Falsifying Evolution

What would be a way that evolution could be falsified?

Updated to add…

This is a post that I started to avoid derailing a comment thread on a birth blog. For usage of the term “falsify” as I’m using it, see the Wikipedia definition, for the full description; here it is in part:

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

So, can evolution be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment? Is it falsifiable?

On the Science & Sensibility post about epidurals and micro-trauma, Dr. Amy said that Amy Romano was dangerously close to “pseudo-science” in her analysis, by (in her view) refusing to allow that epidurals had some benefit. She said, “A key characteristic of science, as opposed to pseudoscience, is that all possible outcomes are allowed. That’s why “intelligent design” is not science; there is no evidence that would lead it’s advocates to announce that there is no “intelligent designer.” The conclusion is predetermined.”

I countered that the conclusion of evolutionists, that evolution is a fact, is predetermined, and that there is no evidence that would lead its advocates to announce that there is no such thing as evolution. [Evolution, here defined not merely as “change,” which anybody with one eye and half a brain can see occurring; but as the term is commonly used to mean the spontaneous generation of life from non-life (at some point in the past), and then that early life giving rise to all other life over the course of millions if not billions of years, so that humans are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that chickens are descendants of dinosaurs (I think that’s the current theory in vogue, anyway), and that we’re all descendants of that same one-celled life that just happened to appear way back billions of years ago.]

While Dr. Amy not surprisingly ignored my comments (indeed, I did not expect anyone to take it up; I just wanted to get my point out there), Dr. Nicholas Fogelson did, not quite understanding what I said, saying in part, “…there is really no question that the variation of species on this earth is due to evolution. From phylogeny to DNA evidence to fossil record, everything is absolutely consistent with evolution of species over the millions of years that life has existed on this planet.”

I responded that evolution is not falsifiable, and then opened up this post should anyone wish to take me up on it.

Someone named “Aly” responded,

Here’s a quick primer on the falsifiability of evolution, Kathy: http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Disproving_Evolution

But that’s a joke. Here is how it says that evolution could be falsified:

Evolution is based on three principles: variation, heritability and selection; if any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable. Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

  • If it could be proven that mutations did not occur.
  • If it could be proven that although mutations did occur they were not passed down through the generations.
  • If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressure did not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

What makes it a joke is that while these things are necessary for evolution to be how everything came about solely by blind chance and natural laws (i.e., no creator nor intelligent designer, no force or being outside our world or universe creating or causing things to come into existence), the existence of these things does not prove that evolution is valid. Mutations do occur, they are passed down to succeeding generations, and natural selection does favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. But the man who came up with the idea of “natural selection” predated Darwin, and was a creationist! As was the “father of genetics” Gregor Mendel. In fact, his theories were not accepted for a long time, because it overthrew so much of what Darwin believed. [At the time of Darwin, it was widely believed that characteristics were passed on based on their use or disuse — so that if a bird didn’t use its wings very much, the bird’s offspring would have smaller, less useful wings. This was the “engine” of evolution prior to the acceptance of Mendelian genetics — organisms would swim in the ocean, but eventually come onto the land, and those that used their flippers for moving about on the land would pass on stronger land-motion limbs, so that their offspring would be better land-movers than water-movers, and by this means fish would turn into reptiles and land-dwelling mammals would turn into water-dwelling mammals; but Mendel’s work disproved that theory.] Finally, there was so much weight of evidence that Mendel was right, that evolutionists couldn’t deny it any longer… and then they co-opted genetics as the vehicle for changing not just moths into moths and dogs into dogs (change we see, due to the built-in variety of genetics), but changing microbes into microbiologists (over billions of years).


18 Responses

  1. Like with all science, the way to falsify evolution would be for some other observable, testable and repeatable theory to emerge and for the evidence of the new theory to outweighed the collective evidence that support evolution.

    • But the major tenets of evolution are based on the past, which cannot be observed, tested, nor repeated. We can perform experiments on, say, rocks and fossils that exist in the present; but we cannot go back into the past to observe when the rocks and fossils were created.

      • Evolution (both micro and macro) has occurred during the observable past. We can extrapolate what occurred in the past by what we see occurring today just as we can extrapolate what is likely to occur in the future.

        As far as going back and observing something occurring: First, I’d note that what seems reliable to me is often not, including the apparent evidence of my eyes because what we perceive is often not the entire truth of the matter. (That’s why eyewitness testimony is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S.). So the idea that we could know something, with certainty, if we saw it is a false one.
        Secondly, police and other crime investigators use evidence and artifact of past events and testable hypothesis to determine how a crime occurred despite not being there witness it. The only difference is scale, looking back only hours, weeks, months or years rather than eons

        In the present we test theories about how fossils came be formed, how layer of sedimentation are formed and we use various forms of radioactive and chemical dating to properly sequence items from our planets past. Scientist use DNA to compare the relationships between species (living and long extinct) just as they determine relationships between human individuals.

        Scientist are in the business of disproving themselves. They test things over and over and are constantly looking for new and better explanations for everything. Theories about everything from drug mechanisms to quantum mechanics and relativity can have been debunked. The scientific community does not put a subject to rest because they think they have the correct ‘answer’ they continue to refine and look for a better one.

        So my question back to you is:
        Why do you want to falsify evolution?

        • To answer the last question first – I updated the post with the reason why.

          Evolution (both micro and macro) has occurred during the observable past. We can extrapolate what occurred in the past by what we see occurring today just as we can extrapolate what is likely to occur in the future.
          Give an example of macro-evolution that has been observed, so that I can be sure that we’re on the same page here.

          We cannot always extrapolate what occurred in the past by what we see in the present. For example, I cannot say that because my son grew three inches in height last year, that 40 years from now he will be 120 inches taller than he is now. We can see layers in sea beds and observe that *at present rates* they accumulate one layer per year (although that’s only in some areas; some lakes have winter and summer varves; and I’m reasonably certain that others don’t always accumulate a visible layer; and that others can accumulate more than one in a single season); but we must *assume* that the present rates have been the same throughout the entire past. However, we know that under certain circumstances (floods, for instance), that several layers of sediment feet thick can accumulate.

          In a similar fashion, scientists assume that radioactive decay rates are constant (although there has been a recent announcement that differences in radioactive decay have been observed, depending on the season; it is thought that solar activity can speed up or slow down decay rates, but they’re not sure how), and that if they are constant, then when we come across a rock we can measure the amount of two related elements to see how long it has taken for one to turn into another. Yet they *assume* not only that decay rates are constant, but also that all of the “daughter” element came from the “parent” element, and that the rock system is “closed” with neither parent nor daughter element escaping. Those are three big assumptions which cannot be proven. However, when lava flows of known age were tested (Mt. Saint Helens, for example), the age returned by these dating methods was shown to be demonstrably false — they were dated as hundreds of thousands of years old when they were about 20 y/o.

          Forensic science is fascinating; but again, it is built on observing actions that have happened in the present, repeatedly, and then forming reasonable conclusions about what happened when an event was not seen. For example, there are “body farms” where scientists can observe the bodies of dead people and animals, to see how fast they decay, what bugs come when, how fast the larvae form, how quickly (or slowly) the fat and muscle and bones decay, etc. They go out to shooting ranges and fire a variety of bullets from a variety of guns, collect the casings and the bullets, to see how they changed, if they can match the bullets, etc., and *then* they can prove which gun fired which bullet at a crime scene. That’s observable, testable, and repeatable; and with enough study into these things, they can demonstrate by forensic evidence what happened at times when nobody observed them.

          • First let me address the updated original post.

            Evolution, here defined not merely as “change,” which anybody with one eye and half a brain can see occurring; but as the term is commonly used to mean the spontaneous generation of life from non-life

            You can’t alter the definition of evolution to match your needs. The spontaneous generation of life from non-life is abiogenesis. Evolution does not address the origins of life in any way, mush less via abiogenesis. It only describes the transition from one life form into another over time. The concept that evolutionary theory address abiogenesis stems from a misunderstanding of the theory and the science behind it. This stems mostly from the fact that it has been oversimplified in textbooks for middle and high school and that most people don’t have the interest to take the necessary advanced college and graduate levels classes to gain more complete and through understanding.

            There are many scientist testing their ideas about the origins of like. The accuracy or inaccuracy of those ideas will have very little, i dare say no effect on the the validity of evolution.

            these things are necessary for evolution to be how everything came about solely by blind chance and natural laws (i.e., no creator nor intelligent designer, no force or being outside our world or universe creating or causing things to come into existence), the existence of these things does not prove that evolution is valid.

            Evolution is not mutually exclusive to the idea of a creator but it is not compatible (with my admittedly limited knowledge of theology) with a literal translation of the creation story of the bible or any other modern religious tradition. The reason the falsifying of those ideas (mutation, descent with modification and natural selection) are the ways to falsify evolution is because in the most simplistic way they ARE evolutionary theory. They are the explanation of what occurs that have been observed, tested and experimented with. So to falsify the theory, you would have to prove that one or more of them is false.

            The reason why an “intelligent designer” or other unknown force is not addressed scientifically is because the evidence that we have is explained very thoroughly by natural means without the need of supernatural intervention. But in incontrovertible, testable and repeatable evidence of a supernatural force was discovered it would be incorporated just like any other discovery.

            the conclusion of evolutionists, that evolution is a fact, is predetermined, and that there is no evidence that would lead its advocates to announce that there is no such thing as evolution

            Evolution (the actually theory which does not include abiogenesis) is only accepted as “scientific fact” because of the large amount of evidence supporting it. It is still being studied and if irreconcilable inconsistencies starting springing up in all kinds of research then there would be a whole sale rush of scientist trying to figure out where the theory went wrong and adjusting/modifying it to fit the new knowledge. Science is fluid, ever changing, and adaptable to whatever new information is discovered.

            Is the comment about Darwin and ‘evolutionist’ co-opting Mendel’s genetic theory meant to be derogatory? Darwin did not have knowledge about genes and DNA when he developed his ideas about the mechanisms for evolutionary change. He used his observations to develop an idea which seemed to fit the data he had. When Mendel (et al) discovered and later expanded on gene theory it was determined that it was a better explanation than the current working theory and they adjusted their thinking to include it. This is how science works. New, better and more complete ideas are adopted while older and less complete ideas are revamped or disregarded.

            Now on to the new stuff:
            Micro vs Macro evolution: since macroevolution take place over geologic time we can only observe the small parts of it that have occurred during our relatively short period on the earth. I apologize that I misspoke about being able to directly observe macroevolution. The timescale for it is too vast to observe when compared to our limited time on the planet and our even more limited time with the interest and technology to study such things.

            We cannot always extrapolate what occurred in the past by what we see in the present. For example, I cannot say that because my son grew three inches in height last year, that 40 years from now he will be 120 inches taller than he is now

            You are partially correct. You cannot look at a single individual and make that extrapolation but you can observe a population (or subset) over a period of time and extrapolate from that. That is what the growth charts for babies and children and BMI charts for adults are all about. The same goes for extrapolations about sedimentation.
            With regards to radioactive decay there are several different atoms that are used to date items depending on their half life. It does not good to try and date something that is only 20 years old with an atom that has a half life of 100s or 1000 of years. You would have to measure something that has a half life of months to years. For example Carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 years so it would be useless in measuring the age of something 20 years old. In addition, carbon dating only works on organic substances of which lava and rocks are not. (See here for a more detailed description of radiometric dating and its limitations)
            The assumptions that are made as related to these two things specifically are not made without foundation. They have their basis in quantum mechanics, molecular theory and I am sure other areas of science that I am not knowledgeable enough about to discuss with any coherency or even at all.
            The concepts that are applied in forensic science (particulary biology, chemistry and physics) are all derived from their predecessors who were trying to find explanations that explained things that still happen today as well as provide reasonably explanations for how and why things happened in the past.
            In the end science is not concerned with 100% certainty only statistical significance and probability. Is it possible that all of the scientific assumptions and discoveries about the age of the earth, evolution, gravity, speed of light, the periodic table and the millions of other theories are completely false? Sure, I am willing to admit that there is some minuet chance but the probability is too low to measure. Is it possible that there is an omnipotent creator who is not observable, measureable or testable? Again, it is possible but not probably. But you contend that it is impossible to know what happened then so the God hypothesis is just unlikely as you say evolution is. The difference is that science has evidence of our theories today that we can use to make educated extrapolations about the past even though they may or may not be exact . There is NO observable, repeatable and testable evidence of the existence of a creator now, so there is no information to use to make any extrapolations about anything.

  2. How many times have we discovered tests in current experiments were actually falsified? I know there’s a large percentage of students that admit to cheating in college, why would they not cheat in science to get acclaim or into a journal or something? There’s also been cheats in the fossil record debunked…so yes, people have falsified in evolution…

    • Individual aspects of specific evolutionary claims have been falsified and new ones have taken their place. Some due to unethical behavior by scientists (a recent example is a professor and imminent researcher in his field was discovered by his graduate students to be falsify his research) or because new technologies or information becomes available (like in the instance of what we thought was the triceretops having the wrong back feet). In these instances the errors are revealed and correction were made and some still are. These are not evidence of a failure of science but of why it works. Scientist are constantly checking themselves and each other in order to get rid of ideas that no longer work with current information and develop new ideas that do a better job.

  3. This is interesting to me, as regardless of what you put faith in, evolution or creation, either way it should engender a respect for the natural process of childbirth. If you beleive in evolution it seems that you would trust that the process that has evolved over thousands/millions of years would mostly work on it’s own without the help of doctors who have been delivering babies for all of 100 years.

    As I trust in God, I am confident that the body that he designed for me is designed nurture a baby and give birth. The smallest butterfly can fly thousands of miles with no navigation system…so why couldn’t he design a system for birth that works on it’s own without intervention? I do trust in what the Bible says about our current sinful state, so I know that right now there may be complications during birth, but in general the process that he designed is MUCH MUCH better than anything that humans could have come up with. Some other thoughts on evolution-

    The fossil record actually supports the explosion of a group of organisms, not a gradual change over thousands of years. Bones that are scattered throughout sediment can help to tell a picture, but in the end are often just scattered bones that can be rearranged to the whim of the person examining them.

    The evolution vs intelligent design argument is so strange to me- if I were to be in a desert wilderness and come across and oasis of life- plants, animals, a beautiful garden, etc, I wouldn’t assume that such a thing came about on it’s own. Obviously it was designed and placed there by someone. The Bible supports such a conclusion when it says that “every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God”. The Genesis account was never written to be interpreted as 6 or 7 24- hours periods, and is actually remarkably supported by real scientific evidence. Animals appearing suddenly in the fossil record, some of them almost the same as we know them now (sting rays anyone?).

    Even the smallest, most complex workings of the cell point to an intelligent designer- at no point can you remove a process from the cellular workings and expect to have a healthy cell that will replicate itself with integrity. Mutation do occur, but are often (almost always) NEGATIVE, not positive for the organism. Micro-evolution has never been observed, and the Bible says that “no man has seen God”, although Romans 1:20 says that “his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onwards”. So why do many put faith in evolution, which they haven’t seen, and not in God?

    It took a skillful designer to design and program my Roomba vacuum cleaner. It’s only purpose is to clean my carpet. As humans we laugh, we love, we run, we play, we procreate and birth more humans- how did any of those things come about by blind chance and random mutations? As we learn more about life, the complexity of even the smallest organisms becomes more and more evident. Romans 1:20 goes on to say “his invisible qualities are clearly seen…so that they are inexcusable” (referring to earlier on in Romans 1 where the writer is talking about those who deny the existence of God. How can we reasonably look at the wonder around us and deny that an intelligent creator designed it for us?

    I suspect, only if we have a reason to WANT to deny that such a personage exists.

  4. Mutation do occur, but are often (almost always) NEGATIVE, not positive for the organism

    Just a corrections. Most mutations are neutral and produce no observable or measurable change the in organism. Of the ones that do produce a change the benefit or detriment or neutrality of the mutation is purely circumstantial. The exact same mutation could be any of those three depending on the time, place, species, selection pressures etc.

    Micro-evolution has never been observed

    We see micro-evolution every day. Populations of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, insects becoming immune to pesticides, and plants becoming resistant to herbicides. Humans use micro-evolution to our benefit all the time to make larger fruits, vegetables and livestock, have more productive milk cows.

    How can we reasonably look at the wonder around us and deny that an intelligent creator designed it for us?

    I suspect, only if we have a reason to WANT to deny that such a personage exists.

    I suspect the opposite. That only a desire to be more important than we are, to be special amongst so many spectacular things and to abdicate responsibility for ourselves and our actions would lead to a belief in an intelligent creator.

    • Why should we not think that we are special? We are the only organism on the planet or the observable universe that can even be having this kind of discussion. Does that not make us special?

      • I did not say that we were not special. But we are not any more special or amazing than any other creature on this planet or any other planet (it is statistically improbable that there is not life of some sort on one of the millions of billions of planets in the universe or even on one of the billions in our galaxy). Self awareness and the ability to reason are our talent and should make one question how and why everything works not be intellectually lazy and cop out in the face of a challenge and say “because God did it.”

