When is what you may call ‘Evolution’ no longer real ‘science’?

When you begin to describe things that you interpret to have happened, especially many, many thousands of years ago (before recorded history) and neither YOU nor anyone you know has actually observed any of it let alone can you or anyone you know repeat it.

Of course a person may define a word such as ‘science’ or any other word in any way they’d like in order to satisfy a motivation but if the goal is to determine ‘facts’  or in a larger sense ‘truth’ then the old fashioned understanding of science where required things to be “testable” “measurable” “falsifiable” “repeatable” etc. reflected an important way to reach certain categories of knowledge reliably.

Consider that disingenuous and even deceptive beliefs have entered into consciousness of millions today by describing massive amounts of assumptions as “evolution” and also asserting them to be ‘science’.

Insofar as ‘science’ deals with things we can all call “provable” “observable” “repeatable” “falsifiable” “FACTS” then much of what is being placed under the umbrella of “evolution” is in fact not at all ‘science’ in any traditional sense.

What used to be called “adaptation” or what some now call “micro evolution” fits the definition of “science” that most reasonable minds can accept without much difficulty.  In point of fact these features of “evolution” described this way are a direct function of the “DESIGN” inherent in cell life and DNA chemical information programming.

On the other hand assertions such as “millions of years ago a single cell became a sea animal of some kind which many millions of years later gave rise to everything from Elephants of land to Birds of the air”, well these type of assertions are not in anyway science in the sense of the former understanding.

These type of evolutionary ideas are interpretations based on observing what is and imagining (quite irrationally actually) what MIGHT have occurred. These things have not been observed, repeated or in any way “proved”.

They are simply “beliefs” paraded under the guise of the respected word “science” when they in fact are NOT science in the common sense that people understand it. Evolutionary assertions of this type are actually a competing belief system to which people ascribe to it’s interpretations of the physical world often with the same zeal and fervent defense as any religious zealot.

In addition a religious zealot at least may be basing their zeal on observable evidence that they have themselves observed such as the authors of the Scriptures asserted.  The source of their zeal in that sense may be based on definitive evidence they experienced even if that evidence is not ‘repeatable’ for others, at least not for those whose heart is not similarly positioned.

In that sense, it’s possible for the spiritual minded individual to be far more “scientific” than those placing a massively broad brush over the term “evolution”.

1Tim 6:20 …, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: