Chapter 16 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
It sounds like it might be the title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff, right?
Or maybe it might be a new religion. “Don’t listen to those Uniformitarians, they are a cult!” (This is too close to the truth for comfort.)
But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists tell us they can apply the rules of the universe as we now see them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billion years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. They will tell you that based on the Doctrine of Uniformity, the earth “must” be 5 billion years old, and the universe “must” be 14 billion years old. Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be measured and understood because they involve “continuous and uniform processes”. That all sounds great, perhaps even scientific, but can they really be measured and predicted? And do they really involve continuous and uniform processes? Has this been proven? Do we have any proof or evidence supporting uniformitarianism, or do secular scientists just use this as a talking point, and then change the rules whenever it suits them?
As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):
u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism nounthe theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.
According to Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method… Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time, but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space. Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.”(1) It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.)
But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important in practice and in principle. Not only is the Doctrine of Uniformity unprovable, but the principle of uniformitarianism also has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example:
Secular scientists apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies.
Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and a glaring exception to the application of uniformitarian principles.
Or for another example, in the study of biology, there is a well known and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non-life”, or in other words non-living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept.
Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.
Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, seafloor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is far too great to be accounted for by Uniformitarian assumptions. In many cases, the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism. As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. If that is true, then imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! It is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions. Nevertheless, even though Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth.
And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a few hundred millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of evolution.
So whenever a biology or geology prof tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart. Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.
(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT
Chapter 15 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
In this book, we have had much to say about scientism. It is likely that for many readers this is their first exposure to that term. Scientism is the irrational, unproven, and unscientific belief that all the questions to life, the universe, history, and mankind can be found through scientific means. In other words, it is the unfounded belief that “science has all the answers.” If this book were to accomplish no more than introducing the concept and initiating a serious societal discussion on the implications of scientism, it would be a success. Of course, I believe it can do much more than that, to enhance the real and practical applications of science, and to place science in its proper place in God’s created order.
But what is scientism, and what does the average person need to know about scientism? And why should anyone be concerned with the prevalence of scientism in society today?
First, scientism is philosophy masquerading as science. It is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. If you are a scientist, you may not be enough of a philosopher to recognize its blatant falsehood. If you are a philosopher you might believe you do not know enough about science to refute its claims. If you are an average man or woman on the street you might just accept scientism, thinking “surely all those academic people can’t be wrong.” Nevertheless, scientism has never been proven true by ANY method, let alone the scientific method!
Second, scientism refutes itself. You don’t have to be “smart enough” to refute it! It is SELF-REFUTING! Scientism claims that the only things we can know about the universe are those things which have been tested and proven scientifically… but scientism itself has not been tested or proven scientifically. Thus belief in scientism is not only irrational. It is UNSCIENTIFIC. Ethical, unbiased scientists, for example, would not reject (out of hand with no evidence) the possibility that the universe originated at the hand of an omnipotent Creator. They would not claim to “know” there is no God. To do so is unscientific!
Third, scientism causes people to reject their faith. To the practitioners of scientism, faith and religion (and especially Christianity) are viewed as unscientific. If you believe the false tenets of scientism, you become suspicious of everything except that which scientism promotes. You may believe, for instance, in evolution, although it is entirely UNSCIENTIFIC, and has been proven scientifically and statistically and biologically and biochemically impossible. But you absolutely will not entertain the possibility of an Omnipotent Creator God, which is the most probable and likely and reasonable explanation for the universe and the wonder of life.
Fourth, many things are better and more rationally explained by belief in a Creator than by science. J P Moreland in Ten Things You Should Know about Scientism, says there are at least 5 things science cannot explain but theism (belief in God) can:
The origin of the universe.
The origin of the fundamental laws of nature.
The fine-tuning of the universe. (It is incredibly fine-tuned for life.)
The origin of consciousness.
The existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. (1)
Fifth, a firm, logical, scientific, and philosophically sound exposure of scientism may save more souls than thousands of evangelists. This is because, at this point in history, so many of the benefits of science are easily seen, and are so much depended on, that much of society has come to believe that even sloppy science is better than meticulous faith. This is of course, not true. In fact, sloppy science is not science at all, and it is only by the rigorous application of the scientific method that scientific advances are made.
But Scientism is not rigorous. Scientism is not science. Scientism is not even good philosophy. It is by all definitions, and at all levels, a personally and societally destructive phenomenon. It must be addressed by pastors, real scientists, and real philosophers at every opportunity and exposed for the false teaching it really is.
Or as written by Thomas Burnett at the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences, “It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.” (2)
For much more on this topic, please see chapter Three; Evolution, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism.
Chapter 14 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
1. directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.
Some things can’t co-exist. Like the immovable object and the unstoppable force. Like the light in a totally dark room. Like belief in evolution and accepting scientific reason. The practical application of scientific principles is antithetical to a belief in evolution.
But you say, “I thought science had proved evolution.”
Let’s start with a little history. Prior to Einstein’s wonderful discoveries, most scientists believed in a created universe. Then Einstein himself believed not in a Big Bang, but in a static, eternal universe. After that, we have seen expanding, shrinking, vacillating, and bouncing models for the universe. Currently, most scientists believe in a 14 billion-year-old expanding universe. But the status of cosmology is constantly changing. If that sounds like the science of cosmology is not settled… it is because indeed, it is not.
Interestingly, the current crop of atheistic scientists will say science is incompatible with religion, and especially with the Bible. Yet many of the most influential scientists of the past were Bible-believing Christians. These included Isaac Newton (mathematician, astronomer and theologian), Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method), Robert Boyle (founder of modern chemistry), John Dalton (atomic theory), Gregor Mendel (father of modern Genetics), and of course Lord Kelvin (who laid the foundations of physics). Perhaps you, like many, believe that we know so much more now, that we cannot any longer believe in “fairy tales” like the Bible. But what if it is the other way around?
Scientific beliefs, since they are always based on the latest newest technology, frequently change. They vacillate. They adapt and they adjust. Old theories are tossed out like garbage, like dirty smelly old socks. The new is always embraced and trumpeted to the public as though it were Eternal Truth. But therein lies the rub. If we depend solely on the latest scientific finding for our definition of Truth, our foundation is pretty shaky. You can guarantee that the scientists of the next generation will look back at us and wonder “How could they have believed that to be scientific? We know better now!”
If we choose to base our understandings of the meaning of life and the origins of the universe on science, then we should be absolutely certain that the scientific foundations of our beliefs are 100 percent firm. There should be NO room for doubt. Zero tolerance.
I can say with absolute certainty that the scientific foundations of modern science are not that firm. Scientists disagree on the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether the earth is at the center of the universe, how big the universe is, and how and when the moon was formed. Scientists also disagree vehemently on whether evolution can occur, how it could occur, and if there is any evidence it has occurred. Scientists disagree on whether light is a particle or a wave, and on what causes gravity. Scientist have no idea what causes magnetism. Scientists have no idea what “dark matter” is, or what “dark energy” is, or whether they really even exist!
Still, in our schools and universities, with missionary zeal, our students are told there is no God. They are told the Bible is a fairy tale. They are told we are evolved from the apes. The foundations and underpinnings of their Christian faith are systematically destroyed. And our youth flounder and lose their way in heartbreaking numbers. Many look for answers in drugs or alcohol. Others look for wealth or power or success. But one thing they are encouraged NEVER to do is look to God’s word, the Bible. This is ridiculed and has supposedly been “proven” (by virtue of the latest fads in science) to be false.
But unfortunately, our youth, as well as our entire society, are paying the price for believing the irrational, wild musings and imaginations of secular atheists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. These ungodly men have pushed their agenda with eloquence, but not with science. They have had a huge following, but that following has not freed society from the chains of belief in God, as they promised. Instead we see millions more now suffering under mental illness, drug dependency, sex addiction, and gender confusion.
Nevertheless, one thing is certain amidst all the uncertainty. Evolution did not happen. I believe it has been proven scientifically and statistically to be an impossibility. Not a single atheist has an explanation for the origin of life, other than to say “There is no God so it must have just happened somehow.” (Not so scientific after all.) For that matter, no scientist has ever offered any reasonable explanation for the origin of matter. “There was a big bang, and it happened.” Not at all scientific either, when you get down to it. Moreover, the inane suggestions of secular scientists that the big bang occurred as a result of a “quantum fluctuation” are not really explanations at all. A fluctuation in what? Something had to exist, in order for there to be any sort of fluctuation! In fact, when seen objectively, the Big Bang is patently ridiculous. (Much more on this to follow in chapters 17 and 18.)
In other chapters, we deal with the false, illogical and impossible “primordial soup” model, and with the scientific proof that the universe could not have originated in a “Big Bang” (If you believe that pseudo-scientific postulate, stay tuned).
For now, just consider this quote about mutations and evolution by Lee Spetner. “But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. … Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.” (1)
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Modern atheistic scientists behave in a manner that is a lot like the stories told of lemmings. What does a lemming do when you tell it there is a cliff? It keeps going. What does an evolutionist do when he finds abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life) is impossible? He makes up a scientifically and statistically impossible story about lightning and “pre-biotic soup”, and keeps believing in evolution.
What does a lemming do when he sees the ocean? He keeps going, runs over the edge, and into the ocean. What’s an evolutionist do when he finds the geologic strata are much more readily explained by a Global flood and are NOT by theories of hundreds of millions of years? He doubles down on “his side” of the evidence and keeps on believing in spite of the facts.
In all the old stories, the lemming keeps on running to its own death and destruction, in spite of evidence it may see directly in front of its own eyes. In the same way the evolutionist keeps on believing that his way is the only way to interpret the facts, even when the Bible often provides a better explanation for the findings in geology, biology, astronomy, and physics than uniformitarian assumptions (the belief that all rates of biological, geological, and chemical change have remained constant) .
How does an evolutionist explain the origin of the universe? He makes up a term he calls a “quantum fluctuation”. (There was nothing, then for some reason something happened to nothing and everything appeared.) Now I challenge any “scientist” to explain what that is, where it came from, and why anyone should actually believe that over the Biblical account of creation!
The one thing that unifies modern atheistic scientists is their complete refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God. So is it any wonder that their often irrational, unscientific, biased studies always support the outcome that there was a Big Bang and suddenly “it just happened”. They believe there was no God, no Creator, because human scientists in their pride have said so. And so some of us have believed, at least until the facts about the earth and life and genomics and geology began to show HUGE holes in their logic.
Stephen Hawking said, “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” (1) And he also said, “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” (2) Yet atheistic scientists for the last 100 years have consistently turned away from any new knowledge, fact, or scientific finding that does NOT support their presuppositions about the origin of life or the Universe. In this, modern science has condemned itself, by not applying the scientific method fairly and rationally to all areas of study.
I would think Hawking’s seemingly rational quote “One can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance,” would have attributed a little more humility to the man. But instead, he pretended he KNEW when and how the universe began, and postulated in a grandiose fashion that “There is no heaven or afterlife” (as though he KNEW this). He bragged, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” (3) How insanely prideful and conceited! How tragically misplaced was his faith in scientism!
And this is one of the men modern scientists consider a hero? Does the reader know that NONE of Hawking’s predictions have been verified? None of his black hole radiation has been measured. The explanation from the Guardian, in bold headlines, is this: “We still don’t have the technology to verify Stephen Hawking’s big ideas.” (4)
And yet like lemmings, professors at colleges and universities gleefully follow his inane and unprovable “scientific discoveries” as though they are “the gospel truth”… and sadly, perhaps to the atheist community they are.
Evolutionists and atheistic scientists have an ethics problem. They are, quite honestly, unethical.
Perhaps they can be forgiven their lack of ethics, because it has been pointed out many times by many authors that if we humans are indeed the product of molecules to man evolution, then there is no substantive or foundational reason that men should be ethical. If we are merely the product of a billion generations of survival of the fittest, then our only ethical and moral imperative is to survive at all costs. We may lie, steal, rape, kill, abuse, and destroy, as long as it makes ourselves or our offspring more likely to survive. That is the real true state of ethics for evolutionists.
Second, if atheists are correct and we are all here as the result of some cosmic accident, then there is no moral authority to our choices and decisions. One moral choice is just as good as another. Each person can argue for their own moral choices in the public square, but in reality, not one can claim to be “truth” and not one can be claimed to be false. If there is no first cause (God) for all things, or if the first cause of all things is an accident, a fluke, a meaningless big bang, then all subsequent choices are equally meaningless as well. Morality is meaningless, futile, empty, and vain.
However (and even more importantly) I believe that atheists also have a very real and present ethical problem with today’s cosmology, because they have become such proponents for their latest viewpoints that they tell our youth that they “know” the universe is 14 billion years old. They say they “know” evolution is true. The National Academy of Sciences states evolution is a fact. (1) Stephen Gould and others insist it is an established incontrovertible fact. (2) Many modern Zoologists will tell anyone willing to listen that evolution is a firmly established fact, and it is indeed the foundation for all study of biology and the life sciences.
Yet tens of thousands of scientists and educated persons see things differently. The fossils that some use to “prove” evolution are just as easily used to prove creation. The geological strata that some scientist say are “proof” of evolution, are seen by some other scientists as being far better evidence for a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis. So when you hear an atheist or evolutionist professing loudly and dramatically that we “know” the earth is 4.5 billion years old and “evolution is a proven fact”, it begins to appear that they are more interested in propaganda than in science. They prefer talking points to honesty.
In fact, if we are open and honest, the unbiased discussion of scientific exploration of the universe that began under notable Christians such as Galileo, Newton, and Keppler, has been hijacked and side-tracked by modern atheists. The six principles of scientific study have been violated on numerous fronts by atheists who place their distaste God above their scientific integrity. Why, because they have stated a priori, that they disavow any possibility of a Creator. But what about their version of “creation”?
Atheists accuse Christians of having “closed minds” when it comes to creation. But what about the Big Bang hypothesis? Is it really scientific? Let’s examine the Big Bang in light of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking.
Have important alternatives for the finding been excluded? No one has, (or at least in this life) is ever capable of excluding the possibility that God Created the universe.
Can we be sure that A causes B? No honest scientist is SURE that the big bang occurred. They do not know where or when or how or why it might have occurred. In their own writings, we can find much evidence of their doubts and disagreements. So we cannot be sure that the Big Bang caused the formation of the universe.
Falsifiability. Can the theory be disproved? Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured, it is also true that it cannot be disproved.
Can the principle be replicated in other studies? Of course not. No one can replicate the Big Bang. If it occurred (and I will later illustrate why this was impossible) it occurred once only. Never again to be “recreated” by humankind or by nature.
Is the evidence as strong as the claim? The Big Bang Proponents claim that nothing existed (not even the concept of existence, or time or matter) and then there was some sort of a quantum fluctuation in the nothing, and “bang” everything appeared. Nonsense. Nothing plus nothing or multiplied by nothing equals nothing. Nothing fluctuated is still nothing.
Occam’s razor. (Does a simpler explanation fit the data just as well.) Yes. God created the heavens and the earth. Simple.
So on all six principles of scientific study, it can be argued that the Big Bang fails! It turns out you have to accept either viewpoint on FAITH. And at least to my relatively unbiased interpretation of the facts, it takes a lot more FAITH to believe the atheist story, than the Bible story. And yet the atheists persist in their propaganda campaign to brainwash an entire generation of youth.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(1) Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? US National Academy of Sciences 2018
(2) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37
(See also blogs on “Differing with Dawkins” and “Bang… and Nothing”)
Chapter 13 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Science vs Reason: Part I
Yes, you read that correctly. The chapter title is NOT faith vs reason. It is science vs reason. Does that sound counter-intuitive? Perhaps it is. But I assure you it is neither unreasonable, nor unscientific!
Much of society currently believes that science has the answer to all humanity’s questions. Science is assumed to be logical, rational, and reasonable. Science is looked on as the dependable and unassailable bastion of all truth. Science can supposedly tell us whether the universe is the grand design of God or an accident of cosmology. Science can supposedly tell us if we are a child of God or the children of apes.
Faith, on the other hand, (at least in the secular media and on college campuses) is portrayed as illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. Faith, according to the secular academics, is for stupid people, and science is for the thoughtful, rational, deductive, “smart” people. Right? (I think not. But perhaps we can discuss that another day.) Today we discuss Science vs Reason.
Science, like mathematics, logic, or philosophy can be a wonderful thing when applied properly to an appropriate subject or area. But by the same token, like any other discipline, science can give misleading or inaccurate information when misapplied. If we applied pure science in medicine, there would be no place for empathy, compassion or intuition. Very ill patients might be evaluated and terminated. Emotions might be ignored. In fact, there would be absolutely nothing precluding experimentation on prisoners and terminating nursing home patients if science alone were our guide.
In a similar vein, pure mathematics cannot solve many types of scientific problems where trial and error are indispensable to provide proof of a theory. And of course, historical studies are not well suited to solving problems in math or science. Yet the current fad among institutions of scientific research is to believe all questions in all areas of learning can either be solved by science or to presume that other areas of study offer solutions inferior to the solutions offered by “science”. Such a belief is not logical, nor sound, nor scientific!
Affording such a superior position to so-called “science” is not only irrational and unreasonable. It is dangerous. It is in effect sham philosophy pretending to be science. If mankind were a mere collection of chemicals, without free will and moral choices, perhaps science alone could be our god. But we are more. Much more.
Consider the following quotation about philosophy. As stated by Julian Friedland,
For roughly 98 percent of the last 2,500 years of Western intellectual history, philosophy was considered the mother of all knowledge. It generated most of the fields of research still with us today. This is why we continue to call our highest degrees Ph.D.’s, namely, philosophy doctorates. At the same time, we live an age in which many seem no longer sure what philosophy is or is good for anymore. (1)
Philosophy as a means of understanding the world clearly has limitations. Philosophers are of no help in building complicated machines or directing complex chemical processes. In fact, philosophy has gotten a bad rap because so many philosophers and their arguments seem totally disconnected from reality. Even at its best, philosophy relies on very specific word choices and is often subject to interpretation and argumentation when viewed from different vantage points. So it seems perfectly understandable that humanity would seek a more solid ground for understanding the universe, and the natural and obvious choice would seem to be science.
But as written by Joseph Rowlands, “The problem is that many scientists sought to escape from the clutches of rationalizing philosophy by jumping into Empiricism, the philosophy that rejects theoretical knowledge and only accepts direct sensory evidence. As Rand said, philosophy is inescapable. You don’t have a choice about having one. If you try to reject philosophy, you’re just enslaving yourself to your implicit philosophy.” (2)
That is the absolute key to today’s discussion. We are not given the choice of philosophy or faith vs science. We are only given the choice of which philosophy we use to approach science. Science in and of itself is nothing but a tool. Like any tool, it can be used to accomplish a variety of tasks. How the tool is applied is critical to the results obtained. A hammer is equally capable of building a house or tearing a house down. Science is perfectly capable of building a rational view of the universe, or of portraying a totally false and indefensible view of the universe.
Paul Bloom of the Atlantic, wrote, “Sociologists and philosophers deserve a lot of credit in reminding us that scientific practice is permeated by group-think, bias, and financial, political, and personal motivations.” (3) The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory. (3)
I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the proposition that secular scientists have chosen (perhaps unintentionally) to use the “hammer” of science in ways that are now not building up but tearing down the house of humanity. I believe that the inherent “philosophy of choice” among scientists for the last few decades has been scientism, and we are seeing the tremendous destructive power of that false belief everywhere.
Science vs Reason: Part II
Do you believe the Bible, or do you believe “science”? More importantly, is there any rational or logical reason you must choose between the two?
If one were to listen to the media hype, the Hollywood explanations, prime time TV, or many liberal college professors, one might assume there are just two choices in cosmology. A person can either can “believe science” or one can “have faith” in the Bible story. But is this even remotely true? Is it even sensible to place science and faith in different camps? Or is this entire scenario a false dichotomy?
In chapters four through eleven, we have already discussed the evolutionary side of this issue very thoroughly, and I believe we have more than adequately proven that belief in evolution is neither logical nor scientific. Belief in evolution is clearly a faith-based choice. If you read my blogs at evolutioncreation.net, “Astonishing Ice Age facts“, or “A Totally Modern View on Evolution” you will understand that belief in Evolution is not a scientific choice or preference, rather it is a philosophical one. There are vastly more scientific facts and principles supporting Creation, than those supporting the Big Bang or Evolution.
Perhaps belief in Evolution stems from a prideful desire to elevate man to the point of understanding all of the Universe and Creation. Perhaps, as we will discuss in chapter 19, “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth?” it is just generational indoctrination. Or maybe it originates in the illogical belief that avoiding belief in God as our Creator will somehow avoid the consequences of our sins, failures, and rebellion. Regardless, as I have stated from the beginning, “It takes a lot of FAITH to believe in evolution.”
The evidence (which is outlined in 80 or so blogs over the last year at Debunking-evolution.com) clearly shows that belief in Evolution is a faith based choice. But what of the other side? Is belief in Creation merely a “Scientific cop out”? Do proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and so-called “creation scientists” abandon scientific processes and base their beliefs totally on religious principles? Not so, according to the following quote from Casey Luskin originally posted at OpposingViews.com. Speaking of ID (Intelligent Design), he writes;
“One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. Nothing critics can say—whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents—will change the fact that intelligent design is not a “faith-based” argument. Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes.”(4)
Luskin further explains, “The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. As noted, ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”(5)
Luskin “gets it”. Most secular atheists don’t. There is absolutely NO logical reason to separate science vs faith on issues of cosmology, or any issues related to where humanity or the universe originated. However, if one were to objectively discuss which cosmology has more scientific support, I believe firmly that Creation science would win the argument. Still, the point remains, there is no reason to “choose” one or the other. Science, unimpeded and freely practiced, is not in opposition to Scripture!
As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters.“Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science!
Creationists say that The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct.
Stephen C. Meyer wrote concerning intelligent design (ID), “Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences. ID thus is based upon the claim that there are “telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.”(6)
You have a mind. You have an intellect. (Both of which are, by the way, strong arguments for ID. Both of which are strong arguments against evolution.) You get to choose whether you believe secular stories about a universe that magically appeared from nothing and life that created itself, or to believe in an Almighty Creator God. But you cannot use as your crutch any statement that you don’t believe in Creation because it is not scientific.
(6) Stephen C. Meyer, Not by Chance: From Bacterial Propulsion Systems to Human DNA, Evidence of Intelligent Design Is Everywhere, Natl. Post A22 (Dec. 1, 2005).
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 14:1NIV
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?” Job 38:4-7 NIV
Chapter 12 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
There are really only two explanations for sex.
First, it is possible that it is simply an animal urge bred into humankind (and most other animals) as an essential part of the propagation of the species, as taught by atheists and evolutionists.
Second, it is possible that it might also be a part of a Divine plan, a gift to mankind from a loving Creator, as taught in the Bible.
Atheists, of course, tend to believe the former. Christians and some other religions believe the latter.
But there is an important point about sex and evolution that is usually ignored by evolution’s proponents. Both natural selection within species and evolution itself are totally dependent on sex. Many evolutionist sites will attempt to say that evolution does not occur in spite of sexual reproduction, it occurs because of sexual reproduction. This is false. When two members of the same species reproduce sexually, the product may appear different than either parent but it is still the same species. A cross between a Labrador and a Poodle is still a dog, just like its parents. A cross between an Irishman and an African is still a human. Mixing genetic material does NOT create new species. It does NOT create new genetic material. It only mixes existing material differently. Those who call this evolution are either misled or are intentionally misleading others.
Natural selection in the classic evolutionary sense would require two advanced (positively mutated) individuals to find one another and procreate. This topic has been discussed by many critics of evolution, and no satisfactory answer has been forwarded. If by some billions to one chance there occurred some form of genetic damage that resulted in a positive mutation (the impossibility of this is discussed elsewhere), then we arrive at another massive barrier to “advancement of the species”. For in all likelihood one of two things would occur. First, the two individuals may now be incompatible for mating (due to differences in DNA) and a damaged progeny or infertile condition arises. Second, the two mate but the genetic damage is erased by the scavenger RNA that monitors and corrects damaged DNA. In this case, they remain exactly as before.
During DNA synthesis, DNA polymerases fix the majority of mis-paired bases in a process called proofreading. If DNA gets damaged, it can be repaired by various mechanisms, including chemical reversal, excision repair, and double-stranded break repair. So in the event of damaged DNA, the cell protects itself. The most likely reason for this mechanism is the prevention of cancer, for as many have stated, the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations are negative or destructive.
All this is just more evidence of the magnificent created marvel we call DNA and its amazing actions during procreation.
As society becomes predominantly secular and atheistic, with the rejection of anything but a token belief in the spiritual or the Divine, we consequently see less respect for the sanctity of life, as well as less understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage. Consequently, our social fabric seems to be ripping apart. Affairs are rampant. Divorce is “normal”. Children are disposable. Mental illness, mass shootings, corporate corruption, individual gluttony, and laziness… all seem to be increasing.
Christians (and some other religions), on the other hand, tend to see the hand of God in the act of sexual intimacy. In fact, it has been called a sacrament. The Bible, of course, tells us in many places to stay away from sexual sin. But it does not stop there. Paul goes on to say that we should encourage sex within the marriage, that sex is an important part of the ongoing marital relationship: The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. (I Cor. 7:3-5)
The wisdom of God’s plan for the family, and for a marital relationship founded on commitment and mutual gratification, becomes evident as we compare it to the alternative. In other words, looking around we see divorce, gender confusion, the mental health crisis, rampant pornography, pedophilia, and social chaos. These have followed closely on the heels of the breakup of the traditional family. It serves to confirm the wisdom of God’s plan.
While we as a society, and as individuals, value freedom and an unconstrained lifestyle, it appears God placed some constraints on our sexual expression, for reasons that relate to our individual and societal well being.
The family (along with its biblical pro-sex attributes) is designed to be the core, basic unit of a stable society. As stated in an article in The Public Discourse, “The second pillar of a decent society is the institution of the family, which is built upon the comprehensive sexual union of man and woman. No other institution can top the family’s ability to transmit what is pivotal—character formation, values, virtues, and enduring love—to each new generation.“(1)
But this pillar is crumbling. With rampant alcohol and drug use, the recent push toward legalized pedophilia in Europe, the exposure of our young children to sexual images in the media and on cell phones, and even sexual teaching about homosexuality and transgender issues in our public schools, and with the pressure on young children to choose a homosexual or Trans lifestyle even before they comprehend the framework of human sexuality, the family is quite literally in a crisis.(2)
It turns out that worldview does make a difference. In fact, it makes an enormous difference whether our children are raised believing they are a child of God, or believing they are the result of an accident of cosmology. Tragically we have millions of children and young adults now with no spiritual compass and no inherent, foundational belief in self-worth. Entire generations of youth who have been taught that they are no more special or meaningful than a monkey, or a slime mold. Our society and children are paying the price.
And nothing but God’s plan is likely to make things any better.
(See also my blog on “Natural Selection is Magic” at evolutioncreation.net)
Collossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Chapter 11 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
For decades evolutionists have touted the supposed 98.6 percent similarity of the human and chimp genome as “proof” of chimp to human evolution. Are they still so confident? No, indeed not. In fact, as stated by Dr. Tomkins, Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research, “The more DNA sequencing technologies improve, the worse it gets for the evolutionary paradigm.” (1) Creation scientists and geneticists were of course skeptical. Why? Because such an evolutionary transformation would have required the development of over 40 million base pairs (about 1.5 % of the human genome) in the short span of a few million years!
The impossibility of this drastic and rapid rate of change proposed by atheistic scientists was ignored. Evolutionists assured every high school and college student in America that they “knew” that evolution had occurred based on these supposedly “small” differences.
But as pointed out by Dr. Jon Cohen, in “The Myth of 1%”, these are NOT small differences. “First, as noted, we’re not talking about “small changes” but rather, as the journal Science explained, at the very least these differences entail “35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans.” (2) This means it would have required massive amounts of new genetic information via mutations. In other words, a thing which has never been proven to occur even once, must have happened millions of times.
But now a 2016 article by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins Ph.D., shows that even those ridiculously positive inter-species comparisons were wrong. The actual amount of similarity between human and chimp genomes in recent, more accurate scientific studies was vastly lower. He states it is in the low 80’s at best. That would mean there are not 35 million, but about 500 million base pair differences! He explains in detail why the original estimates were grossly inaccurate and why the newer numbers are far more accurate. (3) Such a vast genetic difference completely destroys the weak and tenuous pro-evolutionary arguments from a decade or two ago.
Biologist Dr. Richard Buggs, also states that we have no more than an 85% similarity. In his recent Biologos post he wrote, “the total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4%. Therefore I would say to the man on the street: we know for sure that the human genome is 84.4% the same as the chimpanzee genome“. (4)
But it gets even worse. Casey Luskin finds an even lower rate of correlation, writing, “Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.” (5)
Now compare the human-chimp ratios to the human-zebrafish similarities. “Sequencing of the entire genetic make-up of the zebrafish has revealed that 70 percent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish and that 84 percent of genes known to be associated with human disease have a zebrafish counterpart.” (6) Does anyone really think we have recently evolved from zebrafish? Of course not!
In the end, it looks like the Chimp Genome and the Human Genome are indeed vastly different. It appears they were created uniquely and individually and purposefully. These findings represent 500 million more nails in the coffin of evolutionary theory.
(1) Tomkins, J. Acts and Facts 47:10, October 2018, p. 16.
(2) Jon Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).
(3) Tomkins, J 2016, Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets: Assessment of Their Overall Similarity to Human and Possible Contamination with human DNA. Answers Research Journal 9: 294-298.
(4) Buggs, R. How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes: posted on RichardBuggs.com, July 14, 2018
(5) Casey Luskin “Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity”, September 30, 2011, Evolution News and Science Today.
Chapter 10 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Many people ask why so many scientists promote evolution. And I also wonder why they would do so, in spite of the dearth of evidence and its absolute scientific impossibility. It is indeed a curious thing, but there is a logical explanation.
As explained by Dr. Geoff Downes Ph.D., “Consider finding a dead body in the park. Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved? If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved. However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion.“(1)
The current status of the scientific study of evolution is exactly like a policeman who does not believe in murder. Imagine an entire police department which operated under the belief that all events occur only as a result of natural causes. This is the reality of secular atheist scientists today.
The call comes in of a body found in the woods. All the investigators go to the scene and find the body, with multiple stab wounds and a large butcher knife protruding from the back and blood everywhere at the scene. The campsite shows signs of a struggle with dozens of broken chairs and utensils. The tent is collapsed with supports broken and fabric torn. Of course, when the final report is issued, the cause of death will inevitably, and always be “natural causes.” Why? Because the entire police department ONLY BELIEVES IN DEATH FROM NATURAL CAUSES!
So it is with modern atheistic scientists and their evaluation of the origin of life. Since they have already ruled out the possibility of divine causation or intervention, they will naturally only find (or evaluate or report) evidence of spontaneous so-called “natural forces”. They will state that the universe created itself from nothing, using terminology that sounds convincing and scientific, but means nothing. They will lecture on evolution and how “natural selection drives evolution” and how some “primordial soup” was struck by lightning and life magically appeared.
No amounts of facts can convince the policeman that a murder occurred. They believe only in “natural causes” No amount of facts… scientific, philosophical, biochemical, geological, embryological, astronomical, archeological, or otherwise, can convince the atheistic scientist that creation is the result of a Creator, that life is the result of “and God said.” (2) The atheistic scientific community has as one of its tenets of belief that there is no God. Therefore when any scientific discovery, or trend, or accumulation of evidence points to a creator, it is summarily rejected. Why? Not because it is unscientific, but because it fundamentally disagrees with their underlying position. The position of belief that “there is no God” is a statement of faith. No more and no less than the statement of belief that “God created everything.”
As a scientist, then, it should not be surprising that there are tens of thousands of persons, highly educated in the sciences, with Ph.D., and MD and other advanced degrees behind their names, who absolutely believe that God formed the universe and established its laws. They believe God created all life and the cells, structures, organelles, and DNA within the cell. And they are no less scientific or educated than the atheists.
Atheistic science has no credentials on the matter of origins when by its own mission statement it has excluded the most likely cause of all things, God. It is completely illogical circular reasoning to state, “I do not believe in God, therefore I will not interpret any type of scientific evidence as pointing to God, therefore there is no God based on my scientific findings.”
I do not want to use any equivocal, or easily misunderstood terms. However, it is important that we understand what science is, what it does, and when it can be trusted. In what areas is science relatively dependable and where is it much less dependable?
I trust science to measure and quantify a great number of things in my life, such as medications, electrical devices, motor vehicle safety, and explosives. In other areas of life, such as emotions, relationships, and some would say even the weather, science is known to be quite often inaccurate, making almost as many wrong predictions as it makes correct predictions. Let me give just three examples.
Every year here in Florida, the NOAA scientists predict the number and severity of hurricanes expected on the basis of ocean currents, temperatures, and weather patterns. Their accuracy is far from impressive. Often when they predict a terrible year with excessive numbers of hurricanes, we have few and mild hurricanes. And many times when they predict few, there are many. Science requires many presumptions, and there are too many interdependent factors.
In medicine, the study and treatment of psychiatric illness had blossomed into an explosion of new medicines. and yet the “epidemic” of depression and mental illness that was noted in the 1980s shows no sign of abating. It is getting WORSE. The human mind, it seems, is not a mere biological computer, easily fixed with an altered “brain chemistry”. Mental illness is not “just like any other illness”. There is not now, nor will there likely ever be, a “pill for happiness and fulfillment.”
Social scientists and educators have been studying our institutes of higher learning for many decades now. Starting in earnest in the 1960s, they have made drastic changes in the means by which we educate our children and young adults. But virtually anyone can see that our graduates are not better educated. In spite of billions invested, and thousands of “scientific” studies, our place in the modern world of education has steadily declined, and we are now outpaced by nearly all other advanced countries.(3) So much for the benefit of “science”.
Now the fact that I can see failures among our scientific achievements does not mean I am a “science denier”. Far from it. As an ER physician, I use scientific principles every day in the treatment of my patients. I depend on scientific studies in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology, radiology, and a number of other areas to provide the best services I possibly can to my patients. But If I were to believe every report that came down from every drug company, saying that their new drug is fantastic and lifesaving and wonderful, I would be a fool. Science can be wonderful and instructive. But it can also be biased. In fact, pharmaceutical companies are known for picking and choosing their science to make their particular drug appear far more useful than it actually is.
The scientific method can only test existing data. It is good at testing things that are easily and accurately measured, such as pH or acidity or chemical reactions. This type of “here and now” science is sometimes called operational science, or observational science. There is another type of science, sometimes called historical science. This term has often been used by Ken Ham to describe such sciences as geology and archaeology, and indeed to refer to the entirety of Cosmology. Although Ken Ham is quite clear to state that he did not himself originate the terms, nevertheless the distinction is one that Creation Scientists and proponents, like Answers in Genesis, find useful. And as you might expect, pro-evolutionary sites like Rationalwiki, (4) find the terminology upsetting, disturbing, and offensive.
Dr. Johnathan Sarfati, a research scientist from Wellington, New Zealand, puts it this way. “Many people have the belief that “science” has proven the earth to be billions of years old… However, science deals with repeatable observations in the present, while evolution/long-age ideas are based on assumptions from outside science about the unobservable past.” (5)
The scientific method becomes much less helpful when things are less easily measured, or when it is making predictions about past or distant future events. Thus studies of emotion, intellect, or thought processes are often inaccurate. Studies of things which happened millions of years ago (so-called historical science), with questions as to the intervening circumstances, are equally suspect. They require many assumptions. And science in any field that is based on assumptions frequently changes when the assumptions are discovered to be false or inaccurate. This will, I hope, allow the reader to begin to differentiate between strong and weak areas of “science”.
Perhaps the best, most concise explanation was by Stephen Grocott. He explains that we cannot see evolution occurring today and no one was there to observe it in the past, which means it is not observable or testable, and so it is unscientific. Creation, by these same criteria, is neither observable nor testable, and so is unscientific. He concludes “Given that creation and evolution are both outside the realms of science, why should I, as a scientist, have problems with belief in creation while really being “scientific”? I don’t.” (6)
(1) Geoff Downs Ph.D., In six days Master Books Publishing, p.333.
Chapter 9 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Consider the following three assumptions.
1. We know that the formation of the universe from nothing was impossible. Quantim fluctuations? Not even close to an explanation. Even Marcelo Gleiser, writing for the notoriously liberal NPR admits this;
It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can’t exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do. (1) (For more on this topic see Chapter 17, Nothing Can’t do Something.)
2. We also know that spontaneous generation of life was and is impossible, and no scientist anywhere has been able to accomplish the task. As Michael Denton wrote; “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”(2)
3. We have established that evolution itself is impossible, as written by Hoyle; “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it …. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.” (3)
But what if all three of these assumptions were wrong? What if magically everything appeared out of nothing, for no reason, and formed itself into life against astronomical, impossible odds, and evolved into multiple magnificent and self replicating organisms. What then?
Even then evolution is impossible!
Why? Because living organisms are made up of proteins, and proteins have specific, utilitarian, designed, functional shapes. Proteins are fascinating, complicated, three- dimensional molecules that function as a result of their shape. The basic shape of the proteins such as enzymes allows them to present a particular molecule, or reactive agent, at a particular three dimensional site, exposed in such a way that it interacts, usually somewhat like a lock and key, with another protein or membrane in the cell so that a chemical process is either turned on or off (in the case of enzymes), or a portion of the cell is built.
Douglas Axe showed evolution to be impossible when “He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds.“(4) Now never mind that that number, 10 with 74 zero’s after it, is impossible even once. That chance, random impossibility actually has to repeat itself EVERY SINGLE TIME any protein or enzyme hopes to evolve into to a new useful type of protein. So add another thousand zeros! Add another billion, trillion nails to the coffin of evolution!
If one alters the DNA by some mechanism (radiation for instance) and the DNA now produces a slightly different protein, then the 3D structure of the protein is altered, and it does not become a new functional protein with a different and “better” use in the cell or the organism. It becomes a useless, broken, messy, senseless system, producing meaningless and almost always damaging or fatal proteins. (i.e. Lou Gehrigs, Alzheimers, Cystic Fibrosis). For example, according to Cystic Fibrosis News today, “The development of CF results from a misfolded or improperly functioning protein known as the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator (CFTR).”(5)
There are, on the other hand, NO (none, nada, zero) examples of enzymes or proteins which have been altered as a result of genetic damage to form a new, improved, or more functional state. The oft cited example of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is NOT such an example. According to Munita and Arias in Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance, “Classically, bacteria acquire external genetic material through three main strategies, i) transformation (incorporation of naked DNA), ii) transduction (phage mediated) and, iii) conjugation (bacterial “sex”).” (6) In each case the genetic material ALREADY EXISTED and no new protein or altered gene was required. In fact, the path to antibiotic resistance typically involves a loss of genetic material from damaged DNA. The bacterium is no longer as healthy and effective and rapidly growing as it was before, but it has a side benefit of being resistant to a particular antibiotic.
“If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(7) Evelyn Underhill.
Secular scientists and institutions teach that the creation of life on earth was a random, accidental event. Though such a thing defies all logic and probability, it is nevertheless taught as a supposed “scientific fact”. In 1993, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), as a solid proof against evolution. (8) In a variety of manners secular writers have argued against (but never disproven) his initial arguments. IC is unpopular, but its basic premise is logical, sound, and supportable. It is in fact infinitely more probable and likely to be true than ANY version of evolution. And Behe’s resarch is now being validated. Michael Eggnor stated that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he noted conversely that“No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science.”(9)
As science advances, we have found more, not less, evidences of the absolutely enormous complexity of living things. However the answer by secular scientists is always the same, something along the lines of… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain simplicity and elegance to this argument. It assumes a positive and growing body of human knowledge, and it assumes the eventual ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles to knowledge… even the knowledge of our very origins. This, from a humanistic and scientific position, is very appealing. But as we can discuss later, it is also dangerous in its potential for unreasonable pride and arrogance about our limited human abilities. But the question is not whether it is appealing. Is it true?
There are thousands of incomprehensibly complex systems at the cellular level. Complexity is a hallmark of the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” 
Perhaps since the secular academic community has learned to pat itself on the back for mounting a few (albeit weak and insufficient) arguments to Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, we should introduce another concept. I will call it Absolutely Incomprehensible Complexity.
You see, the entire idea that humanity can comprehend life or the cosmos is absurd. It is as ridiculous as a machine talking back to it’s maker. The layers upon layers of complexity represented at every level by DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, glycogen, mitochondria, cell membranes, plasma, electrolytes, semipermeable membranes, and all the necessary substrates for life and growth are quite literally incomprehensible. Every time biologists find an explanation for one thing, another layer of complexity is found. Science has not brought us closer to understanding the mystery of life. Science just makes us much more aware of the mysteriousness of life!
When microbiologists and biochemists began to sequence proteins, they found that the protein’s function was more from its shape than from its chemical content. As stated above, this discovery tells us that minor modifications (evolutionary steps) are virtually impossible in proteins. (Because one could alter a protein’s shape tens of thousands of ways that make it dysfunctional or even lethal, before finding a single alteration that might have a “new and improved” function.)
Recently it has been discovered that the genetic code of DNA is almost a Rubik’s cube of complexity. It is so complex that one area of DNA can code for more than one protein, or have multiple expressions. (11) One cannot randomly alter one, or a few atoms via mutation, without having adverse effects on multiple biologic systems. If a frog wanted to evolve into a lizard, each step forward could quite literally cause two or three steps backward! Evolution, as always, cannot withstand the facts. Life is not just Irreducibly Complex, it is Absolutely Incomprehensibly Complex.
And this is exactly what we would expect from an infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator God. As the Bible states in John 1: 3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
Chapter 8 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.
Fact. NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.
I’ll bet you were taught that natural selection proves evolution. In spite of what you have been told, natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Natural selection is conservative (of genetic material) not creative. Natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection will not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which can be thought of as equally supportive of a created world or an evolved world.
For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators have used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “a conspicuous evolutionary process”.(1) But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution. In fact, one wonders, if this is, in the words of Sewall Wright the “clearest case of a conspicuous evolutionary process”, why he supported the evolutionary theory at all! If a change in the proportions of two different phenotypes of the same moth is considered the best evidence zoologists have for evolution, it is indeed a theory without scientific support!
Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove (to the satisfaction of unbiased observers) that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when the light phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.
It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created, and no new color has been documented. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus natural selection is NOT evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.
Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(2) NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA. NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature.
NS is real. Evolution is not.
For nearly a century evolutionists have conflated natural selection with evolution. But read just a bit further and you will find it is nothing more than a sleight of hand card trick. Natural Selection (NS) is real. NS exists. But NS is NOT evolution, is not responsible for evolution, and in no way supports or proves evolution. No matter how much conjecture and theorizing sites like livescience.com subject us to, there exists absolutely NO proof of evolution.
Natural selection is conservative of genetic material, whereas evolution requires the creation of vast amounts of new genetic material. NS creates nothing. Evolution (if were a reality) would have required the creation of hundreds of billions of new genetic sequences to account for the genetic material for every living thing on earth.
In other words, natural selection cannot alter, evolve, or morph any form of life into new or different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection does not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true.
The online dictionary defines natural selection as follows: “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.” (3) Note the insertion, without any proof or logic, of the concept of evolution, and note the assertion “now believed”. Even pro-evolutionary writers admit there is absolutely no proof they are connected. