An interesting subject...
Is the theory of evolution true?
Evolution does a great job of explaining how life adapts and changes with time. Over the past century, the theory has been verified by countless experiments and observations. So is the scientific evidence supporting evolution irrefutable?
To answer this question, it is first necessary to understand the two assumptions on which science is based. The first is that man can accurately observe his surroundings and formulate laws to describe it (the observable axiom). The second is that every event that has happened, is happening or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics or biology (the naturalistic axiom). Science requires both axioms to function properly.
Within scientific circles, the theory of evolution must be true because science has no way to disprove it. When science assumes that all events have a naturalistic explanation, it also assumes that the theory of evolution is true. The naturalistic axiom does not allow scientists to consider the possibility that perhaps God used evolution as a tool to create life. Science simply assumes that this possibility is false; As a result, scientific experiments focus on how evolution happens not whether or not the theory is true.
The naturalistic axiom allows science to do some very interesting things. For example, science has yet to figure out how life originated. Using the naturalistic axiom for justification, this major flaw in evolutionary theory has been quietly swept under the rug. As a result, today very few scientists are involved in origins research and the origin of life will likely remain a mystery.
Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Here the scientific community has chosen to do something completely different. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer models to look at this issue a Creationist. This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings.
This behavior may at first seem odd. But there is a good explanation for it. Natural selection and chance (even given 100 trillion years to operate) do not seem to be able to explain the evolution of the first genes and proteins. This observation threatens the very nature of science because it calls attention to the fact that the naturalistic axiom might just be a faulty assumption. The truth is no longer important because the scientific establishment must preserve the axioms on which it is based. Thus, scientists who do not have faith in the naturalistic axiom are labeled Creationists and their theories about evolution are dismissed as cleverly disguised forms of religion.
