Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Scientist, Speaker CMI-US, Creation Update
The previous article (Do creationists deny science?), in the February Creation Update, refuted claims that creationists deny science. Instead, the creationist worldview led to science’s foundation. This complementary article delves into how evolution is not needed for science and instead has been harmful.
Evolution: historical, not operational science
Misperception lies in confusing two different types of science. Operational science cures diseases, builds technology, and launches men to the moon. It involves observation, testing, and repeatability in the present. For example, America sent twelve men to the moon before evolution was part of the high school science curriculum. Some space program leaders were creationists, including CMI’s friend, Dr Henry Richter. (See creation.com/henry-richter, creation.com/apollo-11.)
By contrast, leading 20th-century evolutionist Ernst Mayr (1904–2005) pointed out:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
(See creation.com/mayr.)
As stated, historical science, such as evolution, is not amenable to laws and experiments—thus denial of evolution does not mean denial of operational science. Rather, it questions evolutionists’ historical narratives based on a worldview of naturalism; nature (for all practical purposes) is all there is. Biblical creationists use the same data but construct different historical narratives based on the Bible’s true account of world history.
Is evolution necessary for medicine?
Despite the operational vs. historical science distinction, many evolutionists claim the former also needs evolution. One area is so-called ‘Darwinian medicine’. For example, evolutionists have seriously argued, “We suppress coughs. Had we thought in evolutionary terms, we would have realized natural selection favoured the cough for good, probably adaptive, reasons. Thanks to Darwin, we have discovered the importance: expelling gunk from the lungs.”
The result for all practical purposes is the same. Therefore, successful treatments fit both models, so can’t be used as evidence for one over the other.
Actually, the creationist model makes more sense. All the features are extremely complex, which makes sense of design. The features would not work at all unless they passed a certain threshold of function. Natural selection would not favor hypothetical intermediate stages.
Antibiotic resistance?
Antibiotic resistance is another supposed essential evolutionary insight. However, both history and science show it is non-evolutionary. First, one Nobel laureate for the discovery of penicillin was anti-Darwinist Ernst Chain. Second, antibiotic resistance surprised evolutionists, so it wasn’t an evolutionary prediction. Third, germ resistance comes not from evolution but from creationist-discovered variation processes and natural selection.
Many changes are destroying machinery that the enemy could otherwise use. E.g. a mutation could disable a cell pump, that would otherwise pump in its own killer. In human warfare, this is called a scorched earth policy. Defenders destroy their own bridges to prevent enemy crossings (or, even better, as the enemy is crossing). But still, the defender is worse off by one bridge. The mutant germ is likewise worse off by one pump. (See creation.com/antibiotic.)
Evolution harms science
Yes, evolution is a problem for real science. One problem is on the meta-science level, what makes science work? The previous article showed that the creationist worldview was essential for founding modern science. Evolution cuts off the branch that science is sitting on.
Another evolutionary teaching is living creatures have many useless leftovers (vestiges) of evolution. This was hubris and bad logic. Because they could not conceive an organ’s function, they assumed there was none. Therefore, discoveries of very important functions were delayed.
For example, surgeons routinely remove healthy appendices during abdominal surgeries. However, without the appendix, patients are four times more likely to get nasty Clostridium difficile (C-diff). The reason, as discovered only this millennium, is that the appendix is a ‘safe-house’ for ‘good’ bacteria that keep the ‘bad’ ones away. (See creation.com/microbiome.) Darwinists once claimed we had about 200 vestigial organs. Almost all are now known to have important roles.
Another area is ‘junk DNA’. Evolution predicts most DNA would be junk, and indeed, much of it doesn’t code for protein. However, the ENCODE project shows most is used for other overlapping codes. E.g. they enable our bodies to make several times more proteins than genes, including those vital for brain function. So, the junk DNA concept belongs in the junk pile! (See creation.com/marvelous-molecule.)
Evolution itself is junk. It’s a snake oil. It describes processes in nature that are unnatural and don’t exist. Nature doesn’t transform one lifeform into an entirely different lifeform. Not even with long ages can that occur. The snake oil is in selling it as “science”. It’s a complete fraud as it pertains to all the forms of life.
As for the elements: earth, air, wind, and fire, they don’t “evolve” either, though they can transform into different energy states, such as water changing into vapor.