Faith & Evolution


Q. Do you believe in Noah’s flood?

A. Well, yes. Most if not all primitive civilizations have some sort of flood story. That is historical evidence for the biblical flood, that, despite the differences and distortions they could all be based on a real flood event.

Q. Then you must reject pretty much the entirety of scientific knowledge and instead believe in an old story written by primitive humans and for which there is no evidence.

A. No, I love science but it has its limitations. It cannot scientifically prove Evolution and neither can it falsify a Creator. This is outside the scope of science since creation/evolution is not testable/repeatable. Evolution is based on historical evidence and can never be proven using the scientific method. You seem to have a very low opinion of ancient man as if he was too stupid to report on a great flood. I happen to have a higher view of ancient man and his intelligence.

Q. So you are saying that because of the magnificence of the universe, there must be a god? I don’t buy that argument at all. While it is true that the universe, the Earth, and life are magnificent, they most definitely don’t show much intelligence

A. Based on your last comment I wonder how much science knowledge you have of living organisms versus just being convinced of the story of evolution. The intelligence I am talking about is the evidence that an intelligent being organized the universe & all that is in it. The workings of a “simple” cell is so complex that the probability that it just happened without an intelligent creator is nil. Let alone an eye or the structure of the avian lung and feathers. Did you know that billions of years ago the sun would have been touching the earth?

Q. And they were certainly not created for us. The universe is mind-bogglingly huge, beyond human comprehension, and a very deadly place; how could it have been created for us?

A. Well of course we believe that the deadliness is a result of the Fall of Man. But originally it was all good. Even all 80,000 species of beetles and insects.

Q. Genetics show the common link that joins all life forms on earth to the first primordial cells.

A. Actually, genetics and DNA show NO sign of Evolution from one species into another. I would like to recommend, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. It is written by an atheist.

Q. You say that the arguments of evolution are no longer convincing, and then you admit to not being a scientist. I can tell you that evolution is well beyond controversy (other than in religious circles), so you should go study it before you deny it. It is in fact one of the most well supported, tested, documented theory in all of science.

A. It is unprovable by scientific methods because it is UNTESTABLE. It is only a Theory. And unlike other theories men who do not believe in God or do not want there to be a God he must obey are motivated to view historical evidence with a bias. Most of what people know as the theory of evolution is nothing but a story made up by scientists. and it completely contradicts a SCIENTIFIC LAW of the UNIVERSE–The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I prefer to trust my eternal destiny to a scientifically PROVEN Law of the universe than a mere theory. If I am wrong, when I am dead I will just be gone. But if you are wrong then you will live forever but where? Heaven or Hell?

Q. We have the geological record,

A. Did you know that the hypothesized Geological Column is nowhere to be found in all the earth in the correct order?

Q. we have millions of fossils

A. But no real transitions and there should be billions and billions. Even Darwin said that if the transitional forms are not found then his theory would be dead.

Q. we have modern biology, we have genetics showing how all life forms are related

A. And as far a similarities between species–If the Creator came up with something that worked well why not use it over and over. The similarities do not argue for evolution only but also for a single Creator. As I said the DNA has no rhyme or reason related to evolution of species-see Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton

Q. We have actual observations of living species that evolved differently because of their physical isolation, and we have modern species that evolve under our eyes (rats and viruses are perfect examples of natural selection at work).

A. That is NOT Darwinian / macro evolution but micro evolution. And I agree it DOES occur. It has been observed. But changes within species is a far cry from one species changing into another species–like lizards into birds. Micro evolution absolutely DOES NOT PROVE Darwinian Evolution. That would be a leap of faith far greater than belief in the Christian God.

Advertisements

6 Responses to Faith & Evolution

  1. Joel says:

    BFHU,
    Nice observations in Darwinian Evolution. The simple fact of the matter is Macro Evolution is unsupported by biology, archeology, reason and theology. Those who cling to the idea that Darwinian Evolution is true do so in an obstinate need to prove there is no God. It is as much a religion as Roman Catholicism.

  2. Michael says:

    Joel, the “simple fact of the matter is that the Macro Evolution IS supported by biology, archaeology” and “reason”, but it can’t be conclusively proved. It certainly makes more sense that the theory of Non-Evolution, i.e. the idea that the species have been the same from eternity or from the “days” of creation.

    As for theology, both Evolution and Non-Evolution are compatible with both creation and non-creation. One can be a convinced atheist and yet, if a scientist, rule out evolution; or a convinced theist and yet, if a scientist, accept evolution.

    As for Christians, the Catholics at any rate, the doctrine of the first chapter of Genesis is that God HAS created the world, and that the world thus created was good; not about HOW God has created the world, i.e. in an instant, piece by piece in “seven days” or “seven” interventions lasting longer than 24 hours; OR through evolution that took a long time.

    It is not the Catholic doctrine that the Creation narrative is a record of what actually happened, i. e. what would a video camera register had it somehow been there.

    If by the “Darwinian Evolution” one means Evolution without God, such a position faces the same difficulty as if one tries to prove that “there is no God” on the basis of any other reason – an impossible aim in principle, because one cannot offer proofs for negative propositions. Evolution makes atheism neither easier nor more difficult.

