By definition, science requires specific procedure and method. For instance, we have all heard statistics based on scientific and non-scientific polls. The difference is that one has careful controls in place to make it accurate and the other does not. 

Scientific method is clearly defined in the most basic reference book. For and idea to be considered scientifically valid, that idea must be the result of standard scientific method. Standard scientific method includes; 

1) Careful observation of quantitative measurements of phenomena, 
2) Reference points from previous knowledge, 
3) Uncensored presentation of information, and 
4) Synthesis of a general law. 

Let's consider each of these points... 

All science must be quantitative. This means an isolated incident is not basis for science. Real science is based on quantitative or repeated observations of a phenomena. Evolution has never been observed. Therefore, the next best thing would be the observation of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, these are also absent. One of the one most commonly cited examples of a transitional form (between fish and birds) is Archaeopteryx, which has been reclassified as purely a bird fossil. However, many evolution teachers continue to refer to it as a transitional form.

Slight changes within a species have been observed (i.e. fruit flies), but never across the species. In addition, these changes that have been observed, almost always result in a change for the worse, indicating quantitatively that if life evolves at all, it should evolve to lower forms, not higher. 

Since nothing anything like the wild claims made by evolutionists has ever been observed, quantitative measurement becomes a strike against evolution. Already, we have BAD SCIENCE in the teaching of evolution.

Concerning this point, evolution scientists again deviate from scientific method. There is written history of how life had its origin. However, this is not even considered or given the status of a hypothesis. One possible answer to the question of origins is ruled out before it is considered. This is BAD SCIENCE.

A free flow of information is essential to the progress of science. Not only do evolution scientists rule out one possible answer before it is considered, they censor any new information that may point toward creation as an answer. Even worse, several cases of out right fraud and lies have been propagated in the attempt to give credence to the idea of evolution. This is BAD SCIENCE.

The philosophical base of all pure science is the belief that observable phenomena are governed by general laws. There are three basic steps in the scientific method used to synthesize a general law of science. 

First is the hypothesis. A hypothesis is essentially a guess based on logical reasoning from observation. It becomes the working basis for experiments in which phenomena being studied are subjected to measured changes, under conditions in which all variables which may possibly introduce error are either carefully controlled or quantitatively discounted. If the results are not according to the prediction of the hypothesis, the experiments may be altered or the hypothesis rejected.

Second is the formation of a theory. If after enough experiments have been carried out to show a hypothesis to be statistically valid, the hypothesis may be elevated to the status of a theory. A theory is the stated explanation of the causes and interrelationships of phenomena. Theories often do not explain all the phenomena in a field of study.

Third is the general law. Scientists may use different theories or several theories as a working basis to discover general laws. A general law explains all the phenomena in a given field of study.

Even a brief overview of these three steps reveals that evolution, as it is taught in our educational institutions, is a serious deviation from the scientific method. Since an hypothesis is a guess based on observation, and since evolutionary phenomena has never observed, the hypothesis that life evolved from "slime plus time" is really a guess. 

A theory must be based on experiments that have statistically shown a hypothesis to have merit. Only then can a hypothesis be called a theory. Evolution has never been observed, even once. Therefore it certainly has never been statistically shown to have merit. As you can see, the idea of evolution does not even qualify scientifically as a theory! Despite this, evolution is constantly and incredibly presented as scientific fact! This is BAD SCIENCE! 

General laws of science actually show that evolution cannot be true. The unalterable laws of mathematical science show that evolution is statistically impossible! The second law of thermodynamics, which basically states that matter left to its self moves from an organized state to a disorganized state, also invalidates the idea of evolution. 

Actually, scientific method points to the existence of a designer, a creator far superior to man in power and intelligence. A true scientist, should see that this is the logical hypothesis of origins. His research and experimentation should then be aimed at learning about this creator and his general laws. The data to research in this field of study is abundant for the scientist who is really interested in truth. 

When one begins to see the overwhelming evidence to discount the idea of evolution, the logical question must arise, "Why is this idea of evolution so vehemently promoted if there is so much evidence to discount it?" What are the hidden agendas?

The reasons may be many, but the first indication is found in the full title of Darwin's book which is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. The issue here is obvious. Author and lecturer Dennis Peacocke says it well, Darwin's book is "...a thinly veiled 'scientific hypothesis' justifying Great Britain's racist colonial policies." ¹ Why do you think you were never told the full title of the book in school? If man evolved from lower life forms, then doesn't it makes sense that within the human species there would be certain subspecies (races) that are lower or less evolved than others? If this is true it then becomes natural and morally acceptable for one race to rule over another. But if all races came from one man created by God, then all men are created equal, regardless of the color of their skin. 

Think about it. Where does racism really come from? Evolution presents us with just one of many contradictions in our "politically correct" society. 

The second reason that evolution continues to be promoted as scientific fact in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary is power and money. Think about it. People have structured their whole careers around evolutionary teaching. Huge sums of federal tax money are funneled into the bottomless pit of evolutionary research looking for answers that don't exist. But that's Ok, its all in the name of science and education and, after all, think of all the high paying jobs that would be lost if we didn't need people to teach evolution. Besides, if we admit that evolution is false, we will have to spend millions remodeling every museum of natural history in the country. No, we just can't afford the truth. Too much power and money (and face) would be lost.

Perhaps the most basic reason that many embrace evolution and continue to teach it in our institutions of "higher" learning is summed up perfectly by the statement made by one evolution teacher who said, "I know evolution is scientifically impossible, but I'm still going to teach it because it is morally comfortable." When asked what he meant by that he replied, "As long as I believe I am nothing but an animal, I can live any way I choose. But as soon as I admit there is a creator, then I become morally responsible to that Creator, and frankly, I don't want to be morally responsible to anyone!" ²

You see, when truth conflicts with man's selfish desire, he becomes willing to believe just about anything except truth. Then he will go to any length to deceive himself and others. Evolution is a classic demonstration of a whole civilization sticking its head in the sand and embracing deception for the sake of moral convenience. At least the teacher quoted above was honest within his deception. 

In his latter days, Charles Darwin spoke of the "grandeur of this Book" as he read his Bible. He remarked regarding evolution, "I was a young man with unformed ideas ... I threw out queries, suggestions; and to my astonishment people made them a religion."

The intellectually honest scientist will scientifically arrive at what is obvious for many who have actually come to know their creator through the good news of Jesus Christ. Albert Einstein said this; "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a Spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble." ⁴

By living according to the general laws which have already been provided by God Himself, observable statistical data can be obtained which scientifically supports what God has said. By learning and observing the laws of science, such as gravity, we learn to avoid harm (i.e. don't jump from high places) and we learn that gravity can be a blessing to us (i.e. harnessing the power of falling water to generate electricity). Likewise, by learning the laws of God we learn to avoid destruction and receive His blessings. This is GOOD SCIENCE.

Endnotes: 
¹ Peacocke, The Bottom Line, Strategic Christian Services, November, 1996
^{2 Carlson / Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings, p. 53.
3 Comfort, Spring Boards..., Living Water Pub., p. 260.
4 Comfort, Spring Boards..., Living Water Pub., p. 257.}