Critical Thinking
An Apologetic Defense for Creation
Foreword
I present this argument from a little different perspective. Instead of focusing on the comparison of evidence between creation and evolution, I focus primarily on the evolution argument itself. With only a few exceptions, I quote evolutionists themselves and not creation sources. There are a couple of reasons I have taken this approach. First and primarily is that people have the tendency to believe the last argument they hear. If I present all the evidence for creation, many may think it sounds good. However, when they hear it from the evolutionary side, it will be presented as a viable argument as well. This leaves people confused and not knowing what to believe. My goal is to show the need to critique what we are hearing rather than to be led by the hand to the conclusion evolution wants us to accept.
Second, when the evidence is presented, I hear the same criticisms. Evolutionists discredit creation sources without giving them an ear. I hear comments like, "These are the same old arguments with the same evidence". However, in this case almost everything is presented directly from evolutionary sources. Now the criticism I am hearing on this paper is, "Where is the evidence, you are hiding from it". In reality, a committed evolutionist will believe what they have already pre-determined themselves to believe. My hope is that people will not just believe the group that shouts the loudest or presents the last argument, but they will examine what is presented and look past the argument to the substance. Instead of being led by the hand to what evolution wants them to see while avoiding the contradictions, I want people to see and question.
I also want to address one last issue since I have already received much criticism regarding my definition of evolution. I have been told that my whole argument is worthless because I don't know the difference between biological evolution and physics or astronomy. However, I never identified evolution as biological only. Physics, astronomy and biology are all presented by evolutionists as a part of the evolutionary model. When I refer to evolution, I am referring to the evolutionary concept or model. Contrary to the claims of critics, the 'Big Bang' is just as much a part of evolution as the formation of life, chance mutations, and natural selection. The galaxies support or contradict evolution just as much as biological evolution.
With such a wide scope to defend, many evolutionists try to separate the two and claim that arguments against one part of the model are irrelevant to their defense in another part of the model, but this is not true. If the planets and galaxies did not form, neither could life. I use the noose that evolutionists tie in every area and I show how they hang themselves. The only way an evolutionist can defend evolution against its own leaders is to put leaders into separate categories. Most respondents have tried to distance themselves from the leaders I quote, but if the leaders and those fashioning the model are wrong, the model is wrong.
Table of Contents:
The Psychology behind the argument
Discredit anyone who believes in
either.
How do we know ‘Theistic Evolution’
is wrong?
Does a gene have intelligence?
Where did the knowledge to
manipulate come from?
Did this show evolution or
design?
The Psychology behind the argument
One important thing that we should be aware of is the intimidation that precedes the evolution debate. The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently preceded the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state is from that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.
If these two facts were true, then evolution would have a valid argument. The true debate is whether these two ‘facts’ are facts. It is taken by faith that these two must be true. Therefore, everything else must agree with these two true statements. Creation challenges these two statements. These are founded purely on faith and cannot be defended scientifically, therefore, evolution defenders turn to psychology – whether they realize it or not.
The psychology of the argument is a two-step process. One, intimidate critics; two, establish claims to authority.
Intimidate critics
Most of the critics of evolution are Bible believing Christians. Evolution arguments are presented with the knowledge that Christian scrutiny will follow. Because of this, evolutionists will almost always attempt to silence critics by discrediting the Bible, discrediting creation as non-science, and to discredit anyone who believes in either.
Discredit the Bible
Here is one example of attempting to make Bible believes ashamed of their held belief of the truth of scripture.
Frank Zindler
The people who transmitted the books of the Bible were, of course, not very honest people. They had an axe to grind. And so we see that the later the manuscripts, the more harmonious they become. But the earliest manuscripts show great contradiction.
This is a typical type of argument. Frank stated a fact without facts. In the debate I copied this from, he offered no sources to back his claim and the Bible defender did not challenge this claim. There is a wealth of information that supports the reliability of scripture. Critics of the Bible base their arguments on assumptions and those assumptions are stated as fact. For example, when Peter Jennings aired his documentary on ‘The Search for Jesus’, he only used liberal scholars that are known to openly denied the scriptures. They argued that the apostles were not reliable witnesses and Jesus didn’t rise from the dead but was eaten by dogs. They offered no evidence to support this contradiction of scripture and they did not even acknowledge (much less attempt to refute) the evidence that supports the resurrection. This evidence comes from both biblical and non-biblical sources. According the liberal scholars, the eyewitnesses were not reliable and should not be believed, but liberal scholars who openly grind their axes and state their preconceived belief that no miracles are true or reliable are reliable. Something is wrong with this picture. Eyewitnesses are unreliable because they lived 2,000 years ago, but men who live 2,000 years later and saw nothing are reliable?
What evidence is ever presented that gives credibility to the early church altering scriptures because they have an axe to grind? Only the testimonies of men in the 21st century who do have an axe to grind. It is the enemies of scripture that establish themselves as the authority that supposedly disproves the Bible. It is not a coincidence that almost every essay or argument presented to disprove creation focuses on attacking scripture and highlighting the failure of men who claim to be Christians and seldom addresses any of the real evidence that supports scripture. This is a favorite tactic against creation. If you discredit the Bible then the Genesis account by default becomes unreliable. Since they cannot find evidence, they establish themselves as authoritative and their speculation is counted as evidence.
Discredit creation
When pitted fact against fact, evolution can’t stand up against creation. Therefore, the facts are bypassed for an easier target. A straw man is built and then pulverized. The easiest way to attack creation is to define it in terms that you can attack. Instead of rebutting the facts creation science presents, it is easier to just call it religion and put it into an ‘unscientific’ category and then ignore it. Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:
Anthony J. M. Garret:
"This debate is too often conducted as a scientific debate, which it is not. It is a theological debate".
George H. Smith
Faith is intellectually dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity.
By faith, Smith means faith in the Bible. Faith in evolution is acceptable. Instead of answering the objections, evolutionists will just label it as a theological debate and then sweep it under the rug by attacking their concept of faith instead of the facts. There is a clear attempt at making creation believers feel intimidated by classifying their faith as unscientific or intellectual dishonesty. We should be aware of this strategy. The purpose behind it is to eliminate critical thinking by putting Christians on the defensive. When statements like these are issued, the focus is shifted away from the issue of the facts and put on theology which can be used to create smokescreens. It is important not to allow your mind to be sidetracked into the box they are shaping. Instead, we should cut through the red tape and put our focus on the actual argument for evolution or against creation. If we are sidetracked, we are less likely to point out the flaws in the evolution logic.
Discredit anyone who believes in either.
When the facts are obscured by the way evolutionists define the creation foundation, then they can attack the straw man they have created. If the Bible is a lie and creation is based on that lie, then the next logical step is to label anyone who believes in either as backwoods or archaic. William Edelen is a good example of this type of set-up and knock-down logic:
“I have often asked — When are Jews and Christians going to grow up, evolve spiritually, and let go of the archaic and primitive biblical concepts of ‘God’?”
“Anyone who believes today in the year 2000 that the bible is ‘reliable’ and ‘infallible,’ without error or contradiction, is approaching insanity.”
“They live in the 21st Century, parroting back a third century biblical mentality as though nothing had been learned, thought, or discovered in the last 1800 years.”
We as Christians should not be bothered by such statements. The psychology behind this is to put us on our heels. If we are busy defending ourselves, we can’t be critically thinking about the real issue at hand. If we are intimidated, we won’t speak out. A cowering Christian is the goal of this intimidation. Critical thinking is an enemy of evolution.
Often a debater will use reverse psychology. He will put himself on the defense to make criticism of evolution seem irrational. Here is an example from Mark I. Vuletic. He says that Christians say:
“Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist. These charges, even if they were true, have nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution. Such accusations reveal the true religious motivations of the creationists, and their eagerness to confuse scientific issues by the inappropriate discussion of metaphysics when a religious audience is around.”
Mark nobly defends evolution from the attacks of a straw man. In his hypothetical defense, he has manipulated the listener into thinking that Christians are trying to force theology into science. Do Christians really say creation is true because evolution teaches we don’t have souls, the Bible is false and all the other accusations of Vuletic? This is not even part of the debate. In reality, evolutionists are usually the ones who enter the Bible into the argument. It is true that Christians believe that all things point to our Creator, but that does not pit Christianity against science. In fact, the whole argument is that creation should be attributed to our God and not the god of evolution. As we will see later, evolution does have a god and it is clearly defined by the leading evolutionist. We as Christians do believe we are created by special design and we are created for a purpose. It is true that the teachings of evolution, if followed to their logical conclusions do teach that we have no purpose other than what we can do for ourselves. However, this is not what is at the heart of the debate. The debate is over truth. Does true science point to evolution and away from creation? Regardless of the worldview behind the debate, the ultimate purpose is truth. If evolution is true, then let it be proven. Defending evolution by shielding it from criticism is not evidence and is not truth.
Establishing
Authority
If you listen closely you will notice that evolution debaters claim their authority based on their belief in evolution. They use circular reasoning to establish this claim to authority. Those who reason inside the box are intellectually elite and those outside the box are intellectually dishonest. They boldly assert that they are the only freethinkers while at the same time refusing to allow thinking that does not fall into the standard of the day. Anyone or any idea that falls outside of evolution is belittled.
Once an evolutionist establishes that they are within the box, they use that box as a stage to proclaim their own authority. It is ironic that Christians are scorned for standing on the foundation of scripture while critics stand on the foundationless box of evolution. What an evolutionist or atheist lacks in their foundation is more than made up for by bold assertions. Consider this quote from George H. Smith:
“And just in case there are a few religionists in the audience, I invite you to stay around and experience for an afternoon what it feels like to be part of an intellectual elite.”
Take note of the psychology behind this statement. It is clearly meant to intimidate by labeling non-atheist as falling short of their self-proclaimed standard of elite thinking. There is no quicker way to silence critics than to make them feel inferior. You see this strategy in every area of life – religion, science, politics, business, etc. With intimidation, you don’t have to prove your case. You only have to make your opponent feel threatened and ashamed to stand on their position.