        I do agree with your statement that, in theory, we should have some basic level of trust in the birthing process. However, we as a species have taken ourselves out of the evolutionary loop (or gods plan if you see it that way) by intervening to extend life and aid in reproduction where left to nature (or god) would not happen.

      • sorry accidentally hit send before my thought was complete.

        so things that might be true if we were still strictly au natural are not true any more. Even people who have done nothing artificial themselves are effected by the choices of their ancestors. So yes, trust the process, your intuition, your body but don’t be so trusting that you forget that things can and do go wrong and have contingency plans in place to avoid loss of life or function. Unless you want to go back to a completely natural process and stop saving the lives of mothers and babies would would otherwise die in labor, delivery and postpartum.

        • Oh yes I agree with you there. I do feel that although we were created perfectly, that we are not perfect right now, so things can go wrong in any part of our bodies, childbirth notwithstanding. It is for that reason that I probably would never feel comfortable with an unassisted childbirth. For our next I will probably choose a very hands-off midwife who can simply be there if problems arise.

  5. I would love to respond more indepthly because creation vs evolution is my primary area of study. But I’m writing this from my cell without computer access and I’m just not up to a long reply on a cell! 😉 but, Kathy and anyone else interested, I would strongly suggest checking out http://www.answersingenesis.com they publish everything from layman opinion pieces to technical peer-reviewed journal papers. Most of the articles avalible are by phd level scientists who write about their specialty. They have some great articles about what why calling evolution an official theory of science is a misnomer percisely because it isn’t falisifiable (as all scientific theories are supposed to be). As well as articles about pretty much anything else (including a great piece on the placenta!) You could want from a scientific perspective.

    • Answers in Genesis can be a great resource. However, they are strictly Young Earth Creationists, and have done harm — or sought to do harm — to the reputation of Christians who dare to believe in, say, Old Earth Creationism (or deistic evolution). One of the key people in AIG sought to use its influence to boycott the homeschool curriculum that I use, Sonlight, and entirely discredit its founder, John Holzmann, simply because Sonlight’s stance on creationism is too “soft”, as it both allows for the possibility that OECism may have some valid points, and some of the books Sonlight uses come from an evolutionary standpoint (frequently with notes in the instructor’s guide, noting the bias of the book).

      That doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t believe any body — be it the collective, current body of scientists, or be it AIG, or whomever — should bully others into believing one thing or another. God gave us free will to decide, and bullying tactics really bother me, no matter the source.

      By the way, AIG’s website is .org, not .com.

  6. Ah, Kathy! You may have unleashed the beast.

    On my own blog, I had to blacklist a number of commenters, and put comments on moderation (which I never previously had to do) after I mentioned that, when viewing the evidence, I was swayed about 85% of the way towards young-earth creationism. It seems like there are a whole contingent of folks out there who troll blogs in hopes to belittle and discredit anyone who has an origins belief that is anything other than the current standard (which is atheistic evolution). I find it sad: What a pathetic existence, spending one’s time simply trying to discredit other people with whom one does not agree!!

    What really gets me about this argument (whether it’s between Christians and athiests or YECers and OECers or IDers or whomever) is that usually, there’s NO GIVE, either way. This seems inherently unscientific, to me. Rather than evolutionists/athiests calling names and saying things to me like, “You’re just a ridiculous, moronic homeschooling Christian who is doing a disservice to your children*,” it seems to me that those of opposing viewpoints could give allowance for the possibility that the other side may be right, or at least have some valid points, especially since, at its core, the study of origins is unobservable.

    Similarly, there are Christians who refuse to investigate any evidence to the contrary of, say, young earth creationism, and I think that’s flawed, as well. The Christian school to which my parents sent me wouldn’t even allow for any study of evolution (it was the “e” word!), which led me, as a university freshman, holed up in the library with piles of books both pro and con, trying to figure out what I believed, and why.

    As a teacher, I now try to strike a balance. I say, “I tend to agree with young-earth creationism, but others disagree. Here is what they believe. Here are the positives of their stances, and here’s where I see holes. Here are the difficulties, from an observable scientific standpoint, with what we believe. Here is where current science disagrees with me…” I have observed that atheistic evolutionists won’t even do that!! They won’t even allow for the remote possibility of their error. Oh, the irony! They of infinitely remote, statistically-incredibly-highly-improbable beliefs!!

