If any non-specific test is performed, the information it provides may offer no relative information
in proving the hypothesis.
An example would be measuring the air temperature when trying to determine the shape of the
Earth. This test would not be focused on the aspects that would ascertain whether the Earth
has a shape other than being flat. It may only serve as clarification that the ambient
temperature could be ruled out as a factor that would have an effect on the Earth‟s shape. It is
important to note that the tests that are performed should be repeatable and should provide
results that can be repeated, every time they are performed. In the “shape of the Earth”
example that we are considering, a scientist may look for a way to test whether there is a
possibility of the Earth not being flat. The first question the scientist would have to consider is:
“How would I measure the shape of the Earth?” and secondly, “Where would I find a true
representation of the shape of the Earth that I can view from my vantage point, which is on the
Earth itself?” The scientist may initial y struggle to come up with an answer for either question.
Where to start and how to go about measuring the shape of the Earth, if the Earth is so vast?
At some point however, while looking for answers, he may see some ants walking on a huge
boulder. To the scientist, the boulder, although not perfectly spherical, may seem like a round,
semi-spherical object. He may then think, looking at the ant, that the ant probably sees the
boulder as being flat, just as most people view the Earth and that it has to do with perspective
and perception. He may then think: “If the Earth has similar properties in relationship to me, as
the boulder has to the ant, I should be able to prove that it is not flat by travelling in one direction
and at some point I should be back where I started. The only problem is that I do not have
money for a boat to travel the oceans. I need to find a more economic method to measure the
shape of the Earth.”
After studying the ant on the boulder, he has a brilliant idea: “If I could find something that could
be considered as being straight (like a ruler) and then measure the horizon, I might be able to
prove my hypothesis.” The scientist may try this and find that his results are inconclusive –
there are too many mountains and valleys influencing the results. He then gets another brilliant
idea to go to a spot where he has a good view of the ocean. The ocean does not have valleys
or mountains that could affect his measurements and will provide a more representative shape
of the Earth to measure against. Then, using the horizon in front of him (the line that forms
between the surface of the ocean and the sky) he has found a valid location where he can
perform an accurate measurement. He reasons that for best results, he should attempt to view
as large a portion of the ocean as possible, to increase his perspective. Measuring should
therefore be done on a calm day with good visibility (to increase the distance at which the
horizon can be viewed) and to avoid external influences from the weather (limiting visibility or
rough seas) on the experiment. (The ocean‟s surface can be considered a good representation
of the actual shape of the Earth, as the water should be levelled out on the surface). If the ruler
is then held up and the shape of the horizon is compared with that of the ruler, the scientist will
notice that the shape of the horizon differs slightly from that of the ruler and that there is some
curvature evident in the results that are obtained. (i.e. if one lines up one corner of a ruler with a
point on the horizon where the ocean‟s surface meets the sky, and also do the same for the
opposite corner on the ruler, the centre of the ruler will not cover the ocean in the middle and a
slight bulge will be noticed in the middle of the ruler where the ocean would rise above the
ruler.)
The scientist can then repeat this experiment from a different location overlooking a different
ocean to obtain additional sets of data. He could do the measurements at different times of the
day and even different seasons to ensure that different conditions are met - summer, winter,
early in the morning, at noon, in the afternoon, in differing weather conditions - where the same
facts can be viewed. He can also make use of other measuring instruments (differing lengths of
rulers and other straight objects) to prove both repeatability of the experiment and accurate
results for different locations and conditions.
Analyse Data
Once the scientist has collected sufficient sets of data, he can then examine the data and draw
some conclusions. If the information shows that in all cases the shape of the oceans show
curvatures, the scientist can conclude that the Earth must have a shape, other than being flat.
Taking measurements, as described above, obviously does not convey much information, but it
may prove to assist the scientist in forming new hypotheses.
New hypotheses will result in new experiments. It will assist the scientist to obtain more
information to illuminate the subject and improve the accuracy, showing how results match or
differ from the hypothesis.
Finally, it may be possible to establish that the Earth is not only flat, but also spherical, which
could be concluded from measuring the shape of the oceans from different directions and
different locations. It is always advantageous to employ different testing methodology to
increase the resolution that is obtained from the result and assist the scientist in drawing a more
accurate conclusion. One type of test alone may not provide sufficient information to prove a
hypothesis as true.
