It is frequently stated that evolution is a “scientific theory” while creation is only a “religious belief.” However, upon closer examination, we find that neither creation nor evolution should be taught as a proven scientific theory. Rather, they are models used to explain the origin of life.

Science deals with general principles or truths that are obtained and tested through experimentation and observation. Scientific principles must be based on observable, repeatable events that are subject to experimentation. Our assumptions and interpretations of the past can only be based on evidences that exist and are observed in the present.

If an idea is out of the reach of experimentation, it cannot qualify as a theory. If the theory can never be tested, then it is no longer within the realm of scientific inquiry. As evolutionist Francisco Ayala stated: “A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience … A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.“1

In the discussion of the origin of life, we find that the proof lies outside the laboratory where repeatable scientific observations are conducted. The origin of life was a one time event and cannot be replicated in a laboratory. Scientists cannot redemonstrate the evolution of an amoeba into a monkey. Likewise, we cannot expect God to reenact Genesis on the moon. Because the origin of life cannot be repeated or has never been directly observed by man, evolution cannot be established as a valid, proven law of nature such as the universal law of gravity.

Leading evolutionists Ehrlich and Birch have recognized this predicament: “Our theory of evolution has become … one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus outside of ‘empirical science,’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have been accepted by most of us as part of our training.“2

Since we cannot directly set up a series of experiments to demonstrate evolution or creation, we are left with two models that afford an explanation of the origin of life. However, we do have an accumulation of facts that we can observe in the present that would support one model or another. The best model is the one that not only correlates with all known facts without any contradictions, but also can, to the best of its ability, be able to predict future discoveries that we find in nature. The establishment of evolution is not based on tested or repeatable observations but rather on a philosophical interpretation and assumptions.

Most people outside the scientific community have been taught that evolution has been proven as a fact and law of nature. However, many scientists realize that evolution is only a model and not a proven theory. One must realize that the idea of evolution is no more a proven fact than the idea of creation. In actuality, current scientific evidences and known principles and laws of nature contradict the model of evolution. There is more scientific support for the model of creation and this model also has had a superior track record of making predictions that we find valid within nature.

Hubert P. Yockey, Chief of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Reactor Branch, neatly summarizes the situation: “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.“3

This leaves us in a position where evolution is taught as a proven fact or theory, when in actuality it is a doctrine intertwined with the philosophies of those who hold a particular humanistic world view. Evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews wrote in the Introduction of the 1971 edition of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin: “Evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory – is it then a science of a faith?“4

It is unfortunate that many scientists have accepted evolution as fact because of their philosophical beliefs rather than scientific logic. Many have been subjective, rather than objective, in their approach to science as a result. Their investigations are naturally biased toward discovering facts that support only their model.

Even though the mechanism and evidences for macro-evolution (amoeba-fish-amphibian-reptile-monkey-man) has clearly never been discovered, the notion that macro-evolution could never have occurred is not given an objective consideration. Even though evolution has apparent contradictions with sound scientific principles, these are overlooked because they challenge the underlying assumption and belief that evolution of life through time and chance has occurred. As professor of physics, H.S. Lipson stated, “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit within it.“5

Proponents of evolution have long misled the public into believing that their theory is a proven law of nature as valid and certain as the law of gravity. The education system has consistently taught evolution as scientific fact without ever informing the people that the very foundations, upon which the entire theory is based, are nothing more than unproven assumption. Never is the public informed that the proposed transitional forms are purely hypothetical and that we haven’t found the crucial missing links. Perhaps there are missing links in the evolutionary model because evolution never occurred in the first place.

To teach assumptions and philosophical bias as scientific truth is misleading education and deprives individuals from making the choice themselves. It is important to promote sound scientific investigation that is free from philosophical bias. Evolutionists are religious in their faith in the miraculous power of nature to create life. As scientists and educators, it is vital that people are presented with the evidences and then allowed to decide for themselves which model works best.

It is perfectly legal for a public school teacher to present both the creation and evolution models to the students. In the recent 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Court stated: “Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” Enhancing the reasoning and decision making ability of a student would definitely increase the effectiveness of science instruction.

An experiment was conducted in which 119 students were taught only evolution and another 119 students were taught both the creation and evolution models.6 The latter experimental group seemed to develop more critical thinking habits than those with the one-model approach. These students were more highly motivated and learned more effectively with the two-model approach. The data also showed a significant increase in preference toward the creation model after examining the evidence. If the goal of education is to train individuals to think and learn for themselves, then the teaching of creation and evolution would be advantageous to the advancement of learning and education.

1 Francisco Ayala, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?” American Scientist, Nov.-Dec., 1974, p. 700.
2 Ehrlich and Birch, “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, Vol. 214, 1967, p. 352.
3 Herbert P. Yockey, “A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, 1977, p. 398.
4 L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species” (London: J.M. Dent), 1971 edition of The Origin of Species.
5 H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980.
6 Richard B. Bliss, “A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life from a Two-model Approach vs. Those Studying from a Single-Model Approach,” ICR Impact, Article No. 60, June, 1978.