The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Clifford A. Cuffey

Conclusions

Evolution and “scientific creation” are two explanations that explain the diversification of life on earth. The evidence I have presented allows us to test these hypotheses by applying deductive logic (Popper, 1968). In the case of evol ution, we predict that the fossil record should contain at least some examples of transitional fossils, and a definable succession of taxa. Indeed, it does. Therefore, we can say that evolution is corroborated and not contradicted.

In the case of “scientific creation,” we predict that the fossil record should provide evidence for the contemporaneity of all taxa, no faunal succession, no transitional fossils, and that the rock record should provide evidence for a young age of the earth and a “great flood.” The examples discussed herein, as well as the rest of the fossil and rock record, constitute a massive volume of data that contradicts all the predictions of “scientific creation.”

Deductive logic is asymmetrical (Popper, 1968). Whereas we can say that evolution is corroborated by empirical observations and is not contradicted, we cannot prove it with 100% certainty without a time machine. However, so much is k nown about the fossil and rock record, from 200+ years of investigation, that evolution is an inescapable conclusion. It is as well documented as the Copernican solar system and “spherical” earth were before space flight. In contrast, the massive volume o f data contradictory to “scientific creation” conclusively falsifies that hypothesis with 100% certainty. It simply did not happen that way.

For the reasons discussed above, “creation science” is definitely not science. However, proponents of “creation science” insist that it is and that it has equal merit to evolution (as a reason for either inserting “creation science” in, or removing evolution from, science curricula). Therefore, we must subject “creation science” to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, “creation science” cannot withstand such scrutiny; there are no verifiable, repeatable data to corroborate it. “Creation sci ence” is comparable to flat earth ideas, geocentric solar system ideas, alchemy, and others long since disproved. Please take special care to note that this falsifies the “creation science hypothesis” of the diversification of life on earth. It does not i n any way negate God, religion, or morality.

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

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