I was talking with my granddaughter, who was telling me how excited she was about her anthropology class, and the facts of evolution. I told her of my excitement when I first saw the remarkable chart from puddle to frog to man. That is, until I studied the topic, and came to understand that the theory of evolution is only a theory, and seems not to stand up under scrutiny. In fact, the Genesis account of an intelligent Creator is easier to back up with science than the wishful “It just all kind of started somehow” that a lot of the mainstream mindset is locked in to.
She was shocked, and informed me that her textbooks were absolutely certain that all scientists believed in evolution.
I asked if she had seen or was aware of a document that was recently signed by over 800 PHD scientists that reads, in part, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” The fact is that many of the world’s leading scientists believe in intelligent design.
In fact, Dr. Edgar Andrews, one of Europe’s premier molecular biologists, stated “The creation of life out of non life necessitates skill, knowledge and intelligence. With all of our incredible technology, no one has been able to make a living thing out of non living molecules. However, even if they did, it would only prove that the creation of life took intelligent, creative design.” Even science law of biogenesis states that “Life always comes from life.”
Biophysicist Harold Morowitz compared the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell with the total number of interactions available since the commonly agreed and assumed beginning of the universe. His conclusion was that the mathematical probabilities are so small as to be statistically zero. Most mathematical calculations conclude that a universe even 100 billion years old is still not old enough to provide the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell. Mathematician Hoyle comments: “The current scenario of the (Darwinian) origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a Boeing 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.”
John Blanchard says: “The strongest ‘creation evidence’ is man himself. Unlike other creatures, man has something we call a ‘personality’; man makes intelligent choices, has a conscience and can distinguish between right and wrong. Man is capable of love and compassion. Where did man get these qualities? Neither evolution nor an avalanche of accidents could have produced them.”
Scientists are in agreement that the ‘Big Bang” theory is the logical explanation of the origin of the universe as we know it, and that the universe began at a specific and finite time in the past. Using that theory, the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of matter) states, in layman’s terms, that matter can’t just pop into existence or create itself. That would then imply that something external to the universe caused it to come into existence!
I think we all agree with the premise that the universe was somehow created, even if we disagree on the cause. Now let’s talk about man, and how WE got here.
The mainstream theory that my granddaughter is taught, claims that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution explains our existence. Darwin’s theory says that life was a chance combination of chemicals that mixed together to form a one celled living organism. That one celled organism then, over millions of years and through the processes of mutation and natural selection, led to all the species living today.
We understand mutation to be a rare, random and abrupt change in the properties of a living thing. The theory of evolution says that random change in the organism ‘catches on’, and makes a favorable change that then repeats itself until another random favorable change adds to the organism, in time creating a continually improving organism through natural selection, where stronger organisms outrun weaker ones in the survival race.
Interestingly enough, molecular biologist Michael Denton (an agnostic) says that, in his opinion, “Life is a matter of design. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations don’t appear to produce any kind of evolution. The majority of mutations lead to structural impairment, genetic diseases and death. The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is at least 10,000 to 1. The odds of continually beneficial mutations accumulating to produce favorable change over any period of time become infinitesimal.”
Physicist Werner Gitt states “Mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new information.”
Charles Colson comments, “Since most mutations are harmful, if mutations accumulated, the result would be devolution, not evolution. Since the development of a single new organ may require thousands of mutations, Darwinists must hope that vast numbers of these rare beneficial mutations will happen in a single organism. The improbabilities (of this) are staggering.”
Dr. Lee Spencer writes “Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is (thinking) like the merchant that lost a little money on each sale, but believes he will make up for it in volume. No mutation has ever been observed that added information to the genome. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. The human genome has more information than the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it (or fail to add to it).”
The theory then states that, after a mutation has occurred, the process of natural selection will sort out the good mutations, and promote that improved organism over its competitors. Natural selection is needed to guide the changes that take place from one generation to another.
Referring again to molecular biologist Edgar Andrews, he further says “There are three good reasons why natural selection cannot cause evolution. First, natural selection makes animals more alike than before, not different.”
He cites the example of rabbits. If a mutation makes a rabbit faster, then that rabbit would perhaps breed a group of faster rabbits. BUT they are just faster rabbits. However, those rabbits survived well, and therefore had no impetus to become horses. There is no historical record of one species becoming another. Natural selection can improve a species’ adaptation to its environment, but doesn’t change it to another species.
His second reason: “Natural selection could never bring about all the myriad of changes needed at the same time to turn one animal into another. A hare may look like a rabbit that grew longer legs, but a zoologist would tell you that there are extreme differences between the two. Even the basic blood proteins are different, along with many other basic body chemicals. In fact, using a comparison of biochemicals, man is more closely related to pigs than to monkeys.”
