|
|||||
Whistler's Tune: |
Go to Columns main page Go to Missing Dimension Email Whistler |
We remind readers that opinions expressed in MD columns are those of the columnist, and do not necessarily reflect those of other MD writers or contributors |
|
"and he's not just whistling dixie either!" |
(I realize that
this article is a tad long [12 pages], but as I know that
there are some of you who would rather read it all at once,
I’m posting it as a one part article. I’ll let you decide for
yourself whether to read it in one sitting or
not.)
Darwinism – “The Devil’s Gospel”
Hey, don’t get upset with me about the title! I didn’t come
up with the idea for it all on my own – I had some great
help. And that help didn’t originate from a source that you
might have expected. Any guesses as to its
origin?
Nope, this referral to Darwin’s theory of evolution as the
devil’s gospel didn’t come from any Christian or creationist
literature, nor from the mouth of some podium-pounding,
foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist preacher.
Give up?
Hold on to your hats! You may find this hard to believe, but
this term came from the very creator of the evolutionary
theory, Charles Darwin himself! It appears in a letter to his
evolutionary literary friend Aldous Huxley, dated August 8,
1860. In this letter Darwin refers to Huxley, who was helping
popularize Darwin’s new evolutionary theory through his
writings, as “my good and kind agent for the propagation of
the Gospel – i.e., the devil’s gospel” (The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, p. 124).
Darwin haunted by doubt and guilt until
death
What an admission! Even if Darwin by chance made this comment
half in jest, it is apparent that he was very much aware that
his theory was not only taking on conventional thought, but
God himself. And the amazing thing is that Darwin was
not an atheist! But he did harbor a deep-seated
desire to keep God and all that he stood for at arms length.
But subconsciously, he knew better. Darwin himself expressed
serious doubts about the idea of evolution. He attempted to
rationalize these doubts, but they were so powerful that they
haunted him until his death.
In the sixth chapter of Origin, “Difficulties on
Theory,” Darwin remarked, “Long before having arrived at this
part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred
to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I
can never reflect on them without being staggered…” In his
chapter on instinct, for example, he conceded such “simple”
instincts as bees making a beehive could be “sufficient to
overthrow my whole theory.”
In a similar vein, Darwin states that “nothing at first can
appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex
organisms and instincts should have been perfected, not by
means superior to though analogous with, human reason, but by
the accumulation of innumerable slight variations…” Darwin
admits that thinking the eye could evolve “by natural
selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
(Charles Darwin, J.W. Burrow {ed.}, The Origin of
Species, Penguin Books, p. 435).
Darwin could neither live with God, nor could he escape him.
He knew, in the very depths of his soul, that evolution
didn’t, and never could explain the existence of life in all
its forms. This internal battle raged throughout his life and
it not only cost him his physical health, but to some degree,
his mental health. Darwin was dealing with a much deeper and
fundamental feeling – guilt. In essence, his inability to
either accept divine creation or to escape it caused his own
reasoning processes to become strained. As Dr. Clark and Dr.
Bales observed, “Reason led Darwin to God, so Darwin killed
reason. He trusted his mind when reasoning about evolution,
but not about God.”
What explains Darwin’s doubts? Darwin’s own reason informed
him that the evidence for intelligent design was
overwhelming. Although he was “determined to escape from
design and a personal God at all costs,” he never really
could. Thus, he confessed to the “impossibility of conceiving
this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his
capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, was
a result of blind chance or necessity.” (Clark, Darwin:
Before and After.)
Darwin had good reason to feel those frequent stabs of guilt
regarding his theory. Anyone who doubts the validity of
Darwin’s own assessment of his theory as being of dark
origins doesn’t have to look very far for confirmation. For
example, Karl Marx found Darwinism very effective in the
propagation of the Communist ideology. Marx “felt his own
work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s” and he was so
grateful that he wanted to dedicate a portion of Das
Kapital to Darwin, who declined the honor (Darwin,
Marx and Wagner, p. 8).
In 1861 Marx wrote to Engels that “Darwin’s book is very
important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for
the class struggle in history…” Thus was born the concept
that all men are not created equal…in fact, they’re not even
created. The concept of love for ones fellow man could now be
rejected as being of no validity, to be replaced by the
concept that hate and revenge were the new “laws and
privileges” of the day. “Superior” races could now pit
themselves against “inferior” races with a clear conscience,
knowing that they were but enforcing the natural law of
“survival of the fittest.”
This is exactly what Marxist ideology has spawned in the last
100-plus years, leading to the deaths of some 150 million
people. Hitler and others over the years have murdered
millions of victims, not with the misguided intentions of
saving their souls or punishing their sins, but because they
were competitors for food and obstacles to “evolutionary
progress.”
Many have understood the relationship between Nietzsches’s
ideas and Hitler’s mass murder teams and crematories. Few
have traced the linkage back one step further to Darwin, the
“scientist” who directly inspired Nietzsches’s superman
theory and the Nazi corollary that some people were subhuman.
The evidence was all there – the term neo-Darwinism was
openly used to describe Nazi racial theories.
Because Hitler understood the implications of evolution,
evolutionary precepts were pounded into the German people,
and it swayed them. The schools were profoundly influenced as
biology was purposely infused with an evolutionary bias. Who
should be surprised that the German Youth Movement sided with
the German states’ view of not supporting the struggles of
the weak? “Inferior” individuals were to be sacrificed for
the health of both the state and the “purity” of the human
stock itself.
The expression “natural selection,” as applied to human
beings, turns up at the Wannsee Conference in the prime
document of the Holocaust. Hopefully lessons have been
learned about how the evolutionary theory has led
historically to such horrendous behavior. History doesn’t
need another one hundred million deaths to prove that
scientific atheism is a form of mental illness.
But from whence did this damaging theory arise? In essence,
one could expect that materialistic scientists would
intentionally devise conceptual frameworks that
would interpret nature without God or put God at a distance,
no matter how speculative and far-fetched those theories
might be. This was exactly what Darwin purposely
did.
Scripture clearly declares God’s displeasure at men who
suppress the truth about God, even after God has made this
truth plain to them: “The wrath of God is being revealed from
heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who
suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be
known about God is plain to them, because God has made
it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and
divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from
what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For
although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and
their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:18-21).
Scripture also informs us that Satan has “blinded the minds
of unbelievers…” (2 Corinth 4:4). How does he do this? One
way is through anti-Christian philosophies and religions. In
their own way they each insulate their advocates against the
Gospel.
Did God use evolution as His
tool?
But “Whoa!” many readers may be saying right about now. “Who
says that evolution never occurred? Maybe God used it as his
tool. Modern day science is very cutting-edge and
sophisticated. Surely evolution has some scientific basis in
fact, otherwise it would have been discredited by now,
right?”
Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel, Research Associate in Developmental
Genetics, Ultrech, Netherlands, with the Faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Sciences, points out in his article
“The Scientific Character of the Evolution Doctrine,” what is
now obvious to more and more scientists: “It is becoming
increasingly apparent that evolutionism is not even a good
scientific theory.” He argues that evolution should not be
considered a scientific fact, theory, hypothesis, or
even a postulate.
He points out, for example, that evolutionary theory is not,
strictly, a scientific postulate because to be
so:
(a) it must be in accordance with the principal laws of
mathematics and natural science;
(b) it must not be more complicated than necessary for the
explanation of observed phenomena;
(c) it must give rise to conclusions which can be controlled
by further experimental observations and testing;
(d) it must conform to the general data of
science;
(e) alternate hypotheses must be shown to be wrong or less
acceptable; and
(f) the reliability of a scientific conception is inversely
proportional to the number of unproven postulates on which it
is founded.
Evolution fails all six criteria for categorization as a
scientific postulate. This is why Dr. Ouweneel properly
concludes that evolution is actually a materialistic
postulate rather than a credible scientific theory. As
philosopher and non-creationist Dr. David Berlinski pointed
out in the September 1996 issue of Commentary: “…As
our knowledge increases, the crude Darwinian scheme seems
progressively remote from the evidence…Still, the real
infirmities of Darwin’s theory are conceptual and not
empirical. Darwin’s theory of evolution remains little more
than a collection of anecdotal remarks.”
But one would never know this from reading the scientific
literature; literature which constantly assures the world
that evolution is a scientific fact. Evolutionists often
belittle creationists as “non-scientists” and ask, “If
creationist theories are really scientific, why are they
never published in reputable scientific journals?” As the
McLean trial pointed out, “There is…not one recognized
scientific journal which has published an article espousing
the creation science theory…” Well, the reason is because
scientific journals refuse to publish such articles
because they don’t like creationism. It is a well-known fact
that most scientific journals refuse to accept legitimate
creationist scientific papers merely because they do not like
their implications.
