In his April 13 article, "Creationists offer imprudent, improbable claims," C.S. Morrissey writes that adherents of the traditional doctrines of creation are imprudent. That is a bold claim.
Sound reasoning requires clear definitions. Like Wikipedia, Dr. Morrissey describes evolution as both "a fact" and "a theory," yet these two statements are categorically not possible.
Real facts
The only real facts in science are sensory data, such as direct observations and measurements. They cannot change; hence they can be described as facts.
Laws come next. They are the bedrock of science, because they are observable and repeatable patterns for which there is no contradictory evidence. Laws can never be proved; however, they can be disproved by just one contrary observation; hence, they are not facts.
Evolution is primarily a set of claims about alleged, unobserved events, and so cannot be a fact, and it is certainly not a law. At best, evolution could be called a theory, or can it?
Theories
Theories are made up of laws and reasonable hypotheses. They attempt to explain a much bigger picture. Reasoned hypotheses generally do not make predictions that contradict laws.
Evolutionary belief, however, breaks two of the most well established laws in science: the law of biogenesis; and the second law of thermodynamics. Life only comes from life; and all matter in the universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of completely unusable energy, a heat death.
Operational science
Evolution is not part of experimental/operational science, which examines directly observable phenomena in the present. Operational science is replicable by anyone who follows the same process. This is the type of science that leads to the development of technology. Examples include Maxwell's laws of electricity, Newton's three laws of motion, and Boyle's law of gases.
Evolution falls under the category of historical/origins science, where claims are made about the unobservable past. Proponents of a historical science position can make predictions and use experimental science to gather evidence that is either consistent or inconsistent with their viewpoint; however, the interpretation of data is heavily dependent on philosophical presuppositions.
Dr. Morrissey refers to "the theory of gravity"; however he neglects to mention that it is a scientific law that is fully within the parameters of experimental science.
He goes on to write: "Scientific theory landed humans on the moon. It launches into orbit satellites upon which our social and economic systems depend. We use GPS devices on a daily basis to get directions and navigate."
Notice that every example in this quotation is about technology developed from operational science. It was not scientific theory that did all these amazing things; it was human beings employing operational science, and it had nothing to do with the ideas of historical science.
The lack of distinction between these two types of science and the use of examples from operational science to try and bolster the evolutionary perspective are common in both popular and scientific literature.
Dr. Morrissey also writes: "[E]volutionary theory includes the genetic science that in 2003 finished mapping the human genome."
Actually, the more we learn from experimental science, the more we see the destructive nature of evolutionary concepts, such as pseudogenes, human-chimp similarity, vestigial organs, and junk DNA.
When examining the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century, Philip S. Skell (the father of carbene chemistry) wrote: "I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
He further stated: "Darwinian evolution ... does not provide a fruitful heuristic [approach] in experimental biology" (The Scientist, Aug. 2005).
Evolutionists propose that from non-living chemicals, life spontaneously emerged. Somehow this living creature was able to turn food into energy and reproduce. Through natural selection and mutations this original creature allegedly led to ever more genetically and functionally complex creatures, until you reach the present day.
Historical science
Even as historical science, evolution lacks predictive power. All observed ways that living creatures change, from generation to generation, involve information-neutral or information-loss processes.
Just as the larger universe moves steadily toward heat death, each genome is moving relentlessly toward extinction. Everything is "wearing out like a garment (Heb 1:11; Ps 102:26; Is 34:4)."
In Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Human Genome (2005), geneticist John Sanford (owner of 32 patents; author of 100+ publications) explains that human offspring have approximately 100 new, point mutations, each generation.
This pattern conforms to the second law of thermodynamics, and completely contradicts the basic thrust of evolutionary thought. All the genomes are devolving, not evolving.
In living things there are instances of beneficial mutations; however, in each case, they are highly "context specific." For example, many evolutionists claim the development of pesticide resistance in insects is one of the strongest lines of evidences supporting their viewpoint (PBS Evolution series, 2001).
When pesticide resistance develops, however, there is always a cost: some reduction in vitality or a degrading of the creature's ability to reproduce as effectively. In a pesticide-filled environment it is beneficial to have lower reproductive capacity, if it means not getting exterminated by pesticide.
When mutants are outside the "specific context," they do not compete successfully with the non-mutated population. Here is a vertebrate example from a 2011 article in The Mail.
It reported that tomcod fish in New York's heavily polluted Hudson River had "evolved" into "super mutants" in less than 50 years and were able to resist the toxic effects of PCBs. These super mutants, however, only flourished in the river.
Because of the "cost of resistance," 95 per cent of the Atlantic tomcod in the nearby, relatively clean waters off Connecticut and Long Island, do not possess the mutated gene. Beneficial mutations are only beneficial in a limited context.
Evolution is a fact
Many scientists and scientific organizations claim that evolution is a fact. Anthropology professor Cameron Smith makes the commonly stated claim: "There is consensus among the scientific community that Darwinian evolution does occur [and] that it is a fact."
In a talk given at the California Institute of Technology, Harvard-trained physician Michael Crichton points out that consensus science is "an extremely pernicious development," because historically, "the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."
Professor Jorge Barrio (Dept. of Molecular & Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, and Editor-in-Chief, Molecular Imaging and Biology) documents the fact that the "historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal."
Consensus science
He further states: "The use and abuse of 'consensus science' is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system."
Appeal to the idea of scientific consensus is not consistent with the nature of science itself.
For Catholics to be truly prudent, we must work with clear definitions, carefully examine claims against evidence, and hold fast to God's revelation. Interpretations held unanimously by Church Fathers and doctors must be held by us.
In the study of natural science, we must follow St. Thomas's counsel: "In the works of nature, Creation does not enter, but is presupposed to the works of nature."
Steven Godenir is a B.C. writer and teacher.