Evolution should be honestly presented as a possible but still unproven explanation of life origin — not the only explanation.
Observational science uses observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable information to understand how nature commonly behaves. Scientists can’t directly observe, test, repeat or falsify a singular past event like the origin of life. Instead, they must interpret the evidence.
This is where the confusion comes. People interpret data differently based on their paradigms. Scientists’ arguments on every side of this issue are based on assumptions that cannot be proven, which means their conclusions cannot be proven either.
Evolution has several meanings, so to clarify, when I use the term “evolution,” I am referring to macroevolution — the idea that all life originated from a common ancestor due to a combination of natural selection and mutations.
My biology professor listed several textbook quotes about evolution and told the class that he had proven evolution to us and he just couldn’t understand why anyone opposes it.
Scientists and teachers who dare to even consider other theories such as “intelligent design,” or ID, are ridiculed for being unscientific or stupid, and they risk losing their jobs.
But no theory that claims to explain life’s origin can be proven accurate since no human was there to record the events.
Authors of the Pearson textbook used at LSU admit “origin life research is a great diversity of assumptions, experiments, and contradictory hypotheses.”
Nevertheless, they claim the theory of evolution is strongly supported by evidence. Analyze each explanation for origins and you’ll find their conclusions from the evidence are based on assumptions.
Take the age of the earth, for example. Observational science has proven that sedimentary rock layers can be deposited slowly by rivers. This may support the idea of an extremely old earth.
The same form of science has also proven that rock layers can be formed quickly in natural catastrophes, such as floods or volcanic eruptions. This would support the idea that the earth is young.
One huge problem for evolution within the fossil record is known as the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian layer is the deepest layer of the geological column, and if the geological column as presented by evolutionists is accurate, it should contain the simplest life forms. This is not the case.
Thousands of complex fossils spanning every major animal phylum have been discovered in this rock layer. This baffles evolutionists.
And speaking of the fossil record, if life as we know it evolved from a common ancestor over the course of billions of years, many transitional forms should have been preserved. Darwin himself admitted the absence of intermediate links was the “gravest and most obvious” objection to his theory.
While there are a few fossils that some scientists believe may be transitional links, the data is vague and incomplete.
Of the so-called missing links discovered, most were found to be either fake or wrongly interpreted.
If new scientific conclusions contradict a theory, the theory must either change or be discarded. This decreases the theory’s reliability.
Scientists once believed and promoted that certain races of people were more evolved than others. We now know this racist concept is completely false.
Jonathan Marks, an anthropology professor at the University of North Carolina and evolutionist, suggests if scientists were completely wrong about what evolution meant for society a few decades ago, we should question its authority now.
If science has proven parts of the evolutionary theory to be wrong in the past, it is quite possible that not all the information textbooks and professors present today are accurate.
Claims based on unfalsifiable assumptions can become accepted as fact if they are proven reliable. However, evolution should not be taught as proven fact because the theory is flawed and unreliable.
Textbooks, teachers and scientists should truthfully present all the facts and interpretations of scientific theories, including data that contradicts the most popular theory.
Anything less is oppressive indoctrination.