Friday, April 6, 2012

The Abyss and the Myth of Evolution

Evolution says life is Godless:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion."
-- Sir Julian Huxley

Evolution says Life is Purposeless:

"Life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of has no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
-- Richard Dawkins

Evolution says Life is Meaningless:

"There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death.... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans."
--William Provine

The incredulous evolutionary ‘molecule-to-man’ theory, assumes that all organic life arose from a materialistic evolutionary process, from a single source, which itself arose from a non-living, inanimate world. The following quotation from Life Nature Library reveals the extent to which this startling notion is accepted.

"When Darwin started his career, the doctrine of special creation could be doubted only by heretics. When he finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason. He demolished the old theory [special creation] with two books...On The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man ... at two strokes Darwin gave modern science a rationale, a philosophy, an evolutionary, and thereby a revolutionary, way of thinking about the universe and everything in it... But at the same time, he dealt mankind's preening self-esteem a body blow from which it may never recover, and one for which Darwin may never be quite forgiven. For it is one thing for man to be told (and want to believe) that he was created in the literal image of God. It is quite another thing for him to be told (and have to accept) that he is, while unique, merely the culmination of a billion years of ever-evolving life, and that he must trace his godhood down a gnarled and twisted family tree through mammals and amphibians to the lowly fish and thence to some anonymous, if miraculous, Adam molecule." (Life Nature Library, Ruth Moore and Time-Life Editors, 10).

In contradistinction, the creation, or ‘according to its kind’ theory, assumes that all basic plant and animal types (created kinds, or species) were brought into existence by the acts of a supernatural Creator Who willed their creation to be so, and the bringing into being of those life forms was via sudden creation, not an evolutionary process.

The Evolutionist's Challenge

The incredible molecule to man theory assumes that science and imagination are capable of rendering a trustworthy explanation for the origins of every form of life, from the simplest to the most complex, and from extinct forms to existing forms, without the need for any type of miraculous intervention by an intelligent Creator, and without any specific purpose or reason for the existence of those life forms.

The Creationist's Challenge

Creationists accept that limited variations have taken place within a distinct species, but such variations have not led to the origin of a different form of life, or even another species. Their challenge is whether it is provable, for example, that a dog, a bird, a fern and a cricket all arose from the same ancestor. That the theory of evolution has been proved to be a reliable scheme to describe how life came into existence can only be assumed. The supposed research of some scientists is not directed toward discovering if evolution has actually taken place, but toward proving how that which must have taken place did take place. Yet the hypothesis of evolution is accepted as a fact not because it is based on a scientific explanation of the data, but rather on faith. Countless examples could be expressed that show how evolutionary scientists acknowledge a total lack of "scientific" proof for their claims of evolutionary development, but the following two examples from the writings of Charles Darwin should suffice.

1) In a letter written to G. Bentham in May 1863, Darwin wrote

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not." (Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Clark and Bales, 96).

2) Darwin wrote in chapter six of The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, entitled "Difficulties of the Theory," that

'Some [of the difficulties in my proposals of evolutionary theory] are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; ... First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?' (Origin of Species, 124).

Essentially then, the "philosophy" which lies behind evolution claims that it must be true even though scientifically there are grave problems with its basic propositions. Perhaps the most fundamental problem for the originator of the hypothesis, and one that to this day cannot be satisfactorily answered, is that if the theory truly represents how life began, then the presence of thousands of transitional fossils from one species to another should be plentiful.

The Evolutionist's Conclusion

1) The Evolutionist's claims are not based on fact but on conjecture
The evolutionist does not require that his theory be based on facts.

'Science does not claim to discover the final truth but only to put forward hypotheses based on the evidence that is available at the time of their presentation. Well-corroborated hypotheses are often treated as facts, and such a fact is that of organic evolution ...the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and there is no known fact that either weakens the hypothesis or disproves it'.(Human Evolution, "An Introduction to Man's Adaptations", Campbell, 1).

Apparently the fact of the absence of a fossil record which demonstrates the progression of one life form to another as Darwin himself realized is not enough of a deterrent to this hypothesis for Mr. Campbell. As another writer clearly illustrates, Darwin made up his mind about the "evidence" of evolution without even using the most accessible physical scientific evidence available, the fossils of living forms.

'Darwin reached his conclusion [that there must have existed in the past an ancestor common to all primates, including man,] that the mechanism of evolution must act upon man as upon other life forms. To Darwin, there was no other feasible explanation for the observed similarities [between man and primate]. Darwin never utilized the human fossil evidence that was beginning to accumulate in various parts of the world. Thus he ignored two of the most important areas of evidence in support of his theory--genetics and fossil man material. Yet these and other, later developed studies have yielded what must be considered proof of the evolutionary process. Evolution in theory becomes evolution in fact.' (Human Origins, "An Introduction to Physical Anthropology", McKern, 31).

Though Darwin never availed the fossil record in an attempt to show the veracity of his evolutionary theory, McKern and other evolutionists believe that the truth of evolution stands in spite of the failure of Darwin and others to use the fossil record to bolster the supposed evidence. In spite of Darwin’s personal disbelief that the fossils prove his theory, note what this same author remarks about "the facts" of evolution at the beginning of the next chapter of Human Origins entitled "Evolution -- In Fact."

'The evidence for the evolutionary process is derived from many separate and diverse fields of inquiry: comparative anatomy, embryology, geography, genetics, and many more. In all cases the evidence is based on inference. There is simply no way in which to prove events of the distant past.' (Human Origins, 33, italics mine).

According to my American College Dictionary, the word "inference" is defined as:

The process of arriving at some conclusion which, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.

Remarkably enough, other brilliant scientists conclude the same thing, namely, that even though evolutionary theory is ultimately merely a sketchy conjecture, it nevertheless must be a fact.

'Formation of the [initial] self-reproducing particle, whatever might have been its precise chemical makeup, was, at least potentially, the dawn of organic evolution. Although at present self-reproduction is not known to occur except in nucleoproteins, self-reproducing units of other composition might have occurred on earth or in other parts of the cosmos.
Our understanding of the fundamental life phenomena is admittedly sketchy, and the hypotheses about the origin of life are only conjectures set up to promote further thinking and experimentation.' (Evolution, 'Genetics and Man', Dobzhansky, 19).

Nucleoproteins are "any one of a group of substances [proteins] present in the nuclei of cells and viruses, consisting of proteins in combination with nucleic acids."

Increduously, Dobzhansky admits that

'Not only nucleoproteins but even their constituent amino acids and nucleic acids are synthesized exclusively in living organisms and never spontaneously from inorganic substances. Spontaneous formation of these energy-rich compounds is highly improbable on the basis of physiochemical conciderations. Nevertheless, several scientists....have tried to visualize conditions under which chemical substances now formed only in living organisms could have arisen without the intervention of life.' (Evolution, 'Genetics, and Man', italics mine, 18).

Though evolutionists admit they have no real answer to the problem of the origin of the first protein arising from an inanimate world, they cannot answer the remaining problem that now confronts them. Proteins are only ever formed in nature by living organisms, yet those organisms themselves depend upon proteins already existent for their own existence. In other words, when confronted with this problem of how life arose from their conjectured inanimate world, scientists must resort to faith for their answer: "At the time when life did not exist, how did substances come into existence which today are absolutely essential to living systems, and yet, can only be formed by those systems?"

In 1947, a French scientist named Lecomte du Nouy, studied the probability of one protein molecule forming by chance. His conclusion: 10 to the 243rd power billion years.

Even if that one protein molecule happened to form by chance, how much more time would it be before millions of protein molecules were made so that somehow a single cell could come into being by chance? Furthermore, all those proteins would somehow have to have enough time to form into all the necessary and vital parts of cellular functions, such as: mitochondria, chromosomes, chloroplasts, vacuoles, the endoplasmic reticula, ribosomes, centrioles, and other parts which are extremely complex in themselves?

Yet the facts remain the same: PROTEIN DOES NOT PRODUCE LIFE as the evolutionist hopes to have us believe. There is plenty of protein at meat markets and in graveyards that has never produced the smallest speck of life!

2) Evolutionist's claims must deny science
According to evolutionary thought, religious theories about human beings are empty promises. Man has no soul, he lives here and now without an eternity, he has no accountability to a Master who created him. Man has no dignity, no hope for salvation from the reality of sin, and no bright, utopic future other than the possible hope of evolving into something better over great periods of time, though his final destination is extinction. In the process of maintaining his claims, the evolutionist must deny the realities of basic science to adhere to his claims.

On the one hand, scientists acknowledge that life comes only from living things. Even the 1963 edition of The American College Dictionary says:

"abiogenesis, [spontaneous generation], is the hypothetical production of living things from inanimate matter."

