Evolution cannot be proven scientifically

The recent letters stating that evolution is a theory proved beyond any doubt, that it is unquestionably "a fact" and that it's capable of being tested scientifically prove its validity is untrue.

A growing number of naturalistevolutionary scientists privately question the validity of the theory. These are scientists who do not believe in design theory or creationism; they are evolutionists. To quote a few, let's start with a personal letter written by Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London. He writes to author L. Sunderland, "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why stages should be favored by natural selection. But stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

This quote can be found in Sunderland's book "Master Books," page 89. By true science we mean it is testable.

The theory of gravity is testable simply by dropping a pen. We see it in action. Evolutionary theory is not able to be empirically proven. Paul Ehrlich, professor of biology, University of Stanford, writes "Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. Thus it is 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." This quote is found in "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, page 352.

There are a growing number of scientists who realize Darwinian-evolution is not good science (because it cannot be tested).

These two scientists believe in evolution, but they are honest enough to realize evolution is not scientific in that we can test and observe the results.

You cannot test the origin of life from nonliving matter. Yet this is the basis, this is how it all starts, (but) no one has ever seen it happen. Darwinianevolutionists (contend) that the variations we see in a species are testable and observable methods (and) proof of evolution. No one questions that variations in a species exist, but no one has observed a fish giving rise to a frog.

Richard Dawkins, an eminent Darwinian scientist, states he knows of no methodology for the genome gaining new information.

Dr. Lee Spetner, in his book "Not by Chance," states that every mutation he has seen does not add new information to the genome. It only subtracts and reduces the information in the genome. This is a big problem if we are to have descended from a simple single cell. Information had to be all contained in the cell from the beginning. Most scientists admit just getting the first living cell is a major miracle.

If you look into that issue you realize you are involved in religion. Alan Munson Thousand Oaks