Just because someone boldly asserts something does not make it true. By nature, we tend to believe those who speak with an air of authority. David Koresh led dozens of people to their death by convincing them of his authority. Hitler manipulated an entire country to kill on his behalf by establishing his authority in their minds. Countless false religions and groups of people have been led astray by people who have no foundation but used psychology to manipulate people into following their ideas. Evolution and atheism use this same technique. They have established an intimidation zone with education and government that prevents critics from speaking out and research from presenting contradictory evidence. Any research that undermines evolution is labeled as religion and can then be attacked as the government supporting religion.
A good example of this was the research of Robert Gentry. His discovery of polonium haloes in granite stone landed him outside of the box of evolution. Because his findings left only one conclusion – the evolution model was wrong – he was rejected by the scientific community. His work did not mention God, religion or creation, but the only logical conclusion was creation, therefore he was labeled as promoting religion and his grant was revoked. When evolution can’t explain contradictory evidence, intimidation is the only solution.
Once they convince the listener that they are authoritative and that the evolutionary position is the only position of authority, they then present evolution as truth. It is true, not based on the facts, but based on the authority that they have established in the minds of others. When you surrender to them the authority they demand, they can then guide you through the facts they want you to see and away from the facts they don’t want you to see. This is the only way they can keep critics from unraveling the flawed evolution model and also allows them to make broad sweeping statements without being challenged. They want to persuade each person to believe what they present based solely on their authority with no questions asked. That is why evolutionist like Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, can make bold claims like:
“I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists”
The psychology behind this statement is to lead people to believe that science has always been dominated by evolutionist and that anyone who is a creationist is not a credible scientist. This statement is very effective because it intimidates and most people will never challenge this claim. People are fed these lines without ever questioning. However, if we actually look at the truth you find that almost every area of scientific study was founded by creationists. This list shows the absurdity of Schafersman’s claim.
Prominent Creation Scientists
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Creation is not attacked at the scientific level, but at the emotional level. Critics argue emotional pleas to manipulate hostility against views that don’t support evolution. Creation believing scientists have laid the foundation for our modern sciences. It is not the creationists that are departing from scientific method, but the evolutionist. There is a reason why creationists have been able to make such contributions to science: they are allowed to think outside the box. They can follow an idea wherever it may lead. They don’t have to fit the model, but are free to explore creation. After all, if God is the creator of all things, all things should ultimately lead to Him. Creation is always the logical conclusion unless there is something to restrict our exploration. If we are told to only abide within the parameters of evolution then we will never find where science will lead.
How much has yet to be discovered and will never be discovered because science does not allow its researchers to leave the evolution model? The most well funded research is not beneficial sciences and cure research, it is spent on trying to prove that a cell could spawn its own life without outside help. All of our forefathers of science advanced because they followed the trail wherever it led. Today we can only follow it to the evolutionary boundary imposed by the evolutionists themselves.
How do we know ‘Theistic
Evolution’ is wrong?
Many books and sermons have been written in an attempt to marry evolution with the Bible. ‘The Gap Theory’, ‘The World That Was’, and many, many other works have been produced. The Bible repeatedly warns us that in the latter times we will see wolves in the church masquerading as sheep. The Bible tells us that they will be deceptive with crafty arguments causing many to depart from the faith. Along with this warning, we are given measurements as to how to know the false teachers from the true teachers that God has ordained. We are told that we are to measure every doctrine against the revealed Word of God (1 John 4, Acts 17:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, Galatians 1, etc). God will not change, nor will His word. Therefore we can confidently use the Word as our guide.
We are given a second strong measurement for truth in Matthew 7:15-16a
15 " Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 "You will know them by their fruits."
Fruit is what is produced by a person’s works. The fruits of the Spirit is what God produces in our lives as evidence that He is in control. The fruit of our labors is what God is producing through our lives. What fruit does the doctrine of evolution produce? You don't see flocks of evolutionists turning to the church as some claim will happen. Instead you see a watered down gospel that is founded upon error and the result of this is flocks of people leaving the church and a culture that is now denying God's existence. I can't count the number of times I have been told that evolution explains how we got here; there is no need for the outdated view of God. The ‘wolves’ in the church attempt to deceive others into believing that Christianity can be supported with evolution. However, even the evolutionists themselves understand the undermining consequences evolution has against the church. Consider this quote:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
G. Richard Bozarth, 'The Meaning of Evolution', American Atheist 20 September, 1979, p. 30.
It is unfortunate that atheist understand this foundational issue better than many churches. Does God reveal His handiwork in such a way that allows people to deny His handiwork? God said, “My glory I will not give to another (Isaiah 42)”, but educator and astronomer Harrow Shapely says, “some piously record 'In the beginning God', but I say in the beginning hydrogen.” Shapely’s claim to fame is his protégé, Carl Sagan. In his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated, “the world was not made by the gods, but instead was the work of material forces interacting in nature”. Evolution does not support the idea that God works behind the scenes. Evolution states that material matter is the creative power along with natural laws. Why then do people claiming to be followers of Christ insist on integrating this godless world-view into the church?
The Bible says those who reject the truth, “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1)”. Worshipping creation is the natural result of evolution. Carl Sagan said that evolution’s natural conclusion is atheism, but in his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated:
“Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? “
God said that men would worship what is created instead of giving glory to the Creator; Sagan said that it is not foolish to worship the sun and stars, and yet the church wants to bring this pagan religion into its doctrine. Colossians 2 clearly warns us against allowing this kind of world philosophy into the church:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Instead of fearing God, many people are more intimidated by critics, more afraid of being called a fool, or afraid of being rejected by the world. Even in Jesus’ day, many who believed in Him were afraid of public ridicule. The turned their back on true faith because “they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God”. Jesus said, woe when all men speak well of you, for they did so to the false prophets. Jesus also said in John 15,
18 " If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
There is a reason why proclaimers of Theistic Evolution are praised by anti-Christian groups, their message is of the world and therefore is loved by the world. As Christians, we should not allow intimidation to drive us into silence or altering our beliefs. Many Christians take the ‘evidence’ for evolution at face value. They feel like they are stupid for taking the Bible literally, so they struggle to believe. Faith is not believing what is not true, but trusting God. That trust is founded upon evidence. There is nothing wrong with proving what is true, in fact, we are commanded to do so. We are told to test all things and hold to truth and keep ourselves from every form of evil (Thessalonians 5:21-24).
I have had Christians tell me that we can’t have faith and knowledge. If you have to know the facts, then you lose faith. This is a complete misconception of faith. Faith is trusting God, not denying facts. When God called for Israel’s faith, He reminded them that they had seen His mighty works. They saw how He delivered them from the bondage of Egypt; they saw how He fed them with manna; they saw how their shoes did not wear out in the desert for 40 years; they saw the cloud by day and fire by night; they saw God supply water from the rocks. Based on what they saw, God called them to have faith and trust Him as He sent them into a land to conquer a people stronger than they. Faith is based on knowledge. I know what God has done, I see His mighty works, therefore I have a rational foundation to choose to trust Him or not. I can have all the knowledge in the world, but that means little if I can’t trust God with my life. Faith is not founded on ignorance, but the fact that we have a God in control.
We are commanded to be ready to give an answer to the world for the reason for our faith. Look at 1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Be ready to give a defense? Where do Christians get the idea that our faith must be blind? We may not have all the answers, but every Christian should know enough to give a defense for their faith and have the meekness to answer in love. The ultimate purpose is to share our hope with those who are hopelessly lost in the deception of the world. When Christians are trying to believe when they feel like they are in error, they can’t walk by faith. We should have confidence in our faith and know what we believe and why we believe it. We should not be intimidated by the critics of the Bible. We know what is true and it is ok if someone lost in the darkness accuses me of living in the dark ages. The apostles were called ignorant, madmen, outlaws and pagans. Because they were confident in the truth, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer. If we are ready to give a defense, we can also be confident in the face of insults as well. It is ok to be called ignorant but not ok to live in ignorance. It is a sin to deny the word of God and then try to be ‘enlightened’ by incorporating the words of men (i.e. Darwin and evolution prophets) into Christianity. The prophet Elijah confronted the people of his day. They were trying to keep enough of the scriptures to feel justified but then following the pagan god, Baal. Elijah said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people answered him not a word. 1 Kings 18:21
We stand in the same place. How long will we stand between two opinions? The Bible says it is impossible to serve two masters. If evolution is god, follow evolution, but if God is the Lord, follow Him. You can’t mix the two. Once you mix truth with error, it all becomes error. Jesus said that to worship God we must come to Him in spirit and truth. We try to marry falsehood and spirit and God will not accept our worship. To choose evolution is a rejection of God whether we want to admit it or not. The god of Theistic Evolution is just as much a pagan god as Baal. Each of us must choose who we are to serve.
The first step in critical thinking is to avoid succumbing to the atmosphere of intimidation created by those who promote evolution. Those who successfully defend their Christian beliefs, know what they believe, and are confident in their beliefs. They know upfront that they will be ridiculed for standing outside of the box. It is a lost cause to expect to persuade those who do not wish to be persuaded. Only those who seek truth will listen to a well-reasoned argument. Those who are hostile to the gospel will not. Those who are afraid of making a stand will not. In both cases, it is personal motivation that takes precedence over the facts.
One important point to always keep in mind is that the facts are not in dispute. There is nothing observed by science that creationists disagree with. It isn’t the facts that are in dispute. It is whether the conclusion drawn from the facts that are in dispute. Also in dispute is whether facts that disprove evolution are allowed acknowledgment in the popular scientific community. In evolution, the conclusion has already been drawn and the conclusion takes precedence over the facts. To illustrate this, let’s take a critical look at the Cambrian Explosion.
If you are not familiar with this term, the Cambrian Explosion is a term for the so-called Cambrian layer of strata. The Cambrian period is estimated by evolutionists to be around 530 million years ago. The reason it is called the Cambrian Explosion is because this is where life suddenly appears in the fossil record. Evolutionists openly admit that there is no evolution found at any stage, yet they continue to preach the ‘fact’ of evolution found in the fossil record. Consider these quotes from several evolution resources:
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
p. 229
“ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
Richard Dawkins is probably the most popular propagator of evolution and openly mocks Christianity and creation. He calls evolution a fact and not a theory. This is in spite, by his own admission that there is no evidence of evolutionary history. Even though he admits that there is no supporting history, he says in a review of the book ‘Blueprints’:
“…We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”
Look at what Stephen Jay Gould has to say about the fossil records:
Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Interpretation of Diagrams: Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?” Natural History, vol. 85 (August/September 1976), pp. 18-28.
p. 18
“ the Precambrian fossil record is little more than 2.5 billion years of bacteria and blue-green algae. Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian.”
Gould, Stephen Jay, “A Short Way to Big Ends,”
“Where, then, are all the Precambrian ancestors—or, if they didn’t exist in recognizable form, how did modern complexity get off to such a fast start?”
We should stop and ask this question as well – how did life get off to such a fast start? Evolution claims that it takes millions of years and in some eras, billions of years. Yet two of the leading preachers of evolution are asking why the evidence doesn’t fit the evolutionary model? At the same time, they refuse to abandon the model. Is it really creationists that are guilty of intellectual dishonesty?
Smith, Peter J., “Evolution’s Most Worrisome Questions,” review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge (Fact on File, 1987, 246 pp.), New Scientist (November 19, 1987), p. 59.
“Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species.”
Smith confirms yet again that the appearance of life is instant and then goes on to admit that it does not change. A critical thinker should ask how this evidence points to evolution as these men claim? If life appears suddenly and life remains unchanged, where is evolution? Evolution demands a changing organism to ‘carry the genes’ to the next evolutionary step. What does the evidence of ‘unchanged’ life point to? Creation or evolution?
The lack of change is also confirmed in the Science News:
“Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet,” Science News, vol. 108 (September 20, 1975), p. 181.
“Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from S. Africa.”
“Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.”
Let’s put our critical thinking to use here. Algae and bacteria are supposed to evolve into more complex life leading eventually to plants and animals. If the earliest fossils are unchanged and genetically equal to today’s algae and bacteria, where do the facts lead us? If we go outside the box, we are supposedly into theology. That leaves critical thinking out in the cold. Are we to accept the evolutionary model on blind faith, or follow the evidence out of the evolution model and be labeled as ignorant, stupid and religious?
George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,”
“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”
Let’s now take a critical look at Neville’s argument. He first establishes that special creation is not an option. He then acknowledges that there is not a single member of the Pre-Cambrian fossils that provide any links between primitive life and the Cambrian explosion of life that supposedly arises from it. He then concludes that there is no explanation.
Why is there no explanation?
Why is special creation ruled out before the evidence is examined?
Evolution draws the facts from the conclusion instead of drawing the conclusion from the facts. Is this true science? Does eliminating conclusions before looking at the evidence discourage critical thinking? Is it a rational argument to exclude any conclusion you don’t want to find? Finally, why do many evolutionists claim that the Bible is false because you can’t prove that God is real, yet they then claim that evolution is true because you can’t prove it didn’t happen?
If we don’t stop and examine the argument closely, we are going to believe the last person that gave a passionate argument. This is why it is vital to learn to analyze the facts and examine the argument. Instead of allowing someone to feed us their opinion, we should learn to examine what is actually being said. Evolutionists take us by the hand to lead us where they want us to be and lead us away from what they don’t want to acknowledge. Instead of accepting the starting point, we should ask ‘How did you get to this point?’ Instead of accepting conclusions, we should demand truth and evaluate the validity of the conclusion. We have purposefully been dumbed down. Education in modern schools does not encourage critical thinking. We are told what to think, not how to think. It is our responsibility to overcome this challenge and apply ourselves to reason. Just because evolution and atheism calls itself ‘reasoned thinking’ does not make it so. When examined closely, the definition of reason is to accept, not to think. In truth, the definition of reason is “to think and draw conclusions”(Websters New World Dictionary). To be considered intellectual and reasonable by evolution standards, we are not allowed to draw our own conclusions. It is demanded that we accept the conclusion given – the box of evolution.
In the next section, we will look at how we are fed conclusions and facts are dodged by crafty arguments. When we turn our critical thinking off as we are encouraged to do, the arguments make perfect sense. Those who have been dumbed down to accept the standard evolutionary belief system accept the conclusions while ignorantly believing that facts are supporting evolution. It is our responsibility to sift through the web of deceit, analyze, think critically and draw our own conclusion.
In Richard Dawkins’ article, ‘Where’d You get those Peepers’, he attempts to explain how the eye could have evolved 40 – 60 times independently of each previous evolution. In the evolution model, the chains of life branch off making it impossible for species to share information. Therefore, if evolution is true, by Dawkins admission, the eye had to be re-invented a minimum of 40 times and could be as many as 60 times. Gradual evolution does not allow for enough time for a complex eye to develop in a 3 billion year time span. Therefore, evolution needed a new explanation that simplifies the evolution of the eye. Dawkins praises two scientists named Nilsson and Pelger for solving this problem. They created a computer model that showed the evolution of the eye in a relatively short time span that would fit the evolution model.
Nilsson and Pelger followed the same pattern that all evolution science follows. Dawkins did not use direct quotes so we can’t examine the psychology of their argument here. One of the primary tactics of arguing for evolution is to hide the astronomical odds against it by leading people to believe time and chance is a simple process. We are to believe that it happens all the time and is a small miracle at best. Richard Dawkins is the master of simplistic reasoning. In Dawkins argument, he subtly guides the reader into believing the evolution of the eye is simple. If we see the enormous complexity that challenges this test, we will be alarmed at the evasion used to prove this experiment. However, Dawkins does admit “Nilsson and Pelger made no attempts to simulate the inner workings of cells.” He also says, “They started their story after the invention of a single light-sensitive cell” and “They worked at the level of tissues…rather than the level of individual cells”
From the onset, we can see that the experiment is being staged like tinker toys. To prove the eye evolved, we are not going to answer ‘how’, we are just going to assemble the pieces. Before any reader will accept this, we must first be convinced that the ‘how’ question is not important. Dawkins says, “we have to start somewhere”, so we started after the ‘invention’ of the light-sensitive cell. The impression is that we don’t want to be bored with details, so the scientists skipped the boring inner workings of the cell. As we can see, the key to this and most evolution arguments is dependent on conveying simplicity to the reader or listener. Once we are satisfied with their starting point, they can argue their point without objection. Nothing had to be proven because they have evaded the hardest questions that they cannot answer and still support evolution.
Dawkins continues, “The transparent layer was allowed to undergo localized random mutations of its refractive index. They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before.”
Take a moment to critically think about what has just been presented as ‘evidence’. There are three major flaws with this ‘experiment’ that has been revealed in this one paragraph. 1. They have allowed the layer of transparent skin to undergo changes. They determine what is happening – not nature and not observed science. 2. They let the model take over the process and set the course of ‘mutations’. 3. Probably the most important observation we can make here is that they (Nilsson and Pilger) set the constraints that evolutionary mutations must abide by. They created a model that was not allowed to fail. Change had to be gradual because that is what the evolutionary model requires. Change was not allowed to harm evolution because a defective mutation is a failure of the species and would put evolution back to ground zero. A mutation does not have a second chance. Either mutation helps or harms. Evolutionists James Valentine, and Cathryn A. Campbell, wrote in their work, “Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record,”
“Most mutations to structural genes are deleterious, and presumably most regulatory gene mutations are deleterious as well, but occasionally a mutation may enhance regulatory activity.”
Mutations are observed by science to be harmful. This book argues that they may on occasion be helpful, however, that is not the observation we see. Don’t overlook the wording. They are speculating that mutation may occasionally enhance, but it is not observed. Harmful mutations are frequently observed; helpful ones are not. If mutations are ‘usually deleterious (or harmful)’, then why was this possibility eliminated from the eye evolution experiment? I believe the answer is found in Richard Dawkins’ admission early in his article that, “Unlike human designers, natural selection can't go downhill not even if there is a tempting higher hill on the other side of the valley”. Some will argue that only creationists accuse mutations of always being harmful, but consider this quote from Atomic Scientists:
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)
Mutations are frequently observed in science. Mutations are almost always harmful because it is a loss of or damaged information and not increased traits. Yet in this experiment that supposedly proves the eye evolves quickly to match the required 40-60 times it would have had to develop independently, evolutionists remove this primary enemy that evolution can’t get around. In essence, to prove evolution occurs without intelligent design, they provide an intelligently designed model to guide its behavior.
Dawkins continues, “The results were swift and decisive. And then, almost like a conjuring trick, a portion of this transparent filling condensed into a local, spherical subregion of higher refractive index.”
It is ironic that he would say that this appears like a conjuring trick. That is exactly what happens. The computer model is conjuring the evidence it was designed to show. It is not revealing any true evidence. The computer program is outputting only what it was written to project. Dawkins goes on to herald the fact that the evolved eye on the computer screen achieved the Mattiessen’s ratio perfectly. The Mattiessen’s ratio is the optimum value for ratio between the length of the lens and the radius. Once again, we should ask what has been proven? Is it by chance that an optimum lens was formed? Or could Nilsson and Pilger have constructed their computer program with knowledge of the Mattiessen ratio that they wanted to ‘prove’. Dawkins said, “Nilsson and Pelger's computer model homed in unerringly on Mattiessen's ratio.” Did the computer home in on this, or is the program written to produce this ratio?
When I took programming, one of the first things we learned was the acronym ‘GIGO’, which stands for, ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’. In other words, the computer does not produce anything that was not designed into the program. If a computer outputs garbage, it isn’t the computer at fault, but the programmer. The reverse is also true. If a computer outputs the ‘Mattiessen’s ratio’, it was the programmer that instructed the computer. The computer is not capable of drawing any conclusions on its own. A computer can only follow sets of instructions given by the programmer.
At first glance, Richard Dawkins’ defense of the evolution of the eye may seem plausible. But when you look closely, it is all smoke and mirrors. He does not point to anything that is supported by evidence. He uses basic psychology in his argument. He begins by ridiculing those who hold religious beliefs to put critics on the defensive. He follows up by establishing the authority of evolution and then directs us to those who are working within that box of authority. We then must believe the results – not based on the facts, but based on the ‘reliable’ experiments of evolutionists. Everything points away from critical thinking. We are being taught to depend on evolutionists to do the thinking and we just take the results at face value. In reality, we should be asking:
Why did they avoid the inner workings of the cells?
Why did they begin after the most complex, light sensitive cell was ‘invented’?
What does it prove to put all the ingredients into a pot and tell the computer how to assemble them?
What would have happened if the model had not been ‘constrained’ to prevent failure?
It is a fact that Richard Dawkins can present a well articulated argument for evolution. However, if we use critical thinking, we see the psychology behind his argument. He uses psychology to prepare us to be guided blindly as he carefully weaves us through the evidence he wants us to see while we bypass objections without even noticing. Most critical thinkers are those who don’t agree with evolution. Critical questions are seldom answered with facts. Intimidation is a more effective response. Labeling a question as ‘religious in nature’ is much easier than trying to explain why all the holes are being ignored by evolution.
In his article, ‘Universal Parasitism and the Co-evolution of Extended Phenotypes’, Richard Dawkins once again tries to overcome the problem of evolution by carefully weaving around objections by convincing the reader of the simplicity of evolution. Critical thinking is avoided by presenting the idea that genes themselves are working as a team and even work with the gene ‘teams’ of other species. Instead of explaining genetic development, he classifies them into to cooperative categories: genome types and phenotypes. Genomes are working for the survival of the body of the species and phenotypes are working toward the evolutionary jump even between two or more species.
Co-evolution has always been a difficulty for evolution. When one species is completely dependent upon another, evolution grapples to convince us that co-evolution is possible. For example, the fig plant has blossoms that prevent insects from entering, yet it can’t survive if the inside of the fig isn’t pollinated. The fig wasp is designed to enter and needs the fig for its survival and the fig needs the wasp for its survival. Another example is the dodo bird. The dodo was dependent on the Calvarias tree and the Calvarias tree was dependent on the newly extinct dodo. The thick husk surrounding the seed cannot germinate naturally, but the dodo’s digestive system removes the husk and allows it to germinate once it passes through the bird. Why does evolution that supposedly strives for survival make itself 100% dependent on the survival of another species? Dawkins does not provide any real answers to this, but he does give a unique perspective by using phenotypes.
Dawkins explains that the orthodox view is that a body is the vehicle for transporting a set of genes from one generation to another. In this article he states that animal behavior is not necessarily controlled by the genes in the animals body, but genes are selected by proxy. Two gene teams may work together toward a common goal and go against the normal behavior expected. Behind the scenes the phenotype is the driving force that works to pass along genes ‘it’ deems most beneficial to the next generation.
The Beetle and the Nosema
The beetle has its physical behavior changed by an infecting protozoa called ‘Nosema’. The genes of this parasite cross interests with the genes of the beetle. They work together where their interest is mutual. They allow the beetle to mate, lay eggs and survive because their ultimate interest is passing their genes to the next generation. New eggs are infected and the new beetles will carry genes of the protozoa for another generation.
The mutual interest conflicts with the normal development of the beetle. When its larvae are ready to pupate, the Nosema genes take over. This protozoa has the ability to synthesize juvenile hormones that prevent the beetle from transforming into an adult. If a beetle larvae is injected with juvenile hormones, it will stop metamorphosing. The hormones force the larvae to continue growing through six new molts. The beetle grows into a giant larvae up to twice its normal size. This growth benefits the protozoa and when the lifecycle is complete, the beetle goes into adulthood and lays infected eggs.
Dawkins states, “The two sets of genes, therefore, would be expected to pull together, for exactly the same reasons as all the genes of one organism pull together. It is irrelevant that some of them happen to be beetle genes while others happen to be bacterial genes. Both sets of genes are interested in the propagation of beetle eggs. Both sets of genes, therefore, are interested in making the beetle bodies successful in all departments of life, in both survival and reproduction.”
He also states, “it is more fundamental for genes to work in their own interests.” He also says that in some cases, genes may rebel against their bodies when they find away to break free and succeed in manipulating their own bodies. Bodies are nothing more than the vehicles that genes use to survive and reach their goals.
The Snail Fluke
A snail fluke is a microscopic parasite that infects the snail through ingestion. It is known as a snail fluke because it changes the snail’s behavior. When the fluke is ready for its next life cycle, it migrates into the snail’s eye, causes the snail to climb toward sunlight and then pulsates vividly to attract attention of any passing bird. The snail fluke has an interesting life cycle. It is dependent on three external hosts. It begins with a sheep, infects the snail, passes through a bird and back to the sheep. All three are necessary for each step of its development. The snail fluke, according to Dawkins, has a limited cross interest with the snail. The genes of the fluke are not interested in the snail’s reproduction or its long-term survival. It is only interested in the snail’s short-term survival.
Richard Dawkins argues that the genes of the snail and the genes of the fluke have the same ultimate goal but different methods of achieving that goal. Their gene’s goal is to get out of the snail’s body. The fluke wants the short route, but the snail will use a longer evolutionary path.
Let’s think critically
Did evolution occur?
In the end, was new genetic code added to either the host or the parasite? No. The snail is still a snail and even loses its chance to pass its genes on. The fluke is still a fluke and will produce flukes just like itself. The beetle is still a beetle. It’s offspring will not be giants by nature. They will have to be manipulated to grow just as their parents were by the hormones produced by the Nosema microbe. Left alone, they will be normal beetles with no new traits and no new genes.
Does a gene have intelligence?
Why does Richard Dawkins give designing intelligence to genes? Genes are nothing but the information stored in molecule format. Do the pages of an instruction book work as a team to control you? Or do they just provide you with the information you need to accomplish what the writer typed out? Did the genes design themselves? Or were they written by someone greater than the informational blocks they reside in?
It is no accident that evolution arguments give intelligence to genes, the cosmos, the organism or evolution itself. The driving force has to be intelligent because there is no room for error. Left to itself, a computer will never program itself, a book will never write its own pages and genes cannot design themselves. Dawkins acknowledges the need for intelligence in everything he writes. He credits the genes with thinking, working, cooperating, manipulating and designing. Carl Sagan also credited design to intelligence but he did not credit the genes. He credited the cosmos as the intelligent force that drives evolution.
Where did the knowledge to manipulate come from?
The Nosema protozoa has special knowledge. How did it ‘know’ the beetle would pupate? How did it know what hormone to produce? How did it know how to produce this hormone? How did even know there was a hormone? In order to manipulate the development of the beetle, there had to be knowledge of the beetle, how the body works, how hormones work, which beetle to use and innumerable other obstacles that would have to be overcome.
The same is true for the snail. In order for the genes to manipulate the bodies they ‘used as vehicles’, the genes would have to understand the behavior and bodies of birds, snails and sheep. If even one of these were missed, the genes bite the dust. They had to know the snail hid from the light and how to reprogram the snail to seek the light. It had to know how to generate a harder shell. It had to know where to find the bird. It had to know that birds are attracted to pulsation in the light. It had to know the bird’s digestive system. It had to know which bird’s activities would place them near the sheep’s feeding area. It had to know the sheep’s digestive system. It also had to know that the snail would eat the droppings of the sheep. How many other obstacles stand in the way that we will never think about. One mistake and the entire process would have been a wasted effort. It seems reasonable that if it were simply an issue of survival, it would have been a one-step process.
Did this show evolution or design?
Did Dawkins provide any evidence for evolution or did he show design and call it evolution? The entire plausibility of Dawkins argument is dependent on the knowledge and intelligence and special knowledge of the gene. He builds his whole argument with the assumption that this is true. If it is not true, none of this is possible by chance. His entire argument is that genes work as a team with a goal already in mind. When a parasite has a conflicting interest with the genes of a host, it takes action and manipulates for its own self-interest. In reality, he is not arguing time and chance. He is arguing design but crediting that design to evolution.
Dawkins is careful to argue his point in such a way that the reader does not recognize the intelligent design he is acknowledging. He hides the intelligence behind the smokescreen of evolutionary terms and concepts. In reality, he is arguing design while manipulating the reader not to see it. Genes point to intelligence. Evolutionists downplay this masterful design by using simplistic illustrations to make the evolution model appear to agree with the facts. When we get beyond the surface of simplicity, we see the incredibly complex facts that lead us outside of the box if we will let it. Let’s take a closer look at genes.
As we have seen, Richard Dawkins gives conscious attributes to genes. They think, act, decide, work as teams, etc. Let’s stop for a moment and look at the basics of genes – DNA. DNA is the code that communicates with the cell. It contains a wealth of information. One cell contains enough DNA to stretch six feet in length and your body has enough DNA to reach the moon and back 250,000 times. All scientists – including evolutionist – call the information, DNA code. It is a language that stores everything about our physical make up. The University of Kansas explains it this way:
The DNA of a gene is accessible - but - accessibility is usually regulated. In order to understand this regulation, we need to discuss some details of a gene. If one looked at the sequence of the nucleotides in one of the strands where the gene is located (only one-half of each step in the staircase), the sequence would appear to be just a bunch of nucleotides linked in some apparently random order. However, such is not the case. It is precisely this order which contains the critical information - the code. A gene is therefore much like a sentence in our language - a sentence, like a gene, has a beginning (start here) and an end (stop here) - there are keys which allow recognition. A sentence is made of words - as is a gene. In a gene the words are all only three letters-long, and there are only 4 letters in the alphabet. However, the words are arranged in a three-letter code which "says" - "put the amino-acid right here in this position." Because there are 4 different nucleotides, and any combination of three-letters is allowed, there are 64 possible (4-cubed) sets of three letters.
Let’s take a critical analysis of the language of genes. What makes a language? There are two vital aspects to understanding any language. The writer and the interpreter must speak the same language. According to evolution, DNA has accumulated by chance to form this complex language without any intelligent intervention. It is a language of chance. But what if the language written isn’t spoken by the reader? If I write:
Language is only good if you can understand it.
Spanish - El lenguaje es solamente bueno si usted puede entenderlo.
French - Le langage est seulement bon si vous pouvez le comprendre.
German - Sprache ist nur gut, wenn Sie sie verstehen können.
Italian - Il linguaggio soltanto buono se potete capirli.
Portuguese - A língua é somente boa se você puder a compreender.
You can only read the sentence in languages that you have been trained to understand. Evolutionists argue that, given enough time, we could randomly accumulate letters into words that can communicate a message. But whose language is that word based on? The word ‘understand’ makes sense to me if it is in English, but the word ‘können’ is gibberish to me. I don’t have anyway to interpret it. Even the letter ‘ö’ is outside of my language. How can I piece together the meaning of a language that uses letters that don’t exist in my language? I could examine it for eternity and would never make sense of it without something to decode it. The language must be known before the book is written or all the information is useless.
What about Chinese, Japanese, Greek or Russian that do not use our alphabet at all? What about computers that speak in 0’s and 1’s? 01000000 = the number 64, but I would never know this without prior knowledge. All the information in the world could mysteriously appear in a book in your hands, but if you have not been trained to speak that language, you can’t understand it and it is useless.
Is it out of line to ask, How did this DNA language get organized and interpreted?
Is the writer of DNA the one who taught the reader?
Is it possible to assemble volumes of information in a small compartment without any prior established order of how it is to be organized and understood?
If scientist acknowledge that there are keys which are necessary to decoding DNA, then does this point toward evolution without design?
Not only does DNA require a key, it also must be in precise order. Mismatches create mutations and almost always destroy the function of DNA.
When we look critically at the language of genes, we see that it is a challenge to evolution. All the facts challenge evolution when followed to their full conclusion. Some argue that only the theory of evolution is true science and yet others such as Richard Dawkins proclaim that evolution is not theory, but fact. Is evolution a theory, fact or not either? Let’s take a closer look at scientific theory and see how evolution aligns.
Scientific theory
verses fact
A theory can never be proven. It never becomes a fact, but scientific theories are supported by facts. A scientific theory is a generally accepted explanation of a scientific concept. For an example I will use Electro-magnetic Theory. There are many facts we know about this concept, but we will never reach a final conclusion. It began as a hypothesis – or an educated guess. Experimentation led to failures, successes and breakthroughs. As the concepts developed, a wider understanding was born and the theory is now a field of study.
Even though the theory cannot be proven, it can be expanded and built upon. For example, the first breakthrough was electro-magnetic current. Then the electron magnet, followed by magnetic propulsion; a motor; electric engines; circuits; circuit boards, conductors, super-conductors and so on. At each level technology is built on top of previous knowledge. The process is never a fact, but many facts are discovered and support the theory. Errors in the theory often are not discovered until several generations of breakthroughs later. Calculating a magnetic field for a motor does not require the same level of precision as an MRI used in hospitals. During development of new technology, an error may be discovered that requires the researcher to go back several generations of technology, find the error and then go back to research. The farther technology advances, the more precision is required. So a theory is never complete. It is built and expanded as it reaches new heights.
In this sense, evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position. Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the guess. They do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated. It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out. The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support the foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted.
Examples of selective facts
Dating methods
Most people do not realize it, but over 90% of dating results point to a young earth. However, evolution rejects the 90% and only acknowledges the 10%. In one year, 21,000 carbon14 specimens were submitted and 19,000 were rejected. Only 2,000 were considered accurate by evolutionist. Why?
It is not just Carbon14 dating that has this problem, but all dating methods are screened through the evolutionary crosscheck. Dating is measured by circular logic. A fossil is dated by the geological layer in which it is found. The geological layer is dated by the fossils found within it. This produces a fail-proof system of crosschecking dates. The system is designed to hide inaccuracies. The geological layer is a theoretical layer modeled in the mid-1800s. Many fatal blows have been dealt to this process, but evolution has not let go of it. Polystrate trees pose a serious threat to this dating method. Polystrate trees are fossilized trees that are standing erect through many layers of the geological column.
It is impossible for these trees to have stood for the millions and hundreds of millions of years that these columns supposedly represent. Another fatal blow was dealt in 1979 when the Coelacanth was find alive and well living off the coast of Madagascar. This fish is an index fossil, which means they are used to determine the age of the other fossils found within their same layer. The Coelacanth supposedly died out hundreds of millions of years ago. When its fossils are found in a layer of strata, the date of extinction is used to determine the minimum age of the other fossils within the same layer. If it is still alive, what does this tell us about the accuracy of dating layers by index fossils?
Dating methods for a specimen is only accepted if it falls within the date range determined by the layer or index fossils within the layer. Science confirm this dating crosscheck in the Journal of Geological Society of Australia:
Williams, I. S., W. Compston, B. W. Chapell, and T. Shirahase, Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 22, no. 4 (1975).
p 502
“The internal consistency demonstrated above is not a sufficient test of the accuracy of the age determinations; they must also be consistent within any age constraints placed on intrusion by fossils in the country rocks.”
In a nutshell, they are admitting that the specimen itself is not accurately dated, so evolution puts constraints that place it within the age of fossils and rocks that have already been dated. What happens when dates don’t match up? Evolutionist L. R. Stieff explains how they get dates to agree:
L. R. Stieff, “Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages,” United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 414-E (1963), p. E1.
“The most reasonable age can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations.
“In an effort to evaluate a discordant age sequence, therefore, the data are adjusted in one of several ways until the lead-uranium and lead-lead ages are in agreement.”
Here Stieff has acknowledged that the data is manipulated until the results are in agreement. Is this intellectual honesty? Why is all the evidence filtered through the evolutionary crosschecks? Is the system to date fossils designed to prevent failure and only support the evolution model? We have all heard evolution supporters herald the accuracy of various dating methods, but in reality there is no such thing as accuracy. Multiple dating methods are used and manipulated until the predetermined conclusion is matched. The dating that agrees is the method that is used.
What happens if none of the dates yield results that support evolution? 90% of dating does not support the evolution model. So what do evolutionists do with the rest of the evidence? R. L. Mauger of the University of Wyoming explains:
(University of Wyoming) Contributions to Geology, vol.. 15, no. 1 (Winter 1977), pp. 17-41.
p 37
“In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.”
We should ask ourselves, why is this evidence excluded without an explanation?
Why are 10% of the results considered more credible than the other 90%?
What happens when there is no way to reconcile observable science with evolution? We see many examples where inexplicable gaps are filled in with assumptions. When this happens, the assumptions are treated as fact without verifiable evidence. An example of this is ‘dark matter’.
Dark Matter
According to evolution, our galaxy is between 4.5 and 5 billion years old. However, an interesting problem has been added to the equation since the discovery of dwarf galaxies. It is amusing that the farther technology advances, the more assumptions must be added to support evolution. Dwarf Galaxies are smaller galaxies with a faster rotation. The problem with dwarf galaxies is that the faster rotation does not fit the old universe model of the Big Bang theory. The dwarf galaxy’s rotation would have caused them to disperse in 1/150th of the supposed age of the universe. To solve the problem, evolution sought for an out. Remember, the evolution model is based on the presupposition that the beginning is a fact. Anything that contradicts the starting point collapses the whole model. Updating the model is never an option. Therefore Dark Matter was invented.
Dark matter is a theoretical force that has a gravitational effect on galaxies and prevents them from dispersing. However, the invention of dark matter created a new problem. If it prevented dwarf galaxies from dispersing, it would have the same effect on large galaxies. This would also contradict the evolution model. To solve this problem, the theory was updated to include cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Cold dark matter slows down the dispersion of stars in dwarf galaxies without slowing down their rotation. Hot dark matter travels at or near the speed of light, thus allowing larger galaxies to stay within the evolution model. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for dark matter and its only purpose is to constrain the observable science so that it fits evolution. It cannot be tested, proved or disproved. The reason scientists believe dark matter exists is that it must exist because the Big Bang has to be true.
University of Hertfordshire Astronomy defines dark matter this way:
Dark matter. Hypothetical matter which is postulated to exist in the universe in vast quantities. It is difficult to detect because it is either non luminous or possessed of a very low luminosity . Dark matter is thought to exist because of its gravitational effects in the universe; specifically within galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Within a spiral galaxy, the stars move as if large quantities of matter, which cannot be seen, exist around the disc of the galaxy. Within clusters of galaxies, the individual galaxies move as if ten times as much matter exists than can be seen in the stars and the emission nebulae. Dark matter may come in two principle types: the first is baryonic matter. This is matter such as makes up the luminous portions of the universe. The atoms of the familiar chemical elements are simply bound into intrinsically low luminosity objects such as planets , brown dwarfs and black holes . If the matter is not in this form, then the second type is dark matter which is thought to exist in the form of the exotic particles. These are predicted by certain Grand Unified Theories . Two sub-classifications of exotic dark matter exist; cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Hot dark matter is composed of particles such as neutrinos . They are called hot because they travel at (or very close to) the speed of light. Neutrinos are a prime candidate, although there is still uncertainty over whether they have any mass. If neutrinos do not have mass, they cannot provide the gravity necessary to act as the dark matter. Cold dark matter is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). These particles are possessed of relatively large masses, travel relatively slowly and interact only weakly with 'normal' baryonic material. Hence, they are difficult to detect. Although many experiments have been undertaken to detect neutrino masses and WIMPs, no conclusive evidence has yet been found and the search for what the constituents are in dark matter goes on.
It is interesting how this explanation implies that it is a fact while admitting that it has never been observed. They first say it is difficult to detect and then say there is no evidence ‘yet’. When evolution’s back is against the wall, scientists push the facts as far out of reach as possible. Some even claim that aliens introduced bacteria via a rocket. This doesn’t answer the origin of life, it only attempts to entrap creationists by trying to make them prove there isn’t life out in space. Notice the theory of dark matter is not based on observable science and there is no evidence to support it. Even so, you find more and more evolutionists claiming that it is a verifiable fact. Scientific America posted an article claiming that 90% of the universe was composed of dark matter. Here is an excerpt from this article:
Based on 50 years of accumulated observations of the motions of galaxies and the expansion of the universe, most astronomers believe that as much as 90 percent of the stuff constituting the universe may be objects or particles that cannot be seen. In other words, most of the universe's matter does not radiate--it provides no glow that we can detect in the electromagnetic spectrum. First posited some 60 years ago by astronomer Fritz Zwicky, this so-called missing matter was believed to reside within clusters of galaxies. Nowadays we prefer to call the missing mass "dark matter," for it is the light, not the matter, that is missing.
Let’s take a critical look at this claim. It completely depends on the power of persuasion to establish the evolutionist position. On the surface, they appear to be presenting evidence, but a closer look reveals that they are basing the ‘fact of dark matter’ on pure conjecture. This paragraph establishes authority based on ‘50 years of accumulated observations’. No facts are presented. What was observed? The universe expanding. That is clear. It is how the universe is expanding that created the problem for evolution.
Also notice that the implication that science has observed that 90% of the universe is dark matter is based solely on the statement ‘most scientists believe’. Belief means nothing if there is no supporting evidence. It is the faith of evolutionists that is presented as evidence for evolution. They ‘believe’ it exists, though it has never been seen, measured or detected. If matter can’t be seen, measured or detected, what rational basis can they base their assumptions on? Where did the concept of dark matter come from? It was imagined and invented for the sole purpose of keeping galaxies within the box of evolution. It is now being heralded as a known fact based solely on the claims that ‘most scientists believe it’.
Observable science points away from dark matter, not toward it. In 1972, NASA launched the exploratory space probe Pioneer 10. Its primary mission was to reach Jupiter to photograph the planet, surrounding moons and gather data to send back to earth. It was considered a risky adventure to even reach Jupiter. When it reached Jupiter in 1973, the effect of the planet had an unforeseen effect on Pioneer 10. The large planet's gravity caused Pioneer 10 to gain a greater amount of speed, which propelled it farther out into space. Jupiter is approximately 360,000,000 miles from earth and Pioneer 10 was only designed to make this journey. However, with the increased speed, Pioneer has now gone over 6 billion miles past the Sun. What is even more remarkable is that Pioneer 10 only has an 8-watt radio transmitter. From 6 billion miles away, this tiny transmitter still reaches the earth in a little over 9 hours.
What does this have to do with dark matter? It adds another piece to the puzzle. If dark matter makes up 90% of the galaxy, shouldn't this probe have encountered it in its 6 Billion mile journey? After all, one of the functions of Pioneer 10 was to measure the magnetic fields, radiation belts, atmosphere and other data from the planet Jupiter. Pioneer 10 has not encountered dark matter. Dark matter also has not slowed down the flight of this probe. It also has not hindered the transmission back to earth. An 8-watt transmitter is compared to the power of a nightlight. It does not give off much energy. Unlike a star, it does not take much interference to block the signal of an 8-watt radio.
Is it possible that dark matter may not exist?
Why does dark matter exist only where it fits evolution’s interest but does not interfere in any other way?
Could this be blind faith and not invisible matter?
Evolution is a faith based belief system. The more science discovers, the more faith is required to hold to the evolution god. He does not exist and has no attributes that give him power, yet he is worshipped by the majority of the world. This statement will enrage most evolutionists I realize, but I can support this claim by the testimonies of evolution scientists, researchers and educators. Evolution is not called a god. Instead, science is reshaped and redefined to mean ‘god’. In the next section, I will examine these testimonies with the hope to remove the veil so that people can choose which god they will serve. If someone wants evolution, they have that choice. My goal is to make it an educated choice.
In this section, I want to show that ‘Evolution’
itself is the god of evolutionist. It is given life, a spirit, intelligence,
reason, humor, the power to design and create, it has a plan and uses strategy
to implement that plan. By the words of evolutionists themselves, evolution has
the same credentials as God. I do think it is ironic that evolution is praised
as a non-religious answer to disprove God, but then is praised as though it
were a god. Carl Sagan praised evolution as the product of the Cosmos. He made
a point to capitalize cosmos the same way that Christians capitalize God. Sagan
even altered the Christian doxology to substitute Cosmos for God. Yet at the
same time, he criticized religion as non-scientific. Though evolutionists
adamantly deny that evolution is a religion, their own words contradict them.
These quotes are taken directly from the sources referenced. Many will say that
they don’t worship evolution. However, if you are getting your beliefs from
those who worship creation, your beliefs are intended to point you to their
god. Let’s look and compare the god of evolution, as defined by evolution
itself, to the God of the Bible. Then let us choose which God we will follow.
Who is the Creator
Evolution does not deny creation, it attempts to
take credit for it. You can hardly read a book or watch a nature program where
it is not said that ‘evolution created’, or ‘evolution designed’ something. In
my research for this article, this was the number one phrase that stuck out. I
had hundreds of phrases to choose from in a matter of minutes, so I chose
three.
NATURE SAFARI
Evolution's theme seems to be "pain is good". It helps keep us away from things that are invariably unhealthy. This is how evolution works. It designs systems to help us survive.
Though the word ‘create’ was not used here, Nature Safari is crediting evolution with the design of the nervous system. With the forethought of survival, evolution designed pain to help promote survival.
Quinnipiac University
Evolution creates limbs.
Evolution has created biodiversity.
Oxford Ancestors
Evolution have created millions of different Y-chromosomes each with their own unique genetic fingerprint.
These two quotes not only credit evolution with the power to create, but also with the ability to create millions of unique designs. Evolution created millions of different Y-chromosomes each uniquely different? Why would evolution want such diversity? Once survival has been achieved, what need would there be in diversifying so greatly? Millions of uniquely different chromosomes would not be needed to survive. Can we conclude that evolution likes different colors, styles and shapes?
The Bible responds:
Genesis 1:1 In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
3 Then God said,
"Let there be light"; and there was light.
11 Then God said,
"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit
tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the
earth"; and it was so.
20 Then God said,
"Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the
heavens."
25 And God made
the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and
everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it
was good.
27 So God created
man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He
created them.
The Bible makes it clear that God created all
things for His pleasure and man was created to have fellowship with God. Many
try to marry evolution with the Bible by saying that God used evolution to
create all things. However, this is a direct rejection of the Bible itself. For
evolution to exist, death had to exist before man. The Bible addresses this
issue. Romans 5 clearly stands in contradiction of evolution:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned --
...
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to
Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the
transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the offense.
For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God
and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
16 And the gift is not like that which came
through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense
resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses
resulted in justification.
17 For if by the one man's offense death
reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and
of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
The Bible clearly states that death entered
into the world because of Adam’s sin. This is the foundation for understanding
the redemption through Christ. By one man sin entered, by One Man death and sin
was defeated on the Cross. If you reject the Genesis account, you have no
foundation for the redemption plan that was fulfilled though Jesus Christ. You
can’t believe evolution and still believe the Bible. You can claim to, but if
you deny the foundation, there is no basis to believe the New Testament
redemption that is built on that foundation. If sin did not enter through Adam,
the Bible is founded upon a lie. A lie mixed with truth is still a lie. You
can’t choose evolution and the God of the Bible because scripture is in direct
conflict with the premise that evolution is founded upon. Evolution requires
death over millions of years. The Bible requires sin of man before death could
enter the world. Jesus came to fulfill the penalty of our sin that began with
Adam. The Bible leaves no room for mixing and matching beliefs.
Who is Planning
this Journey?
Evolution claims:
Cybernetica
Like every law of nature, the Plan of Evolution does not determine uniquely and in detail how things will develop. It only sets the boundaries between the possible and the impossible.
The Ecologist
With these capabilities and patenting incentives' scientists, and their corporate and government sponsors, have the potential of becoming the architects of life itself, the authors of a technological evolution designed to create new, more "efficient", species of microbe, plant and animal (including humans) which better comport with our technological system. Genetic engineering is the final adaptation of life to machine. (IE, Evolution designed man with technology to become the designer to take adaptation to the next level).
Mario F. Heilmann
University of California at Los Angeles
Evolution tends to find all possible strategies in order to occupy diverse ecological niches.
Here we see evolution prophets proclaiming
‘The Plan of Evolution’ as though it began with the end result in mind. Do you
believe that evolution has a plan? Notice that these evolutionists even
capitalize evolution as though it were a god deserving higher attributes and
deserving a proper name. ‘The Ecologist’ quoted above echoes a similar belief
that Richard Dawkins expressed in his article about phenotypes. Dawkins claims
that genes have a plan and use bodies as vehicles to carry out that plan. ‘The
Ecologist’ carries this one step further. They claim that evolution is using
scientists to invent more efficient species and ultimately life will evolve
through technology. Life will be carried on through machines. Heilmann of the
University of California offers some agreement by stating that evolution finds
all possible strategies to further its purposes.
Evolutionists testify that evolution is
intelligent. It thinks; it plans; it has a purpose in mind; it uses strategies
to achieve its goals. Evolution is not merely a concept, but an intelligent,
self-aware higher power that uses all resources to further its goals. We are
merely pawns used to set the stage and vehicles used to reach a destination.
The Bible Responds
Are we merely pawns in the hand of the cosmos?
Is our only purpose in life to be a carrier for evolution and then to be used
and discarded once we have served evolution’s motives? The attributes given to
the Plan of Evolution somewhat resemble a faded version of the truth of God.
Like all things, the counterfeit never measures up to the authentic gospel.
Just as evolution claims to have a plan, God has a plan. Unlike evolution,
God’s plan is not self-serving, but beneficial to us. God does not use us and
cast us away once He achieves His goals. Unlike evolution, God does not need a
vehicle to serve His purpose. His plan is not to survive, but to guide us into
a relationship with Him. Look at Ephesians 1:
7 In Him we have redemption through His
blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He made to abound toward us in all
wisdom and prudence,
9 having made known to us the mystery of His
will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
10 that in the dispensation of the fullness
of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which
are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him.
What is the true Plan? To reveal the mystery
of God’s will. His plan is to gather those who respond to Christ together in
Him. Consider the following passage:
NIV Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
I normally use the New King James version,
but the NIV words this passage beautifully. The Plan of Evolution is to use us
to further its cause. The Plan of God is to prosper us, give us hope and a
future. Just as evolution claims to have had a plan from the beginning and a goal
in sight, God proclaims the end from the beginning. He sees and has planned
what lies ahead. Isaiah 14:24 says, “The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying,
"Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, and as I have
purposed, so it shall stand”.
It isn’t God’s overall plan that is declared,
but He also planned our life from the beginning. Look at Psalm 139
13 For You formed my inward parts; You
covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and
wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet
unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me,
O God! How great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they would be more
in number than the sand;
With great care and detail, God has planned
each person’s life before they began in the womb. Before you had a breath on
this earth, God already fashioned your days. Each one of us has the right to
veto God’s plan. That is why it is important to realize that God’s plan is to
prosper and not harm us. Once we trust God, we can submit to His plan. We must
enter His purposes through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. We can enter
a relationship with God and experience His plan only through the cross. We must
choose which God we will follow. The cruel god of evolution who uses and
discards its resources, or the true God who planned every breath with such
detail that His thoughts toward us is greater in measure than the sands of the
world if they could be numbered.
Who is Spirit?
Evolution Claims:
Ken Wilbur, in the book "Sex, Ecology and
Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution", decided that hierarchy was a
fundamental concept.
It is interesting that even the spiritual
attributes of God are given to the god Evolution. The Spirit decided on
evolution’s hierarchy. Could this ‘Spirit’ be a false god? Look at 1 Timothy
4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
The Spirit of God warned that in the latter
days there would be deceiving spirits. Could the god of Evolution be one of
those spirits?
The Bible Responds:
We have already seen the mockery of people like
William Edelen who said:
“I have often
asked — When are Jews and Christians going to grow up, evolve spiritually, and
let go of the archaic and primitive biblical concepts of ‘God’?”
“Anyone who
believes today in the year 2000 that the bible is ‘reliable’ and ‘infallible,’
without error or contradiction, is approaching insanity.”
Are Christians fools for believing scripture?
In the world’s eyes – yes. Or as 1 Corinthians 2:14 puts it, “But the natural
man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” We much
choose which God we place our faith in: The Spirit of Evolution, or the Spirit
of God. We each must choose whether we believe Genesis 1:2, “The earth was
without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit
of God was hovering over the face of the waters” and continued to create plants
and animals according to their kind, or “the Spirit of Evolution” moved upon
the earth to create life and establish its hierarchy.
Romans 8:14 tells us, “For as many as are led
by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” What about those who identify
themselves with the Spirit of Evolution? Matthew 12 gives a warning:
30 "He who is not with Me is against Me,
and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
31 " Therefore I say to you, every sin
and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will
not be forgiven men.
32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the
Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy
Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
To call the work of the Holy Spirit evil is
blasphemy. Also to give credit for the work of the Holy Spirit to a false
Spirit is also blasphemy. Do we take the work of God and credit it to the god
of evolution? Do we identify ourselves with leaders who are founded upon and
preaching this blasphemy? We are told, “God is Spirit, and those who worship
Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24. You cannot mix the error of
evolution with the truth of God. Truth mixed with error is error. We can only
have a relationship with God founded upon truth. Every lie is in conflict with
God. To know God, we must submit to Him by submitting to His truth that
cleanses us. There is no middle ground. To identify ourselves with those who
mock God is to mock God as well. Consenting is just as much a sin as actively
participating.
Who is the Master
Engineer?
Evolution:
Mario F. Heilmann
University of California at Los Angeles
Evolution produced deceptive mechanisms frequently.
Of course, evolution also favored the capacity to detect deception, because someone who is not easily deceived has higher inclusive fitness.
Evolution apparently has masterfully designed deception so species can survive and then favored the idea of detecting that deception and engineered species who could detect it. Evolution is in conflict with itself. It hides its creations by deception so they can survive and then created species with the ability to detect the deception it created and the detectors are favored because they are more fit. Not only is evolution in conflict with itself, but evolutionists are in conflict with each other. Here are two quotes to consider:
University of Washington
We've seen evolution backing up occasionally to explore a missed opportunity.
“Unlike human designers, natural selection can't go
downhill not even if there is a tempting higher hill on the other side of the
valley”. Richard Dawkins
University of Washington is making an
observation. We know that ‘evolutionary hierarchies’ don’t account for much of
what we observe. Therefore U of W claims this is evolution backing up and
following missed chances to create diversity. Dawkins on the other hand is
recognizing that this is not possible if they are to be consistent with the
evolutionary model. The genetic code does not allow for backing up. Gaining
even one beneficial mutation has never been observed and would be a miracle in
itself. You can’t reasonably accept the idea that once evolution achieved this miracle,
it discarded the DNA and reverted back down the chain to explore another
avenue. The university is acknowledging that evolution following a straight
chain doesn’t account for what we see and Dawkins is acknowledging that
evolution can’t change course. Is it reasonable to think that if what science
observes doesn’t fit what science believes to be true that maybe the belief is
flawed? In order for evolution to back up and explore missed opportunities,
there would have to be an intelligent architect returning to the basics and
reengineering each species. Lets continue examining Evolution’s ability to
design.
University of Illinois
Many reactions have been characterized in which evolution has taken advantage of the local charge effects to engineer specific features of importance in mechanism and control.
NATURE SAFARI
…the logic of evolution. Evolution designed our psychological attributes, like it designed our physical attributes, to help us survive.
Here we see that evolution uses logic to
plan, design and engineer features and mechanisms. In this case, Evolution has
designed our minds, not to think, but to help us survive. In the following
quote from Time Magazine we will see that evolution decided which attributes
were worth developing and which were not. The article began by taking about
physical regeneration in some animals. We pick up from there.
Time Magazine
But evolution did not do the same thing for the central nervous system. …if the central nervous system of an animal were to regenerate, the animal would not have the speed and agility it once had, and would thus be easy prey. It is better for the animal to just die. Evolution decided that it's better not even to try." The challenge for medical science in finding a cure is that the body must be made to do what it was not made to do.
The logical conclusions we can draw from this
explanation is that evolution designed us with certain functionalities.
Evolution designed our bodies with certain goals in mind. Evolution
purposefully denied us from the ability to heal our nervous system. Evolution
decided it wasn’t worth the effort to fix what it could not make new. There are
some logical contradictions in this article that seem to be missed by its
author. He claims, evolution’s purpose is survival of the species. It does not
help the species repair damaged nerves because if it does, the animal might be
easy prey and would likely die. Therefore, it is better to let the animal die.
To avoid the animal being killed it is better to let it die? Which would
increase survival chances, a repaired nervous system that wasn’t quite as good
as the original and giving the creature a chance, or imposing certain death?
In reality, evolutionists are trying to marry
observable science to the evolution model. Because the facts don’t fit the
model, they design arguments to explain away what is in obvious conflict with
observable science. Also note that the only foundation for this argument is the
authority dependent on evolution being a fact. If you have faith in the evolutionist’s
because he establishes his authority within the box of evolution, then you may
find this argument valid. If you remove the authority of the evolutionist, the
argument has no weight or credibility. Here are two more quotes about the
master designer according to evolution:
Scientific America
DNA and RNA are the molecules that evolution chose to store all genetic information.
Cairo American College
Therefore, evolution decided to pass some of the workload over to the male.
Just as a writer chooses whether he will store his works on paper, computer or any other medium, evolution chose to store its volumes of information on molecules of DNA. It is interesting to note that one single cell contains enough information in the DNA code to fill 1,000,000 pages the size of an encyclopedia. One illustration of the sheer volume of data in DNA comes from Prof. Werner Gitt:
Let's look at the amount of information that could be contained in a pinhead volume of DNA. If all this information were written into paperback books, it would make a pile of such books 500 times higher than from here to the moon!
Evolution claims to be the glorious master
designer of this remarkable process. With some of the worlds greatest
researchers and a wealth of modern technology, the modern computer hard drive
cannot come close to holding a fraction of the data that DNA can store on the
head of a pin. To give a mental image, a pinhead filled with DNA would have
enough information to fill 119,428,000 miles of books stacked flat one on top
of the other. By faith, the evolutionist credits this engineering mastery to
the god of Evolution.
The Bible responds:
Psalm 147
5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His
understanding is infinite.
6 The LORD lifts up the humble; He casts the
wicked down to the ground.
Isaiah 42:
5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the
heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes
from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on
it:
6 "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will
hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a
light to the Gentiles,
7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners
from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
8 I am the LORD, that is My name; And My
glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
Can time and chance write millions of volumes
of data on the head of a pin? Can chance assemble this masterful design and put
the mechanisms in place to use it? Can Evolution create, design, engineer,
decide and strategize ways to put its plan in motion? Are you giving God’s
glory to the god of Evolution? Are you a Christian who believes the Bible is
false and credits evolution as the mechanism God uses – in spite of the fact
that God said, “I will not give my glory to another”? People try to justify
living between two worldviews, but in reality, to choose evolution is to reject
God. People may be able to feel better emotionally by claiming God uses
evolution, but this marriage with evolution can't be reconciled without denying
the truth of scripture. Death came by sin and sin by Adam, therefore, evolution
is impossible unless you purposefully reject the truth of the Word of God.
Who directs our
steps?
Evolution claims to be the director of our
steps:
Boston University
Evolution shaped us to take advantage of environmental contingencies
Evolution claims to have shaped us for our advantage. However, according to evolutionists, evolution has also manipulated us with illusions that we are persons and have a conscious thought. Look at the following two quotes:
NATURE SAFARI
Why would evolution "invest" in the brain circuitry required to create self image. Self image impinges on the conscious brain, so it must have an important function. Consciousness, as you recall, is a finite and precious resource that cannot be squandered on irrelevant distractions.
Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism Inc. 1994
In "What Is 'Consciousness'?" Adam Carley interprets other work in the study of consciousness to suggest that the "self-aware self" is nothing but an illusion, a trick of short-term memory that evolution preserved because it let humans learn more richly from experience.
Is there any wonder why the world is filled with hopelessness? Can there be anything more depressing than to think that I am living in an illusion and that I don’t really exist as a person, but it is just a trick of evolution to manipulate me into certain behaviors? Why do kids go on killing sprees and then end the reign of terror with their own suicide? If there is no purpose in my life other than to pass genes on, then how can I not feel hopeless? Twenty years ago we were shocked at any killing by children. Today it is just another news story. After each mass killing the reporters usually ask why. They speculate that guns are the source of evil, more self-development programs are needed, or any number of secondary issues. They refuse to acknowledge that the natural, logical conclusion of evolution is hopelessness and a purposeless life. When people lose hope and they believe there is no accountability after this life, why would they not allow their depression to become destructive? Can you teach children that they are animals of chance and then ask them to act civilized? Everything in the life of evolution is forced and not out of a free will. Evolution tells us what to think, deceives us into thinking we are people and forces us to choose behaviors it deems beneficial.
Even our sports and health activities are not our choice. According to Mario F. Heilmann of the University of California at Los Angeles, “Evolution made us choose fitness enhancing behavior...” Evolution made us choose to be fit. The god of evolution directs our steps according to the evolutionary religion. We have no true will and no choice. We are ignorant followers of these directives.
The Bible responds:
Evolution claims to direct us by manipulation
but God directs us by leading. Unlike the claim of Evolution, God does not
force anyone into His ways. God calls us to submit out of love for Him. Our
steps are guided by His word, not unconscious directives. Look at Psalm 119:
133 Direct my steps by Your word, And let no
iniquity have dominion over me.
134 Redeem me from the oppression of man,
That I may keep Your precepts.
Deuteronomy 11:
26 " Behold, I set before you today a
blessing and a curse:
27 "the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD
your God which I command you today;
28 "and the curse, if you do not obey
the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I
command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known.
Deuteronomy 30:19
"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set
before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life,
that both you and your descendants may live;
We are not tricked into certain behavior. We are
given a choice. I can freely choose to live a lifestyle that is by nature under
the curse of sin, or I can choose to submit to God and live in His will, which
is by nature blessed. Through His word, we are blessed and He brings order to
our lives. Look at Psalm 37:
22 For those blessed by Him shall inherit the
earth, But those cursed by Him shall be cut off.
23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the
LORD, And He delights in his way.
24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly
cast down; For the LORD upholds him with His hand.
25 I have been young, and now am old; Yet I
have not seen the righteous forsaken, Nor his descendants begging bread.
It is ironic that critics argue that the God
of the Bible is oppressive. In reality, their own god is oppressive. Our God
plans our ways, directs our steps and gives us His word so that we can inherit
everything He has for us and then presents it as an option we can choose. The
commands of God are non-oppressive, gentle and generous. Jesus said that His
yoke is easy and burden is light. There are constraints, but not oppressive
burdens. The constraint is imposed by me when I submit. I submit because I see
the tremendous value of my inheritance and my relationship with my Creator. I
am not being oppressed, but I am pursuing what I desire – my God.
The professor from Boston University quoted
above claims that Evolution has shaped us. That is quite a different picture
than what God has revealed. God shaped us by creating us in His image. Those
who surrender to Him and trust Him are continuously shaped so that we will one
day stand before God in celebration and victory. The counterfeit religion of
Evolution falls far short of truth. In some areas it vaguely resembles the
truth, but when examined closely, it is oppressive and seeks to bring people
under the bondage of a hopeless existence.
The Big Picture.
Evolution claims that it has the power resolve
to problems and determine outcomes.
NATURE SAFARI
Evolution was faced with the same problem as a growing city.
Publisher’s Weekly 10-02-2000
Evolution has created civilizations and later destroyed
many of them.
Can evolution truly create? Does it have the
power to destroy? If we look at the big picture that is being painted, we can
clearly see that almost all the attributes of God are being attributed to
Evolution. Evolution is a god. It has the power to plan, design, create, judge,
and destroy. When arguing against creation, evolutionists argue that religion
has no place in science. However, if we look at their own words we can clearly
see that religion is dictating modern science. The prophets of evolution are fighting
to promote their religion and suppress God from challenging their god. Here are
more attributes of the evolution god:
Scientific America
It might take another decade to learn whether evolution routinely plays such a sophisticated game with mutation rates.
Orgel's second rule:"Evolution is cleverer than you are."
The Cosmic Clock
Types of evolutionary intelligence are given the opportunity to develop and progress within that System.
Evolution plays sophisticated games; the
Evolution god has intelligence; and Evolution’s intelligence is higher than
man’s. This is remarkably similar to God’s claim in Isaiah 55:9 “For as the
heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My
thoughts than your thoughts.”
While denying being a religion, evolution
systematically undermines the Bible and paints a portrait of the god of
Evolution. The God of evolution does not require holiness or a relationship; it
does not ask for submission and love, it takes over when the need arises. The
god of evolution does not teach us to live morally; it shapes us at it sees
fit. People think that because evolution does not require us to do anything
religious, it is not a religion. You don’t have to go to church to worship the
evolutionary god. You only have to acknowledge it and then you can brand
yourself as one of the elite. Evolution only requires one thing – faith. Those
who don’t have faith in Evolution are branded as heretics of the intellect. We
call those who have faith in Christ ‘Christians’. Those who place their faith
in Evolution call themselves ‘Intellectuals’. To be an Intellectual, you don’ t
have to have an education or higher intelligence, you only have to profess your
faith in Evolution.
Evolutionists love to brand creationists as ignorant; however, when you follow the evolution back as far as it can go, you end up at the same place where biblical creation begins. Something has to be taken by faith. Either matter appeared out of nothing to create the big bang, or God created matter out of nothing by His own power. Which theory is backed by reason? Matter creating itself by the power of Evolution, or God creating matter by His power?
Which God are you submitting to? The Bible responds by saying,
Exodus 20:3 "
You shall have no other gods before Me.
Judges 10
13 "Yet you have forsaken Me and served
other gods. Therefore I will deliver you no more.
14 "Go and cry out to the gods which you
have chosen; let them deliver you in your time of distress."
If evolution is a lie, why do people accept
it without question? I believe the answer is found in 2 Thessalonians 2
10 and with all unrighteous deception among
those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth,
that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send
them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth
but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
When people refuse the truth, God gives them
over to what they have chosen. You cannot remain neutral with God. You either
receive the truth or receive the lie. You will choose what you desire. I have
heard many people say, “I just can’t believe”. When someone claims to have
trouble believing the Bible, what they are really saying is that they are not
sure if they want to believe the Bible. We often deceive ourselves into
thinking that we are being noble, but in reality we are making a conscious
choice. The Bible says that every person has been dealt a measure of faith. We
have been given the ability to believe and it is ingrained within us. I
encounter a lot of skeptics. Some are agnostics, atheists, or false religions.
They all claim to disbelieve, but when I press further the response is always
the same. “I don’t want your God”. When all the façade is stripped away, the
reality is that God does not offer the gratification they are looking for. They
want to draw self-identity by working for salvation instead of receiving it as
a gift of grace. They want the freedom to sin without feeling like there is
accountability. They don’t want to let go of their life because they trust
themselves more than God. They are afraid to give God control.
Evolution is a convenient god. It doesn’t
require anything from us and doesn’t ask us to do anything. It also offers no
hope in this life or the life to come. Our God asks us to give up everything we
have in exchange for all that He has. If we don’t trust Him, that sacrifice is
more than we are willing to give. But those who have faith, see that our
inheritance in Christ is more than we can possibly imagine and more than we
will ever deserve. Jesus said that we must follow Him by faith first. Then we
have our hope for our future in Him.
Luke 9:
23 Then He said to them all, "If anyone
desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily,
and follow Me.
24 "For whoever desires to save his life
will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
25 "For what profit is it to a man if he
gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost?
Psalm 36
7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!
Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Your wings.
8 They are abundantly satisfied with the
fullness of Your house, And You give them drink from the river of Your
pleasures.
9 For with You is the fountain of life; In
Your light we see light.
1 Corinthians 2
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not
seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which
God has prepared for those who love Him."
Which god do you choose? The true God
requires faith. If you choose to believe, you surrender by confessing your
sins, confessing Him (Jesus Christ) as Lord and then laying down your life in
exchange for the life He has created for you. Your hope is in His everlasting
kingdom, not the passing kingdom of this world. Chose whom you will follow. If
Evolution is a god, follow him; but if the Lord is God then follow Him.
