Is evolution science, philosophy, hypothesis or conjecture?

What kind of theory can be regarded as a scientific theory? According to the encyclopedia of scientific principles, laws and theories, scientific theories must meet the following three conditions:

1. It must be observable;

2. It can be verified by experiments;

3. It can be used for accurate prediction.

According to these conditions, can evolution be regarded as a scientific theory? The process of evolution cannot be observed; This theory cannot be verified by experiments; Nor can it be used to make accurate predictions. So, can evolution be regarded as a scientific hypothesis? The book mentioned above says that, compared with scientific theory, scientific hypothesis is a preliminary observation of objective facts and an inferential analysis, but this inference can also be verified by experiments.

An editorial in The New York Times commented that fossil science "is sensitive to dramatic assertions, but lacks solid knowledge. Fossil science relies on the strict disciplines of anatomy and geology, but it contains so many speculative words that various theories about how people are formed often show that their authors have explained their themes too much. "

Scientists who accept evolution tend to belittle the intelligence of people who don't believe in evolution. In this regard, Dr. William F. Duerfeldt of Ohio University in the United States wrote in the journal Hospital Affairs that many people "mistakenly believe that it is impossible for anyone with intelligence to seriously consider creationism as another feasible choice for evolution. As a former geologist and now a doctor, I believe I can point out that the concept of evolution is full of many problems, whether from the geological development of the earth or from the biological development of life. Many of these views are based on very weak and unfounded assumptions. Any loyal geologist will admit that other concepts, such as dating strata or fossils, are often the result of "circuitous ideas" For this reason, the theory of evolution must contain potential major mistakes. " He added: "Science has always prided itself on objectivity, but I am afraid that we scientists will soon become victims of prejudice and closed thinking, which we have always hated."

Interestingly, although evolutionists firmly reject creationism, they realize that the fossil record supports creationism more than evolution: "The more people study fossils, the more sure they are that evolution is only based on confidence. This is exactly the kind of self-confidence people need when facing the great mystery of religion. The only other option is a specially created theory, which may be true, but it is completely unreasonable. " (Land Rover Moore) "Zoologists accept the theory of evolution not because it can be proved by logical and consistent evidence, but because the only other choice, that is, the special creationism, is obviously not credible." (Watson) "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe this only because the only other option is special creationism, which is unimaginable. " Arthur? Sir Arthur Keith.

Fossil record

It can be seen that the phenomenon that different organisms are clearly defined now does not support evolution. It is for this reason that the fossil record has become so important. If evolution is a fact, then fossil evidence will definitely show that organisms evolved from one kind to another.

In addition, if the theory of evolution is really based on facts, then the fossil record should show the original form of the new structure of the biological body. At least some fossils should have developing arms, legs, wings, eyes and other bones and organs.

In this regard, the British "New Scientist" magazine said on the theory of evolution: "It predicts that there will be a complete fossil record, which consists of the pedigree of each creature, proving that it is a step-by-step and long-term continuous evolution." Darwin himself threatened: "The number of intermediate varieties that existed in the past must be very large."

However, evolutionist Steven? Steven Stanley said that these fossils "reveal surprising new information about the origin of human beings." The new evolutionary timetable, the view of life written by three evolutionists, adds: "The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists can't explain."

So, what does the fossil record show?

What puzzles these scientists is that the results revealed by a large number of existing fossil evidences are exactly the same as Darwin's conclusion: the basic species of living things suddenly appeared and did not change much after a long time. No transitional connection has been found between the main species of organisms. In this way, the fossil record shows exactly the opposite of what evolutionists expected.

New Scientist admits: "Unfortunately, the fossil record is not as expected, because there are few known intermediate types among fossils of a single species. In fact, fossil species that can be tested seem to have not evolved after millions of years. "

The Journal of Field Museum in Chicago, USA pointed out: "Darwin's [evolution] theory has always been considered to be closely related to fossil evidence. Most people may also think that the arguments supporting Darwin's biological evolution mainly come from fossils. Unfortunately, this view is not correct. Neither the geological records found then nor now can prove that organisms evolved gradually through a series of slow and gradual processes. Expect the unexpected, where species appeared in the biological history, showed no signs of change in the records, or only a few, and then suddenly disappeared from the records. In addition, it is often unclear whether the next generation can really adapt to the environment better than the previous generation, but in fact it is rarely clear. In other words, progress in biological structure is very rare. " (Vol. 50,No. 1, pp. 22-23)

Francis Hitching, a scientist, wrote: "If you look for the connection between various animals, you will find that there is no such connection at all." Surprisingly, the loopholes in fossils are very regular: all important links are missing fossils. "Giraffe's neck

Paleontologist David? David M. Raup said: "Whether in Darwin's time or today, geologists have found that the fossil record is intermittent. Species suddenly appeared in biological history, changed little after appearing, and then suddenly disappeared." Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, The Conflict between Darwin and Paleontology.

Steven? Steven Stanley wrote in the book "New Evolutionary Timetable": "Records cannot represent the gradual transformation of organisms from one category to another." He said: "The known fossil record is inconsistent with the previous and present (slow evolution process)."

Darwin admitted: "all types are completely unique, and there are no countless transitional links between different types to connect them." This is an obvious difficulty. " The Origin of Species

There are several kinds of flying animals with fossils, including birds, bats and extinct pterosaurs. According to the theory of evolution, these animals must have evolved from transitional ancestors. However, this type of transformation has never been found, or even a clue. Are there any giraffe fossils whose necks are only two-thirds or three-quarters as long as they are now? Are there any fossils of birds whose beaks were transformed from the jaws of reptiles? Is there any fossil evidence of fish that fish are developing amphibian pelvis, or that fins are about to become amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is before us: it is futile to look for such development characteristics in the fossil record.

Geneticist stebbins wrote: "At present, there is no transitional type between major plants and animals." He mentioned that "there are deep trenches between all kinds of creatures". Organic evolution process, 147. "In fact," the new evolutionary timetable says, "the fossil record cannot even provide a clear transition chain between different species. Moreover, various creatures have existed for an amazing time. "

This is consistent with the large-scale research conducted by the Geological Society of London and the British Paleontology Society. John, a professor of natural science? Moore reported the research results. He said: "There are 120 scientists who specialize in research. They have written a masterpiece with 800 pages and 30 chapters, listing the fossil records of animals and plants and dividing the species into about 2,500 groups. Research shows that all kinds of animals and plants have their own unique history of not being mixed with other species and species! All groups of animals and plants suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, rabbits, squirrels and so on. It's all completely different, since it first appeared. There is no trace of the same ancestor in the record, let alone any connection with the so-called ancestor-reptile. " Evolution should be taught? "9, 14, page 24.

Aviation engineer Lu Se? Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book "The Mystery of Darwin": "Scientific evidence shows that every time different species appear on the earth for the first time, no matter as small as single-celled organisms or as large as humans, they are all complete as soon as they appear, and their organs and tissues are complete and fully functional. This fact forces us to draw the following inference: some kind of wisdom already existed before life first appeared on earth. "

Donald, a physical chemist who received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon? Chittick commented: "If you look directly at the fossil record, you will agree with Genesis that all animals breed from their own places and have not changed from one creature to another. The evidence available now, like the evidence available in Darwin's time, is consistent with the direct creation recorded in Genesis. Animals and plants constantly breed from their own places. In fact, paleontology and Darwin's theory of evolution are too different. Therefore, some scientists have begun to believe that those lost connections will never be found. "

Zoologist Covent said: "For scientists who don't believe in religion, fossils-the remains of ancient creatures-are the highest court of final appeal, because fossil records are the only credible biological history in science. If there is a difference between fossil history and evolution-we did see the difference between them-what does it mean? This means that basic types of plants and animals have been created. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation rather than evolution. " Freedom, page 14.