Where did the universe and human being come from?  The Bible tells us from its first verse that God created the universe and everything, including forming man from the dust of the ground, in six days.  However, contemporary scientists say the universe started from a Big Bang and formed gradually over thirteen billion years; human being evolved from a single cell through mutation, natural selection and survival of the fittest over hundreds of million years.  Hence, some people believe that the Bible is only a book of religion, it does not accord with science and cannot be trusted.  Only evolution is science. 

Is evolution really science?

To judge whether it is science or not, one should know what science is first.

Science is using scientific method to achieve evidence-based knowledge without bias and/or cheating.  The Encyclopaedia Britannica differentiates science from ignorance and error knowledge, but limited it to the material world and its phenomenon only. 

Scientific methods demand specific requirements, process and scope.  First, collect data by observation and experimentation to formulate hypothesis.  Then, make predictions based on the hypothesis.  Independent testing must be conducted against the hypothesis.  If the predictions are proven true through repeat testing and confirmation, then the hypothesis can become a theory.  If not, the hypothesis has to be discarded or revised. A revised hypothesis must go through the whole cycle, observation, experimentation and testing, all over again.

Does evolution fulfill all these requirements?

If evolution belongs to natural science, it must be studied and tested by scientific methods.  However, the origin of the universe and human race was a historical event.  It happened only once, was not observed and cannot be repeated.  Hence, evolution cannot utilize scientific method to achieve few, if any, demonstrable truths or observable facts.  For example, if a scientist found a wristwatch at roadside he can use scientific methods to find out that the gear, gossamer, bearing, spring and watch case are made of metal, plastic and glass and the function of the watch is chronometry.  He can also come to the conclusion that it was designed and made by human being because such a complex and delicate device does not exist naturally or cannot be produced by itself.  Apart from this, he cannot use scientific method to determine that it was designed and made by whom and when, unless such information was recorded on the watch.

Science only recognizes the observable material world and its phenomenon within the universe.  Evolution denies and rejects all that cannot be observed by scientific methods.

Human being is bounded by the 4-dimensional time/space universe.  Science knows nothing beyond our universe, the spiritual world and the possible existence of other multi-dimensional space.  It is like a frog in a well, looking to the sky, arrogantly saying that there is no other world beyond the well. 

Even within a given universe, to observe different objects requires the appropriate instruments.  It is impossible neither to see with ear nor to listen with eye.  It is also impossible to observe the spiritual world using the material instrument, thus cannot conclude that there is no spiritual world.

While net fishing small fish, if the net hole is larger than the fish, then obviously the small fish would never be caught.  Not being able to catch small fish cannot prove that there is no small fish.  Modern science claims that there are 23% dark matter and 75% dark energy within the universe that science cannot observe.  Science can observe only 4% of the universe.  Within this 4%, what science recognized is merely its 1%.  Science can prove the existence of the observable, yet cannot, and should not, deny the existence of the unobservable.     

Since science is changing progressively, it can only represent the current knowledge, thus science is not an absolute true and standard.

No one will deny that science is continuously improving.  What does improvement represent?  First, it is achieving new knowledge.  The previously unknown becomes known; the impossible becomes possible.  Second, it is correcting previous errors.  After gaining more knowledge, things that previously thought correct have now be proven  wrong and need to be corrected.  Hence, science is changing because it is continuously advancing.

For example, regards to scientific estimation of earth’s age. Since evolutional process cannot be observed in practical life, evolution requires very long period of time for its theoretical foundation.  Following the improved knowledge of human body structure, especially the complicated cell and DNA, the time needed for evolution is getting even longer.  The age of the earth estimated by scientists is also adjusted to be older and older.  It used to be 20 million years old in mid-19th century, 90 million years in early 20th century, 3.35 billion years in mid-20th century and 4.5 to 5 billion years as of now.  The age estimation has increased by four billion years within the span of a century.  The age of the earth was regarded to be correct at each time period and was published in textbooks, scientific literatures and media reports as a fact but was later revised a few decades.  Who knows, today’s data will become incorrect as well after a few decades or even few years?  Hence, science can only represent current level of knowledge, cannot be used as an absolute standard to judge the correctness of everything.

Same object may get different interpretation.

Since the origin of universe and human being cannot be directly proven by scientific methods, the only way is to search for indirect evidence with logical analysis and inference.

When observing a same object, before this object is fully understood, it is common that different opinions are formed.  For instance, two similar looking people are frequently considered as relatives, even siblings.  Yet they may have no blood relation at all.  On the other hand, twins may look totally different.  GODISNOWHERE can be interpreted as “God is nowhere”, but it can also be “God is now here” with opposite meanings. The anatomical similarity between human and animal may be interpreted as evolved from the same ancestor, or created by the same designer and/or creator.  It is normal for different peoples to have different opinions; their ideas should be fully expressed and compared to establish a correct answer.  However, the contemporary science only recognizes evolution, totally rejects other interpretation, even not allowing to discussion in school or scientific journal.  This is not a correct scientific attitude. 

Evolution lacks of scientific evidence.

Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  Darwin avoided talking this subject in his book The Origin of Species.  All the living creatures are created after their kind without transition just as the Bible said.  Darwin admitted that the fossil of transitional stage during evolutional process is the missing link; it is still missing even now.  For the complicated organ, such as the eye, the evolution hypothesis is still lacking of scientific evidence.  Facing the development of science and understanding of DNA, it is not only more difficult to explain, but also statistically impossible.

A renowned British Atheist Professor Flew believed in evolution for 50 years and had numerous publications of evolution.  However, after observing the complicated life scientifically, he admitted that all the parts of a functional living cell have to exist at the same time.  It is impossible that such complicated arrangement of life was accidentally produced by a natural process; it has to be involved by certain intelligent force.  This is the only explanation for the origin of life and universe and is also supported by scientific evidence.  Hence, he decided that God does exist.

Scientists may have bias, errors and frauds.

Science needs scientists to explain.  If the scientist has basis built on an incorrect hypothesis or has his own benefit in mind, he may have errors and/or bias and thus intentionally or unintentionally promote the explanation that is beneficial to him, while suppress other opposing theories.  This would lead to incorrect conclusion.  In clinical pharmaceutical study a gold standard of research design, the double blind controlled study where neither the researcher nor the participant knows if the sample is medicine or placebo, must be used in order to achieve an unbiased conclusion.  Unfortunately, while explaining the collected data, the contemporary scientific world presets the guideline to match the billions of years’ evolution theory and to totally rule out the supernatural intervention.   If a scientist does not follow this guideline, he will be supplanted or even fired. 

Since it is difficult to find evidence for evolution, some scientists manipulate data making deceptive reports, suppress or exclude unfavorable results for their own reputation and advantage.  If the favorable results cannot be achieved, they even fake the report.  The following are only some examples of proven frauds. 

Based on only one tooth, with the help of artists’ imagination, it became the Nebraska man and his family.  They were depicted as the missing link  in the textbook and exhibition all over the world for many years.  Finally, the tooth was identified as belonged to an extinct pig.

The Piltdown man was a grand hoax!  It was identified as the 500 million years old missing link.  However, forty years later, it was proved to be a combination of modern human skull cap and chimpanzee lower jaw.  The teeth had been filed and the fragments stained. 

Recapitulation, or embryonic similarities, always is one of evolution’s main basis.  Hackel made a chart in 1868 showing that there were similarities among early embryos of fish, reptiles, birds, mammal and people and was quoted in textbooks as evolutional evidence.  He was soon charged with fraud and admitted that he changed their shapes and sizes up to 10 times to make them look alike.  Unbelievable, after he admitted the fraud, his chart is still in the textbooks for more than hundred years, even recently.     

The change of pepper moth is also a classic of evolution.  According to evolution, after mid-19th century, due to the industrial revolution, the atmosphere in England was polluted and turned the tree trunk into black.   The white pepper moth that stayed on the tree trunk was easily seen and eaten by birds and the black pepper moth survived.  After 1950, air pollution improved.  The tree trunk returned white and the white pepper moth became dominant again.  This black/white pepper moth picture was in the textbook for years as the evidence of natural selection.  In fact, this kind of moth rests only at night but not on the tree trunk.  The moth on the tree trunk was pinned to the tree purposely.  Even if such change happens, it is variation within kind, not evolution.    

In 1999, the renowned magazine National Geography published the so called missing link of evolution, a “dinosaur bird” fossil, from China.  This discovery greatly encouraged the evolutionists.  Unfortunately, it was proven a hoax.  The fossil was spliced by half bird and half dinosaur.  The magazine had to make correction later but printed in very small letters.  

As shown above, evolution does not meet the requirements of science and is not science.  Even science itself has limitations, incompletion and errors and can be affected by prejudice.  Hence, it cannot be used as an absolute truth and standard to judge if something is correct or not.  On the other hand, the Bible maintains its correctness for thousands of years with no change and still has no conflict with science.  It is superior than science yet science cannot deny it.  Science can only discover, observe, and apply natural laws.  It cannot further explain why or change the natural laws; only God who created the entire universe and natural laws can.  Einstein used to say: “Some people think that religion is not in line with scientific truth. I am a man of science research, I deeply know that today's science can only prove the existence of some kind of object, but cannot prove the absence of certain things.”.  Hence, need not to say, whether evolution is science or not is self-evident.