Disclaimer: Before you read this, please be aware that I am a scientist and believe in creation, not creationism.
I stumbled upon this 15-point checklist from Sekptoid.com. It will help anyone to discern science from pseudoscience. What really caught my attention is that the author gave praise to Quack Watch, which is itself, guilty of quackery pseudoscience in some of the posts found there. Some Quack Watch statements are pure fiction.
When ever either side of a hotly debated topic go to extremes, logic is thrown out the door. Whether it be health care or science, there are opposing views. Somewhere in between can be found truth. Looking at the science, here is an interesting challenge for the evolution theory from a scientist.
What if the Evolution Theory was looked at under the microscope of the Pseudoscience Test.
1. Does the claim meet the qualifications of a theory?
The posting indicates that a theory needs to originate from and be supported by experimental evidence. Anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated reports do not qualify. Of course, unsubstantiated would include scientific fraud like Piltdown Man which was once looked to as scientific proof. Likewise, saying what man looked like based on jaw bone fragment is somewhat anecdotal. How do we know that man was not a teen age mutant ninja bipedal monkey?
The answer, faith in the theory of evolution, which is technically, not a religion although it is defended with the zeal of a religious fanatic by some.
Also, it says that a theory must have testable predictions about things not yet observed. All testing on things not observed seem to point to all mutations being destructive and not beneficial.
2. Is the claim based on ancient knowledge.
Not sure of the answer tot his one, the theory is that evolution took place millions of years ago.
3. Was the claim first made through mass media or the scientific channels?
This was kind of hard to define. The actual theory probably started a few thousand years ago. It came into the lime light through the publication of Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.
4. Are there claims of evidence based on unknown form of energy or other paranormal phenomenon?
This is great. Imaging a soup of amino acids brewing in an ancient stew within the then oceans on the Earth millions of years ago. Somehow, although water favors depolymerization, through some unexplained contrary to physics, polymerization took place. Lets give the theory a chance.
In addition to polymerization, there would need to be the right 20 amino acids, out of 100, to get together. Oh yea, they would also have to all be left handed amino acids too.
What are the odds of the right kind of amino acids in the right sequence getting together in a soup that would normally make them dissolve? Well, doing some research, it would be a…
1-in-1o,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo chance of happening.
Do you know the definition of googol? It is a 1 with 100 zeros behind it. This number has 113 zeros.
Anything with more than 50 zeros is considered impossible. Oh yea, what was the energy that made it happen? Ooops, it was some unknown energy.
5. Is there a claim that the authorities are trying to suppress the concept.? Well, the evolution theory can skate by on this one. But then on second thoughts, maybe a Supreme authority will suppress it some day.
6. Does the theory sound far fetched?
Well, evolution only sounds far fetched if you look at it based on scientific method. Read the book, Darwin’s Black Box for a more molecular challenge. There are too many difficulties when considering the differences in man and woman alone, not to mention the animals. Remember, not only did man have to evolve, man and woman had to evolve.
Somehow, the sex split was not in any of the evolution pictures when I went to school. Oh, I know why. There was no sex education so the evolutionists did not pick up on this back when the drawings were first made.
7. Hokey Marketing?
Evolution can skip on this too. It has perhaps attained the scientific version of urban legend, with and without the scientific fraud and missing links. Curious, not one legitimate missing link has ever been found.
8. Occam’s Razor test.
A simpler, natural explanation would be that where there is design, there must be a designer.
9. Does the claim come from the source dedicated to supporting it?
Evolution loses this one. Science is devoted to supporting the theory, so much that it speaks of the unproven theory as if it were scientific fact.
10. Are the claimants upfront about their testing?
Evolution looses here too. Carbon dating is inherently inaccurate. So dating something and making claims based on supposition as if they were fact, well, it is not being upfront.
11. Do the claimants state there is something wrong with the norm?
This is a gray area. Basically man has for some time (say about 6,000 years of recorded history) believed in gods, be they man made gods or a Supreme being.
Now, a new theory comes along and says there is something wrong with worshiping a lifeless stick, a stone or a cross that was used to murder the leader of a religion. Ok, there was something wrong and evolution was sorta right on this count. But, what if there really is a God? Not the lifeless kind and not money, rather a real, living powerful one? Don’t know about you but I sure would want to be his friend even if it was abnormal.
12. Is the claim considered all natural?
Got to love this one too. Yes, evolution is all natural although it will require some faith, which could make it spiritual. So, maybe it is only partially natural. But, since mutations are always found to be detrimental, then the evolution theory would seem to be an unnatural force that deteriorates man.
13. Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?
Evolution loses here too. There is an entire culture of believing in evolution in-spite of the lack of scientific evidence. Evolutionist are just as zealous about their faith in evolution as creationists are in their beliefs.
14. Do those making the claim have legitimate credentials?
Well, although credentialed, nobody was around to actually see evolution. So, on what authority do they speak?
15. Of what quality is the data supporting the theory?
Surly time would have helped. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not support his theory. The geological record does not provide a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. There are just no missing links, except in the imaginations and faith of those who believe in evolution.
If you believe in evolution, fear not. Creationism would not fare much better if given this test. I do think there is a third alternative. That is, quite simply, creation, plane and simple.
Public Speaking on the Evolution Theory can be found at the parent site, Speechmastery.com