Copied from: ricthuse (1cust237.tnt1.marion.oh.da.uu.net)
Subject: Is Evolution Science or Philosophy (i.e. Religion)?
Date: December 25, 2003.
Just as Creationism is a philosophy (i.e. religion), so also is Evolutionism. Neither one is observable or repeatable, so both theories are outside the domain of what is strictly called science, and are in the domain of philosophy. To the questions, "Were you there when it happened?" or "Can you repeat (verify) it in a lab?" we must answer "no". Where we end up on the Creation/Evolution question will involve faith. (See speech below.)
We can, though, look at the evidence nature provides us, and see which theory best predicts what we find - in order to decide which is the more reasonable faith. For example: The Creation Model predicts we will find gaps between the originally created kinds in the fossil record. The Evolution Model, on the other hand, predicts we will find transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin didn't have any, but he could point to the sparse fossil library of his time, and say that the transitional fossils were still in the ground and would be found eventually. It's been about 150 years and we now have a huge fossil library. Have any transitional forms been found? (See speech below.)
The "proofs" we are given for evolution are variation WITHIN kinds. But the original DNA code PROVIDES for variation within kinds (within limits), to allow for adaptation to changing environments.
A common example is the peppered moth. As the industrial age put soot on the tree bark, darker moths were camouflaged from their predators, the birds. The favorable dark colored variety was selected from the original DNA information (all of the various shades were there from the start). No NEW information was added. No increase in complexity or organization. There was merely a shift in population to the dark variety. This does illustrate natural selection (survival of the fittest), but it does not illustrate evolution. All the peppered moths remained from start to finish, peppered moths (Biston betularia).
What we are NOT shown, is evidence of macroevolution "that is, evidence of one kind changing into another kind," for example, a reptile changing into a mammal. We are led to believe that because variation WITHIN kinds DOES occur, that it follows that change from one kind to a different kind CAN/DID occur. But, the very genetic laws that provide for variation within kinds, stabilizes the organism within boundaries, (preventing macroevolution from happening). And natural selection prevents a drift upward, just as effectively as a drift downward. A small change toward something better - but not yet complete "is a disadvantage to an animal" and so, it is eliminated by natural selection.
Gordon Taylor: "In all the thousands of fly breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge" or "even a new enzyme."
Here is the speech:
This is a speech on evolution. The introduction quotes evolutionists to show that evolution is a religion and not science. The center states some of the reasons that scientists are abandoning Darwinism. The conclusion looks at why people have held to evolution, even though there is no evidence for it.
Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse. However cracks in those walls have been appearing as evolution is being exposed for the religion that it is.
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, said, "Last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite shock, to learn that one can be mislead so long." So for the past few weeks 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 is true?" All I got was silence. He continues, "Many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith." He concludes, "Evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey antiknowledge." Antiknowledge destroys knowledge, just as antimatter destroys matter when it comes into contact.
The high priest of evolution, Carl Sagan has said, "To believe that organisms arose spontaneously on the earth, is a statement of faith rather than of demonstrable scientific fact."
Nobel laureate, Harold Urey said, "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
Physicist Wolfgang Smith said, "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting moreover, that for the most part these experts have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or Biblical persuasions but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully."
Evolution teaches that life arose and evolved into its present complex forms by mindless, random, chance processes. Let's look at some of the reasons scientists are abandoning Darwinism.
1) The complexity of the cell
Not so long ago the single living cell was called the simple cell. But not any more! Scientists today tell us that each of the 100 trillion cells in our body is more complex than a large city. Systems are working and jobs are being done by the thousands.
On the origin of the first living cell, molecular biologist, Michael Denton said, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
Astronomer and cosmologist Fred Hoyle said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado could sweep though a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a Boeing-747. He goes on, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it." It's big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet or on another, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
2) The complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record
Evolutionists should be able to point to transitional forms in the fossils, recording evolutionary development as it took place in the past. Like something in between an amphibian and a reptile, as amphibians supposedly evolved into reptiles. An "amphitile" of sorts. And we should find a "repbird" and some "fishbians."
David B. Kitts, Ph.D. in zoology and an evolutionist explains, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides us with a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
There is a gigantic gap between one celled microorganisms and the highly complex invertebrates such as trilobites, brachiopods, corals, and jellyfish. The proposed 100 million year evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates which would have involved billions of transitionary forms is completely missing. The supposed 30 million year advance from fishes to amphibians is totally nonexistent. The coelacanth was one sited as an intermediate, but instead of being extinct for millions of years it was found very much alive in 1938. No transitional forms between amphibians and the altogether different reptiles have been found. No transitional links between reptiles and mammals. No evolutionary links between reptiles and birds. Archaeopteryx was once acclaimed as such but has since been acknowledged by paleontologists to have been a true bird. A strong flier in fact.
No links between ape and man. The highly publicized fossil hominids cited to demonstrate human evolution are actually fossils of extinct apes or humans, or in some cases neither. Ramapithecus was jaw fragments of an ape. Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig's tooth. Java Man turned out to be the knee bone of an extinct elephant. Piltdown Man, viewed in stately museums and the subject of 500 doctoral dissertations was a hoax. It was the jawbone of an ape that died only 50 years previously. The teeth were filed down and the bones were discolored to conceal their true identity. Neanderthal Man is now classed as fully human. The individual initially evaluated had a vitamin D deficiency causing rickets.
To explain this total lack of transitional forms evolutionists Gould and Eldridge propose the idea of punctuated equilibrium. That is, that evolution occurs in sudden large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications. Evolutionist Goldschmidt terming this the hopeful monster mechanism proposes that at one time a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched from it. People who live on farms know this doesn't happen. Besides, what would it mate with?
The punctuational evolutionist on the one hand pointing to the genetic limits and the fossil evidence to show that evolution did not happen slowly. On the other hand we have the traditional evolutionist pointing out the absurdity of the hopeful monster evolution and claiming that evolution could not happen fast. The creationist simply agrees with both sides - evolution couldn't happen fast and it didn't happen slowly - because evolution can't and didn't happen at all.
Biologist/Paleontologist, Dr. Gary Parker has said, "In most people's minds, fossils and evolution go hand and hand. In reality fossils are a great embarrassment to the evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show one kind of life slowly and gradually changed into another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transitional forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
3) Complex organs
Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step by step accidental development of organs such as the human eye, which is characterized by staggering complexity. Darwin himself said: "To suppose that the eye, with all of its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." And he only knew a fraction of what we know today.
The eye would be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Clearly, the piecemeal evolution of the human eye is a completely outlandish and unreasonable notion. An incomprehensible constellation of favorable, integrated and synchronized mutations would have to occur to produce an organ such as the eye. Granting evolutionists generous concession, R L Wysong computes the probability for the chance formation of the eye at 1 in 10 to the 266th power. To understand how big this number is, 10 to the 80th power is the number of electrons in the universe. And evolution calls for the chance development of the eye several times, not just once.
4) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The proven 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that complex, ordered arrangements tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. Evolution proposes that things have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex with time. Thus the theory of evolution violates a proven law of science. As physicists have reported - there is no recorded experiment in the history of science, that contradicts the second law or it's corollaries.
5) Failure of the idea of natural selection
Darwin elevated the concept of survival of the fittest to the place of Creator. Natural selection was supposed to create ever higher forms of animals. Later research established that natural selection is not capable of creating anything truly new. Natural selection is actually a conservation process in nature. Evolutionist Colin Patterson said, "No one has ever produced a new species by natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it."
6) Failure of the idea of mutations
Mutations were supposed to be the raw material of evolution, the magic wand to overcome the barriers between the different types of plants and animals. To put it simply - amoebae + mutations + time + energy + chance equals man. The formula reminds me of the fairytale in which a frog turns into a prince. Evolution says, in effect, the same thing - that a frog turns into a prince, the process just takes longer.
Radiation causes mutations. Do mutations improve creatures? We had a speech about babies being born in Chernobyl. Millions of dollars of research have proven that they do not improve creatures. They are unmistakably pathological. Evolutionist Paul Grosse said, "that no matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
7) DNA and the genetic code
Within each cell in our body is a DNA molecule, which stores coded information in two long chains. The strands are two yards long, yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick. The DNA of a human stores enough information to fill 1000 books, each with 500 pages of the smallest print. The code is so sophisticated that it can routinely construct an entire adult human starting with just a single microscopic cell. DNA determines the arrangement for our 206 bones, 600 muscles, 10,000 auditory nerve fibers, 2 million optic nerve fibers, 100 billions nerve cells, and 400 feet of blood vessels and capillaries.
The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of modern technology. The information in DNA form, specifying the design of all species of organisms that ever lived, could be held in a teaspoon, and there would still be room left over, to hold all the information in every book ever written.
Computer scientists have demonstrated conclusively that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously. Therefore, since DNA is information, the only logical and reasonable conclusion is that DNA was formed by intelligence. This engineering wonder, this intricately ordered biochemical system could never have arisen apart from divine creation. As the psalmist exclaims, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Thy works; and my soul knows it very well."
Chemists Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen have said, "An intelligible communication via radio signal, from some distant galaxy, would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule, also constitute, on the first appearance, evidence for an intelligent source."
Mathematician I. L. Cohen: At that moment when the DNA/RNA system became understood the debate between evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. "Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6 million species of plants and animals we recognize today." Chemist Dr. Grebe, "That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code."
Francis Crick who shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA's structure is now convinced that life could not and did not evolve on earth. Is he a creationist now? No, he argues for a theory called Directed Panspermia. That is, the belief that life reached earth in a rocket fired by intelligent life, on some other planet. Crick admits that his view only moves the creation/evolution question back to another time and place, but he argues that different conditions might give life a chance to evolve that it did not have on earth. Creationist are pleased that Crick recognizes the same fatal flaws in chemical evolution that they have cited for years, but creationists also point out that the differences between chemical chemistry, and biological chemistry, are wrapped up with the fundamental nature of matter, and would apply on other planets as well as on earth.
8) Failure of the recapitulation theory
It used to be taught that the development of an embryo retraced the imagined evolutionary development of the organism. In other words the embryo would go through the worm, fish, frog, and reptile stage before reaching the human stage. The field of molecular genetics has exposed the numerous fallacies of this theory. DNA is very specific and uniquely programmed for each type of organism. It simply does not recreate passing developmental stages of other organisms. Only na´ve or poorly informed evolutionists still cite this concept. Evolutionist Steven J. Gould said, "The theory of recapitulation should be defunct today."
9) The failure of the theory of vestigial organs
Vestigial organs are those structures, which are presumed by evolutionists, to be useless remains of an organ, which was once fully developed and operational in an evolutionary ancestor. Textbooks as recent as the 1960s listed over 200 vestigial structures for the human body, including the thyroid and pituitary glands. Today all organs formally classified as vestigial are known to have some function during the life of an organism.
And this brings us to the concluding question. If there is no evidence supporting this faith called evolution, why do people persist in believing in it? I will allow Nobel Prize winner George Wald to explain: He says, "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
So we find that evolution is generally accepted as a fact of science, not because it can be proven by scientific evidence, but because the only alternative - special creation - is for philosophical reasons, unacceptable.
Dr. Louis Bounoure, director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research said, "Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, US Atomic Energy Commission physiologist said, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
Molecular Biologist Michael Denton says, "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less the great cosmogonic myth of the twentieth century."
Comment by web master:
This article about evolution vs. creation is not part of the book which has all these historical photos in it as shown on all the other pages of this web site. This speech about the controversial evolution/creation debate has been inserted here because it shows that we haven't gotten anywhere in our knowledge to find out who we are and where we are coming from when we compare ourselves with the old Greek philosophers - they were in the dark and so are evolution scientists of today.
Comment from another source:
Amazing that scientists have finally had to admit that the design of the universe is so perfectly crafted as to indicate intelligent design and yet they still try to avoid any explanation which includes the word God.
Everything You ever Wanted to Know about Evolution:
Scientific Facts should establish Evolution, right?
Oldest Temple topples Evolutionists' History of Religion
Archeological Finds Disprove Darwinism
( forbidden Archeology )
[previous document] [back to Index] [next document]
[Approaching the End]