Darwin’s Scientific Theory of EvolutionIs an Oxymoron
- K Production
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
To understand why Darwin’s Scientific Theory of Evolution is an oxymoron, four definitions need to be established:
The first definition is for a “scientific theory”:
According to The American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world, supported by a large body of facts repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.1
According to ck-12:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence and has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.2
The second definition is for “natural Science”:
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dr. Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University and Dr. Robert Pennock, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Michigan State University both testified in Federal Court, that:
“Methodological naturalism is a ‘ground rule’ of [natural] science which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.”3
The third definition is for an “historical science”:
In the July 2000 issue of Scientific American, Professor Ernst Mayr, Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University from 1961 to 1970 wrote:
“Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science.”4 “Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.”5
The historical science of evolutionary biology includes those past events in nature that cannot be observed, tested, replicated, and verified.
The immediate conditions of an historic event are fixed, set in stone as it were, and they are generalized and will never be precisely known. Thus, the “historical narrative” is “a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario...”6 Since the historical narrative is tentative, it is also speculative.
Past events that cannot be observed, tested, replicated, and verified cannot infer causative agency, that is, they do not and cannot infer a natural cause.
An Historical Science does not conform to the definition of a scientific theory or natural science.
The fourth definition concerns “The Theory of Evolution” which refers to Macroevolution or the generation of Domains, Kingdoms, Phyla, Classes, Orders, Families, Genus, and Species.
This Theory has Two Elements:
There are (1.) random mutations, genetic drift and gene flow which are followed by (2.) the natural selection of those organisms with beneficial mutations.
In this theory, alterations in DNA occur by strictly natural processes such as copying errors and radiation.
In this theory, all events occur within a totally unplanned nature, and all events conform to methodological naturalism.
Any and all activity of a supernatural intelligence is excluded by definition.
The following list contrasts the differences between natural science and historical evolution:
Natural science and scientific theories require physical events that lend themselves to repetition. In contrast, every step in an historical evolution is unique, a one-time event.
Natural science requires natural events that can be observed, tested, replicated and verified. Evolutionary events fall within an historical science where events cannot be observed, tested, replicated and/or verified.
The scientific observation, testing, and replication of regularities requires known proximate conditions. In an historical science, proximate conditions leading to evolutionary changes are not known, and they are not knowable.
Natural science requires events that conform to methodological naturalism, that is, have a natural cause. In an historical evolution, the causative agency is always indeterminate.
Natural science requires events that are certain. The historical narrative of evolutionary events is always tentative and, thus, speculative. Each revision of the historical narrative is also tentative. The narrative never becomes definitive.
Natural science requires events that are reasonably probable. The great majority of evolutionary events are exceedingly improbable.
These differences can be displayed in the following table:
NATURAL SCIENCE | EVOLUTION—AN HISTORICAL SCIENCE |
Regularities | Unique, Single Events |
Observation Possible | Observation Impossible |
Known Proximate Conditions | Unknown and Unknowable Proximate Conditions |
Experimental Manipulation Possible | Historically Fixed Conditions |
Experimental Duplication | Experimental Approximation |
Conclusions are Definitive | Conclusions are Tentative |
Reasonably Probable | Exceedingly Improbable |
Causative Agency is Natural Methodological Naturalism | Causative Agency is Indeterminate |
Excludes Intelligent Agency by Definition | Allows for Intelligent Agency |
Uses “Scientific” Language | Avoids “Scientific” Language |
Scientific Hypothesis Scientific Theory Scientific Research | Hypothesis, Supposition, Proposal Theory, Postulate Research, Investigate, Analyze |
The terms─”scientific theory” and “evolution”─are mutually exclusive and combining them is an oxymoron. A scientific theory refers to natural science. Evolution refers to events occurring within an historical science. Thus, Darwin’s Scientific Theory of Evolution is an oxymoron.
Since evolution is an historical science and does not conform to the definition of natural science or methodological naturalism, it should be removed from all natural science courses.
Move evolution into its own, unique category of study, Biological Origins.
The following conclusions are reached:
1. Darwin’s Scientific Theory of Evolution is an oxymoron.
2. The study of evolution as an historical science exists outside of natural science and should be moved out of the natural sciences and into a free standing course, Biological Origins, where supernatural agency remains on the table.
Endnotes:
3. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2D 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), p. 65.
4. E. Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American, (July 2000), 80, see also 81.
5. Ibid, 80.
6. Ibid, 80.
Fredric P. Nelson, MD © 2025
Comments