The acclaimed research journal Science has published its picks for the top ten scientific breakthroughs of 2008.¹ The number one breakthrough was the manipulation of body cells into an embryonic state, thereby producing induced pluripotent stem cells. Geneticists hope that these will supply stem cells to test and treat diseases without the needless destruction of human embryos.

Also making the list are planets that have been directly detected for the first time outside of earth’s solar system, cancer-causing genes pinpointed through genome research, and the development of iron-based materials that work their superconductive magic at up to 56 degrees Kelvin. Additional discoveries include major advances through the use of powerful computers in laser video microscopy, protein modeling, and particle physics modeling.

Each of the breakthroughs came about through quality empirical science, with researchers employing the scientific method to discover how natural phenomena work. It is significant that none of these breakthroughs required an evolutionary framework for any part of their discoveries—not for the development of their hypotheses, not for the testing of those hypotheses, and not for their results or conclusions. If evolution is truly to be regarded as essential to empirical science and a necessary component of science education, then why were its tenets irrelevant, by virtue of their conspicuous absence, to the top scientific discoveries of 2008?

As one evolutionist explained, “Darwinism is unique among scientific theories. Because it attempts to explain not only events in the outside world but also man's origins and his place in those events, Darwinism straddles the gap between philosophy and science, between faith and reason, in a way no other scientific theory does.”²

In fact, Darwinian evolution is so unique in these regards that it is largely outside the realm of empirical (testable) science.³ Most of it is not scientific, but instead imposes a limited way of thinking about origins that excludes the supernatural, even when the evidence points to a supernatural cause. In this regard, it falls under the category of philosophy—or religion. The aspects of evolution that are testable have been tested and found untrue by good science.⁴ Therefore, not only is Darwinian evolution not science, it is also a poor philosophy and a false history.

The top breakthroughs offered by Science are the fruits of quality empirical science, and as such are consistent with the Christian worldview on which modern science was founded.⁵ As Scripture encourages us, “Speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee.”⁶

References

1. Breakthrough of the Year: The Runners-Up. Science. 322 (5909): 1768. Posted online at sciencemag.org December 19, 2008, accessed December 23, 2008. 
2. Leith, B. 1982. The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism. London: Collins, 9.
3. Morris, H. M. 2001. Evolution Is Religion—Not Science. Acts & Facts. 30 (2).
4. Gish, D. 1981. Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation. Acts & Facts. 10 (6).
5. Snow, E. V. 1998. Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science? Acts & Facts. 27 (4).
6. Job 12:8.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Article posted on January 6, 2009.