Chapter 10: A Knife in the Back

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

Chapter 10 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Many people ask why so many scientists promote evolution.  And I also wonder why they would do so, in spite of the dearth of evidence and its absolute scientific impossibility. It is indeed a curious thing, but there is a logical explanation.


The current status of the scientific study of evolution is exactly like a policeman who does not believe in murder.  Imagine an entire police department which operated under the belief that all events occur only as a result of natural causes. This is the reality of secular atheist scientists today.

The call comes in of a body found in the woods.  All the investigators go to the scene and find the body, with multiple stab wounds and a large butcher knife protruding from the back and blood everywhere at the scene.  The campsite shows signs of a struggle with dozens of broken chairs and utensils.  The tent is collapsed with supports broken and fabric torn.  Of course, when the final report is issued, the cause of death will inevitably, and always be “natural causes.” Why? Because the entire police department ONLY BELIEVES IN DEATH FROM NATURAL CAUSES!

So it is with modern atheistic scientists and their evaluation of the origin of life.  Since they have already ruled out the possibility of divine causation or intervention, they will naturally only find (or evaluate or report) evidence of spontaneous so-called “natural forces”.  They will state that the universe created itself from nothing, using terminology that sounds convincing and scientific, but means nothing.  They will lecture on evolution and how “natural selection drives evolution” and how some “primordial soup” was struck by lightning and life magically appeared.

No amounts of facts can convince the policeman that a murder occurred. They believe only in “natural causes”  No amount of facts… scientific, philosophical, biochemical,  geological, embryological, astronomical, archeological, or otherwise, can convince the atheistic scientist that creation is the result of a Creator, that life is the result of “and God said.” (2)  The atheistic scientific community has as one of its tenets of belief that there is no God.  Therefore when any scientific discovery, or trend, or accumulation of evidence points to a creator, it is summarily rejected. Why?  Not because it is unscientific, but because it fundamentally disagrees with their underlying position.  The position of belief that “there is no God” is a statement of faith.  No more and no less than the statement of belief that “God created everything.”

As a scientist, then, it should not be surprising that there are tens of thousands of persons, highly educated in the sciences, with Ph.D., and MD and other advanced degrees behind their names, who absolutely believe that God formed the universe and established its laws.  They believe God created all life and the cells, structures, organelles, and DNA within the cell. And they are no less scientific or educated than the atheists.


I do not want to use any equivocal, or easily misunderstood terms. However, it is important that we understand what science is, what it does, and when it can be trusted. In what areas is science relatively dependable and where is it much less dependable?

I trust science to measure and quantify a great number of things in my life, such as medications, electrical devices, motor vehicle safety, and explosives. In other areas of life, such as emotions, relationships, and some would say even the weather, science is known to be quite often inaccurate, making almost as many wrong predictions as it makes correct predictions. Let me give just three examples.

  1. Every year here in Florida, the NOAA scientists predict the number and severity of hurricanes expected on the basis of ocean currents, temperatures, and weather patterns. Their accuracy is far from impressive. Often when they predict a terrible year with excessive numbers of hurricanes, we have few and mild hurricanes.  And many times when they predict few, there are many.  Science requires many presumptions, and there are too many interdependent factors.
  2. In medicine, the study and treatment of psychiatric illness had blossomed into an explosion of new medicines. and yet the “epidemic” of depression and mental illness that was noted in the 1980s shows no sign of abating. It is getting WORSE. The human mind, it seems, is not a mere biological computer, easily fixed with an altered “brain chemistry”.  Mental illness is not “just like any other illness”. There is not now, nor will there likely ever be, a “pill for happiness and fulfillment.”
  3. Social scientists and educators have been studying our institutes of higher learning for many decades now. Starting in earnest in the 1960s, they have made drastic changes in the means by which we educate our children and young adults. But virtually anyone can see that our graduates are not better educated. In spite of billions invested, and thousands of “scientific” studies, our place in the modern world of education has steadily declined, and we are now outpaced by nearly all other advanced countries.(3) So much for the benefit of “science”.

Now the fact that I can see failures among our scientific achievements does not mean I am a “science denier”. Far from it. As an ER physician, I use scientific principles every day in the treatment of my patients. I depend on scientific studies in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology, radiology, and a number of other areas to provide the best services I possibly can to my patients. But If I were to believe every report that came down from every drug company, saying that their new drug is fantastic and lifesaving and wonderful, I would be a fool. Science can be wonderful and instructive. But it can also be biased. In fact, pharmaceutical companies are known for picking and choosing their science to make their particular drug appear far more useful than it actually is.

The scientific method can only test existing data. It is good at testing things that are easily and accurately measured, such as pH or acidity or chemical reactions. This type of “here and now” science is sometimes called operational science, or observational science. There is another type of science, sometimes called historical science. This term has often been used by Ken Ham to describe such sciences as geology and archaeology, and indeed to refer to the entirety of Cosmology. Although Ken Ham is quite clear to state that he did not himself originate the terms, nevertheless the distinction is one that Creation Scientists and proponents, like Answers in Genesis, find useful. And as you might expect, pro-evolutionary sites like Rationalwiki, (4) find the terminology upsetting, disturbing, and offensive.

Dr. Johnathan Sarfati, a research scientist from Wellington, New Zealand, puts it this way.  “Many people have the belief that “science” has proven the earth to be billions of years old…  However, science deals with repeatable observations in the present, while evolution/long-age ideas are based on assumptions from outside science about the unobservable past.” (5)

The scientific method becomes much less helpful when things are less easily measured, or when it is making predictions about past or distant future events. Thus studies of emotion, intellect, or thought processes are often inaccurate. Studies of things which happened millions of years ago (so-called historical science), with questions as to the intervening circumstances, are equally suspect. They require many assumptions. And science in any field that is based on assumptions frequently changes when the assumptions are discovered to be false or inaccurate. This will, I hope, allow the reader to begin to differentiate between strong and weak areas of “science”.

Perhaps the best, most concise explanation was by Stephen Grocott.  He explains that we cannot see evolution occurring today and no one was there to observe it in the past, which means it is not observable or testable, and so it is unscientific.  Creation, by these same criteria, is neither observable nor testable, and so is unscientific. He concludes “Given that creation and evolution are both outside the realms of science, why should I, as a scientist, have problems with belief in creation while really being “scientific”?  I don’t.” (6)


(1) Geoff Downs Ph.D., In six days Master Books Publishing, p.333.

(2) Genesis 1:20 NIV



(5)Johnathan Sarfati, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, p. 75.

(6) Stephen Grocott, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, p. 148.





Published by



2 thoughts on “Chapter 10: A Knife in the Back”

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s