Many contemporary examples show that most scientists have
biases against creation science. When one of the greatest
thinkers and scholars of modern times, Mortimer J. Adler of
the University of Chicago, referred to evolution as a
“popular myth,” the well known materialist and critic Martin
Gardner actually included him in his study of quacks and
frauds in Fad and Fallacies in the Name of Science.
Philosopher and historian Dr. Rousas Rushdoony was entirely
correct when he observed of evolution, “To question the myth
or to request proof is to be pilloried as a modern heretic
and fool.”
The principal reason evolution “must” be a scientific fact is
because of the naturalistic bias that pervades the scientific
world – a bias which, in the end, is unnecessary and in many
ways even harmful to the cause of science. Scientists who
declare that evolution is a fact should recognize the damage
they do to the credibility of science – and not just
evolutionary science but all of science. As more and more
people gradually learn the truth that, deliberately or
innocently, science has misled them on an extremely crucial
issue, their trust in the authority of science will be over.
The implications are hardly small.
The public trusts the scientific world to know the difference
between fact and speculation, between the proper
interpretation of observable data that can be proven valid
and unwarranted conclusions derived from faulty premises.
When scientists everywhere assert that a highly suspect,
indeed incredible, theory is “an established fact of
science,” why should anyone trust scientists to tell them the
truth in other areas? If the scientific world won’t tell the
truth in so critical an area as our own origins, with vast
implications for each of us, why should it tell the truth in
matters of lesser import?
In fact, the public’s trust in science has already eroded
significantly because of consequences stemming from its
adherence to naturalism, and because of sloppy science
generally, as the recent book Junk Science
illustrates. This trust is not likely to improve, unless and
until scientists are willing to let “facts be facts” and stop
trying to force data to prove their own pet theories.
One frequently reads in evolutionary literature such
declarations as “evolution is a fact” and “the weight of the
evidence for it is beyond persuasive.” On the other hand, one
reads just as commonly in antievolutionary literature that
“evolution is a myth” and “the amount of faith it takes to
believe in evolution is beyond belief.”
How is it that we can get such extremely divergent views from
the same set of data when all these
statements come from scientists? The reason is simple: it has
to do with how one interprets the data. Evolutionary
theory does not depend on the credibility of the data used
but rather upon the subjective interpretation given the data
within metaphysical assumptions held by scientists.
Data do not speak for themselves: they must be interpreted.
They often say what the individual wants them to say. Thus,
if one is a scientific naturalist, then one can only conclude
the data must fit the evolutionary scenario. Indeed, all
sorts of technical scientific experimentation, argumentation,
and philosophizing are pressed to support the idea of
evolution, and to be sure, the weight of tens of thousands of
technical scientific papers in support of evolution certainly
seems impressive. When scientists read this literature,
especially outside of their own field, it convinces them
evolution is true.
The difficulty is that the interpretation is highly strained
and that most scientists rarely consider the evidence
against evolution or the evidence for
creation. In other words, they never fairly look at the other
side because based on “the authority of science” they assume
that evolution must be true. Any supernatural or non-physical
explanation for reality is entirely unacceptable and
considered unreasonable in the field of science. In essence,
what Darwin hoped to achieve with On the Origin of
Species – the eviction of God from the realm of
scientific investigation – has been achieved. Religious
explanations are deemed not credible as being scientific
because religious explanations are preconceived as
not credible as being scientific.
Many are convinced that, were the case for creation presented
adequately, almost any jury in the United States would
logically conclude that not only is creation scientific and
at least an equally credible option to evolution, but that
creation actually offers a far better choice scientifically.
If the creationist camp were allowed to present its case with
its best legal, philosophical, and scientific proponents
including leading non-creationist antievolutionary
scientists, many think there would be little doubt as the
outcome of a jury’s decision.
Consider the comments of the late Canadian scholar, Arthur C.
Custance (Ph.D. anthropology), author of the seminal
ten-volume The Doorway Papers. He was a member of
the Canadian Physiological Society, a fellow of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, and a member of the New York
Academy of Sciences.
In “Evolution: An Irrational Faith,” Custance observes
“…virtually all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary
faith have shown themselves to be either of extremely
doubtful validity or simply contrary to fact…So basic are
these erroneous (evolutionary) assumptions that the whole
theory is now largely maintained in spite of rather
than because of the evidence…Information or concepts
which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair
hearing…Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of
mind, one might say almost a mental prison rather than a
scientific attitude……To equate one particular interpretation
of the data with the data itself is evidence of mental
confusion…The theory of evolution…is detrimental to ordinary
intelligence and warps judgment.”
He concludes, “In short, the premises of evolutionary theory
are about as invalid as they could possibly be…If
evolutionary theory was strictly scientific, it should have
been abandoned long ago. But because it is more philosophy
than science, it is not susceptible to the self-correcting
mechanisms that govern all other branches of scientific
enquiry.”
In fact, the scientific evidence is so conclusive against
evolution and for creation one is finally amazed that the
idea of evolution so thoroughly dominates modern science. As
noted, the reasons are not scientific. Were they scientific,
virtually all scientists would be creationists – as they were
in preceding centuries. Even such eminent scientists as Sir
Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, his research
partner, in discussing the “theory that life was assembled by
an (higher) intelligence” state, “Indeed, such a theory is so
obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as
being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than
scientific.”
One can wade through hundreds of evolutionary textbooks and
notice that although almost all are certain as to the fact of
evolution, all are equally uncertain when it comes to the
details of a mechanism like evolution. One is reminded of
physicist Ernest Mach’s quip, often repeated by Einstein,
which asserts: ‘When the observed facts come into conflict
with a cherished theory, then it is so much worse for the
facts.”
Evolutionists consistently lose their scientific
debates to creationists
In spite of evidence to the contrary, the evolutionist shouts
back, “But creationism is really only a religion.” If indeed
creationism is really only a form of religion, why do
evolutionists consistently lose their scientific
debates to creationists? Such debates have been held since
1970. In 1979, The Wall Street Journal for June 15
reported, “The creationists tend to win” the debates. Six
months later a report in Bioscience for January 30,
1980 agreed: “Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
winners in public debates with evolutionists?”
By 1993, creationists were still leading, even according to
the evolutionists. Evolutionists had 20 years to improve
their debating record and yet did not. Today, these debates
are “almost always won by creationists, according to
evolutionists…” and Dr. Morris says of Duane Gish who has had
over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that
of most in the audiences, he always wins.”
In all these debates that have been conducted throughout the
U.S. and in other countries during the past 20 years,
creationists have carefully avoided all references to
religious concepts and literature (the Bible, etc.) and have
based their arguments strictly on scientific evidence, such
as the fossil record, the laws of thermodynamics, the
complexity of living organisms and probability relationships,
etc. The fact that evolutionists themselves admit that
creationists have won most of the debates does seem to be
saying something important.
Another interesting fact: the higher one’s level of
education, the less likely one is to accept
evolution. This in spite of the fact that the student is
continually barraged with evolutionary teachings throughout
high school and college. It appears that increased education
does indeed bring increased discernment. And do you know
which profession is one of the hardest for evolutionists to
penetrate? The medical profession. Most doctors and nurses
have seen enough of the mind-boggling marvels of the human
body to put much truck in the theory that it “just
happened.”
But why would most scientists accept evolution in this day
and age of supposed enlightenment? A common argument they
give for endorsing evolution is that it’s the only
possible explanation for our existence. Since we
exist, and evolution is the only way we could have gotten
here, evolution must be true. But this is a logical fallacy,
known as faulty dilemma – limiting the options when
other legitimate explanations exist.
The reasons scientists accept evolution can be boiled down to
four main reasons:
1) many scientists wrongly think that there are no other
scientific alternatives
2) they misinterpret the data
3) everyone else believes it
4) they prefer its philosophical implications
Secular scientists today face the same quandary as Darwin and
they respond in a similar fashion. They cannot imagine the
universe occurring by blind chance, and yet, as materialists,
they are not at all comfortable with the idea of divine
creation.
The use of extremely complex instruments, laboratories, and
billions of man hours only shows that there is no chance of
life evolving on its own spontaneously from dead matter. If
intelligence is necessary to generate the results of these
experiments, it must also be necessary to generate something
far greater – life itself.
Consider that the most brilliant engineers, other scientists,
and technologists, who have used the most up-to-date
equipment, are unable to create a computer as complex as even
a simple amoeba – a single celled animal. So how believable
is it for scientists to almost universally claim that chance
– the complete opposite of intelligence – could not only
create an amoeba but endless things infinitely more complex –
all the varied life forms we see about us, including
humanity?
Indeed, a fertilized human egg itself, merely the size of a
pinhole, has enough information to fill a thousand books,
each 500 pages thick, having print so small you would need a
microscope to read it. And if we were able to print in books
all the DNA information in the entire human body, it has been
estimated that they would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times
over! And what about the marvels of the human brain with its
12 billion brain cells and 120 trillion connections? Does
that really sound like blind chance at
work?
Or consider the molecule. Molecules are so small that ¼
teaspoon of water has 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
molecules in it (10 to the 24th power). Molecules vary from
the simple to the complex. A simple molecule may consist of
only a few bonded atoms, as in water. A complex molecule may
have hundreds of amino acids. Noted astronomer Fred Hoyle
uses the Rubik cube to illustrate the odds of getting a
single molecule, in this case a biopolymer. Biopolymers are
biological polymers, i.e., large molecules such as nucleic
acids or proteins. In the fascinating illustration below, he
calls the idea that chance could originate a biopolymer
“nonsense of a high order”:
“At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with
the Rubic cube will concede the near impossibility of a
solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic
surfaces at random. Now imagine 10 to the 50th power (the
number 10 followed by 50 zeros) blind persons each with a
scrambled Rubic cube, and try to conceive of the chance of
them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form.
You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at
just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The
notion that not only biopolymers but the operating program of
a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial
soup on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high
order.”
Dr. George Wald, the Nobel Prize winning biologist at
Harvard, states: “The reasonable past view was to believe in
spontaneous generation; the only alternative is to believe in
a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no
third position…Most modern biologists, having viewed with
satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation
hypothesis, but yet unwilling to accept the alternative
belief in special creation, are left with nothing.”
But how wise is it to be “left with nothing”? The eminent
space scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun is, quite correctly,
convinced that science and belief in a Creator go hand in
hand:
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does
not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind
the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a
theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there
is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the
same relevance in our modern world that He held before we
began probing His creation with telescope, cyclotron, and
space vehicles.”
It was not a study of nature itself that led men to search
for some hypothesis of natural evolution, but rather the
desire to escape the supernatural. Thus, even today, many
frank scientists have confessed that the reasons behind their
belief in evolution are primarily philosophical, not
scientific.
The modern theory of evolution has only replaced one
religious faith (supernatural creation) with another
religious faith (materialistic evolution). Few can logically
deny that both theories require faith in the miraculous. But,
as we will see, evolutionists have embarrassingly discarded
one miracle of divine creation for
thousands or millions of miracles of
evolution, and they must accept them endlessly. But there is
no scientific evidence for evolution that is not at least as
well explained by creation, and there are now thousands of
modern scientists who have abandoned evolution and become
creationists.
After discussing aspects of design in nature Darwin himself
stated, “To admit all this, is as it seems to me, to enter
into the realms of miracle and to leave those of
science.”
A look at the components of evolution: a study of
pseudo-science in action
Of course, no discussion of evolution would be complete
without delving into the supposed mechanisms of evolution:
mutation and natural selection. Also of interest are other
alleged evidences of evolution: the second law of
thermodynamics, the age of the earth, and the geological
column.
Evolution claims to operate through beneficial mutations and
natural selection. According to Darwin, evolution occurs when
an organism is confronted by a changing environment. Some
organisms in a population become better adapted for survival
than others, partly because of beneficial mutation –
incredibly rare events that alter an organism and allow it to
improve. Natural selection involves the survival of those
organisms best adapted to their environment; those less
adapted die out. The best adapted then transmit their
improved genetic characteristics and populations evolve
upward.
On the surface, it seems to make sense – that billions of
years could produce sufficient mutations to allow things to
slowly change and improve so that all life evolves upward.
But as we will see, it actually doesn’t make sense at
all.
Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution was
unsatisfactory unless its mechanism could be explained. For
evolution to occur, obviously, there must be some mechanism
of change. But whether we are considering the three major
postulated mechanisms of evolution – mutation, natural
selection, and genetic recombination – or other factors such
as migration and isolation and genetic drift, none of these
is adequate to explain how evolution could occur. Mutations
cannot account for the kinds of changes necessary, since the
vast majority of mutations are either neutral or
harmful.
Regarding mutation, the evolutionist Mayr wrote, “It must not
be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all
genetic variation found in natural populations and the only
new material available for natural selection to work on.” H.
J. Muller won the Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, and
he observed that the vast majority of mutations are
detrimental to the organism, in fact, a good mutation would
be so rare as to be considered to not exist.
Again, the difficulty is that mutations cannot account for
evolutionary change. The world-famous French evolutionist
Grasse was correct when he wrote that no matter how numerous
they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
Adaptive mutations, such as the resistance of insects to
pesticides, changes in a moth’s wing color, or adaptation of
soil bacteria to new nutrients also offer no evidence for
evolution. These changes are intraspecies events. They
originate from already existing genes and constitute an
innate capacity to respond to the environment. They are not
random evolutionary mutations, nor do they add new
information or capacity to the gene pool.
The problem with genetic recombination is that it merely
redistributes existing genetic material among different
individuals but makes no change in it. The evolutionist
Savage declares that it “cannot be regarded as an
evolutionary force, since it never changes gene
frequencies.”
What do evolutionists do with this difficulty? Basically,
they ignore it. Evolutionist George Wald concluded that even
though the spontaneous generation of a living organism was
impossible, he still believed that we are here as a result of
spontaneous generation. Dobzhansky, after discussing the
harmful effects of mutations writes in a similar vein, “This
is not consistent with the recognition that useful mutations
did occur in the evolutionary line which produce man, for
otherwise, obviously, mankind would not be
here.”
In other words, even though there is no evidence whatsoever
that mutations could be responsible for evolutionary changes,
beneficial changes must have occurred because
mankind exists!
Natural selection faces similar difficulty. Sir Julian Huxley
argues, “So far as we know, not only is natural selection
inevitable, not only is it an effective agency of evolution,
it is the only effective agency of evolution.” Yet
there are so many problems facing natural selection, even
evolutionists aren’t sure what to do with the
theory.
Darwin himself was troubled by it. In his various sections
critiquing natural selection, Bird cites dozens of
evolutionists who have serious doubts about the relevance
and/or validity of the theory. This is so in spite of the
fact that there is no evolution possible without it. Natural
selection is described by evolutionists as: “extremely
improbable”; “impossible”; “may be an illusion”, etc. (Bird,
“Origin….revisited”).
Evolutionists still accept natural selection because they
have little choice. As Norman MacBeth points out in
Darwin retried, evolutionists will concede they
cannot measure it, observe it, or define it…but “will
nevertheless defend it with their heart’s blood.”
Of course, there is no doubt that minor limited changes do
occur in the natural world. This may be termed natural
selection at the microevolutionary level. But to extrapolate
such change to macroevolution is a logical impossibility,
since there is simply no evidence for it. No one has ever
produced a new species by means of natural selection, no one
has even gotten near it.
Creationist Jerry Berman, Ph.D. writes that there is more
here than meets the eye:
“Natural selection would not evolve upward – for example,
bacteria into humans – but at best would evolve simple
bacteria into better adapted bacteria, or flies into better
adapted flies. The fossil record shows no evidence of
anything beyond this. No clear example has ever been found of
a lower, clearly less adapted animal in the fossil record
which can be shown to be evolutionarily related to a similar,
or advance type of an animal living today…
“The easy-to-grasp and compelling natural selection argument
is used to help explain all biological data, but it may
actually explain very little. Human life consists of many
activities which are mentally pleasurable. Walking in
forests, listening to music, creating poems, doing scientific
research, aesthetic enjoyment of nature, and myriads of other
activities are often not related in the least to survival or
adaptation in the Darwinian sense….
“Music in its many variations is loved the world over, and
yet certain music preferences have not been shown to increase
reproduction rates or to facilitate survival. Many, if not
almost all of our most rewarding activities, ‘peak experience
producers,’ are not only unexplainable by this theory, but
contradict it.”
The bottom line is that there is simply no way that mutations
and natural selection could have produced the entire world of
life, even with endless periods of time. Darwin was right –
if we can’t explain how evolution occurs, even 140 years
later, then the theory should be considered
unsatisfactory.
There has been much discussion between creationists and
evolutionists concerning the applicability of the second law
of thermodynamics as it relates to the issue of origins. Does
it make evolution impossible, as the creationists maintain,
or are there ways around the problem, as evolutionists
maintain? A proper understanding of thermodynamics and the
theory of evolution as it relates to the origin of the
universe and the origin of life reveals that cosmically and
biologically evolution is not just improbable, it is
basically impossible.
In laymen’s terms, the second law of thermodynamics teaches
that everything in the universe is running down. It tells us
what we already know from experience; that, sooner or later,
everything deteriorates and falls apart. All things are
running down. Everything finally wears out – objects, plants,
animals, man.
The second law is perhaps the most pertinent for
evolution/creation considerations. The difficulty is that
almost everything having to do with evolution – whether the
origin of the universe or the evolution of life – contradicts
the second law. If we start with the supposed Big Bang
creation of the universe, we have an initial violent
explosion shot out in all directions. As anyone knows,
anytime you have an explosion, there is increasing disorder
until the force of the explosion is dissipated and everything
stops.
Explosions do not produce incredible systems of complexity,
order, and design, but the Big Bang theory teaches that as
this explosion moved out, things became infinitely ordered.
Planets formed of vastly different size, composition and
appearance, all kinds of moons came to orbit, galaxies
formed, etc. In other words, this violent explosion
supposedly produced our incredibly beautiful and complex
planet earth, with its perfectly synchronized oceans,
atmosphere, plant and animal life, etc. How this could all
happen by accident is impossible to fathom.
Any scientist who fairly applies the second law of
thermodynamics to the possibility of evolution must logically
conclude the evolution has not occurred. Evolutionists, of
course, have responses to creationists’ arguments. They try
to reason that snow flakes, ice crystals, batteries, etc, are
exceptions, therefore the law doesn’t always hold true
(if it didn’t, could it still be a law?). But their
examples are not really exceptions at all. Evolutionists
reason that, since evolution is true, and the second law is
true, somehow they must be reconcilable. And so rather than
accepting a disproof of their theory, they go to great
lengths to try to reconcile it with the second law. Hence
science is forced to try to shoe-horn in a bad theory because
of bad assumptions. Hampered by their own philosophical
premises, scientists really have little choice except to end
up doing bad science, to the detriment of us all.
Determining the age of the universe: more
questionable science
Another area of contention between creationists and
evolutionists is the age of the universe. In The Biblical
Basis for Modern Science, scientist Henry Morris lists
68 different global processes, most of which indicate a
relatively recent creation. About 20 of these processes give
ages of less than 100,000 years, obviously a vastly
insufficient time for evolution to occur. The wide variety
found – from 1,750 years to 500,000,000 years – is suggestive
of the tentative nature of dating methods in general.
The fact that young ages are thrown out by evolutionists as
necessarily inaccurate, based on evolutionary
presuppositions of needed old ages, is hardly proof that the
old dates are valid or that the young dates are invalid. In
fact, there are dozens of different indicators of an earth no
older than 20,000 years. No one can declare that it is a
scientific fact that the earth is billions of years old. Even
one of the world’s leading solar astronomers, evolutionist
John Eddy, actually stated that there isn’t much in the way
of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with a
very young age for the sun and earth – less than 7,000
years.
Part of his reasoning came from 25 years of experiments on
solar neutrinos whose results have led to a crisis for
evolutionary time spans, and a possible confirmation of a
recent creation. Not surprisingly, most evolutionists won’t
even talk about this research because of its
implications.
But haven’t evolutionists been able to pretty much establish
the age of the earth through age dating techniques such as
radiocarbon, uranium thorium lead, rubidium strontium, etc.?
These methods have been proven to be very unreliable. As Dr.
Wilder-Smith points out, “One is forced to admit that our
dating methods by means of radioactivity provide us with
little really reliable data as to the enormous time spans
required for evolution according to Darwin. It is relatively
easy for any biological or inorganic material to simulate a
great age – or not age at all!
All these dating methods are based on certain assumptions,
and all the assumptions are incapable of proof, and cannot be
tested. In fact, in most cases the assumptions would seem to
be unreasonable. Some of the assumptions made when using
these dating methods are: (1) it was a closed system, i.e.,
that no material was added or subtracted, (2) it contained no
already aged material, and (3) the decay rate must have
always been the same.
To illustrate the problem here, let’s say we have an ice tray
with water and we want to find the original size of the ice
cube and the time it took to melt. In order to do this, we
have to assume certain things and know certain things. We
must know the rate of melting and assume the rate of melting
was constant. We must assume that no water was added at any
point and that no evaporation occurred and that no water was
in the tray originally. If we know all this, then we can
calculate the size of the cube and the time it took to melt.
But if any of our assumptions are faulty, our result will
also be faulty. So it is with the various dating
methods.
For example, when we find such anomalies as new wood from
growing trees dated by the carbon 14 method at 10,000 years
old, or living snail shells dated at 2,300 years, or
200-year-old lava flows dated by potassium-argon at 3 billion
years, it’s obvious that these methods are not necessarily
that reliable. Even if we argue that the snails had eaten old
material or that the lava brought up aged substances, such
explanations do not solve the problems with these
methods.
Thus evolutionary scientists generally have blinders on when
they examine the radiometric dating results. These results
must produce large ages and that is that. The fact that these
methods can be made to produce vast ages does not mean those
ages are legitimate. For example, A. Hayatsu admitted, “In
conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium argon) age
data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially
too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or
with other available data such a the geological time scale.
The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are
arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”
On a different front, evolutionary texts present the
geological column as a fact of geology and proof of
evolution. The geological timetable spreads life out over
some two billion years, placing the simplest and smallest
organism at the beginning of life – making them the oldest –
and moves progressively upwards to the most complex
organisms, as the youngest and most recent. Unfortunately,
the only evidence for this scheme is found in the mind of the
evolutionist and the paper on which the chart is drawn. The
complete succession of fossils as portrayed by the geologic
timetable exists nowhere.
How then do geologists arrive at the geological timetable
when the record of the earth does not show it? By the means
we have so often seen – assuming that evolution is true and
applying circular reasoning: the strata are dated by the
fossils they contain. The problems are that fossils are not
always found in proper evolutionary, geologic succession. The
assumption of evolution alone is used to arrange the sequence
of fossils – which is circular reasoning, not proof of
evolution. No consideration is given to the possibility of a
worldwide, cataclysmic flood, for which there is ample
evidence. Thus the modern-day scientist becomes the slave of
his own myopia.
Scientists could discover the truth about creation,
if…
Nevertheless, the current crisis in evolution and the lack of
alternate theories other than divine creation are,
thankfully, encouraging even materialistic scientists to
consider God and religious ideas concerning the origin of the
universe. Remarkably, many of these men are professed
atheists who have been forced by the weight of 20th-century
discoveries in astronomy and physics to concede the existence
of an intelligent Designer behind the creation of the
universe.
For example, Paul Davies was once a leader for the atheistic,
materialistic worldview. He now asserts of the universe,
“(There) is for me powerful evidence that there is something
going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has
fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The
impression of design is overwhelming.” Further, the laws of
physics themselves seem “to be the product of exceedingly
ingenious design.”
Actually, science has been so touched with religion in the
last few years that even many prominent scientists are
talking about “knowing “ the mind of God through scientific
discovery. The theoretical physicist who is frequently held
out as the successor to Einstein, Stephen Hawking, noted in
his A Brief History of Time that our goal should be
to “know the mind of God.” Einstein himself once stated, “I
want to know how God created this world…I want to know His
thoughts, the rest are details.”
What scientists will discover, if they wish, is that if they
brought the same degree of objectivity and effort they do in
their scientific investigations to the study of Christian
evidences, they could literally read God’s mind – in
the Bible. Science at best only gives us hints. To really
know the one true God, one must read His revelation to
mankind in Scripture.
Many fair-minded scientists readily confess today the
practical necessity for belief in a Creator. But
materialistic scientists find themselves increasingly
troubled over this turn of events.
Because the hard data of science continues to mount a
stronger and stronger case for creation, they are,
embarrassingly, finding themselves in the theologian’s hair
by default. And they can’t be happy about this.
As Dr. Robert Jastrow observed in his God and the
Astronomers, “For the scientist who has lived by his
faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad
dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have
been sitting there for centuries.”
This explains why committed evolutionists will only continue
to skew the data to even more absurd lengths in order to
maintain their faith in materialism. They really have no
other choice.
>>>>!<<<<
Till next time, here’s whistlin’ at ya! ;o)
[The bulk of the above article was garnered from the book
“Darwin’s Leap of Faith,” by John Ankenberg, Ph.D., &
John Weldon, Ph.D. (392 pages, copyright 1998, Harvest House
Books)]
!--> > !-->