Why Evolution is NOT Scientific

The Scientific Method is as follows:

1. Define the question
2. Observe
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that help in refining or discrediting hypothesis
   
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

If you cannot perform all the steps, yet you still come up with results, you are NOT practicing science. In evolution (a single celled organism being the common ancestor for all life), steps 2, 4-6, as well as 8, cannot be taken. Let me explain:

Step 1: define the question. How did such a wide variety of life forms come to be, here on Earth?
Step 2: observe...

Here is our first problem. How do we observe evolution, the transition of one kind of animal to another. The answer is we DON'T. Ignoring any biases I have regarding evolution, there is not a single example today I, or anyone else, can observe. Could it happen in the future (no), or have happened in the past (no, again)? Maybe (definitely not), but to perform the scientific method on it, it would have to be happening in the present, somewhere observable.

Step 3: form hypothesis. Well anyone can form a hypothesis, but to be part of the scientific method, it must be based on observation.
Step 4: perform experiment and collect data. There is no experiment to perform, or data to collect.
Step 5: analyze data. Once again, there is no data to analyze.
Step 6: interpret data and refine hypothesis to fit with data. There is no data to interpret, therefore no way to use data to refine hypothesis.
Step 7: publish results. Can't publish results, because I didn't find anything.
Step 8: retest. Can't retest, because there wasn't a test to begin with.

As you can see, evolutionists do NOT follow the scientific method. Instead of performing step 2: observation, they use fossils of dead organisms, and try to create a "tree of life" to explain their hypothesis. Again, these are DEAD organisms, they are NOT evolving, therefore, they cannot be used to support evolution.

Basically, the method used to support evolution is as follows.
Step 1: come up with an idea of how all living things are descendants of a common ancestor.
Step 2: find fossils that fit into your idea, while ignoring fossils that don't.
Step 3: Publish your idea as a hypothesis (even though it can't be considered a hypothesis).
Step 4: Have other evolutionists take fossils that you couldn't fit into your "tree of life" and attempt to create a new "tree of life" that they will fit into.

In conclusion, evolution is NOT science. To be fair, creationism isn't science either. Creationists can't use the scientific method to show that God created everything, but they can use the scientific method to support creation, just like evolutionists can use the scientific method to try to support evolution. However, science cannot be used to explain the origin of life, or the origin of the Universe. To do so, would require the ability to observe creation in the first place and the ability recreate creation in a controlled environment. And we all know that is not possible.

P.S. I realize that I didn't talk about Darwin's finches or other similar observations. However, those are not observations of evolution in action, they are observations of variation within a created kind. They are still finches and they can still reproduce with other finches. After the drought ended in the Galapagos Islands, the finch beaks went back to how they were pre-drought. It is nothing more than natural selection, which unlike evolution, IS scientific.

Why Karma is Illogical

It seems you can't watch a TV show or go through a day without hearing someone mentioning karma. It seems like a nice idea; you do good things and good things happen to you. Or if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. To most people, it sounds like a good idea, perfectly compatible with Christianity and the Bible, but is it?

Absolutely not! Also, the idea of karma does not even make sense logically. So if good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, then we can all conclude that those Haitians must of been really, really bad, for such a devastating earthquake to ravage their country. Really? Is that the best explanation for someone who believes in karma. Why do rapists get away with community service as their only punishment, while innocent children die in an earthquake?

However, unlike karma, the Christian worldview can make sense of everything. Why do bad things happen to good people? Answer: No one is good. "And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19) The question should therefore be rephrased to ask, why do good things happen to bad people? This helps us understand why karma is not logical and why it does not fit in with a Biblical worldview.

If we all got what we deserved, we would all be in the pit of Hell, suffering eternally. And God would be just to do so. However, because God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son to be a sacrifice. To die and face the punishment that we deserve. And then he rose from the grave. Whoever repents and puts his or her faith in Christ, shall not die, but will have everlasting life. Not because of anything we have done, but by Grace. Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Paraphrase of John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8,9)