We’ve written on evolution and beginnings for a while now, but the discussion doesn’t change much; debates over side issues continues to occur, while the foundations rarely receive much attention. For a sadly humorous read, find out what happens when evolutionary data is asked to be supplied, just about everything but scientific evidence for foundations pops up.
If overwhelming evidence and support for evolution proves it as fact, someone should be able to supply peer-reviewed, experimental data for the following (after all, evolution can’t begin, let alone complete, unless all four are true). We’ll give a tongue-in-cheek summary of the theory of beginnings and evolution, and then in parentheses give the scientific principle requiring experimental data.
- First there was nothing (matter comes from nothing).
- And then it exploded (explosions produce order. Mythbusters would have fun with this one).
- From the goo, to the zoo (abiogenesis — life comes from non-life. Another one for Mythbusters).
- To you (new species evolve from mutations).
If you don’t have all four of those, evolution doesn’t work. Period. Yet where are the scientific studies for those four items?
Remember the movie “Apollo 13” where Tom Hanks argues with his fellow astronauts about what needs to be done to get back to earth? Hanks states they’re arguing about step 2,214 while they’re on step two. That’s the way evolution “science” works; evolution attempts to ignore first steps and instead build their building without a foundation beginning on the 13th floor — with nothing but air under it supporting it.
But it’s not science—what experimental data exists for the foundation? Science should follow the following procedure, known as the scientific method:
- Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
- Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
- Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
- Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Here’s how it (should) work—let’s pick abiogenesis (life springs from non-life). First, observe it. Hmmm, in trouble right there, no observations (perhaps in some college dorm-room refrigerator—“When potato salad goes bad”, but we digress). Struck out on the first pitch. But suppose it had been observed, then make a hypothesis (guess) as to how it happened. Then, make predictions, and finally test the hypothesis via experiment (reproducing it in the lab).
Wow. Doesn’t look like much “science” has occurred with abiogenesis. It’s still from the goo to the zoo to you … without any science. Without repeatable, verifiable, published and peer-reviewed experiments it’s not science! Evolution might be entertaining as philosophy perhaps, but definitely not science as it fails to follow the scientific method; first steps in evolution must be taken on faith as they lack data using … drum-roll please … the scientific method! It’s by definition unscientific.
Thus, we’re putting this discussion (you can still read articles on evolution) on the back burner until they … you know, actually have science behind them we can discuss. If anyone has actual science for those foundational principles, please leave a comment so we can research them (please cite the journal/book/research paper, experiments, results, people involved, and dates so it’s easier to look up).
Philosophy might be interesting, but it’s not science.