Why must we suffer?The Holy Spirit, through Paul, 'strengthened and encouraged ...
Atheists and ChristIf there is one big difference between Jesus Christ and Moha...
Pathological fear of the floodOne thing evolutionists are adamant about is that there was ...
Copyright 2007 TheBook.co.za
How science and evolution differ
|Created by Gerard de Vos|
Category: Evolution related
There is seldom a debate in the media about science. Right through the world, the proven facts and laws of science, like gravity, electromagnetism, et cetera, are accepted. In no country in the world are laws enforced to make the teaching of science compulsory. But when it comes to evolution it is a different ball game. More and more countries are requiring evolution to be taught yearly in the school curriculum. And this practice evokes harsh debates. Why this strange inconsistency if evolution is science? Can it be that there is a wide difference between science and evolution?
Science is the methodical, systematic search to understand the laws governing nature and to harness the principles for man’s benefit. It is from this discipline that the phenomenal progress, in world wide communication, medical advancements and air travel, come. There is no debate about the benefit of this type of study. But evolution’s judicial war is necessary, because they dare not give all the scientific facts about their conjecture, because that would show the great inconsistencies and it would immediately be removed from text books.
In Psalm 104 we find areas of nature that can be researched:
Verses 5-9: The land and sea. Wind and water power and wave motion can be used to generate electricity (waves are caused by the moon). The sea is a source of food, water, and minerals,
10-13: Water and its miraculous properties. Without water no life is possible. It has numerous applications.
14-16: Plants. How do they grow, what do they need, how can they be improved genetically for higher yields, how can minerals be utilized for them to be grown in smaller places (hydroponics)?
Verses 17-18; 21-22: Birds and animals. Ecology, and the destruction of their habitat, utilizing their wool, hair, feathers, eggs and meat; more selective breeding, and domestication.
Verses 19-22: The solar bodies. How to harness the sun’s heat, the effect of the moon on the earth, sunspots, et cetera. What effect does increasing daylight have on the growth of plants and the production of eggs?
Verse 23: Humans. Food requirements, working of the body, surgery and its improvements (for example rejection of tissue), immune systems, organs, the process of metabolism, how to improve eye and ear defects, et cetera.
Science asks the question: how does it work? What law governs it? Can we utilize that law for the benefit of progress? Evolution is completely different: it does not ask the question ‘How does it work’? but ‘Where does it come from’? How do they differ in their conclusions? Science reveals the design, order, intricacies and miraculous workings of nature, and then formulates laws like gravity, electromagnetism, relativity, et cetera. The result is a multitude of practical applications.
Evolution is not interested in how nature works. It acknowledges no order and no design, but only that the whole of life is the result of chance. Life is one big lucky miracle. Evolution therefore is not experimental science, but forensic science that detectives use. They look for clues and then draw conclusions. They cannot TOR (test, observe or repeat) the past. Science is objective, evolution makes subjective deductions about origins. Its conclusions are not of a scientific nature. It intrudes into what we would call the religious realm: Who is man? What is he doing here? What is his worth? What happens after death? None of these things can be tested in a laboratory, and they have nothing to do with science. Evolution is actually in direct opposition to the teaching of the Bible on origins.
Why do people not easily understand the difference between science and evolution? Because they are blinded by the lies of evolutionists. If it is a science, then scientific proofs like the Krebs cycle of metabolism, should be given. Instead phrases like ‘it might have happened’, ‘it could be’, or ‘we think this is what happened’ are used. This is not science, it is speculation. Science is used as a cloak under which to hide the dagger with which people are assassinated.
Evolution’s conclusions have to do with what we would call eternal, invisible value systems, that were only revealed by God to man through the Bible. The interesting thing is when we look at evolution and what they teach, we find that it is exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches. Why is it then called ‘science’? They love to point out that the Bible is not a scientific handbook. They are right, but its principles are supported by science. The hypothesis of evolution is often contrary to science.
Conclusion: science has to do with the observable, and is objective.
Evolution has to do with the unobservable, and is basically subjective, and speculates about the unknown past to make predictions about the unknown, invisible future. This brings it in direct conflict with the Bible, which has the only authoritative revelation about man, his place and worth in the universe.