The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Clifford A. Cuffey

The Nature of Science

“Creation scientists” contend that evolution is not science (Morris, 1985, p. 9; Gish, 1995, p. 6, 12, 13, 16) but rather a form of non-theistic, humanistic religion (Morris, 1978; Morris & Parker, 1987, p. 17-19; Gish, 1995, p. 18) the belief of which requires faith (Morris, 1985, p. 16; Gish, 1995, p. 19, 20). Morris (1985, p. 16) stated that, ..creationism is more scientific than evolutionism, and evolutionism if far more religious than creationism.” This is a serious question to resolve primarily because the issue has been politicized and legalized whereby religious ideas are not permitted in public schools (Scott, 1999b).

“Creation scientists” contend that the “...scientific method is limited to the study of processes as they occur at present...” (Morris, 1985, p. 203), and that human observers who produce an eyewitness account of events are necessary to science (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 213; Morris, 1985, p. 137; Gish, 1995, p. 3; Morris, 1994, p. 7, 17; Sarfati, 1999, p. 28-30). That is simply not true. Science is concerned with the study and interpretation of verifiable, repeatable data. Tho se data can be the results of the chemistry experiment you are currently conducting or a collection of fossils entombed in rock 450 million years ago. Both are incontrovertible data that have equal merit and cannot be explained away. I think that seven criteria are of prime importance in evaluating whether or not evolution and “scientific creationism” are valid scientific theories: one methodological criterion (Popper, 1968; Kyburg, 1970; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 53-55), three pr imary logical criteria (Popper, 1968; Kyburg, 1970; Rescher, 1980; Root-Bernstein, 1984, p. 65, 66), and three empirical criteria (Root-Bernstein, 1984, p. 66, 67).

Science proceeds by hypothetico-deductive reasoning (Kyburg, 1970; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 53-55). Scientific investigation is an ongoing, self-correcting cycle of observation, inductive logic, deductive logic, hypothesis testi ng and modification. This has become known popularly as the scientific method. Of prime importance is that science begins with a series of facts from which hypotheses are developed by application of inductive logic.

Evolution is a product of hypothetico-deductive reasoning. It was initially based on a wide variety of observations about the earth (geology, biology, paleontology) that led first to modern geology, then faunal succession, and finall y to the theory of evolution through inductive reasoning (Darwin, 1859). Data collection for 140 years, especially in paleontology, genetics, and biology, has continually tested evolution, and it has been modified to fit the data. Evolution has withstood the rigors of 140 years of scientific testing and has never been falsified. Sarfati (1999, p. 15, 16) stated that, “The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. Evolution is a deduction from this assumption...” That is incorrect (Darwin, 1859). In contrast, “scientific creation” is a belief system based upon the untestable assumption tha t scripture is infallible. That is not science. Evolution passes as a valid scientific theory whereas “scientific creation” fails.

Because inductive reasoning starts with data, scientific theories must be based on data. Indeed, evolution is based on abundant data, as summarized in this article. “Creation science” is not based on data. In fact, there is no eviden ce that corroborates “creation science.” So-called evidence is merely unsubstantiated criticism of good science. Evolution passes, “scientific creation” fails.

Scientific theories must not postulate anything unnecessary (must not violate Occam’s Razor). Evolution does not require supernatural forces that cannot be observed, cannot be tested, cannot be repeated, and that do not produce resul ts that can be observed. In contrast, “scientific creation” does. Evolution passes, “scientific creation” fails. Scientific theories must be logically internally consistent. Paleontologists and biologists agree on morphologic criteria with which to categorize species into higher taxa. The fossil record can then be examined for evidence that transitional forms existe d between such species and higher taxa. Furthermore, there are independent methods of placing such transitional fossils in proper geochronologic succession. In contrast, “creation science” uses a set of undefinable “kinds,” that do not provide a testable hypothesis. Furthermore, if “creation science” interprets the fossil record to be the result of the “great flood” and not a record of the history of life, then discussing aspects of the fossil record as though it is a historical record to prove “scientific creation” is a major in ternal inconsistency. Evolution passes, “scientific creation” fails.

Scientific theories must be logically falsifiable. Credible, verifiable, and repeatable observations that fossil humans coexisted with dinosaurs or trilobites would cast serious doubt on the validity of evolution. No such evidence ex ists, and such assertions are contradicted by a large body of data. “Scientific creation” is not falsifiable because it is based on the assumption that scripture is infallible. Evolution passes, “scientific creation” fails.

Scientific theories must be empirically testable, or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable. Evolution implies that the there should be transitional fossils that represent the intermediate stages of evolution between two species or higher taxa. Taxa should occur successively, not simultaneously, in the fossil record. “Scientific creation” does in fact make predictions about what the rock and fossil record should look like. Evolution passes; in this case, so does “scientific creation.”

Scientific theories must make verified predictions or retrodictions. Indeed the fossil record contains numerous examples of such transitional fossils; and the fossils do occur successively. The predictions of “creation science” are a ll contradicted by the rock and fossil record, as explained in this article. Evolution passes, “scientific creation” fails.

Scientific theories must concern reproducible results. Paleontologists can reproduce the results of their colleagues by collecting new specimens to analyze problems or examine previously collected material (deposited in museums) and verify the accuracy of descriptions and interpretations. In contrast, I cannot verify or repeat any of the observations made by “creation scientists.” When I try, I find contradictory evidence that leads to a more logical theory, namely evolution. Evoluti on passes, “scientific creation” fails.

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

Send us e-mail and we will get back to you as soon as we can.