in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science
with Dr. John Ankerberg
and Dr. John Weldon
(from Darwin's Leap of Faith, Harvest House, 1998)
If evolution is not a fact, and yet the scientific
world declares evolution is a fact, then the unkind conclusion is that
the scientific world is either deceived or somehow doesn’t know the
meaning of the term "fact." The Macmillan Dictionary for
Students (1984) defines fact as "something known to be true or
real; that which has actually occurred." For reasons that we will
demonstrate in future articles, it is impossible that evolution can be
"known to be true." Further, the evidence declares that
evolution has not occurred and could never occur.
Scientists who declare that evolution is a fact should
recognize the damage they do to the credibility of science—and not
just evolutionary science but all of science. As more and more people
gradually learn the truth that, deliberately or innocently, science has
mislead them on an extremely crucial issue, their trust in the authority
of science will be over. The implications are hardly small.
The public trusts the scientific world to
know the difference between fact and speculation, between the proper
interpretation of observable data that can be proven valid and
unwarranted conclusions derived from faulty premises. When scientists
everywhere assert that a highly suspect, indeed incredible, theory is
"an established fact of science," why should anyone trust
scientists to tell them the truth in other areas? If the scientific
world won’t tell the truth in so critical an area as our own origins,
with vast implications for each of us, why should it tell the truth in
matters of lesser import? In fact, the public’s trust in science has
already eroded significantly because of consequences stemming from its
adherence to naturalism,1 and because of sloppy science generally, as
the recent book Junk Science illustrates.
One of those logical consequences is a
nihilistic outlook on life.1a Even an article in the prestigious journal
Science for August 15, 1997, correctly warned, "much of the
anti-science mood in the country today stems from the perception that by
venerating meaninglessness, science has become inhuman."2 But most
scientists are unaware of how the theory of evolution itself damages the
progress of science.
Consider the comments of the Canadian
scholar Arthur C. Custance, discussing a text by noted evolutionist G.
G. Simpson, This View of Life: "Throughout the book this
begging of the issue runs like an unending refrain. Evolution is a fact,
not a theory; evolution is one of the few basic facts; it is an
unassailable fact; a fact supported by all other facts; a fact which
only dishonest biologists would argue against.... According to Simpson,
those who refuse to accept it are either idiotic, dishonest, or
Custance’s comment here is significant
because it applies to so many modern science textbooks. Custance also
says, "Observing the literature carefully over a period of some 40
years, it is my impression that the sense of urgency and special
pleading in assuring the public that Darwin was right, has increased
steadily with the passage of time."4
Actually, as more and more damaging evidence
accumulates against the idea of evolution, it is presented more
forcefully as fact. This cannot be science (or reason) operating, this
is emotion and "politically correct" science, pure and simple.
And if scientists do science on the basis of emotion and "political
correctness," we are all in trouble.
Of course, lay people aren’t the only
ones realizing that the scientific establishment has been less than
truthful. Many scientists who investigate the matter openly are also
discovering that the theory of evolution has little or no evidence in
its behalf. As Dr. Isaac Manly (MD, Harvard Medical School) comments,
"What I have learned in the past ten years of review of recent
scientific knowledge of cellular morphology and physiology; the code of
life (DNA), and the lack of supporting evidence for evolution in the
light of recent scientific evidence is a shocking rebuttal to the theory
of evolution.... There is no evidence of any kind for this
theory."5 Dr. Manly also commented that, as he read Darwin’s Origin
of Species, he was "struck by the lack of any real evidence for
We continue to have the same conclusion
as we read modern evolutionary literature. Manly is correct concerning
Darwin’s successors attempts to prove evolution: "they were quite
willing to speculate and theorize to degrees of absurdity to prove the
Indeed, the conclusions of noted U.C.
Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson can be multiplied hundreds of
times from scientists on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Johnson
stated evolution "is not only unproven but actually contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.... [W]hat is presented to the
public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly
philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence
once the naturalistic spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without
a known mechanism of biological creation, so be it: it is better to
admit ignorance than to have confidence in an explanation that is not
Even evolutionist Grasse, among the most
distinguished of French zoologists, remarks that "the explanatory
doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an in-depth
criticism," while evolutionist Bethel sees "Darwin’s
theory... on the verge of collapse."9
If scientists want the public to trust them, and to
pay taxes to fund their research, then perhaps they should start telling
us the truth. Until that time, by declaring evolution a fact, they will
only damage their own cause.
The same article in Science
magazine for August 15, 1997 correctly warned (citing geneticist
Francisco Ayala), "The financial structure of American research
depends on the goodwill of a body politic that values religion. We are
not wise to have the body politic seeing science as antagonistic to
1. Cf., Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case
Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education (Downer’s Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1995).
1a. John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith
(Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1998), Chapter 1.
2. Gregg Easterbrook, "Science and God—A Warming Trend?" Science,
August 15, 1997, p. 893.
3. Arthur Custance, Evolution or Creation? pp. 172-73.
4. Ibid., p. 172.
5. Isaac V. Manly, M.D., God Made: A Medical Doctor Looks at the
Reality of Creation (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994), pp. 13, 116.
6. Ibid., p. 52.
7. Ibid., p. 143.
8. Johnson, Reason, pp. 11-12.
9. BetheIl, "Darwin’s Mistake," Harper’s
magazine, February 1976, pp. 70,
72 in Bird, Origin... Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 136.
10. Easterbrook, "Science and God," p. 890.
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute