Is Evolutionary Theory Scientific Fact or Scientific Theory?

Image for post
Image for post

The overarching principle for arrival at characterization of a Scientific Premise or Theory as Scientific Fact is satisfaction of the principle of Replicability of Observations and Measurements.

The Law of Gravity is scientific fact, only because it has been infinitely observed and measured, and each time, has produced exactly the same results. The Law of Relativity also has character of Scientific Fact.

Since adoption of evolution as theory for origins of life by the educational system of the United States in context of a series of Supreme Court decisions spanning 1958 through 1962, evolutionary theory has gone on to acquire character of Scientific Fact, as opposed to character of a Scientific Theory that has yet to be directly observed and measured. In this respect, it is important to note that Gravity and Relativity have character of Scientific Fact, only because they have been directly observed and measured by scientists.

The question to ask then is: Have scientists directly observed and measured predictions of Evolutionary Theory?

If scientists have directly observed and measured predictions of evolutionary theory, they have observed and measured mutations that enable a fish transform into an animal that lives on land, and have observed mutations that enable an animal living on land transform into a bird.

In all of the 6,000 years of writings that come to us from ancient, historical, and contemporaneous times, there is not a single documentation of mutations that are advocated by Evolutionary Theory. Deficiency of direct observation and measurement of predictions of Evolutionary Theory is matter of fact, indisputable.

In response to the evidence for dearth of direct observation and measurement, a scientist may retort that there exists an impossibility, namely, with each mutation assumed to take more than 6,000 years, it is impossible for science to observe and measure predictions of evolutionary theory. But then there exists the following reconciliation of outlined impossibility with teaching of the theory.

What then about the fossil evidence? Evidence for two different sets of bones lying with the same geographical region is not evidence that has character of directly observed and measured phenomena. This is evident as follows.

The assertion that one set of bones is given birth to by another has never been directly observed, as such does not have character of scientific fact, has character of an assumption, equivalently, hypothesis. In this respect, it is matter of fact that bones, which previously were deemed to be evidence for evolution by scientists, turned out to be bones of an old bent over man who had a deformed spine. With respect to Carbon-14 ages for fossils that are dated to be of order of 50,000 years old, a new formal theoretical study, which, importantly, assumes credibility of Carbon-14 ages, demonstrates inadmissibility of Carbon-14 ages as scientific evidence that provides validation for evolutionary theory.

But is evolutionary theory a feasible theory for origins of life? Well, ‘Yes’, and ‘No’. The ‘Yes’ is premised on the reality that no one can assert, it is impossible that, somehow, a formerly inanimate, yet invincible (to the human eye) cell acquired consciousness, and became seed for origins of life. Intellectually speaking then, the answer is ‘Yes’.

The premise for the ‘No’?

In all 6,000 years for which we have written histories, there is not a single shred of evidence, which provides support for feasibility of acquiring of consciousness by a formerly inanimate and invincible entity. In this respect, consider that when scientists sought to create ‘Dolly’ the cloned sheep, they sourced cells not from some probabilistic event that produced cells in a petri dish, but from an already existing sheep, which was birthed by another sheep. Pragmatically speaking then, the answer to feasibility of Evolutionary Theory is, ‘No’, it does not appear to reside in realm of feasibility.

What then about Intentional Design as theory for origins of life? Again, origins of life having already transpired, we arrive at the fact that factual nature of Intentional Design neither can be observed nor measured. We have then that, in so far as origins of life are concerned, Intentional Design cannot be asserted to be Scientific Fact.

But is Intentional Design merely concoct of religion, or does it have support of Scientific Facts?

Well then, let us consider evidence from the process for Procreation. Since a theory for origins of life must be relatable to the process that ensures continuity of life — Procreation — evidence that the theory of Intentional Design can be premised on Scientific Facts ought be inferable from the process for procreation.

Throughout the 6,000 years of man’s written history, a human pregnancy that is fully successful has taken exactly 9 months to produce a fully formed baby. In presence of infinitely replicable character of the evidence, which has been directly observed and measured for upwards of 6,000 years, we arrive at the following Scientific Facts.

The process for procreation of man always takes 9 months, as such conforms with Intentional Design.

There is nothing random about the procreation process that forms man. Doctors are able to predict exactly what organs are formed in the 1st Trimester, 2nd Trimester, and 3rd Trimester of a Pregnancy.

In context of procreation, typically, there does not exist any probabilistic events, only Intentional Design.

If procreation requires two entities of the same species, always one is male, the other female.

A baby human always comes out of the mother.

The evidence for man extends perfectly to all animals that live on land, all birds that fly in the sky, and all creatures that live in the sea. Gestation periods are well defined, and progress of the procreation process is rooted in determinism, not probabilities.

Educational systems all over the world have the right to teach evolutionary theory as a competing theory for origins of life. This right is premised on the normative that, intellectually speaking, the answer to feasibility of evolutionary theory is ‘Yes’.

The decision to exclude Intentional Design from school curricula is, however, on basis of the evidence, rooted in Intellectual Fraud — the determination to sell evolutionary theory, as opposed to intellectual authenticity that presents it for what it is, theory or hypothesis, not fact.

So then, with sole teaching of evolutionary theory, we arrive at kids who, on basis of theory of ‘survival of the fittest’, think anyone who believes ‘all men are created equal’ are idiots and fools. But yet kids, who, simultaneously, live in countries whose Declarations of Independence, and/or adoption of Socialism or Communism as political philosophy simultaneously declare, ‘all men are created equal’. If ‘all men are created equal’, do we not assert Intelligent Design as origins of life?

Written by

Educator and Researcher, Believer in Spirituality, Life is serious business, but we all are pilgrims so I write about important stuff with empathy and ethos

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store