The Theory of Evolution Is NOT a Scientific Theory

Defining terms ranks among the most important activities in which scientists, philosophers, and thinkers must engage. It’s not enough to say “evolution is a fact” or “I don’t believe in evolution.” You must define your term because there are different kinds of evolution and you may look silly if the hearer inserts the wrong kind of evolution into the conversation. Do you not believe in micro-evolution, the observable fact that organisms undergo minor changes within species from generation to generation? If you don’t believe that, perhaps you haven’t properly observed your surroundings, and we suggest you begin taking notes on the nature around you.

On the other hand, macro-evolution states that one species evolves into another, different species across thousands or millions of years. This has been called the “Theory of Evolution” and “Darwinian Evolution,” which uses the theorized mechanism of “natural selection.”

That brings us to a second term which demands a strict definition: theory. What is a theory? In normal, every-day terminology we use the term “theory” as an idea inside someone’s head. No empirical facts back it up. It’s quite possibly fanciful and imaginative, not to be taken too seriously.

However, evolutionists quickly explain that a theory in SCIENCE holds a rather different definition. Here is an explanation from

scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.


Outside of science, the definition of a theory is a thought that may or may not be true. In the science community, a scientific theory is defined as a hypothesis or a group of hypotheses about some phenomena that have been supported through research using the scientific method.

You will notice both of these define a “scientific theory” as something which has much scientific support through research and testing (using the scientific method).

If we define “scientific theory” in this way, can we in all honesty and integrity call macro-evolution a scientific theory? Have scientists tested the mechanism of natural selection on the macro level? Sure, we daily observe changes within species–Darwin’s darling was the family of finches he observed in the Galapagos Islands. Some had short beaks, which they used to pick up seeds on the ground. Others had long beaks, which they used to pierce cacti and grab grubs. The different beaks were put to different purposes, but they were all finches.

Scientists have classified 13 or 14 different species of finches among the Galapagos Islands, but it is obvious that all of them came from a common ancestry. Darwin’s finches have become one of the leading tools in promoting the theory of macro-evolution–the idea that one species can give rise to another, different species.

But let’s define species. From

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions….

That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups — but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?

Notice: members of one species cannot interbreed with members of another. This is the major way of defining the boundary of a species. What many evolutionists don’t confess is that at least six of the separate “species” of finches on Galapagos have been observed to interbreed! What we have, then, is not evolution from one species to another but micro-evolution within a species. At the very least, we understand they are all still finches! These have not evolved into some other kind of bird.

In fact, not a SINGLE example of a “missing link” has been documented successfully. Not a single transitional species has been found. You would think that if macro-evolution were true our world would be absolutely covered up with weird and wild plants and animals across the spectrum. I would expect to still have every one of those apes and ape-like creatures you see in the science books illustrating the evolution of man.

So here we stand in the 21st Century without a single observation or test which shows macro-evolution to be true. It may be a theory, but it doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory as defined above, because it cannot be and never has been tested. It should be understood as an idea (a fanciful one, at that) that men have created in their heads.

Others, including Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, have theorized that aliens seeded this world with life. I’d say their theory stands on equal footing with the evolutionists’.