The Amazing Plasticity of Darwinian Theory: Can it be Falsified?

How do those trained in evolutionary theory respond to fresh dinosaur tissue found in bones asserted to be 300 million years old? New DNA finds that don’t match evolutionary predictions of Phylogeny and fail to show an increase in complexity over time? Abundant helium in deep rock and carbon clocks still ticking away in dino bones and diamonds?

Two new articles from the ICR webpage demonstrate the Darwinian theories amazing ability to morph itself to fit any and all new evidence. Example given; the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution because, a) we haven’t dug up enough fossils yet (Darwins time) or, b) because evolution happened so quickly it left no trace (the modern explanation). But can a theory that can’t be falsified have any value for prediction making?

As Frank Sherwin asserts in  Darwins Rubber Ruler,

” A key element of the scientific method is the ability to test whether a hypothesis is true or false. A theory that can neither be confirmed nor falsified cannot be considered “scientific,” Sherwin quotes Berkely Law proffesor Phil Johnson as saying, “If new forms appear, the credit goes to creative natural selection; if old forms fail to change, the conservative force is called stabilizing selection…” Sherwin goes on to discuss some of the latest finds in molecular biology and in DNA research that fail to support original evolutionary predictions.  Read more from Sherwins article at

In Brian Thomas’s Fresh Tissue from Solid Rock, he discusses the wealth of new finds of fresh collagen, meat and muscle being found in fossils on an increasing scale world wide. Thomas points out,“These tissue finds are typically accompanied, in either the technical literature or science news, by the phrase “remarkable preservation.” If one is to believe in the great ages assigned to these artifacts, then the quality of preservation is beyond “remarkable”–it is not scientifically possible in such a context. This is, of course, why authorities increasingly offer assurances that soft tissues, despite what is known about their decay rates, can somehow be preserved for millions of years.” He points out evolutionary reactions in various interviews, such as one from  CNN,  “At one point, Schweitzer showed Stahl soft tissue from a Tyrannosaur. Stahl then commented, “It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old.” Stahl’s statement that it is “impossible” makes more sense than the implied assurance from Schweitzer that these discoveries are somehow indeed possible in the context of “80 million years.”

Read Thomas’s article at:

[if the listed urls dont work, just go to and click on Acts and Facts]



About notmanynoble

woodcutter from Washington State
This entry was posted in It's a Young Earth and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Amazing Plasticity of Darwinian Theory: Can it be Falsified?

  1. Frokostordning says:

    Hmm that’s interessting but to be honest i have a hard time understanding it… wonder what others have to say..


    • notmanynoble says:

      Did you try going to the ICR website and reading the full articles there? Might help you to understand the gist of it. Basically, a theory that can’t be falsified, doesn’t qualify to be a theory. For example as given, if evolution is true, than the fossil record should have transitional fossils (partly formed eyes, arms, legs, etc.) all through it. In fact,, thats what Darwin said. When they didn’t find any, that should have proven evolutions wrong. Instead, they said, evolution is true, we just haven’t dug enough fossils up yet. Now, a hundred years later or more, we have dug up millions of fossils, and there are still not many fossils that can even claim to be transistional. But, the evolutionists just say, evolution is true, it just happened so quickly, it didn’t leave any evidence behind. So then it appears that no matter what the nature of the fossil record actually is, it still supports evolution. This is what they mean when they say a theory is too plastic. Its kind of like a lot of well known politicians, they keep changing the meanings of words in order to avoid admission of guilt or of being wrong. But try going to links posted, and I think you’ll get the picture better. Mark


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s