Because we cannot observe molecules turning into man in a test tube, evolution is not the same type of science as chemistry or physics. 2 We can test the law of gravity over and over in a laboratory, but we can’t do that for evolution from molecules to man.
Not only is evolution different from, say, genetics or physics or chemistry, but it is actually opposed to them. Evolution has many scientific problems, many of which have actually been published in peer-reviewed articles. 3
Evolutionists’ Quotes for Historical Science
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking.
Sarfati, J. D., & Matthews, M. (1999). Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life And the Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne.
- Coyne, 2009, p. xvii: “Today scientists have as much confidence in Darwinism as they do in the existence of atoms, or in microorganisms as the cause of infectious disease.” ↩
- Sarfati, 1999, p. 29: “In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus the comparison in Teaching about Evolution of disbelief in evolution with disbelief in gravity and heliocentrism is highly misleading. It is also wrong to claim that denying evolution is rejecting the type of science that put men on the moon, although many evolutionary propagandists make such claims. (Actually the man behind the Apollo moon mission was the creationist rocket scientist Wernher von Braun.)” ↩
- Meyer, 2013, p. xi: “At the same time, I was preparing a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory—a binder later presented to the board during my testimony. So I knew—unequivocally—that Dr. Scott was misrepresenting the status of scientific opinion about the theory in the relevant scientific literature.” ↩