    In point of fact, one of the starting points in theodicy is to argue existence of God from finality, which seems more evident in Evolution than in any other observable phenomenon. All that an atheist can gain from Evolution is that he can keep moving goal posts backwards – up to a point. But he eventually has to postulate the starting point, from which all the species evolved, which doesn’t help him more than if he postulated millions of such starting points, each for one species.

    The “Darwinian Evolution” is an ambiguous term. It can mean the theory that all species developed from a single starting biological entity whatever it was; that is the most common use, and it is fully compatible with the Catholic Faith. But it can also mean more, i.e. the theory of how this process was possible, i.e. mutation and natural selection; that too is fully compatible with Catholic Faith. And finally, the theory that no God was involved in the process, but I don’t think that it was Darwin’s idea. If it were, it would only prove that he was a philosophical atheist, which, however, would not discredit the value of his theory of evolution as a biological process.
    Evolution is not “as much a religion as Roman Catholicism” unless identified with the third notion listed above. But even then, it is not religion as the term is conventionally understood. A religion assumes God, but one can assume God and yet refuse any religion, while an atheist has no God to assume, and therefore no religion to accept.

  3. Joel says:

    Michael,
    Here are my own arguments about evolution.
    Let us look at the extreme differences in climates that humans live in and question evolution on the basis of adaptive evolution. According to science we have been hanging around the planet for about 200,000 years. Eskimos live in an environment so cold, so harsh that only grass and bushes grow there. No trees or vines or any plants of that nature survive, but humans have been able to thrive, along with a myriad of other animals such as birds, bears, fox, elk, caribou and many others. It gets cold (-80 degrees Fahrenheit!). Other men live in climates that are equally hostile in the opposite extreme. Deserts get up to 135 or 140 degrees. There are swamps and jungles where it is so humid and teaming with every kind of life form, and high altitude environments that make it hard for someone who is not used to it to breathe. This is not even an exhaustive list of the different climates and environments men have lived and thrived in for many thousands of years, but the differences between the environments are tremendous. The theory of adaptive evolution asserts that as a population group arrives in a new environment the individuals that are best able to adapt through chance and gene mutation will survive and reproduce. 200,000 years is more than enough time to develop at least a little difference between men from the arctic and men from the swamp, but there is none. They are anatomically exact replicas of each other.
    Other animals show slight differences though. Take bears for example. The hair of polar bears are specialized for their environment. The follicles are hollow tubes in which air is able to enter. The bear’s body heat warms the air and helps keep the animal warm. Why don’t Eskimos have hollow hair follicles? That would be a perfect adaptive mechanism to develop to suit the environment. Eskimos don’t even have more hair than other people, in fact they have hair cover much less of their body that most Italians do, and Italians do not need that extra hair all over their bodies. The Mediterranean is a warm climate, so Italians would need less hair. It appears that evolution is working in reverse in these particular circumstances. How about peoples in high elevations? If adaptive evolution were true is it not reasonable that they would develop special lungs or special cells in their lungs to adapt to their environment? Alas, no such development has occurred, they are anatomically the same as those who live by the ocean. Traditionally the people who live close to the sea take much of their food from the sea, but they have not developed any special lung capacity or unique cells that allow them to harvest oxygen from water like the fish do. Why is that?
    Questions like these make me question the validity of the theory of evolution. If men have been around for only 200,000 years then why are we the exact same as we were even 2500 years ago? There should have been at least some new changes, but there has not. We know we are anatomically the same because of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. They knew human anatomy. They knew the same anatomy we know today. This view is very superficial, but it begs the question – is evolution a truly valid theory or does the scientific evidence make a judgment against it?
    We will just lay down some ground rules and define a few terms before really digging into the problems that exist in movement along the evolutionary railroad. There are three non-living agents that are players in this game we are playing. Everyone knows what a virus is – nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat. Viroids are closely related to viruses, they are RNA strands without a protective protein coat. Prions are the opposite of viroids – proteins without any associated nucleic acid. Organelles are proteins within cells that have specific functions just as organs do in a complex organism. The nucleus is the organelle which contains the “blueprint” for life: nucleic acid. The simplest life forms are prokaryotic cells. The distinguishing mark of prokaryotes is the absence of membrane bound organelles, including the nucleus. Eukaryotic cells have a membrane surrounding the nucleus.
    An analysis of the way these all interact and behave will also disprove Darwinian Evolution as a viable means to continue exploring science. It should be safe to say that if Darwinism where true, a logical progression for it to take place is going from unassociated sugars to ribonucleic acid to deoxyribonucleic acid, simultaneous with amino acids finding association with each other to become proteins. At some time along the evolutionary railroad the proteins married the DNA and viruses were born. This was the beginning of single-celled life and as the proteins grew and evolved, naturally the RNA or DNA strands within the protein grew in size, function and importance, eventually becoming prokaryotic then eukaryotic cells and eventually evolving into multi cellular organisms.
    There are two types of bonds atoms share. An ionic bond is fairly weak and formed between two atoms that have opposite charges. A covalent bond is strong. It occurs because each atom becomes unstable without a full compliment of electrons. Certain atoms are predisposed to share electrons with each other so the electron begins to orbit each atom in turn. These two atoms become strongly attached because now that both atoms have a full compliment of electrons they become stable and unwilling to part company and return to a state of instability.
    When a cell needs a particular protein it sends a chemical message to the nucleus which unravels the appropriate stretch of DNA and manufactures the needed protein in the quantity required. A protein is not just any kind of molecule. The distinguishing mark of a protein is the presence of at least one peptide bond. A peptide bond between a group on an amino acid (containing a carbon atom, a hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms) forms as a covalent bond to a group on another amino acid (containing a nitrogen atom and two hydrogen atoms). RNA strings a line of amino acids together in the order prescribed by the DNA. As the amino acid band comes to completion it begins to fold up on itself giving it a three dimensional shape called its conformation. It is through their conformation that proteins gain their function. Because of their shape they gain the ability to attach to other molecules and change them. The number of proteins needed for human life is not known, but it is in the tens of thousands! Each one of these proteins would have had to develop by chance, by mutation, without any order or direction if we were to hold strictly to evolution as an explanation of life on Earth.
    For something to be alive it must be able to reproduce itself, have the capacity for growth and function. When I think about viroids and prions becoming viruses then single celled organisms it seems like a logical progression to me, but it is not. The reason it seems logical is because it goes from simple to complex. It is order arising out of chaos in a systematic fashion with definite steps. It is not possible though because viruses, viroids and prions are not capable of reproducing themselves, they are parasites which require a host organism for the production of future generations. They are able to die though. So what happens to a population group that has no way to reproduce but does have a way to die?
    So life, in it’s simplest and earliest stages, needed RNA or DNA, proteins, a cell membrane (probably rigid), and a means for metabolism. How do we go from amino acids to that? It is easy to see how amino acids would naturally join together with chemical bonds then fold up by chance and develop three dimensional shapes, but in humans there is a special protein that gives proteins their conformation and ensures they take the shape that they are supposed to. They do not take shape without the intervention of this protein. How did that protein ever come about? It is like a factory. Can you imagine a factory accidentally appearing in the desert somewhere? Again, I do not have that much faith. The more biology reveals to us, the less likely evolution becomes.
    As far as archeology goes, we have many more fossils than we did in Darwin’s day. In fact, our fossil record is quite extensive… incredible extensive. Our extensive fossil record shows us that change is sudden and dramatic. There are no transitional forms. When changes in the fossil record come they occur in vast explosions of life with many different life forms appearing and jumps in complexity, not slow and gradual change… the exact opposite of what evolutionist say should occur.

