A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience.  That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience?  Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.

As  you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of  proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.”  The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience.  Yet regardless of  how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”

According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:

“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research,  but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[ 1 ]

So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:

“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[ 2 ]

Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience

Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience:

Fits  defintion – 1. “Presented as Scientific”
The claim that evolution is “presented as scientific” is so ubiquitous, a defense of that statement is not at all necessary. But but to leave no stone un-turned,  I offer this page from the National Academy of Science that states evolution is both science theory and fact.[ 3 ]

Fits definition – 2. “But which does not adhere to the scientific method”
The definition of the scientific process is listed above. Below is a nice diagram of the process:

Though one is sufficient, we’ll look at two places in the process where evolution fails to follow the scientific method: A. (Unable to) Make Observations; and B. (Unable to) Develop Testable Predictions

Fails Scientific Method A. (Unable to) “Make Observations”
Goo-to-you evolution fails the very first step in the process, because it cannot be observed:

1) No one has ever observed life come from non-living molecules, cells or animals. Life always comes from life, without exception. Yet this belief (abiogenesis – which we’ll return to later) is a core belief of evolutionists. Evolutionists must believe this since there simply is no other alternative once you rule out the living God as the source of all life.

And what do they substitute for observation? Bad reasoning:

The undeniable fact is that non-living materials must have formed into living materials at least once. If not through spontaneous generation, then how? [ 4 ]
Documentary: How Life began

This is common evolutionist reasoning, but it is totally flawed. It’s like coming home and finding a body dead apparently from gunshot wounds, a smoking gun,  and only your spouse and the family goldfish in the room – and there is gun powder residue on your spouse’s hand.  And from this you conclude the goldfish must have done it because you know your spouse couldn’t have done it. Never mind it is impossible for your goldfish to have fired the gun, the idea of your spouse doing it is so repellent, you simply can’t even seriously consider the possibility. So it is with evolutionists and God – the idea of God creating all life on earth is so repellent to evolutionists, they won’t even consider it, and prefer instead to believe in the fantasy that processes that are known to be incapable of creating life, created life.

2) No one has ever observed the evolution of one type of animal to another type of animal. The change in finch beaks that Darwin observed in the Galapagos, for example, was not evolution from one kind to another. It was natural selection in operation. There’s a more current example: Elephant tusks are getting smaller. Why? Because poachers are killing elephants with the bigger tusks leaving the ones with the smaller tusks to breed and reproduce.[ 5 ] So the overall effect is a population of elephants with smaller tusks. But the finches are still finches; and the elephants are still elephants, so this is not goo-to-you evolution. This is natural selection at work (well in the elephant’s case it’s human selection), and as I’ve pointed out before , natural selection is not synonymous with evolution.

Fails Scientific Method B . (Unable to) “Develop Testable Predictions”
Honest evolutionists acknowledge the inability for evolution to meet the scientific requirement of being predictive in a manner that is testable:

“The theory is inadequate because it is not predictive. It explains what has evolved, but not what will. There are too many possible courses evolution can take.”[ 6 ]
Professor Armand Marie Leroi
Imperial College, London

How true – too many paths – leaving room for plenty of stories. So while they can’t make a scientific prediction, they can indulge their wild flights of fancy. So if you’ve got a  animal and you’re looking for their origin, evolutionists have a story for you. Based on two populations of fish in two separate lakes that look similar, Prof.  Leroi “hopes”  evolutionists can make predictions in the future[ 7 ]. Like other evolutionary hopes and dreams this one will remain unfulfilled since evolution of the type I’m discussing is impossible.

Fits Definition 3. (Fails to meet) The norms of scientific research.
This is a broad topic, and cannot be covered in any detail here. But a recurring area of concern here that should never happen in research is the fabrication or  falsification of data.  Not only is it unethical as was universally agreed in a recent survey[ 8 ], and tends to make evolution look like the pseudoscience that it is; but more importantly if evolution is so obvious, and there is so much evidence for it, why has there been, and continues to be so much fraud, fabrication and falsification of data in attempts to prove it true? To see some examples of the frauds, just search  thecreationclub.com for “Frauds of Evolution.”

So there you have it. Evolution clearly meets the definition of a pseudoscience. And you know the old saying – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. And so it is with evolution. It may be dressed up as science, but it’s really pseudoscience.  But the above demonstration that evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience to a T is really just an introduction to what I believe the stronger evidence is that demonstrates it’s a pseudoscience: evolution is a pseudoscience because it breaks the known laws of science.

Pseudosciences break known laws of science

In an article titled Is Evolution Pseudoscience   Mark Johansen, a CMI author considers this proposition and goes through a 10 point list from the Skeptics Dictionary that identifies pseudosciences and shows how evolution meets 9 of the 10 criteria. Item number 9 is of particular interest:

“Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.”[ 9 ]

Evolutionists are fond of calling evolution “science” and “fact” but real science does not contradict the established laws of science.  With evolution breaking so many laws of science, you can call evolution pseudoscience, or religion. But what you can’t call it, is science. It fits neither the definition of science, nor  the method of science (as shown above0, nor follows the laws of science (as shown below).  So without further ado, some of the  many laws of science that evolution breaks.

1. Evolution breaks the law of Biogenesis.
The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from life. That is all that has ever been observed. Life from Non-living things has never been observed. The idea of “spontaneous generation” was decisively destroyed in the 19th century with Louis Pasteur’s swan necked flask experiment. But in the 19th century, the idea of spontaneous generation concerned mice coming from dirty rags and wheat instead of the current chemical evolution variety of life coming from replicating molecules. With that as the case, evolutionists think they’ve distanced themselves from the concept. In fact popular Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson pokes fun at the concept and the foolishness of spontaneous generation:

“I always liked the spontaneous generation concept – some dirty rags, some wheat, look the other way and mice crawl out. That’s kind of fun. I don’t know why that concept hung on for so long. Because a simple test could have verified that mice do not spontaneously generate themselves out of dirty clothes and wheat.”[ 10 ]
Neil deGrasse Tyson

 True, scientists no longer believe in “spontaneous generation” of the type they spoke of in the 19th century. Now they believe in “abiogenesis,” a theory of life arising through chemical evolution – but it has the same problem: it still requires life to come from lifeless matter – a ludicrous proposition.  The list of reasons of why chemical evolution is impossible is  extensive and far beyond the scope of this article.  So I can’t cover them here. (Though you can see one of the reasons in my previous article here on the impossibility of evolution to produce a protein.) Let me suffice it by giving you the bottom line:

“The idea of the origin of life by natural processes is a preposterous idea. Absolutely preposterous idea.”[ 11 ]
Don Batten
Agricultural Scientist and Creationist

 

“For evolutionists to believe in chemical evolution, this is not a position they got from science, but a position they got from blind faith. They’re basically having to believe in miracles because it’s not real chemistry there they can appeal to.” [ 12 ]
Jonathan Sarfarti
Physical Chemist, Spectroscopist and Creationist

2. Evolution contradicts Genetic processes.
Once again I will limit myself to just two of the many areas of genetics where evolutionary processes contradict known genetic processes.

A) Evolution with it’s trial and error method over millions of years predicts that there will be much “junk” found in the code of DNA. Some evolutionists state that up to 98% of our DNA is junk. But scientists have learned how seriously mistaken that view is. Protein coding is one of the main functions of DNA. But there are parts of DNA that don’t code for proteins, and it’s those areas that evolutionists have called “junk.” But with further research, scientists have learned that the non-protein coding portions of DNA formerly considered “junk” by some are performing a number of other critical cellular functions. And in fact, “It’s now known that parts of genome code for more than 1 thing at the same time.” [ 13 ] In other words, there are messages within other  messages of DNA strings. Such double coding or multiple coding – if you will –  is a mark of extreme intelligence as I pointed out in DNA and Windtalkers . Further,

“Overlapping codes are almost impossible to improve upon – because if you improve on one of the codes you are destroying or disrupting one of the other codes.”[ 14 ]
John Sanford

Thus the concept of “junk DNA” is, as plant geneticist John Sanford states:  ” …profoundly wrong and will be recorded in history as one of the “greatest blunders in science.” [ 15 ]

B) Evolution states that random mutation and natural selection can emulate the process of design to get ever more complex creatures until you get the diversity of creatures we see today. Yet the mutations in the human genome are destroying good design, not adding new information, or features. The human genome is suffering from genetic entropy, and evolution can do nothing to stop it.  The result:

“So genetic entropy is profound…It is lethal to genetic evolutionary theory – it means things are going down, not up.”[ 16 ]
John Sanford

Once again evolution predicts the exact opposite of what the physical reality is.

3. Evolution breaks the Laws of Chemistry

Many suggestions from evolutionists for the first living cells have them emerging from some primordial ooze or soup. But that theory is seriously flawed. Because for life, you need to build many large molecules from small ones. The problem is – the chemistry of molecules doesn’t work that way. The normal process is large molecules are regularly broken down to smaller ones; not smaller ones joined together to get larger ones:

“Everything  I’ve learned about real chemistry shows that reactions go in the opposite way from what’s required for life to come from non living chemicals – breaking up large molecules to small molecules.”[ 17 ]
Jonathan Sarfati

And with regard to the primordial soup:

“Any chemist wouldn’t have water in the reaction because water tends to drive the reaction in the  opposite direction towards the little molecules.
Yet the primordial soup would have inevitably had loads of water in it, so it’s the last place a real chemist would try to make proteins or DNA.”[ 18 ]
Jonathan Sarfati

Chalk up another huge fail for evolution with regards to any chance of building the necessary chemical building blocks for life while abiding by the laws of chemistry.

4. Evolution breaks the Laws of Information Theory

Philosophical materialist scientists (those who believe only material things exist) used to believe that reality consisted only of matter and energy – which are – as Einstein revealed to the world, different manifestations of the same thing. But in these latter days, scientists have had to acknowledge that there is a non-material portion that comprises reality – information:

“During the 19th century scientist believed there were two fundamental entities – matter and energy. But as we enter the 21st century there’s a third fundamental entity that science has had to recognize and that is information.”[ 19 ]
Stephen Meyer
Philosopher of Science

Even evolutionists recognize that DNA contains information. The information is in fact coded information. Further, as noted above, it is coded with overlapping information making it information packaged in a highly complex manner . The question that Darwinists can’t answer, is what is the origin of the information in DNA and wherever else information is found in living creatures? And what is the origin of the highly complex information storage and retrieval system we call DNA? We know two things about the origin of information: 1. Natural processes cannot create information. 2. Intelligent agents can produce information:

“So at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance.
“But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing information, and that is intelligence.”[ 20 ]
Stephen Meyer

Darwinist say that mutations and natural selection can create information, but as Meyer points out they cannot. Mutations destroy information, and natural selection can only eliminate  information. Evolutionists need a naturalistic way to create information, but there is none. Information comes only from agents with intelligence. This is such a serious challenge to evolution that Meyer characterized the problem this way:

“Neo-Darwinism and its associated theories of chemical evolution and the like will not be able to survive the biology of the information age, the biology of the 21st century.”[ 21 ]