Why Evolution is False, and the Argument Below is Wrong

A couple days ago I challenged my readership to provide a refutation to an evolutionary argument that I presented here. Having not received any feedback, I shall attempt to demonstrate the problem that imbedded here. 

For the sake of simplicity, allow me to briefly summarize the argument that has been presented by the opposing side. The author begins by offering two assumptions upon which science is based:

1. That man can accurately observe his surroundings and formulate laws to describe it. (The Observable Axiom)

2. That every event that has happened, is happening, or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics, or biology. (The Naturalistic Axiom)

From this point the author makes the case that evolution, even with all of its problems, is the only possible viewpoint that is scientific, and therefore true. 

The problem here is simple: our respected opponent is offering a faulty definition of science. He is essentially setting himself up to win the argument before he even starts it. 

So, what is a correct definition of science, and why is this author wrong? Well, with any question, a good place to start is with Mr. Webster:

science |ˈsīəns|

noun

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Sounds like the "observable axiom" to me, in fact I would argue that the "observable axiom" is the only real assumption that science needs to operate from. In fact, I will demonstrate a little later that the real definition of science does much more harm than good to the hypothesis of evolution. 

So what of this "naturalistic axiom"? Allow me to repeat it again: "Every event that has happened, is happening, or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics, or biology." In other words, every event and phenomena in this universe is completely natural and any supernatural explanation must be rejected. Does anyone see the problem in this statement? In order to say this, you must purport to have investigated and explained "every event that has happened, is happening, or will happen" through naturalistic means. Impossible! The race of mankind, let alone one individual person, has just scratched the surface of the great secrets this universe contains. To make this argument you must assume virtual omniscience, which smacks of nothing but arrogance and folly. 

Many scientists will make this mistake of assuming that the point of science is to disprove the existence of God and provide a naturalistic explanation for everything. Thus, we have them clinging so tightly to evolution, it is really is the only naturalistic explanation to be had pertaining to the origins of the universe. But is evolution even consistent with the Observable Axiom? Is it even scientific? Let's take a look. 

As we have already established, science is the system by which we observe our natural world and discern patterns and laws concerning it. When an idea such as gravity has been researched and studied over many years and no exception has been found, the scientific community attributes the status of 'Law' to it. Any new idea that contradicts the established Law is assumed wrong until it is proved otherwise, in which case the Law is adjusted to accommodate the new information. This is all part of the Observable Axiom. 

However, once we bring evolution into the picture, many of these principles seem to fly out the window. In the first place, macro-evolution has never been observed or experimented with, that, in and of itself, flying in violation of the Observable Axiom. Having said that, there are even greater violations of science that evolution has committed. In the first place, the Biological Law of Abiogenisis states very clearly that life can never be generated from non-living materials yet a very central pillar of evolutionary thinking is that at one point in history this phenomena did indeed happen. 

There is, in fact, an entire set of laws that evolution flies in the face of: The Physical Laws of Thermodynamics. Discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, the first law states that energy can never be truly created, it can only change forms. However evolution states that at one point energy must have formed out of nothing. Also, the second law states that all matter transitions from order to disorder without the application of intelligently regulated energy. There has never been an observed instance of anything transitioning from disorder to order all on its own. However a central premise of macro-evolution is that of physical and biological entities slowly evolving from disorder to order in the course of millions and billions of years. 

To wrap up, allow me to summarize what we have just covered. The central tenant of science is that man can observe and describe the laws that govern our universe, otherwise known as the Observable Axiom. Although many scientists would have us also accept the assumption of the Naturalistic Axiom, we must realize that it is completely illogical and unscientific at its root assumption. We then examined the Hypothesis of Evolution according to the Observable Axiom and the scientific laws that have been established over the years and discovered that macro-evolution simply does not stand up to critical scientific scrutiny. 

We must realize that ultimately, evolution is not science, it is a series of religious beliefs known for hundreds of years as naturalism. It was only in 1859 that Charles Darwin wrote his infamous book and put a 'scientific' name onto this belief. The best refutation of bad logic is good logic, and the best cure for bad science is good science. As Christians we need never be afraid that our beliefs are 'unscientific' or that science at its root is hostile to Christianity. In fact, Christians should embrace good science as it can be a powerful tool to bring glory and honor to the true Creator and Sovereign of this universe: The Lord Jesus Christ.