by: Dr. Henry M. Morris & Dr. John D. Morris of ICR; Master Books

ICR   URL = www.icr.org (click on to go to)
 
 

pg14 ... Neither evolution nor creation can be seen in operation. Neither can be proved nor disproved, scientifically. It is conceivable that either one -- or both -- may have occurred in the past, but the past cannot be tested scientifically! A choice between the two can be made only by faith in one or the other.

THE TWO MODELS:

The fact that we cannot test either belief scientifically, however, does not mean that we cannot discuss them scientifically. We can define two scientific models: a creation model and an evolution model. Then we can compare the two models in terms of their relative abilities to correlate and explain and, possibly, even predict scientific data. That way, we can arrive at a decision as to which model is more likely to be true, even though we can never prove it to be true.

Which faith is the more reasonable faith -- faith in a completed creation or faith in an ongoing evolution? If we can correlate and explain the origin of all scientific data in terms of present processes and phenomena, then evolution is reasonable. If, however, these data cannot be explained in terms of present natural processes, then one is justified in assuming that they require completed supernatural processes of the past, and this would make belief in creation the more reasonable faith.

We must use the term "model" or "framework" or "concept" or some other such term, rather than "theory" or "hypothesis" for both evolution and creation. In standard scientific terminology, a "hypothesis" is a statement that can be tested scientifically by some kind of experiment that could refute it if it is wrong. A "theory" is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested in various ways, but has not been refuted as yet. Finally, a scientific "law"is a theory that has been tested, with positive results, so often and in so many different ways that it is almost certainly a confirmed fact of science.

Nevertheless, careful scientists will generally agree that even a "law" of science may eventually turn out to be wrong if some experiment not yet performed might refute it. For that reason, no theory or law of science can ever be proved in the absolute sense, for even a single negative result in a properly conceived and controlled future experiment might yet disprove it.

pg15 With these standard principles of the scientific method in mind, it is truly amazing that so many scientists ... will state pontifically that "evolution is a proved fact of science."

... Evolution is not a proved fact of science or history at all. It has never been observed, either scientifically in existing biological activity, or historically in the records of past biological phenomena, as we shall abundantly document later. Furthermore, evolution should not even be considered as a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable experiment that could be devised which might refute it. Two incisive evolutionary biologists pointed this out more than a quarter century ago. ‘Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation ... No one can think of ways in which to test it. ... Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.’ [Paul Ehrlich & L.C. Birch, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214 ; April 22, 1967, pg.352]

pg16 ... One believes in evolution, but he does not know it to be true, except by faith -- exactly the same way by which creationists know creation to be true. As a distinguished zoologist and Fellow of the Royal Society in England has said: "Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." [L. Harrison Matthews, "Foreword" to Origin of Species by Natural Selection, by Charles Darwin (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971), p. x.]

pg17 ... Significantly, this admission was made by a prominent evolutionist selected to write the foreword to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

It is surely true, as Matthew’s says, that creationists must believe in special creation, just as evolutionists must believe in evolution. Creation is neither observable, testable, nor refutable. In the terminology of Ehrlich and Birch, "every conceivable observation" can be fitted into the creation model. Therefore, even though creationists "know" creation to be true, as Matthews says, they cannot prove it scientifically, any more than evolutionists can prove scientifically that evolution is true, no matter how strongly they may believe that they know it to be true.

It does seem, by any criterion of fairness and objectivity, that creation and evolution, as the only two models of origins, ought to be considered as equal alternatives to be evaluated objectively in terms of their relative abilities to correlate and explain scientific data.

In this book, therefore, we will be using the terms "creation model" and "evolution model" to denote these two alternative concepts of origins and history. A "model" can neither be proved nor disproved scientifically, but it can be evaluated scientifically in terms of its ability to correlate -- and even "predict" -- scientific data that can be actually observed or measured. The model can be defined in simple, broad terms to begin with, then modified and extended as necessary to incorporate incoming data. Then , in general, that model which incorporates the greatest number and variety of data, with the smallest number of modifications and extensions to make it fit, and with the smallest number of unresolved questions about how to incorporate the relevant data, is the model most likely to be true, even though it can never be proved scientifically to be true.

... define the models: In the very simplest terms,

evolutionism is the model that attempts to explain everything without God the Creator, whereas

creationism as a model advances the supernatural activity of the Creator as the explanation for the more basic entities of science and the most determinative events of history.

pg18 ...

EVOLUTION MODEL

Continuing Naturalistic Origin
    of Basic Systems

Net Present Increase in
    Organized Complexity of
    Basic Systems                                                      
 
 

CREATION MODEL

Completed Supernatural Origin
    of Basic Systems

Net Present Decrease in
    Organized Complexity of
    Basic Systems
 

... Another way of contrasting the two models is to emphasize that:

the evolution model stressesinnovation and integration, whereas

the creation model is characterized by conservation and disintegration.

Therefore, one cannot properly speak of creation by evolution; each of the two terms is, by definition, the opposite of the other.

... Douglas Futuyma, a leading evolutionary biologist, has made this clear in a dogmatically anti-creationist book written by him.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." [Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (N.Y.; Pantheon Books, 1983), p. 197

pg18 Creationists ... would heartily agree with this particular statement. That is, scientists can either explain all things by continuing natural processes, or they cannot -- one or the other. If they cannot, then at least some things must be explained by completed supernatural processes of the past. The first situation would support the evolution model, the second the creation model.

Professor Futuyma was thinking specifically of biological organisms, but the same contrast would apply to the inorganic realm as well, including the physical cosmos itself. That is, if we can explain the development of the basic chemical elements, and the entire physical universe by ongoing, observable, natural processes, then we can properly believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, and chemical evolution. If not, then we should accept the creation model, attributing the origin of the universe, the basic structure of matter, the stellar heavens, and the solar system, to special creation.

pg19 The Elusive Evidence for Evolution -

If evolution is really true, then we ought to be able to observe it in action. We should be able to observe new elements evolving, new stars evolving, new kinds of plants and animals evolving, and so on. If these things could be observed, then everyone would accept evolution as scientific fact. Even if we could not observe them actually coming into existence, if we could just observe simpler elements evolving into more complex elements, or invertebrates evolving into vertebrates, or any thing of that sort; then we would all be evolutionists without even arguing. There might still be arguments between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists, but there could be no true creationists. All of us could actually see evolution taking place; it would be observable scientific fact!

We see nothing like this, of course, exactly as would be predicted from the creation model. Creation, by definition, is an event or events of the past, and so cannot be observed taking place in the present. Furthermore, instead of evolutionary changes now taking place to generate more complex systems and organisms, as might be expected from the basic definition of the evolution model, what we actually see is a ubiquitous tendency for systems to disintegrate and for organisms, and even entire species, to decay and die! This is another implication from the basic creation model.

Thus, the creation model basically is obviously more realistic than the evolution model: Its predictions are precisely fulfilled, whereas those of the evolution model are never observed at all.

At this point, however, the evolutionist flees for refuge to the safe haven of "time." He assumes that evolution proceeds either so slowly or so rarely (in sudden leaps) that we can never actually see it operating.

In effect, he must so modify his basic model as to make it almost a quasi-creation model. He says that, even though we can’t see it, we must believe that it happened in the past. Otherwise, he would have to believe in creation, and to him such an option is incredible!

... etc. ... (see the full text of Volume #2 on reserve in the library at Valle Verde) ...