Is Evolution A Fact?

Steven Jay Gould says yes. "Facts are the world’s data; theories are explanations proposed to interpret and coordinate facts. The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science, though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon." Sounds pretty final, doesn't it. But hear the words of other evolutionists who disagree: Sir Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. It is accepted because the only alternative is creation, and that is unthinkable." W. LeGros Clark: "What was the ultimate origin of man? Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to such questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural." G. A. Kerkut: "The evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis." Not too scientific, so far, eh? What about Darwin's attitude toward the facts: "Concerning Origin of Species, in fact the reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the facts, that’s my feeling."

What About Spontaneous Generation?

That strange term means that life came from non-living matter; that it arose without any mechanism or any creator. Did you know that a law of science (The Law of Biogenesis) says that life cannot come from non-living matter? Then why do modern advocates of evolution accept it? Because they have no choice if they are to maintain their evolutionist views.

Note the words of George Wald of Harvard: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to accept a single act of supernatural creation. There is no third choice. For this reason, many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity." But, to accept that which all science knows does not happen, is that true science? Is that not the depth of hypocrisy? Wald says again: "To make an organism demands the right substances, in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think anything more is needed, but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Kind of hard to believe, is it not? But there is more. Isaac Asimov wrote: "After all, from the mere fact that we are here we are forced to assume that once upon a time, at least one case of spontaneous generation took place, assuming further that one eliminates divine creation from our consideration." Wow, that's hard to believe, is it not? But if you are going to believe in biological evolution, you have to be willing to sacrifice something!

How Did Evolution Happen?

When and where did it begin? For those who believe that evolution is a proven fact, this is a question that must be a tough one. But if you try hard enough you will come up with something. Sir Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule) has postulated that "life was sent here from other planets." Wickramasinghe and Hoyle, not knowing when it happened, have suggested that the where could be answered by the possibility that "life fell to