cell
For a cell to be living, there are a few things that it must be able to do. It must have a membrane which encapsulates all the necessary mechanisms to carry on life. It must have a means to take in nutrients through the membrane and after getting the nutrients inside the cell it must have a means to convert those nutrients into energy to sustain the life of the cell and carry on the necessary functions of that life. It must also have a transportation system to move the nutrients about to the places where they can be processed and then on to where they are utilized. There must be some form of ATP so the cell can utilize the energy. Then, in addition to these and much more, there must be a capacity to store all this information and then be able to pass it on to the next generation. Did we mention that there must be a mechanism by which the cell should be able to replicate itself and pass on all this information to the next generation.
Does that sound “simple” to you?
There is more
This simple living cell, at least the simplest that is known to exist, not only has all the things we mentioned above but it has much more. It has an information storage system which is called DNA. Even in the simplest cell, the DNA stores as much information as a super computer. The DNA contains all the instructions and information by which the cell can obtain and process all the nutrients it needs to maintain its life. The simplest living cell which can sustain its self has over 300 proteins which it must produce to continue living.
Proteins are made up of amino acids. Living things utilize 20 of many amino acids in nature. An amazing thing, though, is that it only uses left-handed amino acids.(Amino acids come in left-handed and right-handed forms. Living things use only the left-handed ones). The amino acids which are used to build proteins are assembled by RNA transporters and the exact amino acid must be connected in the right place and order or the protein will not function. After being assembled the protein must be folded and shaped precisely according to the DNA instructions or the protein will not function and will be discarded.
Without DNA there are no instructions as to how to build proteins. Without proteins DNA can not be constructed. So, the question for those who believe in evolution is, “Which came first, the DNA, or the protein?”
For there to be evolution in the Darwinian fashion there will need to be an increase in the amount of information in the DNA of a living thing if it is to “evolve” and become more complex. So, how does a living cell get more information? Evolutionists say that it comes through “mutations” in the DNA. In other words, they say that a mutation changes the information coded in the DNA and the cell gains information and grows more complex. It is an interesting thought. But, remember, we said that real science is empirical and repeatable.
Right from the beginning evolution has a problem. Scientists have not been able to observe any living thing that throughout its generations has become more complex and grown in information in its DNA. In fact, every study ever done on the effects of mutations on the DNA of any living thing has found that mutations lessen the information. Though there are changes in the genetics it is because of a subtraction of information, and an addition of information.
So, can we answer the question, “Is evolution science?”
We could go on and on with examples from science that prove that what is called evolution is not Darwinian evolution. In fact, if followed to its logical conclusion it would be de-evolution. Living things are not growing more complicate, they are becoming less complicated. The eventual conclusion would be extinction.
There is nothing in real science that supports evolution. The real reason that someone wants to believe in evolution is so that they do not have to admit that there is a Creator and that the creation must answer to its Creator. Pride wants to exalt one’s self rather than be humbled before an omnipotent, omniscient, ever present Creator.
Be honest with yourself. If a thing is truly science it will conform to the laws of science. These are laws built into creation. Evolution does not subject itself to the laws of science. In so doing it does not subject itself to the Creator or to the creation.
Let me say it loud and clear. Evolution is not science!
I welcome any input that you may have.