  4. Joel says:

    Here is someone else’s arguments which which say, basically, the same thing I said.

    The Scientific Case Against Evolution
    by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

    Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
    Evolution Is Not Happening Now
    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true “vertical” evolution.
    Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”
    A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
    Evolution Never Happened in the Past
    Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
    Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
    Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct “kind” to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
    With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
    And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
    Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
    Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
    Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
    Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:
    The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
    Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish— with its hard parts all on the inside.
    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9
    Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10
    So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn’t change during their durations?
    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11
    As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
    All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12
    Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:
    The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
    Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:
    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14
    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
    Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.
    Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any “vertical changes” in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
    Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
    Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
    The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee “similarity,” noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn’t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?
    Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
    Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian “proofs.”
    The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15
    There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.
    The abundance of so-called “junk DNA” in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called “pseudogenes.”16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.
    Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17
    It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled “pseudogenes,” have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled “vestigial organs” in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
    At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.
    The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
    A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
    Evolution Could Never Happen at All
    The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
    This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.
    No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
    The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is “independent of details of models.” Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no “vitalist” forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
    Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an “open system,” with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski’s impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is “natural processes’ ability to increase complexity” by noting what he calls a “flaw” in “the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics.” And what is this flaw?
    Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
    This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
    Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
    From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
    Evolution is Religion — Not Science
    In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21
    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
    Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.22
    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
    The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
    It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25
    Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26
    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27
    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a labo ratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
    We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28
    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29
    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30
    Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.
    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31
    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!
    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33
    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.”34 Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”35
    That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
    In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

  5. Michael says:

    Joel, all that you have said is briefly summarized in my assertion at the very beginning, i.e. that the fact of evolution “can’t be conclusively proved”.

    If it took place, that is how God has created the species. The point is similar to that of the writing of the Pentateuch: if it was produced as the scholars claim today, that is how God has produced it.

    Creation Narrative is not the record of events.

    I think I have made my position clear and those who are interested are welcome to read it; if it isn’t clear I will clarify, but I do not want to get involved in a debate on its merits or demerits – is should be judged by those who are interested in my position as it is, whether they agree or not.

  6. Joel says:

    Michael,
    Contrary to what you assert, that evolution can not be conclusively proved, I am asserting that it can be conclusively disproved. That was my aim with my two previos posts and I feel I made a winning argument to that effect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: