There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".
On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil. This is the tactic, for example, of Richard Dawkins, who was reported by the New York Times as saying:
Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.
... 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). ... At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds.
However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place. This philosophical bias is neither objective nor scientific, but amounts to religious prejudice. We should never forget that any statement about God is inherently religious, whether it be the theist's affirmation or the atheist's denial.
When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.
Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design, (2) whitewashes this philosophical/religious dogma with spurious claims of supporting scientific evidence, and then (3) markets this lie to the world as though it were a proven fact, accepted by all "reputable scientists", and which must be taught to impressionable schoolchildren lest our society fall into collapse and ruin.
This is clearly a recipe for deceiving the masses into denying God, or marginalizing those who continue to believe in a Creator, and this is one of the greatest challenges of our day for those who love the truth.
Science Welcomes Investigation.
One of the most glaring evidences that Evolution is unscientific is the refusal of its proponents to respond to its critics in a fair-handed way. Instead, critics of Evolution are subjected to scorn and ridicule, and dismissed as mental midgets or religious crackpots. This is indeed strange behavior for those who ought to epitomize open-mindedness and objective inquiry. Open, honest inquiry is never a threat to genuine truth. However, lies and deceptions are typically safeguarded by intimidation, authoritarianism, evasion and ridicule—the very traits that characterize the Evolutionist when he is asked to defend the foundations of his theory.
Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo writes:
In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily, they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is feebleminded, deranged, or evil. ... Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes by the intimidation of name calling.When it is suggested that the public schools should present, not only the evidence for Evolution, but also the evidence against Evolution, Darwinists become enraged. This was the case a few years ago in the Hemet, California, Unified School District. Surely this is a strange response for those who claim to be "scientists"! After all, one of the chief characteristics of a true scientist is his willingness to consider all the evidence in an open, fair-minded way. Why, then, the venom? Is it possible that Evolution is based on something other than an objective investigation of the facts of the case?
When a scientist dares to suggest that Creationism is a viable alternative, he is viewed as a non-scientist or a religious propagandist, and there are some who advocate stripping such a person of his scientific credentials altogether. Henry Morris writes...
A third rule of this game of evolutionary science seems to be to insist that all scientists, by definition, are evolutionists. Even though there are today thousands of creationists with post-graduate degrees in science who are pursuing careers in science, these are commonly ignored or ridiculed or even denied status as scientists at all by the evolutionary establishment. The ploy is that, no matter what scientific credentials they might have, scientists cannot become creationists without forfeiting their status as scientists.Donald Gould, former editor of the New Scientist magazine, describes this behavior quite graphically ...
In fact, many think it would be better not ever to let creationists become scientists at all. Many years ago, when I was an engineering department chairman at Virginia Tech, I asked the biology professor there in charge of the doctoral program in that department whether a creationist student could get a Ph.D. degree in his department. The answer was—flat out—"NO!" No matter how outstanding his grades or his dissertation or even his knowledge of evolutionary theory might be, if he did not believe in evolution, he could not get the degree. That is the rule of the game!
This commitment to the rules has been expressed most starkly by two liberal Iowa professors:... as a matter-of-fact: creationism should be discriminated against.... No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.That "liberal" opinion was written by an Iowa State University engineering professor and published by the main national organization dedicated to fighting creationism wherever it surfaces—an organization whose establishment was funded by the Carnegie Foundation. An even more "liberal" sentiment was expressed by another Iowa professor who said that any professor should have the right tofail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicatesif that professor discovers the student is a creationist. Furthermore, the student's department should have the right ofretracting grades and possibly even degreesif the student becomes a creationist later.
The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade.We see then that the behavior of pro-Evolution "scientists" is often very un-scientific, displaying a shocking degree of bigotry and prejudice. Where there ought to be calm, reasoned discussion of the issues, there are only threats, abusive name-calling and academic intimidation. Are these strong-arm tactics warranted? Who is the true scientist in such surreal confrontations?
Science Seeks the Truth that Explains the Evidence.
Evolutionists rule out an intelligent Creator from the very outset. Rather than asking which hypothesis provides the better explanation of the observed evidence, Evolutionists simply reject the possibility of intelligent design without ever giving it honest consideration. Clearly, they have no genuine interest in finding the truth behind the origin of life. Instead, they merely wish to misuse "science" to confirm their anti-theistic beliefs.
Modern definitions of "science" are deliberately worded so as to rule out any consideration of supernatural causes. This is prompted by the concern that science should only deal with what can be observed in the material world, leaving matters of religion to the theologians. The problem is that, if God has intervened in the affairs of this world, then there may very well be physical evidence of it. In particular, by considering the question of origins, scientists are infringing upon matters of religion, which has much to say about origins.
did Theism Originate?
This anti-theistic prejudice is founded upon the popular myth that theism arose in history when mankind could not explain certain facts of his experience. It is suggested that, when men didn't understand how and why thunderstorms formed, they invented a "rain god" to explain it, and when the crops didn't grow, they invented a "fertility god", and so on. Thus, modern man assumes that all theism—whether it be the animistic "gods" of the Native Americans, or the omnipotent God of the Christians and Jews—is an expression of man's ignorance of the natural world in which he lives.
As an alternative, modern man supposes that science can unravel all mysteries, exposing a naturalistic explanation for everything. Science may not have all the answers today, but "enlightened" man is confident that the naturalistic answers are all there, and that science will eventually discover them. Thus, belief in God is regarded by many today as a symptom of ignorance and superstition—an anachronism held over from a time when science was in its infancy.
But there are a lot of unproven assumptions and much unjustified prejudice in this way of thinking. While it is likely that, in certain cultures, gods were invented to explain the mysteries of everyday experience, it is unwarranted to say that all religion began in this way. The Bible records that God spoke to Adam and Eve in the Garden, and that He spoke to Cain, and to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Moses and the prophets. The Bible is not primarily a book that attempts to explain weather and fertility by appealing to a deity. Rather, it is a book which claims that God has communicated His thoughts to mankind.
The sorts of events that the Bible explains by appealing to God are not merely the everyday things like rain, wind and sunshine, but also the various remarkable judgments and deliverances that His people have witnessed throughout history. God sent a worldwide flood in Noah's day, but first He told Noah to prepare for it by building a great boat—a boat by which he and his family alone escaped with their lives. He rained fire and brimstone upon the cities of the plain, but delivered Lot's family from it. When His people were enslaved in Egypt, He sent ten remarkable judgments upon the nation, and afterward divided the waters of the Red Sea, providing a means of escape for His people, and then destroying their pursuers by allowing the water to return. When His people fell into idolatry and wickedness, He allowed the Babylonians to carry them into exile. But then, seventy years later, just as He had promised, He caused king Cyrus to issue a decree that the Jews should return to their land and rebuild their temple.
Animistic religions appeal to deities to explain the commonplace. While the Bible acknowledges that all things are under God's power, it appeals especially to the various providential miracles of history as evidence of a sovereign God who is constantly watching over and protecting His people. The Bible does not view God as a crutch to explain the mysteries of everyday life, but as the central Being by whom, through whom, and for whom all creation exists.
is Based on Blind Faith.
Moreover, modern man's confidence that all things have a naturalistic explanation is nothing more than blind faith. Modern man still has a god, but this "god" is the god of time, chance and matter. The Naturalist caricatures the theist as an escapist who ascribes any and all mysteries to the work of an omnipotent God. But is the Naturalist innocent of this charge? When faced with evidence that does not fit his theories, the Naturalist shrugs it off, confident that there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for the mystery and that future research will eventually bring the explanation to light. In other words, the Naturalist has blind faith in undemonstrated naturalistic causes and blindly assumes that man's science will eventually penetrate the mystery. The Naturalist's religion is thus no better than the theist's religion at explaining the unexplained.
Modern man has many unsolved mysteries. For example, how did matter originate? To say that it all came from a "Big Bang" a few billion years ago does not explain anything. What caused this "Big Bang"? Did time, matter, energy and the various laws of nature simply "spring into existence" out of nothingness, apart from a Creator? Such a suggestion is utter foolishness, for "nothingness" is not able to give birth to "somethingness". If nothing had existed at the initial instant of the "Big Bang", then nothing would exist now. Every effect must have a cause, and the "Big Bang", if it actually occurred, must have been caused by something.
Scientists sometimes give utterly ridiculous explanations for the "Big Bang", suggesting, for example, that nothingness simultaneously gave birth to equal amounts of matter and antimatter. What is wrong with such an explanation is that it fails to take energy into account—when matter and antimatter combine, they do not result in nothing—instead, all the matter is converted to energy in accordance with Einstein's famous equation: E=MC2. Had there been nothing at all at the commencement of the "Big Bang", then there would be no energy available to convert into matter and antimatter.
The average scientist of today is largely unconcerned about such questions. His "science" cannot probe the cause of the "Big Bang", and he has no problem accepting on blind faith alone that the "Big Bang" somehow just happened by purely materialistic causes. Yet, he will criticize the theist for his belief in a God who has eternally existed. Why is belief in an eternal, omnipotent God considered to be escapism when the Naturalist must sweep his mysteries under the rug of a hypothetical "Big Bang" that he cannot explain?
The Naturalist must contradict accepted scientific laws in order to maintain his naturalistic assumptions. Two fundamental laws in science are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second says that the usable energy in any closed system tends to decrease with time.
For example, running or falling water represents a source of energy. If the water is passed through the turbines of a hydroelectric plant, the motion of the water can be turned into useful energy. If instead the water simply passes over a waterfall, the water's energy is dissipated as heat which can no longer be harnessed. But even the power from an electrical plant is ultimately destined to become useless diffused heat, once it has lighted a home or operated mechanical equipment. Whenever we use energy or convert it to another form of energy, there are losses, in which some or all of the useful energy is lost as heat. Heat is still energy, but when heat is diffused into the environment, its usefulness is lost forever.
The Second Law applies only to a closed system. A closed system is one that is not influenced by an outside source. A factory, for example, is not a closed system, since it receives electrical power from an outside source. The earth is not a closed system, since it receives light and heat from the sun. But the Naturalist's universe, by definition, is a closed system—to the Naturalist, anything that happens in the physical universe must find its cause within the physical universe. In the kind of universe envisioned by the Naturalist, the Two Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe is "running down" like a wind-up clock that has no one to wind it back up again.
The problem is—how did the universe get "wound up" in the first place? The First Law says that a closed system cannot wind itself up, and the Second Law says that, with time, it will inevitably unwind.. If the Naturalist is correct in denying the supernatural, and if the two Thermodynamic Laws are valid, then the universe could never have come into existence. But the universe does exist, which proves that either the Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong, or else the assumption of Naturalism is wrong.
In other words, in rejecting supernaturalism, the Naturalist is also rejecting the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Naturalist has a ready excuse, of course—he pleads that the Laws of Thermodynamics are based only on the limited experience of earthbound men over the brief span of human history. Perhaps somewhere out in the universe, these "laws" are being violated, and energy is being spontaneously created. Yes, and perhaps the universe hatched from an enormous egg! Until there is evidence to invalidate the laws of Thermodynamics, the Naturalist is merely spinning fairy tales that contradict observed evidence. It is proper in science to reconsider accepted theories and to offer alternative explanations, but it is the height of presumption to reject demonstrated scientific principles merely because an arbitrary, unproven philosophical assumption (i.e. Naturalism) requires it!
Artificial Dichotomy between Religion and Science.
Modern cultural philosophy tries to pigeonhole science and religion into two disconnected water-tight compartments. It draws the dividing line between that which can be observed ("science"), and that which must instead be accepted on faith ("religion"). But this is an artificial distinction, because Christianity is about a real God who created the real universe in which we live and who intervenes from time to time into the affairs of His universe.
Christian faith is neither blind faith nor wishful thinking. True Christian faith is consistent with observed fact and empirical evidence—a universe characterized by intricate design and delicate balance—a Bible of demonstrated historical accuracy and enduring spiritual principles—a resurrected Savior and the many lives He has dramatically changed throughout the millenia. Hence, the Christian faith is a scientific faith. There is no quarrel between genuine Christianity and genuine science. The problem in our day is that there is much "Christianity" that is not genuine Christianity, and likewise, there is much "science" that is not genuine science.
When scientists seek to investigate the origins of life, they are encroaching on ground that is common to both science and religion. Scientists have no right to claim that the only valid explanation is one that excludes God. Scientists, in fact, have an obligation to openly consider all competing explanations, whether they involve divine intervention or purely naturalistic causes.
Scientists often object to this last statement on the ground that, once it is admitted that God could have intervened in the world, then anything is possible, since God could have intervened at any time, in unpredictable ways that would render scientific inquiry impossible. We need to recognize that this is no argument against the truth of theism, but is rather a statement concerning the nature and purpose of science.
Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.
Romans 1:20 (NASB) —For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.Instead, scientists often seem determined to find some other ultimate "truth", and regard God, if He exists, to be merely a cosmic busybody who just gets in the way of their quest for truth. This reveals a profound prejudice against God—a prejudice to which the Bible plainly attests...
Romans 1:28 (NIV) —Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.Their objection suggests that God is a threat to the predictable regularity of the natural world. Rather than recognizing the orderliness of the world as evidence of God's wise design and providential care of His creation, they seem to view God as an alien being who loves to disrupt and destroy man's efforts to acquire understanding and to improve his condition. The Biblical view is that the universe operates with predictable regularity precisely because God designed it with wisdom and purpose. The reason why scientists are able to discover natural principles that govern the universe is simply because a wise God built those principles into the universe.
The fact that God has chosen, at times, to bring about miraculous disruptions in the regular operations of His universe does not invalidate science. Miracles, by definition, are rare, and require a backdrop of predictable regularity in order to appear remarkable and miraculous. When God does bring about a miracle, He does not do it capriciously, nor merely to frustrate scientists. Rather, God's miracles are expressly designed to oppose the wicked, to deliver His people from their enemies, or to show mercy to a person who is suffering hopelessly from an illness or affliction. The possibility of miracles does not render science invalid. On the contrary, science can serve to validate a miracle when it does occur.
When people argue that the existence of a miracle-working God would render scientific inquiry impossible, they are merely acknowledging that, if God exists, then science cannot be trusted as the final authority of all truth. This is no doubt a fact that is disturbing to many scientists who view their scientific research as a pursuit of ultimate truth, and who often have a nearly religious zeal for their profession. Society, too, generally thinks of science as the ultimate source of knowledge, and even as the savior of mankind—delivering us from disease, suffering, pollution, starvation, discomfort, and perhaps even war and death. Because of this, scientists are often exalted as the wizards, prophets and miracle workers of our age. Theism in general, and creationism in particular, is thus seen as a threat to modern man's materialistic religion and to the confidence he places in science and scientists.
A second complaint that is sometimes raised is that "You can't put God in a test tube." No one claims you can. However, we do claim that the universe exhibits great beauty, balance and design, attesting to the great wisdom and power of its Creator. When scientists are truly objective in their pursuit of truth, they come to the inescapable conclusion that the universe was created with purpose and design.
If it can be demonstrated that time and chance are wholly inadequate to explain the intricate design in living things—the irreducibly complex chemical building blocks of life, and the vast sequences of precise, chemically-encoded genetic information—then an intelligent Creator becomes the only possible explanation for the observed world.
...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.We should never forget that many of the greatest scientists of history believed in a Creator. Rather than being an obstacle to scientific inquiry, their confidence in the God-inspired design and order of the universe prompted them to seek out the scientific principles that govern the physical sciences, and to explore the biological structures and systems that are necessary for the functioning of living things.
It is illegitimate to claim that science must be prejudiced against supernatural causes. Any line of reasoning that begins with a false assumption cannot be trusted to provide reliable answers. If you begin with the unfounded assumption that God was not involved in the origin of life, then you may very well arrive at the conclusion that God was not involved in the origin of life. But you will not have proved anything by this shell game of misapplied logic!
It is not science, much less scientific
produces the conclusion that God was uninvolved in the origin of
Rather it is an unsupportable philosophical presupposition
leads to this conclusion. Science cannot pretend to determine
life came about purely by naturalistic causes if Naturalism is
assumed at the outset and is beyond the scope of consideration or
The Mechanisms of Evolution are Fatally Flawed.
Evolution makes great but empty claims that it is based upon scientific evidence. In reality, Evolution is based primarily upon hypothetical mechanisms for how life might have begun and developed complexity and function...
But just how plausible are these
of evolution? Could they really accomplish the fantastic feat
bringing modern-day life into existence purely by natural causes?
Origin of Life from Non-life: Impossible Odds.
How did life originate in the first place? In the past century, scientists found that life is built upon some fantastically complex molecular building blocks, such as proteins, DNA and RNA. Evolutionists would have us believe that these intricate mega-molecules came into existence by random chemical reactions in oceans of "primordial soup"—a hypothetical mixture of all the chemicals needed to form these essential building blocks of life.
There is no evidence that this hypothetical "primordial soup" ever existed or ever could have existed. Outside of living organisms, nothing like it is ever found in nature—not in small drops, much less in vast oceans! It is the Evolutionist's religious devotion to his sacred theory that requires him, against all evidence, to believe that oceans of "primordial soup" must have once covered this planet. This is not science, but the wishful thinking of a religious zealot!
The Evolutionist, Noam Lahav writes...
Moreover, so far, no geochemical evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would have been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution.But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to grant the Evolutionist his oceans of primordial soup, it would do nothing to bring his theory into the realm of credibility. The problem is that, no matter how you do the math, the probabilities are infinitesimally small—so small, in fact, that eons upon eons of time and universes filled with primordial soup could not begin to provide the number of random combinations needed to produce the wondrously complex molecules required for life.
Dr. R. L. Wysong has calculated that the probability merely of forming the 124 proteins needed for the simplest form of life would be on the order of 10-78,436. In forming this estimate, Dr. Wysong made some extremely generous assumptions that would have increased the odds of life forming: He assumed that every molecule in every ocean on 1031 "earths" was an amino acid, and that these amino acids were spontaneously linking up in sets of 124 proteins every second for 10 billion years!
He could have changed the rate to once every nanosecond (one billionth of a second) for billions of billions of years, and it wouldn't have made much of a dent in the probabilities. This vanishingly small number (10-78,436) swallows up billions upon billions of years with a voracious appetite! If the entire known universe were a huge globe filled with the constituent amino acids needed to form proteins, it would still require, not merely billions of years, but billions of billions of billions, etc. of years before the probabilities would finally creep into the realm of possibility.
This number represents total, unequivocal impossibility. William Dembski has calculated that an event which has a 10-150 probability of occurring must be considered impossible to have ever occurred in the entire life of the universe. But 10-150, as unimaginably small as it is, is an astronomically huge number compared with 10-78,436! Concerning Dembski's criterion of impossibility, Joseph Mastropaolo writes:
According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.
I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.
Even if you could somehow get all the necessary molecules to occur together in the same tiny region of time and space, you still would not have life. These building blocks must be assembled in just the right way to produce a living cell. It would be like having the parts of an automobile lying around in a garage, and then shaking the garage until the parts all assemble in just the right way to form a functional automobile—with one important difference: The simplest cell is orders of magnitude more complex than the most sophisticated automobile.
Shaking a garage full of auto parts for eons is far more likely to damage the parts than it is to assemble a functioning automobile. Likewise, the random forces that supposedly formed the proteins and DNA would be even more likely to tear them apart. So there is the challenge, not only of forming the necessary chemicals and getting them to occur together at the same place and time, but also of keeping them from coming apart before they can combine in just the right way to form a living cell.
There's yet another significant problem. A living organism is not merely a fancy machine—it also has the ability to reproduce itself. How does it do this? Each cell of a living organism contains genetic material—much like a blueprint or a computer program—that describes perfectly how to build a replica of the organism. This information is programmed in those wondrous DNA molecules. A DNA molecule is like a very long twisted ladder. Each rung of the ladder contains a pair of heterocyclic bases. These bases come in four kinds: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. Adenine will only pair with thymine. Cytosine will only pair with guanine. The sequencing of these base-pairs carries the genetic information for a living organism, just as the holes in a punched card (or the magnetic variations on a computer disk) carry information for a computer.
When cells divide, these long ladders of DNA unzip into two half-ladders, and, as they do, new, complementary nucleotides replace those that are torn away, creating two strands of identical DNA from a single strand. The thing that makes this system work is that the genetic information is duplicated in a strand of DNA—the sequence of bases in one half-ladder of DNA is the precise complement of the sequence in the other half-ladder.
A living cell has the ability to take this genetic information and use it to build a new cell, just as a computer is able to follow the instructions of a computer program to perform an intricate task. The living cell is the computer that interprets the genetic code, but the genetic code contained in the DNA is the software needed to tell the cell how to create a duplicate of itself.
So here's the challenge: Not only must the chemical building blocks come together to form a living cell, but the DNA must also get correctly programmed with the blueprint for a living organism. It's not enough to explain how the computer was formed—you also need to explain how the software that describes the computer was formed. Unless the information is programmed correctly in the DNA, life will not be reproducible. The odds of randomly producing a viable code are so infinitesimally small as to defy credibility. It would be far easier to create a full-featured word processing program by randomly flipping bits than to randomly create a viable DNA sequence.
Jacques Monod explains it this way...:
The [genetic] code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components WHICH ARE THEMSELVES CODED IN DNA: THE CODE CANNOT BE TRANSLATED OTHERWISE THAN BY PRODUCTS OF TRANSLATION [emphasis original]. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [all life from eggs, or idiomatically, what came first, the chicken or the egg?]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.Life—even of the simplest one-celled organisms—is a far more complex arrangement of chemicals than 19th century scientists ever imagined. We can perhaps understand the naivete of the Victorian-era scientists in supposing that a living cell was a mere "blob of protoplasm", and that life could form spontaneously by random mixing of naturally-occurring chemicals. However, the 20th century brought insightful new research in biochemistry that has demonstrated the extremely complex structure of proteins, DNA, RNA and other building blocks of life.
The Evolutionist J. Butler writes:
... the gap between a rich organic environment with all the necessary precursors, including even polypeptides and nucleic acids, and the simplest organized life, remains immense ... even the simplest complete organisms we know of today are almost unbelievably complex. It is difficult to visualize the steps by which they may have originated because the various processes which occur in them are interdependent; none can function without the others.One cannot invoke the magical fairy dust of natural selection to provide an evolutionary means of creating these complex molecules—natural selection is inoperable until replication is possible, and replication does not exist until these various hyper-complex building blocks are present. Dobzhansky, an Evolutionist, said...
Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two self-replicating units of entities ... I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words 'natural selection' loosely. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms.And if this were not enough, Michael Behe, a renowned microbiologist at Lehigh University, has found that there are many structures in a living cell that are irreducibly complex, but which are essential for any living cell. There is no way that these structures could have "evolved" into existence, since they are in some sense "minimal" or "irreducible", yet extremely complex. The odds of molecules randomly coming together to form these complex structures are infinitesimally small, and provide evidence of purposeful design that cannot be explained by the fanciful "blind watchmaker" arguments of Richard Dawkins and others. The fallacy with Dawkins' argument is that he assumes a gradual sequence of functional precursors at every stage of development, but Dr. Behe has shown that these extremely complex structures are minimal and irreducible, and hence could have no functional precursors.
Behe gives the hairlike cilia of living cells as an example of irreducible complexity...
Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell's surface or to "row" single cells through a fluid. ...From the highly speculative assumption of oceans of "primordial soup", the impossibly minute odds of forming, preserving and assembling the necessary proteins and DNA, the likewise impossibly minute odds of programming the DNA with the blueprint for a viable living organism, to the irreducibly complex structures needed by living cells, we see layer upon layer of absolutely compelling evidence that life could not have arisen from non-life—not by naturalistic processes alone!
... Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.
What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.
The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.
The origin of the first living
cell is thus one of the
most perplexing obstacles to naturalistic explanations of the origin of
life. Scientific study has not served to
but, quite the contrary, to discredit it!
Mutations: Genetic Bombshells.
Evolution teaches that simple living things have given rise to more complex living things—so that there has been a gradual development of living things from single-celled plants and animals to multi-celled plants and animals, to simple aquatic creatures, and eventually to insects and fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and humans. Although Darwin's predecessor, Lamarck, held the naive belief that characteristics acquired by an individual organism would be transmitted to its posterity, studies in genetics soon showed that this is simply not true. A bird that breaks a wing does not give birth to young having broken wings. A giraffe that stretches its neck to reach the higher branches of a tree does not give birth to baby giraffes having longer necks.
Darwin did not rule out Lamarck's explanation, and it remained for scientists in the early twentieth century to provide a more sophisticated explanation for how changes entered into the genetic code. It is a known fact that various environmental factors—most notably chemical and radiological agents (e.g. cosmic radiation or radiation from naturally-occurring radioisotopes)—can alter the genetic code in a small, random way. This means that the offspring of an individual may have certain characteristics that its parents did not possess. This phenomenon is called "random mutation", and is Evolution's answer to how new genetic material arises naturally and is passed along to subsequent generations.
The problem with random mutation is that it has never been shown to produce improved genetic material. Mutations in fruit flies have been studied extensively. In most cases, genetic mutations are harmful, producing blindness or deformed wings, incapable of flight. In rare instances, a mutation has produced merely a change in color, with no other observed effects that could be regarded as either harmful or beneficial. In no case has a truly beneficial mutation been observed, at least in the sense of increased complexity and function. A color change could, perhaps, be beneficial in the proper environment, as in the account of the Peppered Moths, but this does not entail increased complexity or enhanced function.
In their book, Of Pandas and People, Davis and Kenyon write...
Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutation.Random mutations represent random errors introduced into the genetic code of an organism. How likely is it that a random change to this exceptionally complex information stream would lead to an improved blueprint? The genetic code stored in the DNA contains a very high information content. To randomly alter this information is to damage it. An experienced programmer can, through intelligent design, make deliberate modifications to a computer program to improve it, but he will be the first to tell you that making random changes to the code will surely make it less functional or perhaps destroy its functionality altogether.
Dr. Murray Eden recognized this fact...
No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed.The vast predominence of harmful mutations has often been admitted by Evolutionists. Julian Huxley writes:
One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism.H. J. Muller, winner of the Nobel prize for his study of mutations, wrote...
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, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation ... good ones are so rare that we consider them all bad.There is another obstacle to the theory that random mutations explain how new genetic material is created. Living organisms possess a genetic repair mechanism. Dr. R. L. Wysong gives this description of it...
There are four different enzymes that serve to mend DNA whenever it is injured. For example, if the DNA base sequence is changed by a mutation from A-T-G-C to A-A-G-T, the aberrant sequence is enzymatically chiseled out and replaced by the original sequence. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for DNA being able to duplicate itself in cell division hundreds of millions of times with no alterations, no errors in the replication of the genes. The DNA repair system is a quality control system.This repair mechanism reduces the impact of mutations on living organisms. This is a good thing when you consider that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. However, this presents a serious problem for Evolutionist dogma, which demands a significant rate of mutation in order to generate the new genetic material necessary to explain the complexification of life.
There is a relationship between the longevity of an organism and the efficiency of the DNA repair system. Thus, long living man has a sophisticated repair system (not perfect, of course), and short living mice have cruder ones. Also, certain diseases are now being linked to disorders in the repair system, i.e., mutations not corrected result in the disease.
Selection: Cannot leap the gaps.
Natural Selection is the formal name given to the "survival of the fittest" dogma. Plants that are more drought-tolerant or more disease-resistant are more likely to succeed in areas that are subject to drought or disease. Animals that are stronger, faster, smarter or possess more acute vision, hearing or scent have an advantage over their less gifted counterparts, and it is reasonable to suppose that they would be better able to survive predation, starvation, disease, extremes of climate and other threats to their survival.
Evolutionists assure us that complex life forms arose by gradual, imperceptible changes from simple forms to more complex forms. Random mutations provided the new genetic material, and natural selection was responsible for retaining the "better" or "more successful" mutations—or so the theory goes.
Such an explanation may sound superficially plausible. However, when we consider how useful structures and organs (wings, ears, eyes, heart, lungs, etc.) might have arisen in this way, we see the absurdity of natural selection as a proposed mechanism of evolution.
Transitional organisms would often be necessarily less "survivable" than the parent forms from which they evolved. Consider the evolution of the wing. A partially-developed wing is of less benefit than the fully-functional limb from which it supposedly evolved. Why then would natural selection favor a partly-developed wing, which is well-adapted for neither running nor flying, over a fully-functional leg that is well-adapted for running? Is a flightless winged reptile somehow more "fit" than the four-legged reptile from which it supposedly evolved? Unless there is a direct, single-generation leap from leg to flight-capable wing, then there must be intervening generations in which the transitional leg-wing would be of less use than the leg from which it evolved. Natural selection ought to have culled out such less-functional traits, preventing flight from ever becoming a possibility.
The problem is that partially-developed transitional organs would not be as useful as the fully-developed organs from which they supposedly developed. They do not help an organism to be more "survivable". Instead, they make the organism more clumsy, less efficient or more susceptible to injury or predation.
The transition from one kind of creature to the next one up on the Evolutionary ladder is often not a gradual one, but rather involves a leap of gigantic proportions. Whenever new or radically different structures appear, there is no conceivable gradual upward path connecting the new with the old. Instead of the gradual upward slope argued by Evolutionists, the path of Evolution would require crossing major canyons of detrimental transitions. Instead of natural selection selecting the better, more survivable option, we find Evolution having to opt for inferior, less survivable transitional features (e.g. trading fully-formed legs for partially-formed wings) in the short term in order to eventually find a better paradigm (e.g. fully-formed wings) in the long term. The problem here is that natural selection can only deal with the relative merits of the present population living at any given time—it can't anticipate a better future outcome thousands of generations later, and try to steer the course of selection toward a better long-term goal.
Moreover, most features such as eyes, ears or a heart do not exist singly, but as part of a system. Many constituent parts must come together in just the right way or else the organ is useless. An eye, for example, needs, not only light-sensitive cells arranged in an array forming a retina, but also a clear, well-shaped lens strategically positioned a focal-length away in front of the retina, a functional iris to allow it to adjust to varying light conditions, a well-lubricated socket with carefully-located muscles to permit purposeful, coordinated movement, an eyelid to protect the eye from dirt and dryness, special nerves that can encode the visual information into electrochemical signals, and a brain that is capable of properly interpreting the visual information transmitted to it.
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that light-sensitive cells could arise by random mutations, by what gradual upward path would they form into an array positioned behind a clear lens a focal length away? The precise shape and placement required for a useful lens would preclude any sort of gradual evolutionary path in forming the first eye. Until the lens had very nearly the optimal shape and placement, it would not focus a discernable image on the retina. There would be no survival advantage to having an unfocused lens, nor for it to remain and eventually find a shape and position capable of resolving optical images. Until the retina was receiving focused images from a well-placed lens, there would be no survival advantage for natural selection to develop specialized optic nerves, nor for a brain to develop the capability of deciphering the signals into a mental image.
A heart by itself is useless. It also needs a system of blood vessels to carry blood to all parts of the body. For that matter, it needs blood capable of carrying nutrients and oxygen to the various parts of the body. The various body parts that receive the blood need the ability to glean oxygen and nourishment from the blood, and to return waste materials to the blood. A respiratory system is needed to reoxygenate the blood, and to remove carbon dioxide from it. Systems are needed to add nutrients to the blood and to generate new blood cells. A system is also needed to extract waste materials from the blood and expel them from the body.
A feather, when viewed under a powerful microscope, is seen to be a complex system of shafts, barbs and hooks. Evolutionists imagine that reptilian scales somehow evolved into feathers. But why? Would a scale that is slightly more featherlike be "more survivable" than a normal scale? Fully-formed feathers are very useful for birds that possess the ability of flight. They even make sense as insulation for warm-blooded animals. But does it make any sense that a fuzzy-scaled pterosaur would be any better off than his leathery cousins? How many generations of non-helpful transitional "fuzzy scales" would be required to bridge the gap between scales and feathers? What survival advantage would these fuzzy scales provide that would guide natural selection to eventually produce feathers? In short, how do you chart a continuous curve of gradually increasing function in the hypothetical transition from scales to feathers?
When viewed in the light of actual features and organs, natural selection is shown to be a mechanism that can regulate variable, quantitative properties—such as skin color or beak size—but is unable to provide any helpful direction regarding discontinuous, qualitative changes, such as the development of radical new structures and abilities. Natural selection may very well explain how black moths would predominate when light-colored trees are covered with soot, but it does not and cannot explain the formation of wings, ears, hearts, eyes and feathers.
Evolutionists also seem to forget that marginally detrimental mutations may remain for many generations and spread throughout a population before natural selection has an adequate opportunity to weed them out. Perhaps a mutation results in a slightly shortened life span or a modestly increased susceptibility to certain diseases. If this effect is not sufficiently virulent to wipe out the defective individuals within a few generations, they could interbreed with "healthy" individuals in the population, eventually contaminating the entire population.
Once the entire population is infected with a particular "bad gene", natural selection ceases to be a factor in eliminating its effects. Since detrimental mutations are vastly more likely than favorable ones, one would expect the overall population to gradually become so poisoned by detrimental mutations that their negative effects would forever outweigh the positive contributions of any beneficial mutations. It would be like taking a million steps backward for every step forward, and yet Evolutionists expect us to believe that actual net forward progress of thousands or millions of steps could be achieved in such a manner.
Nature itself demonstrates that
natural selection is the
wrong explanation for the development and complexification of
Insects are some of the most prolific animals on earth (i.e. among
animals that can be viewed without a microscope), yet who would argue
they are the culminating product of Evolution? We need to
that natural selection is supposed to choose those that are more
more successful. However, there is no evidence that fish are
viable than amphibians, nor that birds are less successful than
Natural selection does not explain the fact that the ancestral forms
paradigms are apparently just as viable as their alleged
And if the ancestral functions and structures are still proliferating
then natural selection is the wrong explanation for the origin and
Vain Hope: Never Enough Time.
Evolutionists seem unconcerned by the poor probabilities we have cited. George Wald has said:
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.Such optimism is ill-founded when one actually does the arithmetic to see how much time and how many evolving systems would actually be required. Such optimism may have seemed warranted in the days of Darwin, when the complexity of living things was not well researched. It has only been in the past century that scientists have managed to unravel the mind-boggling complexity of the DNA strands that carry the genetic information that distinguishes one form of life from another.
The Evolutionist might as well argue that, while the probability of a frog turning into a prince is extremely small, yet, if enough princesses kiss enough frogs for billions of years, time will eventually win out, overcoming the tiny probabilities involved. Or perhaps nature would eventually carve out the well-defined figures of Mount Rushmore, given billions of years of wind acting on billions of rocky cliffs. The Evolutionist's confidence in time to turn impossibility into certainty is merely blind faith and wishful thinking!
This can be demonstrated by using one of their own examples. The Evolutionist propagandist, Thomas Huxley, is said to have claimed that six eternal monkeys on six eternal typewriters could, given enough time, produce a Psalm, a Shakespearian sonnet, or even an entire book, by randomly striking the keys. This all sounds very good until you do the mathematics. Let's make it easy on the poor apes. Consider how long it would take a million monkeys simply to type the first verse of the Bible... "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Forget punctuation, spacing and upper- or lowercase. If they can simply get the right characters in the proper order, that's good enough. So, how do we analyze this problem mathematically? There are 45 characters in the sentence. To simplify the problem, we will assume that there are only 26 keys on the typewriters and that each of the 26 characters of the alphabet is equally probable. Thus, for each character in the sentence, there is a 1 in 26 probability of getting that particular character correct. The probability of getting all 45 characters correct would then be 1 in 2645. Work this out on a calculator and you get an answer on the order of 1 in 1063. Assume that each monkey can type ten characters per second (about 120 words per minute). How long would it take these million monkeys to type Genesis 1:1?
At this rate, a single monkey would type about 316 million characters in a year. That's 3.16 x 108. Get all the monkeys involved, and together they will type fewer than 1015characters in one year. So, how many years will it take them? Divide 1063 by 1015 and you get 1048. Scientists estimate the age of the universe to be no more than perhaps 15 billion years, but lets be generous and assume it to be 100 billion years, or 1011 years. Divide 1048 by 1011 and you get 1037. That's a 1 followed by 37 zeros! That's the number that the age of the universe would have to multiplied by in order to have enough time for a million monkeys to type out the first verse of the Bible!
In other words, the universe hasn't been around nearly long enough to generate Genesis 1:1 randomly. If the universe had been around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times longer than scientists say it has, then and only then, does it become likely that Genesis 1:1 would be buried somewhere in all the trash typed out by the million monkeys.
Of course, you can do all sorts of things to change the problem in order to reduce this number somewhat. You might require that the monkeys type the more common letters, such as "E" and "T", more often than the others. You might allow a few misspellings, or accept any English version of Genesis 1:1. You might speed up the monkeys, so that they type a thousand or a billion characters a second instead. You might get a trillion monkeys to do the typing. Even so, it would still take an impossibly long time, and that's just to type a simple sentence!
The actual probabilities are much smaller (and the time required is much longer) than our simple example suggests. DNA is exceedingly more complex than the 45 characters that comprise the first verse of the Bible. Moreover, it is something that you can't simply "evolve" into existence. There is no reason why a molecule would be more "successful" or more "fit" for survival just because it is more like a DNA molecule. It is simply impossible that random events produced or programmed the first DNA molecule, and if it didn't happen by random events, then it must have happened by intelligent design.
These fatal shortcomings of Evolutionary theory were recognized by many prominent scientists in a series of meetings hosted by the the Wistar Institute in 1962, 1966, 1969, 1980 and 1984. Sir Peter Medawar, speaking in his opening address at the 1962 Philadelphia meeting, said...
The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory ... These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.One of the results of the 1966 meeting, held in Philadelphia, was a book entitled Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), edited by P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan. In it, Dr. Murray Eden, an Evolutionist, wrote...
It is our contention that if 'random' is given serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical and biological.And, Dr. Marcel P. Schutzenberger, formerly with the University of Paris, added this observation...
... there is no chance (< 10-1000) to see this mechanism [mutation-selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain...Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.Some Evolutionists dream of hypothetical non-living "simple replicating molecules" that might have been precursors of living cells, in the hope of conjuring up an evolutionary "natural selection" explanation for the origin of life. But nothing remotely like this has ever been observed by investigators, and there is no reason to suppose that such a mechanism could, even in the span of billions of years, program the DNA, create and assemble the needed proteins into useful structures and perform all the other profound miracles needed to construct a living cell. Again, this is reckless conjecure without a shred of substantiating evidence—the stuff of myths and fairy tales—but emphatically not worthy to be called "science".
is not Supported by Observed Evidence.
Observed scientific evidence simply does not agree with the claims of Evolution. There are two areas of evidence that serve as tests by which we may determine whether Evolution is responsible for the complexity and diversity of plant and animal life we see today. One area is the fossil evidence. The other is the biochemical evidence. As we shall see, both the fossil evidence and the biochemical evidence refute the Evolutionist's version of the origin and development of life.
Fossil Evidence Refutes Evolution.
If Evolution occurred in the past we would expect to see clear evidence of it in the fossil record. However, the fossil record produces no evidence whatever that Evolution occurred. Indeed, an unbiased look at the fossil evidence indicates that Evolution did not occur. There are no transitional forms linking the various species to one another. Even the layering sequence demanded by Evolution is contradicted by the fossil record. The Evolutionist's "geologic column", frequently depicted in textbooks, is based almost entirely on speculation and Evolutionary assumptions. In short, one must believe in Evolution in spite of the fossil record, not because of it.
No one denies that extinct animals, such as dinosaurs, ptersosaurs, trilobites, saber-tooth tigers and wooly mammoths, once roamed the earth, but extinction of animals that once existed is no proof that new animal species have come into existence. Even in recent times, animals such as the dodo and the passenger pigeon have become extinct, and many others are on the endangered species list. Evolutionists make the unwarranted assumption that, when the dinosaurs existed, there were no mammals on the earth, and that when the trilobites lived, there were only small aquatic animals. These assumptions flow from Evolutionist presuppositions, not from any consideration of the fossil evidence.
Gaps in the Fossil Record.
If Evolution were true, the fossil record should show evidence of continual change, having fossils at nearly every stage of evolutionary development. Instead, Evolutionists have had to confess that huge gaps occur in the fossil record at nearly every place where transitions were expected.
The earliest fossil-bearing rock is called "Cambrian" rock. If Evolution were true, this is where we would expect to see simple life forms, and only a relative handful of various types. Instead, however, life seems to have "exploded" into being in the Cambrian rock. The diversity and complexity of Cambrian fossils defies Evolutionist explanations.
Similar gaps exist in the supposed transition from fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to bird, from reptile to mammal, and from ape to man. Moreover, gaps exist between various kinds of fish, various kinds of reptiles, etc.
George Gaylord Simpson, a prominent Evolutionist, writes ...
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.The only explanation that Evolutionists can seem to suggest is that the fossil record is very fragmentary, and that many layers of rock are missing, for example, between Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian rock. However, this is merely conjecture, devoid of supporting evidence. Certainly, we would expect gaps in the fossil record from one part of the globe to be filled in by fossils from other parts of the globe. Why would all the gaps occur simultaneously worldwide? At any given time, would there not be sedimentation occurring somewhere on the globe that would leave a fossil record of the life existing at that time? But the gaps are a fact of paleontology.
J. B. Waterhouse, another Evolutionist, wrote ...
But how good is the geological record? I have already mentioned that the ordinary viewpoint of evolution held by most paleontologists favours gradual incremental change. The fossil record, they say, is too incomplete to take seriously. And, they say, you cannot prove a gap. But of course you can prove a gap, especially if clines occurred. If there is a break in the record it must be possible to detect the break. The main point about breaks is that, if they were really random, as proposed by Darwin, they must have been plugged by one hundred and fifty years of work. But the gaps have not been plugged. They still persist; yet authorities still plead the cause of failure of preservation. Such authorities forget that if there is a million to one chance of one specimen of a population being preserved, and then if that species lived 5-15 m.y., we therefore will get 5-15 times the population fossilized. The trouble may perhaps have lain more truthfully in our failure to find or describe the material. It is special pleading to rely on gaps, and it is special pleading to propose inadequate preservation. We would do better to look at what the record really says.And the Evolutionist, Lyall Watson, has this to say...
Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans — of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings — is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.
No undisputed transitional fossil has yet been found. The fossil record is the only natural record we have of the history of life forms, and it does not provide any support whatsoever of the Darwinist hypothesis of gradual ascent. Evolutionists have no business trying to explain away the lack of evidence until they first have demonstrated evidence for their theory.
Sequence of the Rock Strata defies Evolutionary Theory.
Equally problematic for the theory is that rock layers are frequently found in the wrong order. Supposedly older rock is often found lying atop supposedly younger rock. If the rock strata were laid down by sedimentation, the ordering of the rock would necessarily be from oldest (on the bottom) to youngest (on the top). Evolutionists attempt to account for these anomalies by suggesting that the older rock was thrust on top of the younger rock by means of great earthquakes. But this explanation rarely fits the observed data. Slippage caused by earthquakes results in grinding, breakage and scarring along the thrust plane. Yet, the plane separating the anomalous layers typically looks no different from normal sedimentary bedding planes.
This becomes extremely remarkable when we consider the vast sizes of many of the blocks of stone that were supposedly moved intact, and the great distances they were allegedly displaced. R. L. Wysong gives a list of some of the more prominent examples of this...
LEWIS OVERTHRUST: In Montana, "Pre-Cambrian" rocks lie on top of "Cretaceous" rocks that are supposed to be 500 million years younger. This contradiction is explained by a thrust in which a piece of land 350 miles wide and six miles thick (about 10,000 square miles in area) picked itself up and slid 40 miles on top of the "Cretaceous" strata.
FRANKLIN OVERTHRUST: In Texas, rocks 450 million years old lie on top of rocks 130 million years old.
MYTHEN PEAK: The Mythen Peak in the Alps has rocks 200 million years old on top of rocks 60 million years old. The thrust is believed to have pushed all the way from Africa to Switzerland.
GLARUS OVERTHRUST: In Switzerland, rocks 180 million years old lie on top of rocks 60 million years old. Rock a mile in thickness is believed to have been moved 21 miles.
HEART MOUNTAIN THRUST: In Wyoming, about 2,000 square miles of rock supposedly 300 million years old rests on top of rock 60 million years old.
MATTERHORN: The Matterhorn in the Alps has supposedly been thrust from 60 miles away resulting in "younger" rocks on top of "older" rocks. Spieker wrote: "lying on the crystalline basement are found from place to place not merely Cambrian, but rocks of all ages."
Dr. Walter Lammerts examined the contact line of the Lewis Overthrust in the Glacier Park area and concluded:
Careful study of the various locations showed no evidence of any grinding or sliding action or slicken-sides such as one would expect to find on the hypothesis of a vast overthrust.So, what is the significance of these upside-down rocks? Evolutionists typically establish the age of a rock by the fossils found in the rock. If Evolutionary theory says that certain fossils belong to precursors of animals found fossilized in other rock, then the rock bearing the precursor fossils is considered to be older, even if it is found lying above rock bearing the supposedly younger fossils.
Another amazing fact was the occurrence of two four-inch layers of Altyn limestone intercalated with Cretaceous shale. These always occurred below the general contact line of Altyn limestone and shale. Likewise careful study of these intercalations showed not the slightest evidence of abrasive action such as one would expect to find if these were shoved forward in between layers of shale as the overthrust theory demands.
There is often no independent way to determine the age of a rock. Certain rocks are candidates for radiometric dating, but they must contain uranium and lead, or potassium and argon. (Carbon-14 dating is deemed unreliable for artifacts more than a few thousand years old). But even when radiometric dating can be applied, the results are often unreliable. For example, new volcanic rock from Mount Saint Helens was determined to be about 350,000 years old, based on Potassium-Argon dating. This is not an isolated case. Dr. Andrew Snelling cites the following examples of lava flows in which Potassium-Argon dating yielded excessively large ages. (Note that "Ma" is an abbreviation for "mega-annum" or "million years").
Significantly, Potassium-Argon dating has been regarded as one of the more reliable methods. G. B. Dalrymple writes...
Source Actual Date K-Ar date Hualalai basalt, Hawaii AD 1800-1801 1.6▒0.16 Ma;
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily 122 BC 0.25▒0.08 Ma Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily AD 1972 0.35▒0.14 Ma Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California AD 1915 0.11▒0.03 Ma Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona AD 1064-1065 0.27▒0.09 Ma;
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii Pleistocene 32.3▒7.2 Ma Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii AD 1959 8.5▒6.8 Ma Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb September 23, 1963 2.4▒2 Ma Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily May 1964 0.7▒0.01 Ma Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California
<500 years old 12.6▒4.5 Ma Hualalai basalt, Hawaii AD 1800-1801 22.8▒16.5 Ma Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ <800 years old 0.15▒0.47 Ma Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria <30 Ma 95 Ma Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land, Antarctica <0.3 Ma 18.0▒0.7 Ma Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus, Antarctica 1984 0.64▒0.03 Ma Kilauea basalt, Hawaii <200 years old 21▒8 Ma Kilauea basalt, Hawaii <1,000 years old 42.9▒4.2 Ma;
East Pacific Rise basalt <1 Ma 690▒7 Ma Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise <2.5 Ma 580▒10 Ma;
East Pacific Rise basalt <0.6 Ma 24.2▒1.0 Ma
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.The problem with radiometric dating methods is that they must make many assumptions which cannot be verified. It is very much like examining a piece of ice sitting in a puddle of water and trying to guess how long it has been there. If all the water came from the melting of the ice, if the temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, solar radiation and wind conditions remained constant, if there had been no other factors responsible for adding or taking away water, if the purity of the water in the ice is known, and if the relative amounts of water and ice can be accurately measured, then one could make a reasonable estimate of the age of the ice. However, if any of these assumptions is wrong, it could invalidate the results.
In any case, we can be reasonably assured that the natural
of rock layers has the oldest rocks on the bottom and the youngest on
top. The fact that the fossil sequence does not agree with
expected by Evolutionary theory is compelling evidence that
theory is false. The various geological "nonconformities",
the "Lewis Overthrust", demonstrate that the Evolutionist's "geologic
is pure fiction, and does not conform to observed evidence.
Biochemical Evidence refutes Evolution.
The so-called "Evolutionary Tree" depicts the Evolutionist's understanding of the paths taken in the development and diversification of life from the first single-celled organisms to the great variety of plants and animals that exist today. The Evolutionist insists that this development and diversification occurred gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
If the Evolutionist is essentially (or even somewhat) correct in constructing his "Evolutionary Tree", then we should naturally expect biochemical similarities between species that are closely related on the tree, and greater biochemical differences between species that are on different major branches of the tree. In particular, if amphibians arose from fishes, and reptiles from amphibians, and birds and mammals from reptiles, then we should expect to find greater biochemical similarities between amphibians and fishes, say, than between fishes and mammals.
But how does one measure "biochemical similarity"? One way is to examine the constituent proteins found in the cells of a particular species. Proteins are huge molecules consisting of long sequences of amino acids. Proteins play fundamental roles in the functioning of living creatures, and are generally named according to the role they serve. So, for example, the protein hemoglobin is found in various kinds of animals as well as humans. However, the actual chemical structure of the hemoglobin of one kind of creature differs from that of another.
One would expect, therefore, that if amphibians evolved from fishes, then the hemoglobin of fishes would be more similar to that of amphibians than of birds or mammals, which are farther away from fishes on the Evolutionary tree. The same should be true of any particular kind of protein.
Moreover, the similarity of two proteins can be judged objectively by comparing the sequences of amino acids that comprise the two proteins. Two proteins having many of the same amino acids in the same positions of the sequence could be considered more similar than if the sequences agreed in only a few places.
If Evolution is true, it would be reasonable that the amino acid sequences would exhibit minor differences between closely-related species, and gradually greater differences as you move farther away on the Evolutionary Tree.
This approach is documented in a book by Michael Denton, entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. John Oller, in a review of the book, writes...
... Denton points out that advances in microbiology make possible a new sort of evidence. It is now possible to compare directly the basic building blocks—the proteins—of living things. Denton notes that proteins determine "all the biology of an organism, all its anatomical features, its physiological and metabolic functions. . . ." It is hard to believe that protein structure and evolution could be unrelated. Denton writes: The amino acid sequence of a protein from two different organisms can be readily compared by aligning the two sequences and counting the number of positions where the chains differ.
And these differencescan be quantified exactly and provide an entirely novel approach to measuring differences between species. . . .Such comparisons make possible the testing of hypotheses suggested by neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. For instance, suppose bacteria have been around much longer than multicellular species, e.g., mammals. Suppose further that bacteria are more closely related to plants than to fish, amphibian, and mammals, in that order. If so, we should see evidence of these facts in the sequences of amino acids of common proteins. For example, all the mentioned groups use cytochrome C, a protein used in energy production. The differences in that protein should fit an evolutionary sequence. However, bacterial cytochrome C compared with the corresponding proteins in horse, pigeon, tuna, silkmoth, wheat, and yeast show all of them to be equidistant from the bacterium. The difference from bacterium to yeast is no less than from bacterium to mammal, or to any of the other classes.
As work continued in this field, it became clear that each particular protein had a slightly different sequence in different species and that closely related species had closely related sequences. When the hemoglobin in two dissimilar species such as man and carp were compared, the sequential divergence was found to be about fifty percent.
Nor does the picture change if we choose other classes or different proteins. The traditional classes of organisms are identifiable throughout the typological hierarchy, and the relative distances between them remain similar regardless of hypothesized evolutionary sequences. For example, Denton observes that amphibia do not fall between fish and terrestrial vertebrates. Contrary to the orthodox theory, amphibia are the same distance from fish as are reptiles and mammals.
In all comparisons, the hypotheses of general evolution are false. Denton writes:The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.The upshot is thatthe whole concept of evolution collapses [because] the pattern of diversity at a molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated, and unlinked by intermediates.
We conclude this section by observing that, although Evolution's alleged strength is in the plausibility of its proposed mechanisms, those mechanisms, under scrutiny, are exposed as wholly incredible to the extreme. Moreover, while Evolutionists would like the public to believe that there is compelling empirical evidence for Evolution, such evidence is simply nonexistent! Empirical evidence, in fact, refutes the foundational claims of Evolution. Neither the fossils nor biochemical analysis provides any support for the hypothesis of gradual development from one species to another. The unbiased observer must conclude that Evolution never occurred, and, indeed, could not have occurred.
Marketing of Evolution.
Deceptive marketing has been used since the earliest days of Darwinism. W. R. Thompson, in his introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, writes...
...Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. ... The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley ... To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.Even today, after 150 years of research and investigation, the deception continues. Most of the "evidences" for Evolution that are served up for public consumption, especially in the public school textbooks, are distortions, wishful thinking, or obsolete arguments that were long ago discredited by Evolutionists.
Depictions of Extinct Species.
Depictions of ancient animals or humans based merely upon their skeletal structure are often distorted by the artist's imagination. Soft tissue, such as skin, hair, fat and cartilage, is seldom preserved in the fossils, yet it can make a tremendous difference in the appearance of an individual. To create his reconstruction, an artist must make major (and often arbitrary or biased) assumptions about the shape and placement of soft tissue in the original organism. By altering the size of the nose, lips and eyebrows, and the length, density and distribution of hair, an artist can, for example, turn a man into an ape, or an ape into a man.
The artist's preconceived ideas about the fossil will invariably influence the way he draws the "original" organism.
This fact was brought out clearly in 1939 when a living coelecanth was caught in the Indian ocean off the coast of Africa. Until that time, coelecanth was thought to have been extinct for some 90-400 million years. Artists' sketches of the beast were influenced by the belief that coelecanth was transitional between fish and amphibian. However the specimen that was caught was clearly a fish in every way, and the form of its skeleton was identical to the ancient fossils. Dr. John W. Oller writes...
Or, take the Coelacanth. On the basis of fossil evidence, evolutionists believed it was intermediate between fish and amphibia. Reconstructions showed Coelacanth to have both amphibian and fish-like characteristics. Later, live Coelacanths turned up in the Indian Ocean near Cape Province, South Africa. They were fish. The reconstructions had been wrong. ...
Dr. Steven Jay Gould, an Evolutionist, writes:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories.
showing Evolutionary progression.
A familiar form of deception are the charts which have been drawn to depict developmental sequences, such as the evolutionary change from ape to man, or the progressive evolution of the horse from Eohippus to Equus. Those who publish such charts would apparently like the public to believe that they have empirical evidence to support the chronology implied by the charts; however no such evidence exists.
Professor Heribert Nilsson, an evolutionist, writes:
The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series.It should be noted that the "daman" of which professor Nilsson writes is the hyrax — a small mammal that resembles a rabbit.
William R Fix writes:
The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence...
Ever since Darwin first espoused his theory, Evolutionists have been zealous in their quest to find skeletons of man's Evolutionary ancestors. And, over the years, a handful of well-publicized examples have been submitted as evidence of human evolution. Yet, with the passage of time, as scientists have had opportunity to examine the artifacts more carefully, each supposed "find" has been discredited, and Evolutionists have been left mystified as to the origin of human life.
[P]erhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; . . . our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather, the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about our past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about.
Embryonic Recapitulation, also known as the Biogenetic Law, claims that a living organism reenacts its Evolutionary history during its embryonic development in the womb. This argument was first advanced by the German atheist Ernst Haeckel in 1866, but, by the 1920's, scientists had concluded that the hypothesis was not supported by empirical evidence. In 1932, Waldo Shumway wrote that the results of experimental embryology "... seem to demand that the theory be abandoned."
In that same year, this sentiment was echoed by Sir Arthur Keith...
It was expected that the embryo would recapitulate the features of its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms in the animal kingdom. Now that the appearance of the embryo at all stages are known, the general feeling is one of disappointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in its appearance.The intervening years have only reinforced this conclusion. In 1988, Dr. Keith Thompson, Professor of Biology at Yale, wrote...
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exercised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties.Unfortunately, the biogenetic law has not been purged from the biology textbooks commonly used in the public schools and colleges. Jonathan Wells reviewed ten biology textbooks published since 1998, and found that all ten continue to perpetuate the myth of Embryonic Recapitulation, using misleading drawings or photographs, and fail to present any of the incriminating evidence against the theory.
The fluctuation in the relative populations of light and dark colored moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is a much publicized example of natural selection. The truth of the matter, however, is that scientists do not know for certain what factors caused the shift in the moth population.
The story goes like this: industrial soot settled on tree trunks, darkening them, which made the lighter colored moths more visible against the darkened trees, and hence more subject to predation by birds. On the other hand, the darkened trees tended to hide the darker moths. To illustrate this theory, pictures were taken, showing the moths resting on a darkened tree, to show how starkly the light moths appeared.
What is seldom if ever reported is that the photographs were staged—the moths were glued to the tree for the photograph. Jonathan Wells writes...
... Since biologists have known since the 1980s that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks, not to tell students that the pictures were staged (in many cases by gluing or pinning dead moths to desired backgrounds) constitutes as clear a case of scientific fraud as any on record. Yet I'm aware of no sincere efforts by Darwinists to inform students of this — despite their pious declarations of good intentions. Almost all recent (1998-2000) biology textbooks use such photos without any indication that they were staged. As a scientist, I find this absolutely inexcusable. If dogmatic Darwinists were as smart as they pretend to be, they would be actively campaigning — for their own good! — to rid textbooks of this fraud. Acquiescence in scientific misconduct will not look good on their resumes.A second fact that is routinely withheld is that there was a corresponding change in color of other moths, insects and birds—changes that cannot be explained by selective predation. Again, Jonathan Wells writes...
"the actual phenomenon of dark moths surviving is true": Yes, it is certainly true that dark (melanic) forms of peppered moths became much more prevalent during the industrial revolution. The same thing happened in many other species of moths, ladybird beetles, and even some birds. But it is clearly not the case that melanism in all of these species was due to camouflage and selective predation. Ladybird beetles, for example, are extremely distasteful to birds, who do not eat them. Theory has it that dark ladybird beetles became more prevalent because of "thermal melanism" — in which dark forms supposedly absorb more heat from the subdued sunlight in polluted environments. In other words, the fact that industrial melanism occurred does not tell us what caused it.
We need to realize that, even if the peppered moth account had been true, it would provide no support for Evolution, since Creationists also believe that there is genetic variation within any given kind of organism which allows the population to adapt to changes in its environment. Note that the light and dark varieties of moths were variations of the same species, biston betularia. No new or novel structure was produced. No new genetic material came into existence. Both varieties existed both before and after the environmental change occurred.
Adaptation is no evidence for Evolution, which claims
that one kind of organism can, over a sufficient number of generations,
produce a new kind. The account of the Peppered Moths did not produce a
new kind of organism, nor did it move in the direction of a more
advanced organism. There was no increase in function or
complexity—zero—hence, millions of generations of
of change would lead to no net advancement in function or complexity
whatever. Zero multiplied by any number, however large, is still zero.
Size of the Galapagos Finches.
Phillip E. Johnson relates this revealing account:
Here's just one example of how real science is replaced by flim-flam. The standard textbook example of natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years. In 1977 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained. A few years later there was a flood, and after that the beak size went back to normal. Nothing new had appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind. Nonetheless, that is the most impressive example of natural selection at work that the Darwinists have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching.
One of the canonical arguments for Evolution is the existence of supposedly "vestigial" organs—that is, organs which seem to have no useful function, and which are considered by Evolutionists to be retained from Evolutionary ancestors. At one time, the list of vestigial organs in humans numbered about 180, and included such organs as the appendix, the thymus, the coccyx, the tonsils, the pineal gland, and the thyroid gland. Since that time, however, the number of vestigial organs has shrunk dramatically, as scientists have discovered the purpose served by these various organs. In other words, organs were classified as "vestigial", not because they were actually useless, but because scientists had not yet discovered their purpose. Wysong writes...
Today, all former vestigial organs are known to have some function during the life of the individual. If the organ has any function at any time it cannot be called rudimentary or vestigial. For example, it would be incorrect to term the gonads vestigial just because they are more or less dormant until puberty.Moreover, even if there did exist any truly vestigial organs, it would only demonstrate the loss of functionality, and not the acquisition of any new functionality. No one denies that genetic mutations can result in the destruction or degradation of functionality. What Evolutionists have never demonstrated is that natural causes give rise to increased structure and function.
It is commonly taught in textbooks that life originated in vast oceans of "prebiotic soup" that supposedly once covered the earth. This idea was adopted simply because no other explanation seemed plausible, yet scientific research over the decades has given us no reason to believe that oceans of prebiotic soup ever existed. Hubert Yockey, a non-creationist, writes...
'Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. ... 'The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.' 
Created in the Laboratory?
Scientists have conducted laboratory experiments to see whether primordial conditions could have given rise to the chemicals needed to produce life. None of these experiments claims to have created life, nor even to have come remotely close. Instead, they seek to show that the so-called "primordial soup" or "prebiotic soup" could have been formed by natural processes. This would mean that some of the most basic chemical building-blocks of proteins—such as amino acids—could have been formed by natural processes. However, the gap between amino acids and proteins is astronomical, and so is the gap between proteins and living cells.
The Miller-Urey experiment, which featured electrical discharges into an atmosphere of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor, produced a great variety of organic substances, including various amino acids, and other DNA components. Does this lend credence to the idea that life could have arisen by natural processes?
Dr. Wysong cites some of the common criticisms of the Miller-Urey experiment...
Similar criticisms can be made against other such experiments, such as that of Sydney Fox. Because of the artificial, carefully controlled nature of these experiments, the Evolutionist Peter Mora writes:
Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry.
This fossil skeleton was once regarded as transitional between reptile and bird. However, scientists now agree that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. All of its distinguishing features are found in birds of modern or recent times. Allan Feduccia, a Biology professor at the University of North Carolina, states...
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur," Feduccia says. "But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."Dr. Gish describes the reasons why Archaeopteryx is no longer considered to be intermediate between reptile and bird...
Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds, had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer. No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!
Homology is the Evolutionist's belief that similar structures in different species arose due to common ancestry. Cladistics is the classification of organisms based on supposedly derived similarities. The Evolutionary Tree is the product of Cladistics. Does similarity constitute proof of Evolution?
Evolutionists often assume—without justification—that similarity implies hereditary relationship—that is, a shared ancestor. For example, because all life is based on DNA, Evolutionists assume that all life descended from a common ancestral organism that was DNA-based. There is no question that this common DNA dependence argues for a common origin—the fallacy lies in supposing that a common ancestor is the only possible means of common origin. What Evolutionists purposely ignore is the possibility that all living things share in common the same Creator, who designed them to function on DNA.
Likewise, the Evolutionist views the property of having two eyes or four feet or feathers as something that various two-eyed or four-footed or feathered creatures must have inherited from a common ancestor. However, they are overlooking the very reasonable possibility that an intelligent Designer regarded the two-eyed, four-footed or feathered paradigm to be suitable for a variety of His creatures.
Moreover, we have already seen that, at the biochemical level, all such similarities disappear. The constituent proteins of supposedly closely related organisms bear no more similarity than of organisms that are supposedly less related. The biochemical evidence ought forever to silence the mouths of those who would appeal to similarity as evidence of Evolution.
The extent of this deception has been documented by Jonathan Wells in a paper titled "An Evaluation of Ten Recent Biology Textbooks And Their Use of Selected Icons of Evolution Evaluated". In this paper, he evaluates ten high school and college Biology textbooks published since 1998, based on their handling of ten of these deceptive arguments. He refers to these arguments as "Icons of Evolution".
For each icon, he establishes specific criteria for awarding an "A", "B", "C", etc., to a textbook, where an "A" is awarded if the textbook is completely honest about the current scientific status of the argument, and does not employ misleading pictures or drawings. An "F" is awarded if the textbook offers the icon as unqualified support for Evolution, employing the standard deceptive charts and drawings. "B", "C" and "D" represent degrees intermediate between these extremes.
What were the results of his evalutation? Seven of
the ten received
an overall grade of "F". Of the remaining three, two received
and one a "D+". It is clear that the propagandists of Naturalism
still well in control of the public school Biology curricula.
Scientists Critique Evolution.
The propagandists of Evolution would have us believe that "All reputable scientists accept Evolution". Of course, what they really mean is this: If a reputable scientist dares to deny Evolution, we will see to it that he is stripped of his reputability. The fact is, however, that many respected scientists have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with Evolutionary theory. Some continue to believe in Evolution, keeping alive the hope that perhaps science will someday discover the true mechanisms behind the molecules-to-man theory. Others have come to the conclusion that Evolution is nothing more than wishful thinking—that the Emperor truly has no clothes—and thus embrace Creationism as the only possible alternative.
The Evolutionist establishment refuses to acknowledge any such possibility as this. They would like to believe (and would like others to believe) that every Creationist is merely a religious propagandist who wants to misuse "science" to lend credence to his religious presuppositions. The ironic truth, however, is that, far more often, it is the Evolutionist who abuses "science" to market his own atheistic beliefs, and that it is the Creationist who is compelled by scientific considerations to the conclusion of an intelligent Designer.
In contrast to all this propagandizing by the ardent advocates of Evolution, there have been some very prestigious scientists, especially in recent years, who have come to realize that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is bankrupt as an explanation for the origin of life.
Who could be a more prestigious representative of this group than Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, who had this to say in his keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History in New York...
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school'.Equally as distinguished is the eminent French scientist, Dr. Pierre P. GrassÚ. Dr. Gish elaborates...
Recently, for example, Pierre P. GrassÚ, one of the most distinguished of all French scientists, published a book, L'Evolution du Vivant, which constituted a strong attack on all aspects of modern evolution theory.In 1972, the renowned space pioneer, Dr. Werner von Braun wrote an open letter to the California State Board of Education, urging that alternative theories of the origin of life be presented in the public classroom.
Dobzhansky, in his review of this book, states "the book of Pierre P. GrassÚ is a frontal attack on all kinds of 'Darwinism.' Its purpose is 'to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple understood and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with GrassÚ, but not ignore him. He is the editor of the 28 volumes of 'Traite de Zoologie,' author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic." The closing sentence of GrassÚ's books is most interesting (and disturbing to Dobzhansky). In that sentence GrassÚ says, "It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics."
While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.In 1967, some highly respected Evolutionist authors, including Dr. Murray Eden and Dr. Marcel P. Schutzenberger authored a book titled Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution which arose from a series of meetings sponsored by the Wistar Institute. These meetings were convened so that Evolutionist scientists from various disciplines could discuss the mathematical probabilities involved in the Evolution of life. These meetings erupted into heated exchanges between those of the physcial sciences, such as mathematicians and physicists, who contended that the probabilities were outrageously opposed to current Evolutionary explanations, and the biologists, who insisted that life must have evolved by random processes, regardless of the small probabilities involved. To this day, the difficulties raised have never been satisfactorily answered. If anything, further research has shown the probabilities to be even more hostile to Evolutionist mechanisms!
The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.
It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom.
In 1985, the molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton, published a secular critique of Evolution entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. (A review of Denton's book appears at http://www.icr.org/article/theory-crisis/.) In his book he writes...
Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?The biochemist, Dr. Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, is renowned for his work in molecular biology. Dr. Behe has done extensive work demonstrating that many of the essential features of living cells are "irreducibly complex", consisting of several interacting parts, each of which is vital to the proper working of the system. In other words, when you get down to the basic parts of living cells, you find things which are highly complex and interdependent, yet cannot be scaled down to a simpler, precursory version. This means that neither random molecular interactions, nor natural selection could have been responsible for their existence. Dr. Behe has written a book entitled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, in which he discusses many of his findings.
The celebrated philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper, wrote...
...I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.The well-known British astronomer, mathematician and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle, likened Evolutionary theory to a whirlwind in a junkyard...
In a popular lecture I once unflatteringly described the thinking of these scientists as a "junkyard mentality". As this reference became widely and not quite accurately quoted I will repeat it here. A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.Dr. H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. professor of physics at the University of Manchestor, UK, writes...
If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? ... I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.
Real Scientists who are Creationists.
There are also respected scientists who have openly embraced Creationism. This would seem to be the only reasonable course for a scientist to take, once he has come to grips with the total bankruptcy of Evolutionary theory.
One eminent scientist who has embraced creationism is the British professor, Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith. Dr. Wilder-Smith has excellent credentials, having received three earned doctorates and having written over 45 books. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher gives this account of Dr. Wilder-Smith...
The German creationist movement was initiated by the British Professor Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith. Dr. Wilder-Smith came to Germany after World War II, and lectured at Marburg and other cities in circles of the German evangelical student awakening (which today again supports theistic evolution). As a chemist he had come to the conclusion that life could not originate by chance and fought against materialism and evolution theory in leaflets and sermons. In 1966 his first book, Origin and Destiny of Man, appeared, which was the first book of its kind in Germany (the publishing house later changed its position). He also used the early books of Henry Morris. Dr. Wilder-Smith fought for years against bitter rejection and produced a flood of articles and books. He is still active and surely the best known "German" creationist, as he speaks fluent German and lives in Switzerland.Benjamin S. Carson, M.D, is one of the world's foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, and is a professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. He graduated from Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, and has received 51 honorary doctorates in recognition of his stellar achievements. He has done extensive research, with over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals, 38 books and book chapters, and grant awards of almost a million dollars.
He has contributed to new techniques for conjoined twin separation and has dramatically increased the safety of delicate hemispherectomy operations. He was the lead surgeon as of a team that accomplished one of the most complex surgical feats in history—separating twins joined at the back of the head in a 22-hour-long operation. Known as the doctor who takes cases that no other doctor will risk, his surgeries have been blessed with outstanding success. For example, he has achieved an amazing 80 to 90 percent success rate for difficult-to-treat trigeminal neuralgia.
He boldly declared his creationist convictions in his keynote address to the National Science Teachers' 2003 Convention in Philadelphia, and again during the annual International Summit of the Academy of Achievement, when, speaking before former and current U.S. presidents, along with Nobel recipients, he remarked that "evolution and creationism both require faith. It's just a matter of where you choose to place that faith."Dr. Raymond Damadian is the inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, which is routinely used today by medical professionals to safely view the internal organs of their patients to detect cancer and other diseases or abnormalities. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan awarded Dr. Damadian the United States' National Medal of Technology, and he was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame the following year. Dr. Damadian is also a Biblical Creationist who believes that rejection of the creation account in Genesis is foundational to the moral, social and spiritual sickness of our time.
Dr. Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. in molecular and developmental biology from Berkeley, as well as a Ph.D. in theology from Yale. He has been an ardent critic of Evolution, and has written an acclaimed book titled Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, in which he exposes ten of the most common arguments for Evolutionary theory as being inconclusive, incomplete or fraudulent.
The leading voices in Biblical Creationism are legitimate scientists. These outspoken leaders include such men as ...
Dr. Snelling was for many years Geologist, Senior Research Scientist and Editor of the CEN Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation) at Creation Ministries International. From 1998 he worked for The Institute for Creation Research, where he was an Associate Professor of Geology. Since 2007 he has been working for Answers in Genesis as Director of Research.
Dr. Snelling has been involved in extensive creationist research in Australia and overseas, including such topics as the formation of of mineral deposits, radioactivity in rocks and radioisotopic dating, and the formation of metamorphic and igneous rocks, sedimentary strata and landscape features (e.g. Grand Canyon, USA, and Ayers Rock, Australia) within the biblical framework for earth history. He has written regularly and extensively in international creationist publications, and has travelled around Australia and widely overseas (USA, UK, New Zealand, South Africa, Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, China) speaking in schools, churches, colleges and universities, on the overwhelming scientific evidence consistent with the biblical account of Creation and Noah's Flood. He has also been heavily involved with the ICR-led RATE project which has produced some powerful breakthroughs on the subject of radiometric dating.
He has authored or co-authored several Creationist books, including ...
Creation Research Society—In addition to these, the Creation Research Society has among its membership about 1,700 professional scientists who endorse special creation.
The claim that "All reputable scientists accept
Evolution" is thus
seen to be an outright lie. In many cases, the credentials of
who criticize or reject Evolution are far more impressive than those
insist that Evolution is accepted by "all reputable scientists".
The theory of biological evolution fails every test of scientific integrity. Its proponents behave like religious bigots in their abusive name-calling and their stated wish to defrock scientists who espouse Creationism. They dismiss special creation from the outset, simply because they find it distateful to their naturalistic biases. When faced with evidence that disproves their theory, they seldom consider the possibility that their theory might be in error, but instead assume that the evidence must be faulty. Or, if there is certain evidence that their theory cannot explain, they blindly assume that a naturalistic explanation nevertheless exists, confident that science will someday discover it.
An objective analysis of the proposed mechanisms of Evolution and of the fossil evidence proves that Evolution did not occur, and indeed, could not have occurred. Everything points instead to an intelligent Designer/Creator who formed and assembled the various irreducibly complex building blocks of life and programmed the genetic code into the DNA strands. The Evolutionist's god—billions of years of time—is grossly inadequate to justify his faith in its ability to overcome the miniscule probabilities involved. The fossil record likewise refutes Evolution, demonstrating that life, in its various forms, has remained virtually unchanged from the very beginning, with minor changes within a given "kind", but no evidence whatever of any transition from one kind to another, nor of gradual development of specialized structures such as wings, eyes, hearts or feathers.
Evolutionists believe in materialistic Naturalism in spite of the scientific evidence against it. This is freely admitted, for example, by Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin...
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.These revealing statements expose the principle that underlies acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. Despite "the patent absurdity" of its constructs, and its "unsubstantiated just-so stories", it is nevertheless declared to be the unassailable truth for no other reason than this: Evolutionists cannot accept the alternative. They have a philosophical bias against the idea of a Creator.
The Evolutionist's ultimate explanation for why he rejects an intervening, miracle-working God is simply that he finds it "clearly incredible", or because, from a pragmatic standpoint, he thinks he cannot do science if any miracle ever occurred. To the former concern, I would reply that it should be far easier to believe in an omnipotent deity than to believe that events having vanishingly small probabilities could ever have occurred in the history of the universe. To the latter concern, I would reply that a great many of the greatest scientists of history believed in a miracle-working God, and this did not stand in the way of their ability to conduct scientific investigation.
A final observation: There is a serious ethical disparity between the objectivity that the scientist is supposed to employ and the "survival of the fittest" doctrine embodied in natural selection. It seems that true scientific objectivity is often abandoned when the "success" of selling evolution to the masses is at stake. "Survival of the fittest" is only another way of saying "The end justifies the means" or "All is fair in love and war." Evolution provides license for lying, cheating, foul play, misrepresentation—in short, for whatever achieves the desired end. Those who are willing to engage in deception are considered more "fit" for survival than those who insist on playing by the rules of fair play and objectivity.
Again, Richard Lewontin writes:
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.Could this be the reason why scientists today are so dogmatic in their public affirmations of Evolution, while in their journals, admitting that Evolution has many serious problems? It is imperative that we do not fall prey to the public deceptions regarding Evolution, but that we instead demand true scientific integrity in the matter of origins.
The Creation Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl WeilandWebsites.
The New Answers Book (3 vols) Ken Ham, editor
Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution by Jonathan Sarfati
Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson
The Wedge of Truth by Philip E. Johnson
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology by William A. Dembski
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities by William A. Dembski
The Creation-Evolution Controversy by R. L. Wysong
The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham
The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris
Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish
Here are online sources for some of these books:Access Research Network - astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20
Answers In Genesis - answersingenesis.org/store/books/
Christian Book Distributors - christianbook.com/page/academic/apologetics
Creation Ministries International - usstore.creation.com/catalog/
Creation Research Society - creationresearch.org/magento/
Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service - cvbbs.com
Institute for Creation Research - store.icr.org/
Monergism Books - monergismbooks.com/
Access Research Network - arn.org
Answers in Genesis - answersingenesis.org
Center for Scientific Creation - creationscience.com
Creation Ministries International - creation.com
Creation Research Society - creationresearch.org
Creation Wiki - creationwiki.org
Institute for Creation Research - icr.org