Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)

Kevin O'Brien (
Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:10:29 -0700

Regarding whether evolution can be falsified.

Here are some scenarios that would falsify part if not all of evolution:

Ths discovery of a six-legged tetrapod (either mammal, reptile, amphibian or
bird) in Late Cenozoic strata (say within the last 25 million years).

The discovery of dolphin, orca, seal, sea turtle and penguin fossils in
Middle Devonian strata.

The discovery of a Homo sapiens skeleton inside the rib cage of a

The discovery on an isolated island of the existence of a community of
animals that are indestinguishable from other living groups, but who use
right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars.

The discovery of a gene that produces a protein that serves no purpose, but
whose amino acid sequence spells out the Ten Commandments.

With regard to "Professing to be wise, they became fools...".

>Christian No.2 asks his evolutionist Professor, "Have you ever observed
>evolution with your own eyes, sir?...Since no one has ever observed the
>process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is
>an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you
>now not a scientist, but a priest?" Let's face it: that really is the
>truth of the matter, isn't it? Should any Christian or Jew respect the
>majority view of the scientific community in respect of a matter which
>so clearly undermines biblical teaching?

How? The last time I read the Bible I found no verse that said, "Thus saith
the Lord thy God: I did not use evolution to create the diversity of life
in the world, but created it all instantly using My divine supernatural
powers." Creationists may like to read into the Bible this statement, but
in fact nowhere does the Bible ever make this claim, not even by

>And particularly when we see in
>our mind's eye a notice on most laboratory doors to the effect, "God,
>keep out! We're hell bent on discovering how it was all done without

That may be what you see, but that may only be because these laboratories
are not singing hymns to the greater glory of God everytime a hypothesis is
verified. The fact that science has nothing to say about God is not the
same thing as saying that God is unwelcome. I have worked with many
scientists who believed they were uncovering the glories of God's creation,
but they still do not use God to explain how that creation works.

>The Scriptures speak plainly on these matters: man is essentially
>an enemy of his Creator; he is 'deceitful above all things' and
>'desperately wicked' (Jer.17:9).

Like most prophets Jeremiah was exaggerating for effect. But in the sense
that man is selfish and prefers to follow his own way rather than the way of
God, Jeremiah was certainly correct. Even so, what does this have to do
with evolution?

>In the words of Christian No.2, "I
>would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is
>probably one of the most observable phenomena going." Isn't that right?

No, considering that we have the Bible that spells out that moral code. The
fact that people choose not to follow that code is not the same thing as
saying there is no code.

>We read in 1Kings 18, verse 21, "And Elijah came unto all the people,
>and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God,
>follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him
>not a word."

I have to admit that I'm not sure what your point is here. Could you

Kevin L. O'Brien