Falsehood of the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

Science is an ongoing process through which scientists try to understand natural phenomena.
Models, observations, and experiments are some of the major approaches scientists use to
explain their studied phenomena. Admittedly, all of these approaches have limitations. Models
are never perfect, observations are not always accurate, and controlled experiments often
oversimplify the complexity in nature. In this context however, data-driven conclusions about
studied phenomena would arguably be one of the most reliable outcomes of scientific
endeavor. Needless to say, scientific data that drive these conclusions is collected through the
senses and the evolving tools that keep extending these senses. Many of these tools have often
been good enough to produce a mind-blowing amount of what is currently known as “Big”
data. Despite all this advancement and the long distances these tools took us as humans, there
has been and will always be limitations after which no data is available.
In the absence of data, and driven by their eagerness to continue what
is started, scientists often rely on their imagination to further fuel the
mining process. In some cases, imagination lead to significant
outcomes. One example is the proposal of the benzene ring shape that
was inspired from a dream in which a scientist saw a snake biting its
tail. Without advancements in imaging technology though, this
proposal would have remained as mere “imagination” because it is not
supported by data. Other forms of imagination include interpolation and extrapolation where a
scientist stretches their observations to compensate for some missing data. In either case, this
is done based on observed patterns in the available data. Although this may sound logical,
these approaches pose high risk of misrepresenting the studied phenomenon. The following
example from everyday life demonstrates the danger of extrapolation. Let us consider a
scenario in which a certain group of people live in a region where the temperature approaches
but never goes below 40C. These people happened to live between 1709 and 1748, which is the
time where alcohol and mercury thermometers were invented but fridges were still not around.
If you were to ask these people whether water would expand or contract upon cooling it below
4
0C, many would adopt the following logic. Based on first-hand experience with thermometers,
heated alcohol would expand and cooled alcohol would contract. The same phenomenon
applies to mercury as well. In the absence of a technology that would drop water’s temperature
below 40C, and since water is a fluid just like alcohol and mercury, then they would extrapolate
that cooling water below 40C results in its contraction. As logical as this extrapolation may
sound under the given scenario, we all know that reality is the complete opposite. Water
expands as its temperature drops between 0 and 40C. Perhaps, you can imagine the heated
debates and arguments that would arise by then about this issue. Within all that noise, one
would ask whether such arguments can be considered “scientific,” and the answer is… NO!
A scientific argument consists of three elements; a claim, evidence, and the reasoning that links
the claim to the evidence. Although their argument consists of a claim and an evidence, their
reasoning does not link the two together. The only claim that the named evidence may support
is that cooled fluids contract within the observed range; i.e. above 40C. Claiming that cooled
water contracts between 0 and 40C is an extrapolation that is not supported with evidence.

The same logic follows in the case of Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolutionists claim that
living organisms changed over the years from one kind to another, which explains biodiversity.
Their named evidence is that change was observed in bacteria, finches, stickleback fish, etc.
Their reasoning is that the change observed in these examples supports the claim that
organisms change from one kind to another. Although their argument has all the three
elements (claim, evidence, and reasoning), their reasoning does not link their claim to evidence.
The named evidence is indeed an evidence for change, but not the extent of change they are
claiming. The change observed in bacteria, for instance, is a change from one bacteria with
certain traits (say sensitivity to an antibiotic) to another bacteria with slightly different traits
(resistance to that same antibiotic). So, it merely changed one/few traits without changing to a
non-bacteria. In other words, this living organism did not change from one kind to another. This
been said, the named evidence “does not support” their claim, given the improper reasoning
utilized. The only claim that the named evidence supports is that living organisms change within
the range of observed changes. Any further extrapolation is not supported with evidence, and
therefore does not constitute a valid complete and scientific argument. Rather, this
extrapolation remains as mere “imagination.”

Dr. Mounir R. Saleh
PhD in Science Education