Is Evolutionism a faith or science?

Question

Many other prominent scientists who are evolutionists admit that evolution theory is not really science. For instance, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, Dr. L. Harrison Matthews made the amazingly frank admission that evolution was faith, not science:


The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

Definitions of evolutionism on the Web:

theory of evolution: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Evolutionism is any one of a number of theories that the form and nature of living things that exist at a given time are natural (unplanned) outgrowths of those that existed before, and the first living things arose by random events in an abiotic world. By "nature" one means the biochemistry, histology, genetic complement, etc. An evolutionist is a proponent of evolutionism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micro-mutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claim that biological creation occurred in that way. The philosophically important part of the Darwinian theory - its mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before - is therefore not really empirical science at all, but rather a deduction from naturalistic philosophy.

In conclusion, to say that Harrison Matthews felt that belief in evolution was comparable to belief in special creation is a grotesque misrepresentation. In reality, he felt that evolution itself was a fact beyond dispute, and in none of his writings that I've examined is there even the slightest hint that faith was required to accept it as true. However, he didn't believe that natural selection had been demonstrated to be the universal mechanism for evolution, and accepting it as such was what required faith. It is the ambiguity of the phrase "theory of evolution", as opposed to "fact of evolution" in the sentence before it, that the quote-miner has taken advantage of to cast doubt upon Matthews' belief in evolution itself. And, as Michael Ruse wrote in his initial response to me, regarding Matthews' quarrel with Sir Gavin de Beer, "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made".

Answer 1

This quote better represents Mathews views on evolution:

Mendel showed that inheritance is particulate, that 'factors' in the genotype transmit the characters expressed by the phenotype. This discovery, combined with the growing knowledge of the chromosomes and their behaviour in the maturation of reproductive cells, was the basis of the modern discipline of genetics, which revealed how evolution by natural selection of random changes in the factors or 'genes' or in their permutations and combinations proceeds. ...

During the last fifty years genetics has unravelled many of the extremely complex phenomena of inheritance, and has show that evolution by natural selection of random mutations, generally of small size, is a logical explanation of the origin of the immense array of organisms now and in the past living on earth. The theory is so plausible that most biologists accept it as though it were a proven fact, although their conviction rests upon circumstantial evidence; it forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.

Answer 2

1971? And who is Dr Matthews? Biology based on evolution?

Were you asleep in high school or just home schooled? You do realize that there are hundreds of thousands of fossils including transnationals? You also realize that science is reviewed by peers with those peers "dieing" to tear apart shoddy, unproven work? I suggest you actually do some research before you spout nonsense based on your ignorance.

Oh... answer to the question: science. Sorry I was so shocked at the lack of anything resembling a fact or reason...

Answer 3

First of all, that reference is to some scientist from over 30 years ago. Evolution was not as backed up at that time as it is today. Any smart scientist will tell you that evolution has occurred. They only debate HOW it occurred. Natural selection is one of those debated mechanisms.

Answer 4

Gravitation is only an unproven theory, but if someone lets go of a big rock above your head you are wise to get out of the way.

There is no proof of evolution, and there is no proof of creationism. But there is a wealth of interlocking *evidence* that suggests very strongly that our concept of evolution is broadly correct. There is no evidence whatsoever of creationism, apart from an ancient middle-Eastern myth.

Answer 5

No, this is just a dishonest quote mine. Creationists lie. Too bad he was discussing the state of science in 1863.
The second half is quoted in the absence of the first, as an attempt to imply it is the state of things a century later.

Answer 6

It takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in creation. The Bible says that "Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that we are without excuse." Romans 1:20.

Those who have a true knowledge of God will not be so infatuated with the "laws of matter" or the "operations of nature" as to overlook or refuse to acknowledge the continual working of God in nature. The Lord puts His own Spirit into the seed, causing it to spring into life. Under His care the germ breaks through the case enclosing it and springs up to develop and bear fruit!

"Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Where shall I flee from Your presence?" Psalm 139:7.

The Bible says that we are blind and that we don't know it! Revelation 3:17. That would explain why we are exhorted to ask for the "eyesalve" that the eyes of our understanding may be anointed that we may see the invisible! Revelation 3:18.

Answer 7

"Evolutionism" is a made-up term. Evolution in itself is not a faith. Evolution is a scientific theory that some people choose to reject and some people choose to incorporate into their beliefs.

And really ... there is plenty of evidence that point towards evolution, even if it can't be proven in its entirety.

Answer 8

Faith. That was easy.
All of the proclaimed 'evidence'for evolution has been proven to be falsified or just non-existent.
A few examples; Piltdown man,a fraud.
Peking man;'scientifically'built from one tooth;later foun to be the tooth of a pig! l.o.l.
Even Stephen Hawking acknowledges;"the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us"
Heagal's picture of the embryo's development in the womb 're-enacting'the evolution of man proven; to be false.So much 'evidence' desperately thrown together and wilfully falsified,Why is that?
Perhaps the reality that we have a creator who holds us accountable for our actions is too much for the 'free thinkers'to handle.

Answer 9

1. Evolutionism is not a word. Start talking english, not gibberish.

2. Evolution is science. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to school.

3. Until you can understand 1 and 2, you've invalidated everything you've said after.

Answer 10

Science.