Evolution is not a science

As someone whose career is in the biomedical sciences, I never really thought about evolution. In fact, it was barely discussed in any of my advance courses. The reason is two-fold. One, a knowledge of evolution in no way is necessary for my research. Yes, I use mice in my research and mice supposedly evolved into humans because they have conserved proteins. But it turns out cars and boats both have steering wheels, but I don't tout that boats evolved into cars. Second, evolution is not a scientific discipline therefore wasting time learning about it would not improve my ability to do science.

Evolution is as much a science as Economics. Most people will agree that Economics is not a science, even well-known economists. The simple reason is that economists cannot test hypotheses. In the same way, no evolutionist can ever test a hypothesis. Evolutionists just describe things they find in the ground or compare two different species of animals (even at the molecular level). In the same way economists, describe how the economy works and describes how the economy worked in the past. They also describe what may have caused things like the Great Depression even though it is still not clear. However, economists are more willing to admit that their hypothesis is not necessarily the best. Economists will also make predictions based on computer simulations. But they are quick to admit that their models are not perfect and on many occasions, their models were wrong.

Evolutionists also use models to describe things like random mutations, genetic drift and how one bird could have a long beak and a short beak. The only problem is that they are not as willing to admit that their simulations prove nothing and are not testing hypotheses. Climatologists have the same problem. If you think that computer simulations are perfectly fine, then please tell me how to insert randomness into a model. Guess what, you can’t! Seeing as evolution depends on a level of randomness, all computer simulations proving that giraffes grew long necks because it gave them a competitive advantage in breeding is wrong. However, I will say the models are acceptable for producing probabilities, giving an approximation of how things work or as an educational tool. In fact, Predator/Prey models are fairly good at demonstrating how ecosystems work. But it is fairly obvious that a first order differential equation cannot adequately explain/predict what would happen if one increases the wolf population.

Some people may say, look, things are constantly evolving. How come a new flu virus comes out every year. Can’t Evolutionists test how viruses evolve? Well, the problem with that is that viruses don’t evolve. If someone said that there was a new Flu bacteria, due to a virus changing into a bacterium, then yes, Evolutionists could test how that happened. However, slight mutations in the protein coating of viruses are not evolution. The virus is still a virus. Alright, you might say, why is the Clap getting anti-bacterial resistance? Well, again, still bacteria. Also, bacteria share plasmids with each other. They are not actually evolving based on the theory of evolution.

So can Evolutionists test any hypothesis? Well, it turns out they actually can, but the problem is, it does not show evolution is possible or they lie about the results. Having results prove your theory wrong is not cool. Some Evolutionists have tested whether moths evolved due to the industrial revolution. The problem with the experiment is that they lied (even though this was still in my Biology textbook in high school). Okay, well they can put some atoms in water and recreate the beginning of the Earth and see if amino acids and nucleotides are formed. Yeah, someone did that and actually lied about the results too. Okay, I can tell there is a lot of lying, but what about experiments showing Evolution is not true? Well, it turns out that scientists can knockout out genes all the time in animals (mostly mice). Guess what? Some of these animals die in utero or they are messed up pretty bad offering no selective advantage. Sometimes they have no major phenotypic differences. Currently, I am not sure of one mutation produced in an animal, of this nature, that offered an advantage. These knockouts aren’t actually used to test Evolution so that is why I still stand by the fact that Evolutionists do not test hypotheses.

So what about DNA? Well, it turns out that the formation of DNA shows no probability supporting a specific arrangement. This means that the probability of DNA producing proteins by random is incredibly unlikely. There are some suggestions that RNA came first or proteins came first, but the stability of these compounds is so weak that they would be degraded quickly. The only possibility is that DNA, protein and RNA complexes formed at the same time by random. Guess what? Wouldn’t happen in a trillion years! Too bad the Earth is only some 5 billion or so.

So you may be wondering why everyone and their mother thinks Evolution is a science. Well, it’s because Evolution has taken over Biology classrooms. Biology is still considered a science, and it is a science. Evolution just infiltrated the study of Biology because Biology is the study of taxa and Evolution is if anything, a description of how taxa could fit together. This is unfair to Biologists because Evolution really belongs in the humanities and Biology should reclaim their territory and push Evolution out.