It's Not Science - It's Magic

After an amazing science experiment, many of the students were proclaiming the teacher had done "magic." The teacher's response was, "It's not magic - it's science." This statement has been made many times by scientists and teachers in order to give an accurate and appropriate explanation for some of the amazing things we see in our created world.

However, many today have turned this statement on its head. The theory of evolution stands out as an example of scientific dogma that is based more on wishful thinking than on any real science. Often, those who accept evolution have to fall back on "just so" arguments, primarily because they dismiss any possibility of the supernatural and demand a naturalistic explanation of everything. This immediately excludes God from the argument and creates the necessity of some type of explanation, whether there is evidence or not.

Instead of really practicing the scientific method, many "scientists" come up with explanations based on their evolutionary bias and declare them to be true. They might as well say, "It's not science - it's magic." Of course, they will never say that. Instead, they hide behind a smug, arrogant position that those who wear lab coats are always unbiased, open-minded, intellectually honest, and that they only go where the evidence leads them. In many cases, nothing could be further from the truth.

Examination of the evolutionists' logic reveals a process something like this:

Observation #1 - "We are here." (Kind of obvious. Very few would doubt this one, except for those who are not in touch with reality.)

Observation #2 - "We had to have gotten here by some process." (Again, pretty obvious.)

Observation #3 - "Since God does not exist, He could not have done it, and even if He does exist, He had to use evolution to bring us into existence." (Here is where they go astray and jump off the cliff into a pit of willing ignorance and confusion, totally separated from common sense or truth. Any conclusion made on the basis of a false premise will inevitably be false.)

Conclusion - "Evolution is true, and if you disagree with Darwin, you are a scientific heretic." (Maybe kind of like Galileo and Copernicus?)

This kind of "logic" has no place in legitimate science. "Observation" #3 is nothing more and nothing less than an opinion based on wishful thinking rather that evidence. This is the same wishful thinking men have always had relative to the existence of God. "If God does not exist, I get to do as I please. I do not have to answer to an authority over me."

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure (Psalm 2:1-5, NKJV).

Men have always tried to wish God out of existence, but what men believe does not change reality or truth. The main purpose of the whole idea of evolution is to remove God from the picture. Even though it defies common sense and is. therefore, foolish, many hold tenaciously to it.

An evolutionist physicist once wrote: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism … we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997.

Evolutionists really hate it when creationists use Darwin's quote concerning the eye, and they go to great lengths to explain it away. Nevertheless, in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin said the following:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Evolutionists claim that this quote was taken out of context and that Darwin actually answered the "alleged" problem he brought up. The rest of Darwin's paragraph says, "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

Notice the repeated use of the word "if," the conjectural nature of "make me suspect," and the lack of interest in how it happened and how it all began. There is no satisfactory naturalistic answer to the problem of origins, so evolutionists choose to simply ignore it or move the problem elsewhere by claiming life came from outer space. This is another of those conjectures without foundation.

So what did Darwin really say? In my own words, I believe he was actually saying, "It is absurd to believe the eye could have evolved. However, since it exists (after all we are here and God couldn't have done it), then it obviously evolved, so here are some ideas on how it could have happened. It's not science, it's magic." He most certainly did not answer the problem he brought up. All he did was offer conjecture instead of any real solution to the problem.

That reminds me of a "science" textbook I was using in a seventh grade science class. It showed a drawing of a small, furry, sort of strange looking creature. The caption under it said something like, "We believe the common ancestor of both dogs and cats may have looked like this. There is no fossil evidence of such a creature, but if it existed, it probably looked something like this." (Emphasis added.) Now there is an example of science at its finest! No evidence, but lots of belief based on wishful thinking and preconceived ideas. After all, "it's not science, it's magic."

Almost everyone has been exposed to Haeckel’s Embryos in a science class in high school or college, even though his drawings have been known to be fraudulent for a hundred years. He purposely faked the drawings to be more consistent with the theory of evolution. One of the most outspoken advocates for evolution in the United States says this, “It’s clear that Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now, does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution? Not a bit. The whole Haeckel’s embryos story has been greatly blown out of significance. It is a minor footnote in the history of science. And actually it’s been known for ten or fifteen years that Haeckel’s embryos are not to be relied upon. The reason why the diagrams are reproduced is because they’re easily available – there’s no copyright on them – it’s an easy way to illustrate a point. And I would argue that the basic point that’s being illustrated by those drawings is still accurate.” (Eugenie Scott’s statement, recorded on Icons of Evolution, Randolph Productions Inc, 2002.)

How would I paraphrase that statement? "This piece of evidence is clearly wrong, but we use it anyway because it supports our position, and we don't really have anything to replace it. It's not science, it's magic."

Another prominent evolutionist says in his book that the origin of life may have been an "extremely improbable event." (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 135.) Again, his unbelieving heart forces him to conclude that no matter how improbable it may have been, we are here, and God couldn't have done it, so evolution must be true. After all, "It's not science, it's magic." God will not put up with such foolishness forever.

There are really only two options. We can believe in miracles (magic) performed by nothing and no one other than the laws of nature, or we can believe in miracles performed by a miracle-working God. I see no real choice there. The truth is obvious.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day (Exodus 20:11, NKJV).

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible (Hebrews 11:3, NKJV).