“The third reason is that evolution is supposed to happen by millions of small changes over time. To evolve a complicated organ like the eye, or even skin and hair, would need a large number of small changes in the genes of an animal. It is obvious that a creature with an eye has advantages over one without an eye. But what advantage has a creature that has evolved only part of an eye? If the lens had evolved, but not the retina, the creature would be just as blind as before. Even if the whole eye had evolved, the animal would still be blind until the optic nerve and brain cells had evolved.
The step by step evolution of organs is supposed to happen because each step gives the creature some advantage. Obviously, hundreds of steps would have to occur before any advantage was produced from the evolving eye, and these steps could not therefore be guided by natural selection, which must see improvement in each step.
Imagine the complexity of properly ordering the code for just a strand of your DNA. If you had 4 colors of paint, and could paint ten steps in any order you wished, you could paint the steps 1,048,576 different ways. Now imagine only 100 steps in only a portion of a DNA molecule. That sequence could be ordered in over a million million ways.” And this took place by a series of chance accidents?!!
And now let’s look further into the topic of irreducible complexity. Charles Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Charles Colson writes: “The fact that organisms are irreducibly complex is yet another argument that they could not have evolved piecemeal, one step at a time.
Take the example of the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouse like creature whose forelimbs (the front toes) developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the front toes grow longer and the skin begins to form between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. Therefore, during most of its hypothetical transitional stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop helplessly along and soon become extinct.
There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fossil record, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats.
The same pattern holds throughout the past, as we see in the fossil record. The overwhelming pattern is that organisms appear fully formed, with variations clustered around a mean, and without any transitional stages leading up to them.”
Biochemist Mike Behe writes: “As you search the professional literature of the last several decades, looking for articles that have been published even attempting to explain the possible Darwinian step by step origin of any of these systems, you will encounter a thundering silence. Absolutely no one – not one scientist – has published any detailed proposal or explanation of the possible evolution of any such complex biochemical system.”
A microbiological research team, headed by molecular researchers Davis, Kenyon, and Thaxton writes: “It has proved impossible to arrange protein sequences in a series corresponding to the expected transitions from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.”
In fact, no transitional fossil, acting as a transitional stage leading from one species to another, has EVER been found among the millions of fossils discovered.
Even Richard Dawkins, biochemist, atheist, and well known spokesman for the evolutionary theory, when asked about the Cambrian fossil deposits, (the Cambrian Explosion) where many differing life forms were suddenly displayed all at once in one sediment layer with no previous fossil record stated: “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”
Oh, Gracious me!
I’m going to wrap up with a little story borrowed from my friend Dr. Edgar Andrews.
I vividly remember him saying, “Almost all of the very top scientists in every field are creationists. Mostly just the lower and mid level group of scientists need their science to be their God.”
Onto the story he told me:
“One day I was walking along the seashore when I saw something very colorful half buried in the sand. Prodding it with my foot I saw that it was one of those small, solid rubber balls that bounce so well. How did it get there? You may think that a child playing on the beach the day before, had lost it, but here’s what really happened.
Many hundreds of years ago, on a tropical island, there grew, side by side, a coconut palm and a rubber tree. One day a coconut fell from the top of the palm tree to the ground, striking a stone which chipped off a small piece of the coconut shell.
It was not long before the ants and other insects found the hole in the coconut and began to nibble away the inside of the nut, till eventually the hollow shell was left quite clean inside.
It so happened, about that time that a second nut fell from the palm tree. In falling, it struck one of the main branches of the rubber tree, breaking off a piece of bark. Naturally, the milky rubber latex began to flow from the damaged branch and dripped to the ground.
It so happened that the empty coconut shell lie directly below the damaged limb, with the small hole in the shell facing upwards. By a wonderful coincidence the rubber latex began to drip directly into the hole until quite a pool of latex had collected in the shell.
Then a wind sprang up, carrying sand and dust across the island. Some of the dust was mineral sulphur and some was from red colored rocks on the island. The wind piled the dust against the coconut shell and quite a lot of dust found its way into the hole and settled on the rubber latex.
Finally, the wind brought a leaf, which settled over the hole, and latex drips then sealed this across the hole so that nothing could get in or out. The sea, driven by a strong wind, surged over the beach and swept the coconut shell away.
As the shell bobbed up and down, tumbling over and over in the waves, the rubber latex mixed with the sulphur and the sand and rolled itself into a ball. Now when the sulphur is heated with rubber it vulcanizes the rubber into a solid, elastic lump and this was just what happened. The latex continued to be rolled around inside the much larger coconut shell while it was being vulcanized, and so took on a perfectly round shape. The colored dust streaked the now elastic ball with bands of red and yellow.
Eventually, the coconut was dashed against some rocks and broke, releasing the ball, which floated and was finally thrown up on a beach where I found it.”
Sure sounds logical to me. And this is the stuff our next generation is being taught as scientific truth!
As for me, I think I will go back to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning….”
Until Next Time, Larry