The fact that scientists still hold to this absolutely incredulous stance on spontaneous generation, is fantastic, because there is not a shred of scientific evidence to prove it is true. On the contrary it has been proven to be false through the scientific process. And strangely enough, evolution cannot be true unless the premise of spontaneous generation is true!

'The theory of abiogenesis, thus gave way to that of biogenesis, which maintains that all life arises from preexisting life ... geologists tell us that at one time, long ago, life could not have existed on the earth. The doctrine of special creation, that is, that each species of animal was specially created, is sufficiently refuted to the satisfaction of most biologists by the facts of organic evolution. Life must, therefore, have originated on the earth from non-living matter, or it must have been brought to the earth from some other part of our universe. The latter idea, known as the cosmozoic theory, is so improbable as to be hardly worthy of consideration... The dominant theory now (to account for the origin of life on earth), is that when the environmental conditions became suitable for life, certain molecules became organized into the first living system. Even now, life might conceivably arise from non-living matter if the various elements contained in protoplasm were to unite in the proper quantities, in the proper relations to one another, and under favorable conditions; but actually we have no real evidence of this.' (College Zoology, Hegner, italics mine).

Again, this is exactly what all evolutionists must buy into to maintain their theory of evolution, even though it is absolutely unreasonable to do so! Irving Alder, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, absolutely contradicts himself within ten pages of his book How Life Began.

"It is the law of life that living things come only from living things, and like produces like." (Irving Alder, How Life Began, 15).

"The first living cells must have developed from dead matter, on the earth, some time over two billion years ago. Figuring out how it happened is the greatest detective story of all time." (Irving Alder, How Life Began, 25, italics mine).

3) Evolutionist's claims require millions of years
The introduction of eons of time into the formula of the evolutionary equation is necessary to render what science has proven to be the impossible, as at least a highly remote feasibility.

'If life comes only from life, then every living creature which exists now is a direct descendent of the first bit of living protoplasm which appeared on earth... The origin of the first life of necessity is a highly speculative issue. Indeed, our inability to observe spontaneous generation in nature or to bring it about artificially in laboratory experiments shows that life must have arisen under some conditions which no longer obtain at present and about which we can only make the vaguest guesses... Even so, spontaneous formation of complex proteins and nucleoproteins is a most improbable event, at least in terms of short term intervals. Given eons of time, a highly improbable event may, however, take place somewhere in the universe. Such a "lucky hit" happened to occur on a small planet, earth, a mere speck in the vast cosmic spaces. As soon as a particle appeared that was able to reproduce itself, that is, to engender synthesis of its copies from materials present in its environment, the evolution of life was launched.' (Evolution, 'Genetics and Man', Theodosius Dobzhansky, Columbia University, italics mine).

Donald E. Chittick writes that Darwin finally found the ultimate escape hatch for a failed system of reasoning which cannot be held together on the basis of science.

'Time, however, is the escape hatch from the clear implications of the improbability of life arising by natural processes' (The Controversy, 228-229).

George Wald, a well-known scientist and evolutionist, proves that the evolutionist clings to his faith desperately, not because of scientific evidence, but because of a preconceived mind set.

Writes Wald,

'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracle.' (The Controversy, 230).

The Creationist’s Conclusion

1) Evolution does not fit the definition of "science"
Science is defined as:

"A branch of study that is concerned with a connected body of demonstrable truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less bound together by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain." (Oxford Dictionary).

One's decision to accept evolution is not, then, based on science, which is limited to the study of physical phenomenon and processes as they exist in the present.

The Creationist's conclusion is that evolution is not a science, in the true sense of the word, but rather a philosophy. Actually, it would be better to call it a myth! It remains in the true sense of the word, a "theory." (A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact).

2) Evolution does fit the definition of a philosophy
Evolution is not universally accepted because it is proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because its alternative, special creation, is not only incredible, but would involve our accountability to the Creator.

'Man is alone in the universe, and he is the result of an impersonal, unconscious process, and he is his own master and must manage his own destiny.' (Dr. G.G. Simpson, Prof. of Vertebrate Paleontology, Harvard University).

The only factual explanation for the fossils that do exist is that there was an explosive appearance of highly complex forms of life, recorded by the fossil record, without the evidence of great epochs of time where transitional forms gradually linked one basic kind to another. Thus, the indication of development from simple life to complex life over millions of years is an unreliable fallacy.

No comments: