“Richard Dawkins not only regards Darwinism as compatible with atheism, but that atheism is a logical outcome of evolutionary belief. He has long promoted atheism both individually and as part of atheistic organizations.”
See: (The Greatest Hoax on Earth?) https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/introduction.php
DR. JAMES TOUR DEBUNKS EVOLUTION – Tab here for an excellent video explaining the origin of life and its incredible complexity.
World famous chemist admits – Macroevolution defies explanation: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/
Why do People Believe in Evolution?
- It is all that they have been taught and exposed to, they believe the evidence supports evolution.
- They do not want to be lumped with people who do not believe in evolution and are often considered to be less intelligent or “backward.”
- Evolution has the stamp of approval from real scientists, and evolutionary history allows people to reject the idea of God and legitimize their own immorality.
- Evaluating the presuppositions behind belief in evolution makes for a much more productive discussion. Two intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions using the same evidence; therefore, their starting assumptions is the most important issue in discussing historical science.
The Disastrous Results of Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory
- Michael Denton (Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) suggests that the chief impact of Darwin’s ideas was to make atheism possible and respectable in light of the evidence for a Designer.
- Darwin’s ideas fostered an environment where God was no longer needed—nature was all that was necessary.
- Darwin’s ideas ushered in a pagan era that is now reaching a critical point.
- The idea that the appearance of design suggests a designer became an invalid argument in the eyes of evolutionists.
Note: Darwin developed his ideas over many years after his journey aboard the Beagle. The idea of natural selection was recognized by creationists before Darwin used it to remove the glory from God. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/
Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!
Excerpt: Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.
That Quote about the Missing Transitional Fossils
Excerpt: Being a world-renowned fossil expert, Patterson’s frank admissions were embarrassing to adherents of the ‘religion of evolution’—including himself, it would appear. But there were even more devastating revelations to come from Dr. Patterson.
During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:
‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization.
‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:
‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”
— Dr. Colin Patterson, (1933 – 1988) former senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
Darwin’s Gravest Objection (absence of fossil record)
Charles Darwin asks an excellent question in his work ‘On the Origin of Species’: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
He then attempts to defend his position over the next 23 pages, claiming “The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”.
I believe that the science behind modern geology is fatally flawed by the evolutionary theories of influential writers like James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell.
Their hunger to learn was overshadowed by their desire to explain their findings in a natural, atheistic way. In pioneering their fields of study, they sparked a conformist group who would continue on the same path to this day.
Did they believe in God? Not enough to give consideration to Biblical history. The future of science will one day show: THAT was a grave mistake.
Evolution is NOT Science
Religion: A cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) “ardor” – enthusiasm or passion, fervor, zeal, vehemence, intensity, verve, fire, emotion.
Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)
Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (http://dictionaryreference.com/browse/science)
Note: Evolution is not a science because Evolution has never been observed nor has experimentation of evolution taken place; however, evolution does fit nicely into the definition of religion. Evolution is a system of beliefs for which there is no proof.
Evolution – Which one?
Which “Evolution” are you discussing…there are six-meanings to the word, evolution.
- Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, i.e. Big Bang. “Nothing exploded and created everything.”
- Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang created hydrogen and some helium but the question remains, how did the other 105 elements evolve? Did uranium evolve from hydrogen? Evolutionists say “yes” because of fusion in the stars but you cannot fuse past iron…also you have a “chicken and the egg” problem because you must have stars to make the elements and the elements to make the stars; therefore, which one came first?
- Stellar and Planetary Evolution: Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star form. “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.” (Martin Harwit, Science, vol. 231, 7 March 1986, p. 1201-1202) A scientist might see a spot in the sky and claim they observed a star form but what they’re actually witnessing is a scenario where a dust cloud has moved from in-front of a star…the star was present the whole time. We do see stars explode forming a Nova or a Super Nova…this is observed about every 30-years…yet we’ve never seen a star actually form. It has been estimated that there are enough stars for every person on Earth to own 11-trillion of them…yet we do not know their origin…these are only the stars we know about but it’s possible there could many more. Also see Harvard/NASA’s explanation for origin: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
- Organic Evolution: Origin of life. According to Evolution, life must find its genesis in non-life yet no one has a clue relevant to how this is possible. Scientists have attempted to create life in the laboratory but they failed and even if science could create life in a controlled environment, this would only prove that Intelligence is required to create life…this would not prove evolution.
- Macro-Evolution: Changing from one KIND into another KIND. Note: A dog and a wolf are the same “KIND” but different species – but Darwin, in his book, The Origin of the Species, changed the classification from “KIND” to “species.” All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within a kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)
- Micro-Evolution: Variations within KINDS…only this one has been observed. Micro-Evolution or variation within a KIND results from adaptation, breeding. Speciation yes! – Evolution no! (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/) Again: All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within a kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)
Note that the first FIVE kinds of evolution are RELIGIOUS – NON-SCIENCE and are religious views for we have never observed any of them. Both Creationism and Evolution are religious by definition…one must choose to “believe.”
Evolution requires great faith in that which has never been observed:
- Life coming from non-life
- Matter creating itself
- Animals producing different KINDS of animals
- NONE of these things has ever been observed; therefore, Evolution is a religion consisting of faith/belief not a science.
Darwin’s Use of KIND
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, P.F. Collier & Sons, 1909
Though the typical evolutionist insists that a “kind” is not a scientific classification, even Charles Darwin himself used the term “kind” in its proper context.
[p.34] — “… the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bulldog, which we all know propagate their kind truly,”
[p.94] — “… would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?”
[p.116] — “… they will have a better chance of surviving and propagating their kind;”
[p.154] — “In treatises on many kinds of cultivated plants, certain varieties are said to withstand certain climates better than others;”
[p.290] — “… from being sterile, they cannot propagate their kind.”
[p.339] — “… some of the higher animals, which propagate their kind much more slowly…”
[p.356] — “Yet these birds… they exist in infinite numbers and of many kinds.”
[p.522] — “Some of the many kinds of animals which live on the beach…”
Evolutionary Terms Defined
Natural Selection: the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation.
- Natural selection is an observable process that falls into the category of operational science.
- We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and many microorganisms undergoing change in relatively short periods of time. (all within their KIND)
- New species have been observed to arise.
- Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on most of the ideas associated with natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads to molecules-to-man evolution.
Speciation: the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors.
- Speciation is observable and fits into the category of operational science. Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of animal into another.
Adaptation: a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment.
- Evolutionary biologists assume, based on geologic interpretations, that there have been billions of years for this process to occur. But if long ages did not exist, the hypothesis cannot be true.
- The other requirement, a mechanism for change, is also assumed to exist—even though it has never been observed.
Example: To produce the new bones in the fins (for a fish to walk on land) requires an elaborate orchestration of biologic processes. The bones don’t just have to be present; they must develop at the right time in the embryo, have their shape and size predetermined by the DNA sequence, be attached to the correct tendons, ligaments, and blood vessels, attach to the bones of the pectoral girdle, and so on. The amount of information required for this seemingly simple transformation cannot be provided by a process that generally deletes information from the genome.
Evolution: all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism).
- “Is evolution a valid scientific idea since it cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to show that the conclusions are valid?”
- The fact that evolutionary processes, on the scale of millions of years, cannot be observed, tested, repeated, or falsified places them in the category of historical science.
Operational Science v. Historical Science
Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.
Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.
All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events are all past events that are not observable. See: https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/a-critical-distinction-operational-science-vs-historical-science
A Major Problem for Evolution
- A major problem for evolution is the huge increase in information content of organisms through time.
- The problem is that through the imagined history of life on earth, the information content of the genomes of organisms must have increased dramatically.
- Beginning with the most primitive form of life, we have a relatively simple genome compared to the genomes that we see today. Mutations are said to provide the fuel for the evolutionary engine. Virtually all observed mutations result in a loss in the information content of a genome.
What is a genome?
Example: There would need to be some way to consistently add information to the genome to arrive at palm trees and people from a simple single-celled organism—the hypothetical common ancestor of all life on earth. Evolutionists have failed to answer the question, “Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?” You cannot expect evolution, which requires a net gain in information over millions of years, to occur as a result of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection, evolution’s supposed mechanism, causes a loss of information and can only act on traits that are already present!
In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind. If evolution were true, says Denton, classification of living things ought to reflect a sequential pattern, like the classification of wind speeds, with arbitrary divisions along a continuum (e.g., the classification of hurricanes into categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 along a wind speed gradient). In sharp contrast, living things fit into distinctly bounded hierarchical categories, with each member “equi-representative” of the group, and “equidistant” from members of other defined groups.
“Actually,” concluded Gould, “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era” (emphasis added). I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.
The collapse of neo-Darwinism has sparked interest in creation among secular intellectuals, leading to the influential movement now called “Intelligent Design” or ID. ID spokesmen present evidence for intelligent design without tying it to the Bible or any other overtly religious position. ID gained worldwide notoriety with Darwin on Trial in which a prestigious law professor from the University of California at Berkeley, Phillip Johnson,3 demonstrated that Darwinian evolution was based on so many errors in logic and violations of the rules of evidence that it represented little more than a thinly veiled apologetic for philosophic naturalism. Books and visuals by Jonathan Wells show that popular Icons of Evolution4 still used in textbooks, museum displays, and television programs were discredited scientifically years ago.
It’s no wonder that in recent times evolutionists have left the defense of evolution largely to lawyers, judges, politicians, educators, the media, and the clergy, NOT to scientists. Even secular and agnostic scientists are becoming creationists!
Example of Natural Selection and Speciation
Using the dog kind as an example, we can see the amazing variety that was programmed into the DNA from creation. Using basic genetic principles and operational science, we can understand how the great diversity seen in the dogs of the present world could have come from one pair of dogs on Noah’s Ark.
- Using the genes A, B, and C as examples of recessive/dominant traits in dogs, if an AaBbCc male were to mate with an AaBbCc female, there are 27 different combinations (AABBCC … aabbcc) possible in the offspring.
- If these three genes coded for fur characteristics, we would get dogs with many types of fur—from long and thick to short and thin.
- As these dogs migrated around the globe after the Flood, they encountered different climates. Those that were better suited to the environment of the cold North survived and passed on the genes for long, thick fur. The opposite was true in the warmer climates.
- Natural selection is a key component of the explanation of events following the Flood that led to the world we now see.
- This type of speciation has been observed to happen very rapidly and involves mixing and expression of the preexisting genetic variability.
- Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are removed from the population.
- Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
- Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
- The differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. This is how new species have formed since the Flood and why the straw man argument set up at the beginning is a false representation of creationist interpretations.
- All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)
No matter how hard evolutionists try, they cannot explain where the new information that is necessary to turn a reptile into a bird comes from.
- The typical neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation, chance, and time cannot generate new information.
- The failure of evolutionary models to explain how a single cell could have evolved more complex information by additive mutations challenges the entire concept.
If we start from the Bible, we begin with the idea of specially created organisms possessing large amounts of genetic variability.
- These original kinds have undergone mutations—which cause a loss of information—and have been changed into new species by natural selection. In this biblical framework, the history of life makes sense.
Micro and Macro Evolution – Explanation and a problem for Evolutionists
Evolution has also taken on two different meanings that are not equal.
- Accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups.
- Involves the idea that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by descent with modification.
Typically, textbooks show that new species can form—evolution has occurred—so they argue that it is obvious that evolution, in the molecules-to-man sense, must have occurred.
- The problem is that just because natural selection and speciation have occurred (and there is strong evidence to support such claims) the claim that all life has evolved from a common ancestor is based on many assumptions that cannot be ultimately proven.
Evolution and Origin – assumptions and problems arise
When we deal with the issue of origins, we must realize that:
- No people were there to observe and record the events.
- When scientists discuss the origins of the universe, the earth, or life on earth, we must realize that the discussion is based on assumptions. These fallible assumptions make the conclusions of the discussion less valid than if the discussion were based on actual observation.
- Almost all biology books and textbooks written in the last two-generations have been written as if these presuppositions were true.
- Proponents of the evolutionary worldview expect everyone to accept evolution as fact. This is a difficult case to make when the how, why, when, and where of evolutionary history are sharply contested or unknown by the scientists who insist evolution is a fact.
Evolutionists often claim that creation is not scientific because of the unprovable assumptions that it is based on.
- The fact that evolution is based on its own set of unprovable, untestable, and unfalsifiable assumptions is recognized by many in the scientific community.
Within the scientific literature, the mathematical and chemical impossibilities of the origin of the universe and life on earth are recognized. Many notable scientists, including Sir Fred Hoyle and Sir Francis Crick, have gone so far as to suggest that life originated on other planets or was brought to earth by an intelligent being. These ideas are no less testable than special creation but avoid invoking God as our Creator.
The Impossibility of Life’s Evolutionary Beginnings
While virtually all of the evolutionary story lacks empirical support, its greatest impediment is the fundamental problem of how life first arose. Ultimately, life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in a system in which each molecule is dependent on the other two to both exist and function in the cell. It’s even more confounding than a chicken-and-egg scenario as to which came first. Furthermore, since each type of molecule carries and conveys complex encoded information, an intelligent information originator is the only logical cause. Code implies a coder, not naturalistic random processes.
Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution “Theory”
Does Richard Lenski “Escherichia coli experiment” prove Evolution? No!
Evolution’s Top Example Topples
Do new functions arise by gene duplication? No…
Excerpt: “However, biologists are now becoming more and more convinced theoretically and empirically that most duplicated gene copies undergo degenerative, rather than constructive, mutations, ending up in nonfunctionalization.”
“Evolution by gene duplication predicts a proportional increase in genome size with organism complexity but this is contradicted by the evidence. It is not genome size but intergenic regulatory sequences and gene regulation hierarchies that determine complexity. Gene regulation networks are irreducibly complex and constitute an insurmountable barrier for the theory.”
Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?
Excerpt: “Proponents of the gene-duplication hypothesis of evolution argue that a mutation can cause the duplication of a gene that allows one copy of the gene to mutate and evolve to perform a novel function, while allowing the other copy of the gene to continue to perform the original gene’s function. Gene duplication is now widely believed by Darwinists to be the main source of all new genes. A review of the evidence shows that there are numerous problems and contradictions in this theory and the empirical evidence indicates that gene duplication has a role in variation within kinds but not in evolution. Darwinists therefore have nothing more to go on than to depend heavily upon extrapolations from gene similarities—a circular argument founded upon the assumption of evolution, and yet another example of evolutionary story telling.”
“Darwinists promote gene duplication as an important means of evolution, not because of the evidence, but because they see no other viable mechanism to produce the required large number of new functional genes to turn a microbe into a microbiologist. In other words, evolution by gene-duplication is yet another example of just-so story-telling.”
Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?
Excerpt: “Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. Since Darwin, homology has been cited in textbooks as a major proof for evolution. A review of the literature on homology indicates that the theory does not provide evidence for evolutionary naturalism, and that the common examples of homology can be better explained by Creation. Furthermore, increased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution.”
Common Ancestor and Genetic Similarity
Excerpt: “Moreover, if the thesis of common ancestry were correct, we are not talking about there being a few transitional forms like Archaeopteryx. Rather, as Michael Denton says in his book, there should be literally millions and millions of these transitional forms in the fossil record. Think, for example, of all of the intermediate forms that would have to exist in order for a bat and a whale to have descended from a common ancestor. And yet, they are not there. Moreover, a bat and a whale are actually rather closely related on the evolutionary tree of life in that bats and whales are both mammals. They are both vertebrates. Think how many transitional forms would have to exist for a bat and a sponge to be descended from the same ancestor. So this problem can’t just be dismissed by saying we haven’t dug deep enough. The transitional forms haven’t been found because they don’t seem to be there. This absence would be consistent with versions of the thesis of common ancestry that appeal to leaps in the evolutionary development so you wouldn’t find the transitional forms but it would tell against versions that are gradualist in their development.
So it seems to me that the data concerning common ancestry are mixed. I think the genetic evidence does lend support to the thesis of common ancestry but the fossil evidence tends to go against it. So our final verdict will attempt to ask how we can put this evidence together in such a way as to best explain the evidence.”
Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?
Excerpt: The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
Radiometric Dating – a Worldview is at Play
The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate?
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
Excerpt: I really feel “bullish” about the creationist model now. Evolution has always been in trouble. I now have a good explanation for where the flood water came from and where it went, based on water trapped inside the crust (however the planet formed or was created). And now radiometric dating has had its foundation removed from under it. I suspect that a number of geologists now realize the implications of what they know about the lead and uranium content of subducted oceanic plate versus crustal material and the mechanics of magma solidification. What it means is that radiometric dates have no necessary relation to true ages! (For this I’m mainly concerned with the geologic column of Cambrian and above.) At least, there are so many variables to consider that the relationship between radiometric ages and true ages is too complicated to disentangle at present, isochrons or no isochrons.
Related Article: Progressivism – Party of Deception and Death: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2018/01/26/progressivism-satans-party-of-death/