    As I see it, the best anyone can do is investigate the evidence, interpret it the best they can (using the study of others, usually), and make one’s own determination with which side they agree. There are valid, learned, intelligent scientists on both sides of the debate, though admittedly, most of them are not on the deistic creation side, let alone intelligent design.

    When science can achieve the creation of life from non-living matter, perhaps I will then sit up and take more notice of the Big Bang and other theories of evolution.

    *Not that this is the point, but last spring, my children took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, a nationally normed achievement test, and both my 5th grader and my 7th grader had cumulative test scores of PAST HIGH SCHOOL in every subject, science included. In other words, even my 5th grader would likely pass the GED, not that I would let him take it at this point. I’m not doing a disservice to my children, no matter what my core beliefs — Christianity — are.

  7. You can falsify evolution by showing something that contradicts it utterly. Since you cannot show that “animals” do not mutate, you could show that animals mutate in such a way that is unexplainable, and clearly shows intent of design. Such as cows forming wings.
    Or in Kirk Cameron’s example a duck forming the jaw of a crocodile, these would disprove evolution and drive many people insane.

    Given the inability of these things to occur naturally, I would probably end up praying to whatever did this to these animals.

    Its really hard to prove creationism, as god won’t tell us he made everything in person. We only have a bronze age text to go on, and that’s not a reliable source of information. Other than that we have supposition, since we already believe in god he probably did it and we don’t really need proof because we know he exists.

    Evolution is a scientific fact for a reason, It is well developed, with quite the body of evidence and it explains many odd phenomenon like shared DNA and vestigial limbs and patterns relating to species distribution.
    It is able to help us make predictions and new discoveries vindicate the theory constantly.

    For example the nylon eating bacteria found in Japan.

    As I said the bible is not a reliable source of information at least as far as science is concerned, and basing a theory upon it and expecting it to be accepted scientifically is quite absurd.

    PS: I quite enjoy your blog.

    “you could show that animals mutate in such a way that is unexplainable, and clearly shows intent of design…. Given the inability of these things to occur naturally, I would probably end up praying to whatever did this to these animals.”

    But isn’t evolution the story of just this sort of mutation? – from an original single-celled organism to the vast variety of plants and animals we see today. Why is it so impossible to believe that a cow could form wings, when you believe that a prehistoric mammal formed wings to become today’s bats? or that dinosaurs evolved wings to become birds? (or is it the other way ’round?) Evolutionists are constantly telling stories about how that this or that animal became something vastly different – mammals dragging themselves out of the sea and developing four legs to walk around on, and some dragging themselves back to the sea and losing their legs but gaining flippers. I guess if you add in the magic tincture of eons of time, reptiles turning into birds becomes believable, even though you say right now that it is unbelievable. Yet you believe it.

    Shared DNA is just as easily explainable by a common designer/creator, as by a common ancestor. Vestigial organs have been mostly disproved, with most if not all cases shown actually to have a function — for example, the human appendix, and the 100+ other so-called “vestigial organs” in humans, that actually do have a function. Evolution predicted junk DNA on the basis of the idea of millions of years of accumulated mutations, most of which were presumed to be neutral; yet now that geneticists are actually looking at it, they are determining that most if not all DNA actually has a function. Almost as if it were designed. Imagine that. In fact, if you look at many articles written in support of evolution, whether scientific or lay articles, the authors frequently use the term design and many other similar terms. As long as they say things like, “Nature designed bird feathers,” to have this function or that function, or attribute any obvious design or purpose or function to random chance, mindless evolution, or the animals themselves, everything is hunky-dory. But that is bordering on insane, in my opinion. Still, it points out that even evolutionists cannot get away from the *obvious* design inherent in all creatures, even if they still refuse to acknowledge the creator.

    For a scientific look, from a creationist perspective, at nylon-eating bacteria, you can read this article.

  8. My children and I are currently discussing the various view points on evolution (we homeschool) so I thought it was interesting when I stumbled across your discussion while doing research on something complete different –midwifery.
    One of the books I purchased to read was Darwin’s Black Box, By Michael J. Behe it is very persuasive and has me rethinking some of my beliefs on the origin of our species. Great blog. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: