5. The Evidence for the Theory is Irrefutable ==>

5.3. What It Would Take to Disprove Evolution


It should be easy to disprove evolution. All you need is evidence that any one of it's "outrageous" claims isn't true

For example...

There are numerous claims of fossilized footprints from humans or horses found within dinosaur footprints. If true, then they would be evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together in the same locale That would totally discredit all of evolution. BUT, Scientist James Hutchins, referring to human and dinosaur footprints having being found together, says:
"This has been thoroughly refuted to the point that even most creationists no longer spout this groundless claim. The supposedly human tracks have been found to be the result of numerous phenomena which include, but are not limited to: elongated dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings."

  • If some convincing proof were discovered that the radiometric analyses are in error by about a factor of 500,000 or so, and that the earth is fewer than 10,000 years of age, then evolution would be disproved.
  • When fossils are discovered, they are found to be sorted by geological age. Deep rock layers generally contain the remains of simple creatures; the upper layers have evidence of more complex animals. Dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains. And so on for perhaps a million other combinations.

    In order to disprove evolution, it would be necessary to prove that all species co-existed together, and were somehow precisely sorted into layers by species.

    Unassailable Evidence

    The weight of the evidence is overwhelming, from independent lines of research in multiple disciplines.

    You can dismiss one line with some unlikely "explanation" but then, boom; you've got another discipline that supports evolution and you have to come up with another, highly unlikely scenario to explain it away. Pretty soon, you realize that the probability of all your explanations actually being true is zero.

    In dismissing the scientific evidence, you have to disprove some of their fundamental theorems for that is what is used to support the conclusion that evolution happened.

    There is no one place or principle or fact or theory that, if disproved, disproves evolution. It is supported by thousands of facts across multiple (geology, microbiology, palenteology, cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, botany) disciplines.


    Forget Darwin.

    Think for a moment of all the universities in the world.

    Most have departments of Geology, Botany, Biology, Physics and Chemistry. Some have departments of paleontology.


    There must be over 1,000,000 scientists engaged in those disciplines, especially if you count those working in industry.


    These people aren't doing research to "prove" evolution. They are doing research that increases their understanding of their discipline.


    Now, it so happens that their findings, IN THEIR SEPARATE disciplines, like pieces of a puzzle, contribute to the validity of the Theory of Evolution. No new discovery in any of the disciplines contradicts the Theory of evolution, but instead, each discovery confirms, reinforces or extends the collective knowledge about evolution.


    Now, it also so happens that you have a small group, the Discovery Institute's "Center for Science and Culture", publishing papers and books that directly contradict the fundamental principles found in all of the aforementioned disciplines. "Research" that is contrary to established theories. There hasn't been a single discovery in the relevant areas, IN ANY OF THE SEPARATE DISCIPLINES, that doesn't support, reinforce or extend the Theory of Evolution. All these disciplines, coming from different directions, with different agendas, have theories, that when put together, provide a unifying explanation for the theory of evolution. New discoveries, e.g. cell biology, DNA reinforce the theory.


    In order to reject the Theory of Evolution, you also have to reject multiple theories found in Geology, Biology, Botany, Biology, Physics and Chemistry and the entire discipline of paleontology. With the latest developments in cell biology, a whole new confirming discipline has been added to the aforementioned disciplines.

    You have to disavow findings by the National Academy of Science.

    In summary, you have over 1,000,000 scientists whose disciplines independently, from different perspectives, conclude that evolution is a fact. There are about 10 people who publish rubbish saying it didn't.

    IDEA - find the 10-20 "scientists" who are the source of the ID rubbish and point out that everything re ID is from them

    By the way, why aren't there any young earths advocates working for the oil companies? Wouldn't you think their unique perspective could be useful in finding new oil and gas reserves?