Two incisive evolutionary biologists pointed this out more than a quarter century ago. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. Significantly, this admission was made by a prominent evolutionist selected to write the foreword to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin s Origin of Species. It is surely true, as Matthew s says, that creationists must believe in special creation, just as evolutionists must believe in evolution.
Creation is neither observable, testable, nor refutable.
It does seem, by any criterion of fairness and objectivity, that creation and evolution, as the only two models of origins, ought to be considered as equal alternatives to be evaluated objectively in terms of their relative abilities to correlate and explain scientific data. The model can be defined in simple, broad terms to begin with, then modified and extended as necessary to incorporate incoming data. Then , in general, that model which incorporates the greatest number and variety of data, with the smallest number of modifications and extensions to make it fit, and with the smallest number of unresolved questions about how to incorporate the relevant data, is the model most likely to be true , even though it can never be proved scientifically to be true. Douglas Futuyma, a leading evolutionary biologist, has made this clear in a dogmatically anti-creationist book written by him. Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.