First, let us take just a few minutes to re-acquaint ourselves with the definition of science from our school years. See if you remember this:
Science is the observation, identification of what was observed, the experimental investigation and replication of what was observed, to either support or refute a theory. This is considered operational (hard) science that can be tested. Here's a simple example. Gravity is observed. A theory is proposed that there must be a law in place that what goes up must come down. Experiments are done to test this new theory. If these experiments regularly produce the same results then that theory has been shown to be correct. The theory then can be more clearly classified as a scientific truth, or reality.
Science is about experimentation and observation. This is especially true for the "hard" sciences than those considered the "soft" sciences, as the soft sciences tend to be more difficult in applying the rigors of scientific methods.
A theory refers to an opinion, speculation or assumption that has been offered. Within science, it would be a proposed explanation or formalized expression of the manner of interactions within nature that has been observed, tested and verified as either valid or not. The outcome being based on the observations and tests that were applied. If it cannot be validated it remains a theory of opinion.
Now it was significant to go over this for specific reasons. As we look at the "theory," or proposed explanation of how life began, whether it is evolution or intelligent design, we find that neither was observed by man nor can be presently observed. They are not verifiable or testable through experiments and replication to validate either of them. Nor can the process be repeated (don't let anyone kid you into thinking we have been able to replicate life from non-life, although attempts continue). For "origins" science is really a philosophical view of the past and based on a belief of that past. A belief one then looks to determine if it is supported through whatever facts, knowledge and information that may be available.
Therefore, what we really have is that both, evolution and intelligent design, are belief systems. Both begin with this belief system as the premise for their investigation. Both apply the criteria of science, utilizing the same available information and facts that have thus far been uncovered. Although there has been an aggressive attempt by evolutionists to frame this as science (i.e. evolution) verses religion (intelligent design) in order to try to invalidate intelligent design as real science, it has been a ploy used in an attempt to discredit anyone who would challenge evolution. And, in not giving credence to a theory that includes anything outside the realm of nature, thus reducing any chance of the public taking intelligent design seriously. And finally, to minimize any threat to their hold on both the education system and the public's perception of evolution as being a settled fact. For evolutionist's, nature is all there is. To consider anything outside of nature would be absurd. This is a form of nature worship in itself.
To determine the validity of either, and which model the information seems to support more logically and reasonably, we shall focus on key, foundational topics. Contrary to perceived opinions, science has not shown evolution to be a verifiable, unquestionable fact.That is why over and over we hear phrases like the following:
"This suggests that bla, bla, bla ...."
"Quite possibly this is a result of bla, bla, bla... "
"Perhaps early man bla, bla, bla...."
"It is thought that the universe might have bla, bla, bla...."
"Early life may have bla, bla, bla...."
"It is believed that some fish bla, bla, bla..."
These are examples of words and phrases used to express thoughts, assumptions and ideas of, often times, very sincere men and women. Phrases of uncertainty and postulation, suggestion and speculation. Listen more intently next time.
Interestingly, there is a magazine that is put out called, "The Journal of Theoretical Biology". In the June 21, 2007 issue there was an article, like many that do not rise to the public's attention, that made mention of the fact that the very popular T. Rex may not have been this fast and furious predator science had envisioned. Their belief now is that this creature may really have been a slow, leisurely moving thing. In fact, much of what is offered is conjecture, from the color and texture of the skin, to its lifestyle. This would apply as well to all other dinosaurs. These things are based solely on other conjectures made within evolution as none of it can be validated or replicated.
After years of beating it into our heads the "facts", in this case on the T. Rex, we find that those facts are only "theory" after all. Of course, do not expect to get a public retraction. Nope, no retractions to say that all the museum displays are probably not accurate, or the movies, such as the very successful "Jurassic Park" series, are in reality more fiction than scientific fact. School books that "preach" their message will not get sticky notes to display the correction (what should be one of many). Instead, we will all move along in life accepting, without question or reservation, the "message" from science. That message is that life is accidental, God does not exist, evolution is true and real, intelligent design is religion.
One might say that it's just a matter of time that science will fill in the many gaps and validate evolution. But then again, why not say it could validate intelligent design or creationism? Maybe it has already?
Let's take a look at evolution, and some of the factual information that may help in our quest to find an answer.
The concept of evolution was not a new idea brought about by Darwin. One can find traces of this concept as far back as the Babylonian Empire. The Greek philosopher, Thales, thought that man evolved from porpoises that had crawled on the seashore and learned to walk. Evolution refers to the assumption that life from early single cell life forms evolved over long periods of time to eventually produce man.
They are impressive charts to be sure. Some in color, others very detailed. There are some that have the various evolutionary ages neatly marked out with some charts specific to one category of species, while others are copies of rather old drawings. Others that are updated. All of them have one thing in common.... they are a fabrication.
Let's hear what Darwin himself had to say as to what his expectations and belief was with regard to the evolutionary tree:
"The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1872)
What was that Darwin? There should be an inconceivable amount of intermediate and transitional links for this theory to be true? Well, we're still looking!
Intermediate fossils refer to those fossils that reveal the transition of creatures changing from one species to another, such as a fish in transition to becoming an amphibian. Not yet an amphibian but beyond being classified as a fish any longer, stuck in the middle of two types of life forms. Not micro-evolutionary differences as redefined by evolutionists.
And why did Darwin believe that there would need to be an inconceivable amount?
Consider the following:
No one knows the exact number and breakdown but it is estimated that there is at least 30 million "known" species of insect, birds, fish, plant and animal life. Not long ago it was stated that scientists have placed this number at one hundred million. Of this, there are at least 925,000 described insects and over 20 million types of plants.
I have always wondered about one thing, maybe you have too. Why have we not seen the evolutionary process still at work? Or, if we are in the midst of a standstill, why we don't see some things stuck between transitions? Or see any remains of these transitions? Like a frinch? Half frog and half finch? Or a snat? Half snake and half cat? In fact, conspicuously missing in the macro-evolutionary discussion is the inclusion of insects and plant life. We are asked to believe that all life started from simple cells that constantly evolved, producing all that we know yet there are no transitory examples that leap from one to the other, of plant to insect and so on. No rosebug. No mosquitopecker. No antchilla. No mossmites.
Sound ridiculous? Exactly!!!
Now 30 to 50 million species on the earth, that's a whole lot of macro-evolution. Life exploding everywhere, much like popping popcorn. And that number does not even take into consideration any extinct forms of life that we have record of. And it does not take into consideration another important factor....
For every evolved species where the other sex is needed then one would have to have evolving at the same time, near the same place, the opposite sex. So this presents a number far larger, say 80 million to a 100 million different evolved species with included sex partners.
Now to address one more thing with regard to the sexes and evolution (one not many in the evolutionary camp like to discuss). It would have had to be unbelievably convenient that by happenstance in the evolution of the two sexes of the same species that at the same time, at the same location, that the functioning of those sexes worked perfectly right out of the box. The amazingly complex and completely different reproductive systems of the male would have had to completely and independently evolve at each stage at about the same time and place as those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless and natural selection, as evolution espouses, would oppose their survival. And the intuitive drive to mate would also have to have developed simultaneously for each of them to know how to "partner up". Takes a lot of faith to believe this.
So mathematically, just taking the ultra, ultra conservative figure of say, 30 million species that contain both male and female, and multiplying that 30 million by two ( to represent the number of male and female) would equal 60 million times alone that evolution would have had to come up with both male and female of each species. And during those 60 million times that evolution was producing these sexes, all 60 million times the male and female of those species would have to have developed at the same time or else that species would become extinct (repeating this twice so it sinks in.) So, you almost have to wonder what are the chances of evolution producing both sexes at the same time, 60 million times. Say one in ten? One in a 1000? One in a million? How about never!
Darwin's earlier statement was surely made with some understanding as to what we just covered. That is why he said there should be an "unbelievable" amount of transitory fossils. After all, that would seem logical if evolution was correct. Since Darwin's time, some 130 years ago, there have been literally millions of fossils discovered and studied, with ten's of thousands of them identified. The number of these transitional, intermediate fossils that have been found during all of this time has remained at the staggering number of, well.... ZERO! Not one single missing link can be found among them. Why? What would seem to be the logical answer to this dilemma?
What do you think it may be? The most reasonable answer is that there are none. If none exist, then transitions did not take place. And if transitions did not take place then evolution did not occur. Thus, the evolutionary charts that we see are representations of something that evidence has so far shown to have never happened. They represent the fanciful thoughts of wishful thinking. Man's elaborate attempt to make nothing look like something that it is not.
Evolutionary scientists understand the threat that these missing transitional links represent to their belief system and so without fail, on a regular, if not monthly basis, print some find or discovery that "may be", "quite possibly be", or "most likely is" a transitional find of substantial importance. Look for it in the coming weeks. It will invariably be in your local or favorite newspaper or web homepage news section. Why? To continue an impression upon the public that they exist. We just assume it is what they believe it is suppose to be. And we will rarely find any retractions, corrections or public announcements of any mistake, misinformation, error or final verdict on the outcome of their study, which seems to always remain in the "initial" stages.
Now there is a simple explanation for the non-existence of these mutated transitions. We touched on it earlier. Something we just can't get around is the "law of genetics". As we discussed earlier, Mendel, our Franciscan monk, demonstrated one thing... a pea is a pea. Due to its genetic code, a pea will always be a pea. This also applies to all living things. They reproduce after their own kind. This is an "objective truth" that is true for all people, in all places, at all times.
A code is a set of rules, or programs, for converting information from one useful form to another. Those working in the computer field understand this very well. It is a system of coded signals for communicating useful information. We use codes all the time. Music coded on a phonographic record, magnetic tape or in digital format. These are signals that are transmitted electrically. There are software codes in a computer that produce a specific function and outcome. Codes are only produced by intelligence and not by any natural process. Please think this through. An evolutionist is committed to the thought of randomness and chance with regard to the construction of DNA strands that make up the genetic code. They have no other choice. The only other means by which this can happen is by intelligent design. Someone with the intellect and knowledge to purposefully construct such coded information. Now, useful information does not just happen. We understand that a programmer wrote the code for Microsoft Windows, giving it the required information and commands to work and function. How is it then that something even more complex, such as what we find in nature, is relegated to happenstance? Remember the 80 to 100 million types of living species? Does it sound reasonable to you that each of the 80-100 million or so different genetic codes needed to produce those living species was produced out of chaos and random chance whereas man, in a controlled laboratory environment, cannot produce even one on purpose?
Does this make sense to you? It's a hard sell.
Which seems more plausible, evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?
I came across a site that posted an article written back in the 1920's that took a mathematical approach in demonstrating the implausibility of evolution. For those of you who appreciate numbers you can visit it by clicking on the following link:
What do you think the possibility might be that evolution could produce a flat sheet of paper 81/2 x 11, with 3 holes on one side, from the natural fibers of earth? Then pull together some blue color dye from some plant fluid, or by some random means, create 33 straight lines on that page, produce black ink and somehow get that on the page to spell out on those blue lines the words to the Gettysburg Address? How much time would be needed do you think?
You say this is an absurd, preposterous example? Why? Paper is not nearly as complicated as a living cell, let alone the complexity of the human body. Making holes not as tough as creating a functional ear canal. Getting color shouldn't be as hard as determining the color of the eyes or hair. And to spell out the words in the Gettysburg Address is nowhere near the complexity of the coded information laid out within each DNA. Shouldn't evolution be able to produce that easier than living matter?
You would say that it is obvious that the paper was made by a machine for it is too precise, and the machine was itself made by someone with enough intelligence to conceive of how it could be done. One can look at the paper and know that it was created. The lines are too straight, the paper too thin and the measurements too exact. It has form and a look of production. Anyone can look and see that it was designed to look as it does. Tell me, when did we stop seeing ourselves the same way? Do you consider yourself the product of random chance? The result of some natural fluke? If you do, why? What is the convincing factor for you?
Most of us just don't realize how complex life is. Back in the day (Darwin's to be exact) the single cell was considered about as complex as a golf ball. That was until the invention of the electron microscope revealed a microscopic world and life much more complex than imagined.
In the human body there are 30 trillion cells. Each human cell contains 46 chromosomes. These chromosomes consist of coiled DNA strands. If we uncoiled those strands and put them end-to-end, the strand would be about 7 feet long, yet it would be too thin for the eye to see.
If we were to take each 7 foot strand coiled up in all 30 trillion cells in the human body and connected them to make one long strand, it would reach to the moon and back over 100,000 times.
If we were to take just one of those 7 foot strands of DNA and convert the highly condensed, coded information found on that strand into printed form, it would fill not just one book, but 4,000 volumes. If we were to convert all of the highly condensed, coded information found within all 30 trillion cells of the human body into books, those books would fill the Grand Canyon 40 times. And yet, in its present microscopic form, would not even fill two teaspoons.
We have, within each of us a tremendous amount of information housed within the cells that make up our body. This information determines how tall we will be, the color of our eyes, how many toes and how many ears. How we will grow and when we will stop. This information makes our immune system function, as well as our nervous and digestive systems, our vision, blood clotting and reproduction. Millions of messages are being transmitted every second to control and coordinate our motor skills and more. Such things as when to blink. Coded information that is intertwining and relational, working in conjunction and in harmony. These cells, filled with coded information, are taking care of things that we don't even notice as we go about our daily business. The construction of the human body really is a walking miracle of creation.
If we were to consider the human brain, how do you even reasonably begin to explain its abilities through evolution? Of memory and recall, emotions, logic, rationalization, mathematical calculations, creativity, ingenuity, humor, languages and imagination? Lots of time and chance cannot account for such complexity. Nor can we explain the origins of how man possesses the ability to hate, be jealous, envy others, covet, have rage, lie, fall in love, lust and so on. Where does this come from? Please don't respond with naturalism.
We create computers and develop programs that are not able to accomplish what the your brain is capable of doing. We understand that it took intelligence to develop the computer, the software and the coded information that makes it all work, yet unwilling to see the commonality of that same process within ourselves. There is an unwillingness to see what should be evident .
Which seems more plausible, evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?
There have been many attempts to show mankind as having evolved from lesser species, but all of them were found to either not be true, or were found to be a hoax. Consider the following:
1. Once classified as an ape-man or missing link, the Neanderthal is now considered be none other than early man.
2. Piltdown Man - found to be a deliberate hoax. An ape jaw attached to a human skull and stained to look old.
3. Java Man - the discoverer later admitted to artificially constructing this find with a human thighbone and the skull of a gibbon monkey, concluding yet another scientific hoax.
4. Peking Man - tools and human bones were found near the apes whose brains they were eating (monkey brains are still eaten in China.)
5. Nebraska Man - An entire person and family was envisioned from a single tooth. Later it was found to have come from a pig.
6. Lucy - This much-heralded find, was eventually and quietly reclassified as an extinct ape.
7. Ramapithecus - a jaw and teeth were thought to be that of an early ape/man but was found instead to be that of an orangutan.
Once again, the fossil records are absent of any transitional forms of any development of man from some other creature, let alone an ape. Nevertheless the greatest hoax continues. Surely there were more than just a few transitory "ape men" "hanging around", but alas we are left with none. And if no records, then no transition. If no transition then no existence of evolutionary man. And if no evolutionary man, no evolution. Like Johnnie Cochran, "If it don't fit, you must acquit". If there is no evolutionary man, then where did man come from? Evolutionists have no other answer.
In 1869, Earnst Haeckel looked to provide evidence for Darwin's theory by creating a series of drawings of the early developmental stages of embryonic life, including man. The attempt was to show how all embryonic life started out looking the same, thus attempting to demonstrate man showing many characteristics of his prior, evolutionary form. Although proven to be faked and convicted of fraud by the University of Jena, where he was employed, the drawings were not so readily disposed of. When I was in school in 1972, they were still being used in our curriculum almost 100 years after the fact. But why? Why do you think?
What is more remarkable than yet another fake, hoax or forgery, is Haeckel's comments when he confessed to what he did.
"A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those namely, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by hypothesis and comparative synthesis. I should feel utterly condemned.... were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge." Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OK.
What kind of science was this again? Need more?
Let's consider DNA a little further. DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different types of proteins. However, these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each one requires the other, a reasonable and logical explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origins of the other. It seems that this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. Yet how? Science has no real answer. Much like the pollinating plants and the bee. Each is dependent upon the other. Neither could have evolved apart from the other for long, if at all. Once again, in order to survive, the bee and pollinating plant would have had to evolve at the same time. What does the evolutionist offer as the answer for this? None. Just another theory to add to the ever-expanding list, and another unbelievable coincidence in the evolutionary process they try to support.
What does reason tell you? Which seems more plausible, evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?
In over 80 years of fruit-fly experiments, involving 3000 consecutive generations, there has been absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. There has been no clear genetic improvement observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. Even when attempting to forcefully change the DNA structure in flies scientists still came up with... well, FLIES. Oh, there were ones with no wings, two sets of wings, big eyes, no eyes. There were mutations of all kinds, but alas, these flies in end were still flies.
Breeding has become big business. One thing breeders understand and are banking on for their financial well-being is that the outcome of their endeavors, based on the knowledge and understanding of the boundaries of species and their predictability, will produce a favorable and hopefully profitable product of the same species. For centuries, breeding has gone on, and never has a new species appeared by happenstance, as is suggested in the evolutionary model. Nor has natural selection produced new genes. It only selects among pre-existing ones. Any attempts to cross breed different species have never produced a superior, more complex or beneficially new one. Mutations have almost always resulted in something either inferior, often sterile or D.O.A.. One again confirming the boundaries of genetics. Breeding demonstrates micro-evolution within a species but has never produced, through macro-evolution, another species.
Which seems more plausible, evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?
Possibly the clip below will help remind us of the wonder and design that exists within creation, specifically man. We are "fearfully and wonderfully made".
Sub-definitions are "microevolution" or minor changes laterally within a species (like change in color, size etc.) and "macroevolution" or upward changes of higher complexity from one species into a new species. There is no question that microevolution does take place and allows for a given species to adapt to changes to their surroundings. These changes occur within that species. Macroevolution refers to the change of a species into a totally different one, and is the main thrust of the evolutionary theory to explain how the various life forms came into being.
Although Charles Darwin's theory suggested that all life on earth was the result of natural processes, or natural selection, this theory has actually been rejected as the mechanism for change, yet it is still being taught and promoted. After over 130 years, not ONE of Darwin's scientific theories has been proved.
One of the major components of evolution is the evolutionary tree. We all have seen it in school text books and programs promoting evolution. Here is a reminder of what one of these charts are like that you may have seen:
The Big Bang Theory presents a concept that chaos somehow can produce order. Explain that one to a mother with three kids.
No logical answer is given by the evolutionist as to where the material and gases came from that eventually produced the "Big Bang Theory". Spontaneous generation was offered as an explanation until Louis Pasteur disproved it through his research. Spontaneous generation was initially laid to rest in 1859 and thrown onto the waste pile with other past debunked theories. However, scientists seem stuck with spontaneous generation (life from non-life) as their only explanation as to where the material came from. That aside, the Big Bang theory conjectures that swirling gases, spinning ever so tightly, eventually produced the Big Bang. It hurled material across space, the spinning of that material being reasonably alike, and out of this chaotic mess reproduced the orderly universe we now have. But if this were the case, the following would be true:
1. All planets should spin in the same direction, yet Pluto, Venus and Uranus rotate backwards.
2. All 54 moons in our solar system should revolve in the same direction. At least 6 revolve backwards. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons going in both directions.
3. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space or time. Since each is intimately related to, or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one would also explain the origin of the others, and yet none exists.
Which seems more plausible, evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?
In Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall) we have the following excerpt:
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small-scale model of our solar system, which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can imagine, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!" he exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?" Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is!" Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way, "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion? I say "Well done!" That is a powerful argument! What is your reply?
Earth is a very unique planet. There are factors that set Earth, as well as our solar system, apart for sustaining life. Our atmosphere is remarkable and unlike any other. A transparent canopy covers the earth and is filled with a renewable supply of oxygen to sustain life dependent on it, and carbon dioxide and nitrogen needed for the plants. It provides the necessary air pressure, and the outer shell of our ozone layer protects life from the harmful ultraviolet rays. It also contains a magnetic field that is generated by the spinning core at the center of our planet. This deflects damaging cosmic rays and solar winds. Add to this the shade supplied by our moving cloud cover, offering the delicate balance of enough sun bathing Earth's surface without overexposure.
To sustain a temperature conducive to life, our planet is at just the right distance from the Sun. A 2% increase or decrease in distance would destroy life on Earth. Our planet is also tilted at just the right amount (23.5 degrees) to bath the surface as it rotates. Any change in the degree of the tilt would destroy life. Let me interject here that our planet is suspended in space, held in place and moved by invisible forces and primarily following a rather constant orbit. That in itself is rather amazing but nonetheless, that orbit is not a "rut in the road" that our planet is stuck in. From time to time it varies ever so slightly, the consequence being global warming or global cooling. These produce natural events such as the "Ice Age". Today, it is very "chic" to jump on the "global warming" bandwagon. The fact is, man can do very little about the Sun's solar flares, the earth's orbit change, the inner Earth's molten core radiating more or less heat, volcanic activity and such. Variables that affect us. These natural occurrences have happened before in recorded and pre-recorded history, long before man was such a "villain". I agree wholeheartedly that pollution is a moral issue. We are stewards of this planet and it behooves us to manage wisely. Pollution does play a harmful role on health, water and our air, but to suggest that man is the main cause of global warming is to be dishonest. No matter what Al Gore may say, or me for that matter. Do not just openly accept statements without verification. (Educate yourself.)
We so happen to have a very unique moon. It is just the right distance away to help stabilize and maintain earth's critical tilt, and along with the sun, helps to regulate and maintain the tides of our oceans. A moon too far or too close, too big or too small would impact earth's tides. Tides that circulate our water system, sweep away waste, oxygenate the water and aids in our delicate ecological environment. Our whole solar system seems to be made with precision. The size and location of each planet plays a role in sustaining gravity, rotations, orbits and the like. Critical factors in sustaining life on our planet.
Jupiter and Saturn are key to life on earth by acting like vacuum cleaners. With their strong gravitational pull they intercept and gather harmful space debris that come our way. They affect the course of asteroids and comets that enter our solar system to keep them at bay.
Our sun is at the right distance to neither burn us alive nor put us into a deep freeze. It is the right size and composed of the right materials to be constant in its supply of light and heat. So many factors that allow for life.
Which seems more plausible, evolution's random chance or an intelligent, purposeful design?
We have covered only a small portion of this heated topic, yet we purposefully kept to the foundational and basic aspects of this subject. Too often what happens in the debate on the origins of life is the utter complexity that is created which only clouds, confuses and intimidates the majority of society.
If we cannot answer the simple, foundational questions that evolutionists avoid, it makes no difference the complexity of their arguments. Even the elementary question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has real merit. These types of questions sound absurd and dumb, often being dismissed by those who feel it beneath them to contemplate, but they actually are valid questions that need to be answered.
Not long ago, Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics of the University of Nottingham, actually stated he thought he had finally reached an answer to this specific, troublesome question. What was his answer?... The egg. Why? Was it derived from testing, analysis or observation? Of course not. His answer was that genetic material DOES NOT CHANGE during an animal's life (so much for evolution), therefore the first chicken must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg. Thus the living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into. His comments reflect several things. One, genetics does not change therefore evolution cannot take place. This simply confirms what I have been stating in this book. A cat will always be a cat and a dog will always be a dog. Therefore, no mechanism exists to allow transitional processes to take place.
Secondly, he did not solve the issue. Apply a little common sense here and think this through. How did the egg appear? What produced this first single egg? How did it come about? In fact, this applies to all creatures that begin from an egg. Did the first eggs just form on their own? Would it not take two developing at the same time, miraculously housing both male and female in order to perpetuate that species afterwards? This brings us to the third thing he must not have considered. What does it take to make an egg? If you know anything about the farm you already know. This we covered as well..."It takes two baby, it takes two baby...me and you!" Last time I checked, it takes a rooster and a hen. If it didn't require these two things to start with to produce an egg then why does it take them now? Once again common sense dictates that although it may be a wonderful exercise in philosophical musings, his personal preference for an answer doesn't hold water.
In classrooms everywhere intimidation and sarcasm is used to knock down any challenge to the evolutionary theory. Any evidence, findings, discoveries or information that repudiates or diminishes evolution is removed. Students, and the public as a whole, are not given all the facts to make their own reasoned decisions and so this subject remains largely a one-sided affair.
As we begin to come out of the thickets, to get a compass on where we are at, I would like to offer a small portion of the many revealing quotes on evolution from those who support it. In doing so, I believe you will begin to see what is really the truth and motivation concerning evolution. The engine that drives this thing. None of the following individuals are avowed Christians:
Isaac Asimov "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science Digest, vol. 69 (April 1974)
"If 0=(+1) + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become +1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."
(The math is "fuzzy" but the answer is the same... nothing equals nothing, yet still trying to figure out how to get something.)
Geoffrey Burbidge "Why Only One Big Bang?" Scientific American (February 1992)
"Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases un testable assumptions. Indeed, Big Bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth... This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the Big Bang model is seriously flawed... The Big Bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science."
David Darling, "On Creating Something From Nothing" New Scientist, vol. 15 (September 1996)
"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning", they will say, "there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ...." Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. and the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats... You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness to somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining."
Professor Dr. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life; More Questions Than Answers" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany
"Abstract. More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either in stalemate or in aconfession of ignorance.... Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principle evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationship in modern cells came into existence... It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation."
Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", American Scientist, vol. 59
"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswerable. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier that that, how life itself originated on earth remains for the future to resolve... The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of it's code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival.
By a pre-Darwinian, this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."
John Maddox, "The Genesis Code by Numbers", Nature, vol. 367 (1994)
"It is already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins... So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (1994)
"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."
George Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." (Like I state, they have no choice but to revisit this, even knowing it is impossible.)
Michael Denton, "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis (London; Burnett Books, 1985) Denton is a molecular biologist.
"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... thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has a sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.... There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted."
Anonymous, "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294 (November 1981)
"The essence of his argument last week was that the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10 to the 40,000 power, representing the specificity with which some 2000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10 to the 20th power nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be defined. Evolutionary processes would, Holyle said, require several Hubble times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a "tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein..." of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to understand biologists widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."
George Sim Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy", Crisis (May 1989)
"Many scientists would rather cling to Darwin's theory, in whatever baroque form, than face the implications of its demise. Darwin's scientific detractors, moreover, are generally reticent about taking their objections public for fear of being labeled "creationists". So the newspaper-reading public has not been let in on what the British scientific journal, Nature, recently called "the sharp dissent and frequently acrimonious debate" over evolutionary theory, while the armies of biology teachers, science writers and public television wildlife hosts carry on as though there were no problems with Darwin at all."
H. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980)
"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."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) God and the Astronomers (1978)
"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."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics, "The Physics of Immortality," (New York, Doubleday, 1994)
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics, as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
If evolutionists themselves have been expressing major concerns and issues about the plausibility of evolution, then why the fierce defense of it? What better than to hear in their own words, their reasons:
C.D. Darlington, "Origin of Darwinism," Scientific American (May 1959) Darlington was at Oxford University.
"We owe it to [Darwin] that the world was brought to believe in evolution;...Here is a theory that released thinking men from the spell of a superstition, one of the most overpowering that has enslaved mankind...We owe to the Origin of Species the overthrow of the myth of Creation."
George Sim Johnston, "The Genesis Controversy," Crisis (May 1989)
"In other words, it's natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is a design in nature - and hence a Designer."
Dr. Todd Scott, immunologist at Kansas State, Nature (September 1999)
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
John Dunphy, "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, vol. 43
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith; a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all it's adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in it's promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved."
George Wald, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, vol. 199
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Louis Pasteur and others scientifically disproved spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter 120 years ago. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
Richard G. Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978)
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death, if Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"
D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly impossible."
We find an unmistakable, recurring theme among many supporters of the evolutionary worldview. That is the inability for scientists and individuals to accept anything, more specifically a Creator, outside of the realm and limitations of naturalism to explain creation, while at the same time, having a difficulty of intellectually believing evolution possible. Thus, a vehement rejection (mostly for personal reasons) of the only other alternative that there is... the existence of a supreme being or deity that is outside of, and not subject to the prodding, poking, dissecting studies of man.
Some of the cause for this is the prevalence of "anti-supernaturalism" among the sciences. Anti-supernaturalism is the presupposition, a disbelief in either God's existence, or his intervention in the natural order of the universe. Therefore, a person already holding to such belief, having made up their mind before they even begin any investigative work, will automatically reject as invalid any evidence or facts that would support what they have already concluded as not possible. Therefore, being objectively crippled they would consider such things as either anomalies or misinterpreted information. Within this framework is a worldview that does not acknowledge that miracles are possible, or the supernatural that can affect natural laws. All that exists is the closed system in which we live in. This seems so contrary to those who see the universe as huge and vast with so many mysteries to uncover. And yet, no room or possibility for God in it. So for those that already have their views settled beforehand, every cause must have a natural effect, or answer, for there can be no other explanation.
No amount of evidence, facts or verifiable history can be brought forth that will change their minds, or convince them otherwise. This disbelief specifically refers to the biblical creation model, as found in the Book of Genesis, and the God of the Bible. This is, by the way, universally held among evolutionists and scientists that support evolution. We find the greatest focus of attack, ridicule, rejection, comments and hatred is not toward any other work, religion, book, faith, philosophy, theology, theory or scientific alternative other than that specifically addressed within the Judeo/Christian perspective on the origins of life. And, as is taught, studied, believed and described in Genesis and throughout the Word of God. And yet, it offers the only other sound and intelligently reasoned description of the beginning, as we will cover later on.
We have come to a point where we need to determine if we have achieved our initial reason for addressing the subjects of science and of evolution. I believe we have. That being whether:
1. Science has eliminated the possibility of God's existence.
2. Science has shown evolution to be factual and true.
3. Scientific evidence has discounted intelligent design
4. Whether we are able to continue our journey beyond this point.
I believe we have found that there exists enough evidence to cast a reasonable doubt with regard to evolution as being anything more than theory. And that present facts have neither validated evolution, nor invalidated the existence of a Creator. There is enough evidence sufficient to conclude that there exist factors that are beyond the scope and limitations of naturalism's philosophy to either address, or offer as satisfactory answers. Evidence that lends to a strong consideration for intelligent design.
The truth is that science has not demonstrated evolution as a fact, or that evolution actually occurred. Neither has it the ability to deny God's existence. Yet the reason many believe this to be the case is due in large part to three things. First, the constant barrage of saying something long and loud enough for people to believe you. In this case, that macro evolution is real. Secondly, the general public's lack of being able to be exposed to all objective information to make up their own minds. And lastly, a willful choice to ignore and reject any possibility of God's existence.
ASK PEOPLE and hear for yourself.
Therefore, as we venture forward it would seem that the next logical stage of our journey would be to investigate this biblical creation model that has garnered the wrath, distain, anger and attention of the evolutionary camp. Before doing so, we will want to establish some needful groundwork.
Having previously determined that the existence of God remains plausible, and realizing that this subject is much larger than science can handle, or willing to even address, we will broaden our use of applicable tools that might assist us in our mapping out a course through the contentious region lying ahead.