Interpret Data
Once the collected data has been analysed by the scientist, he will then have information that
can be compared with the hypothesis. If the data matches the hypothesis in all cases and takes
into consideration the effects of all external influences, the hypothesis will be seen as proven -
although, as humans, our ability to understand will always be limited to some degree, due to our
dimensionality and locality. The next statement is very important in science and without
diligently applying it to any subject being researched, the scientific method is voided and results
can no longer be considered proper science. If any fact is obtained that goes against any of the
results that the hypothesis is expecting to achieve, the hypothesis is proven incorrect and the
scientist will have to construct a new hypothesis.6
In our example above, the scientist will compare the shape that the ocean forms with the sky on
the horizon to that of something that he knows is straight, i.e. a ruler. He will notice the
difference between the calibrated standard and the test subject and will conclude that the shape
of the Earth cannot be flat, since the shape of the horizon differs from that of the ruler which is
straight or flat. The finding only tells him that the shape of the Earth does not seem to be flat.
Without some trigonometry, it will not provide much information, other than confirm ing that the
shape of the earth is not flat. The scientist‟s hypothesis, based on his results thus far, is
therefore considered true, until evidence to the contrary is provided that would prove that the
Earth‟s shape is indeed flat – which we today know, is not possible.
Publish Results
The scientist may then publish a paper on his finding with all relevant information pertaining to
the subject. In his paper, the scientist will include the reasoning behind his hypothesis; how he
conducted the experiments and what his final results were. He would also need to mention any
aspects that he would consider as external influences or factors that may have distorted his
results, for instance that although he measured ambient temperature, it had no effect on the
experiment. This is then available to the scientific community for scrutiny.
Retest
Once the scientist publishes his findings, peer reviews will follow. During this time a number of
other scientists, interested in the same field of study, may elect to c onduct similar experiments
to see if their results are similar to that of the original scientist. They may want to conduct
additional experiments to test aspects the original scientist did not consider or may have
overlooked. They may opt to test the theory by travelling around the world and see if they can
get back to the same place they started from, by following the Sun.
Unlike the first scientist, they may have funding for such an undertaking. If they are able to
provide conclusive results that they were able to travel around the world and not fall off the
Earth, until they arrived back at their starting point, by travelling in one direction only, they would
have provided more conclusive evidence and additional resolution for the original hypothesis .
They may also be able to calculate roughly the circumference of the Earth, based on their travel
speed and the time it took to circumnavigate the Earth.
This is only a simple example, but will hopefully serve to explain the process of scientific
research to those who are not familiar with it.
We would then also have to ask ourselves: What are the differences between Hypotheses and
Theories? A Hypothesis is a “best guess” or a tentative explanation by an observer who is
asking a question about a subject and describes his ideas on the properties of a specific subject
to the best of his knowledge.22 It also serves as a guide in experiments that are performed to
obtain a better result. It does not mean that it is necessarily correct.
A “Theory” is an explanation of general principles under which a subject would operate and
would also provide considerable facts to support this.22 Both a theory and a hypothesis are only
valid as long as all evidence that is collected continues to support the said theory or hypothesis.
As explained earlier: If any piece of information becomes available that goes against the theory
or hypothesis, even if the theory had been viewed as true for centuries by most people, the
theory or hypothesis, as proposed, is disproven and has to be revised or discarded.
Science Today
There are many theories today that have been researched in great detail, having volumes of
provable facts in the form of supporting evidence to maintain the status of proven scientific
theory. According to Chomsky, even living in a technological advanced society, there remains
some theories out there that are really nothing more than enforced viewpoints or abstractions of
information that are being forced into the minds of society via channels such as the media.23
These enforced viewpoints are sometimes covertly controlled and portrayed as facts by the
media, the scientific community, government and other groups. This is done so convincingly
and with such assertiveness, that even scientific evidence which clearly disproves accepted
theories, are blatantly rejected and coined as uneducated viewpoints or old-fashioned beliefs.
At the same time, should a person elect to adopt an opposing viewpoint to that held by the
majority, they are quickly silenced, either through ridicule, rage or rejection. Thus any evidence
they have to support their views, is denied any media exposure, just because it does not
conform to the mainstream viewpoint.
Keeping an open mind and pursuing the truth is no longer a matter of concern or even a priority.
Looking at this situation objectively, one has to wonder what or who is behind all of this? What
are the motives for wanting people to blindly cling to fallacies that have evidence accumulating
against them and which can no longer be objectively considered scientific? What are the
motives for doing so and why keep on believing in something that is proven false?
The Theory of Evolution is a good example of such an instance. When considering life, the
Universe and where everything around us came from, one would normally side with one of two
options: You either believe that the Universe, our solar system and life on Earth, came to be as
a matter of chance and that Evolution explains the reason for the diversity of life on our planet;
or you believe that a Creator was responsible for creating the Universe and life as we see it
today.24
Either way, whichever view you adopt, it will have a profound impact on the way you perceive
the evidence presented and found in the world around us today. It will also affect your
assumptions regarding the evidence and how to interpret it to fit the view or philosophy that you
have adopted. Let us look at these two viewpoints and consider them from a scientific basis.
The Theory of Evolution
The hypothesis that life spontaneously developed on Earth over extended periods of time,
spanning into billions of years, was coined the Evolution Theory and is said to have emerged
with the publishing of Charles Darwin‟s “The Origin of Species” in 1859.25 Actually, the idea of
Evolution is much older than this, as we will demonstrate later. Darwin noticed that many
varieties of organisms within a species occurred over time and believed that these differences
were a result of natural selection or the survival of the strongest. He also believed that the
same mechanism was at work to produce the diverse varieties of life-forms that we have on
earth today. From his observations he concluded that all life-forms had to come from a common
ancestor, millions of years ago.
With the introduction of the Theory of Evolution, many people who previously accepted the
account of the Creation as true (as it is described in the book of Genesis in the Bible) now had
to deal with new, seemingly true, but unverifiable information about our origin. This resulted in a
number of forced questions and paradigm shifts being introduced into people‟s minds. People,
who previously had no doubts about the validity of the information as presented in the Bible,
were now confronted with a situation in which they had to make a choice. They had to choose
between an account of Creation as described in an old religious book - the validity of the
information contained in the Bible, questioned by many and seemingly difficult to prove truthful -
or the scientific findings of people who seemingly have more up-to-date knowledge of the
matter. Their studies are also more recent and involved more advanced techniques than those
applied in the writing of the Bible, would probably provide a more reliable basis for truth. How
does one then go about choosing the correct version - if either of these could even be
considered correct - and what does one use as a basis for belief in making that choice? These
are some of the issues I would like to address in the next few chapters.
The Evolution Theory altered and transformed the thoughts and concepts people previously
held about where we came from, what our purpose is while we are on Earth and what will
happen to us when we pass away. Today the Theory of Evolut ion is said to be accepted as true
by the majority of members of the scientific community and also regarded as a proven and
accepted science by vast numbers of people in the general population.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Evolution is the only option currently taught in
most public schools and the Creation account is no longer supported and in some cases even
forbidden to be discussed in many schools.26 A person in the scientific community would lose
his credibility if he should change his view from being Pro-Evolution to that of Pro-Creation - he
would find himself and his career at a dead-end.
When you switch your TV to the National Geographic channel, you will often encounter
programs in which dates are quoted that go back millions, if not billions, of years. Keeping in
mind that theories should always be formed by applying the scientific method to distinguish facts
from fiction, a question which immediately comes to mind is: How did these scientists go about
obtaining accurate answers for the dates that are thrown at you every few minutes?
If the commentator states with confidence that a specific event occurred 82 million years ago,
how do they guarantee that this date is accurate and what are the margins for error? Are they
sure this was 82 million years ago or could it have been 74 million years ago, or even 106
million years, maybe? Furthermore, how do they know for certain that conditions on Earth have
remained 100% constant over these long periods of time? How do they account for possible
changes that may have occurred, either cosmic or terrestrial, which we cannot account for
today, given our dimensional limitations? Is it possible to accurately date anything, when we
have no idea of how conditions on Earth may have changed over time? How do we know how
possible changes may have influenced the way we date a specimen or rock strata today?
Many people would immediately refer to radiometric dating to confirm these dates, but this has
also been proven to be totally unreliable.27 To explain what happens with radiometric dating, is
to compare it to a situation in which athletes are running a marathon. You arrive at the track
with the race already underway and the timekeeper comes to you and gives you his watch and
tells you to keep the time. When you look at the watch, you see that it does not have a
stopwatch; it only gives the time at that moment as five minutes past one in the afternoon.
The watch does not tell you how many laps the runners have completed, or when the race
actually started. You do not even know by looking at the watch, whether it is accurate or
whether it is losing or gaining time. One cannot tell whether the race has just started or whether
it is close to the end. By looking at the runners‟ performance one may get an idea of the
situation by evaluating their stamina or their perspiration, but this could be very misleading,
since it might be a hot and humid day. You have no idea when the race started and any opinion
about conditions on the track and the condition of the runners will be pure speculation.
With radiometric dating, the situation is very similar. Scientists will do radiometric dating on an
object and then apply a philosophy for explaining the “time” that is given on the watch. We can
only evaluate objects in the present and we have no way of knowing what influences may have
impacted on the object over time. Conditions on Earth may have changed considerably - even
in recent history, as we will later demonstrate - and there may have been cosmological
influences on the Earth that are not accounted for in the conclusions that are drawn. There are
also many examples of radiometric dating methods that provide totally unreliable information.
These could include different body parts of the same animal being tested and dated in such a
way that it even differs by many millennia.28
In other cases live specimens have been tested and said to be several thousands of years old.
In most cases radiometric dates, that do not match the expected dates of a scientist‟s
hypothesis, are rejected, and only those that match the hypothesis, are used. This is not good
science according to the scientific method. For something to be scientifically valid; one should
be able to extract repeatable results from tests that are performed and any techniques
employed, should provide at least accurate results on lab samples for which the expected age
of the specimen is well known.
If you are to put your faith in a methodology that is giving semi-random results, can you really
rely on it as a solid basis for dating a specimen? Would it be accurate to assume that the
conditions that we encounter on Earth today are exactly the same as the conditions of a few
million years ago? If changes did occur, what were they and how did they impact the Earth and
life on it? When did they occur and what tests could be carried out to test the conditions of the
past?
These are all unknowns that clearly stand out as issues, which will affect the validity of claims
that are made about conditions on the Earth in the past. They are, nevertheless, overlooked
completely when presenting information as “Evolutionary facts”.
Imaginary historic events said to have occurred millions of years ago are consistently presented
without providing scientific proof. It is actually very amusing to hear these people talk about the
correctness of their dates for which they were able to accurately determine the age of a
specimen. These “facts” are speculative only. There exists no reliable and repeatable method
of collecting data for events that occurred in the distant past by which we could measure the
accuracy of the dates that are flung at us in documentaries about the Earth‟s history or the
conditions that existed on Earth. The reason I say this, is because nobody living today is able to
identify all of the factors that would have worked in on a specimen that is analysed, especially if
a scientist claims that it is billions of years old.
Scientists cannot be sure, or prove, that conditions on the Earth remained unchanged over time
as they theorise it should have. They have no way of knowing or proving that cosmological
influences and effects on the Earth would have remained unchanged over billions of years.
These are all aspects that need to be considered if the scientific method is to be properly
applied. If these aspects are not properly considered, evaluated and tested when performing an
investigation, we can be sure that the conclusions will be erroneous.
Darwin surmises in his book that because of the differences that occur in specific kinds of
animals, all life on Earth must have spontaneously evolved from a common ancestor. This he
based on his observations of the diversity that is evident in many different species. He also
assumed that natural selection, which is the concept that suggests that only the strongest of a
species would survive, was the process responsible for this phenomenon. From this Darwin
then concluded that this process also led to one species evolving into the next, from primitive to
more advanced life forms. Furthermore, he implied that it would have taken billions of years for
these changes to have occurred. There is, however, no evidence for this, other than that of
micro-evolution, mutations or variation within species which occurs today. If all the facts are
considered, as the theory proposes, there are many loose ends - absence of evidence that is
expected to be found abundantly according to the hypothesis - even provable facts that go
directly against what the theory would have you believe. Yet, these theories are held as the
only acceptable explanation for our existence and any opposing theory, such as that of
Creation, is suppressed and given little or no exposure today.
Let us consider some of the foundations on which the Theory of Evolution is built and compare
it with known facts that can now be proved:
The Geologic Column
One of the pillars on which Evolution relies, is what is known as the Geologic Column.29 To the
man in the street, one of the most impressive arguments for an ancient Earth is the testimony of
sedimentary-rock layers (many of which are hundreds of feet thick) found all over the planet.
These contain fossils of animals and organisms that supposedly lived millions of years ago.
According to the Evolution Theory, life emerged out of a pre-biotic soup from which the building
blocks of life came together and accidentally formed the first life form. This life form then
evolved over millions of years into more complex life forms through the process of natural
selection.30
The different strata, or layers of rock, are especially evident in locations such as the Grand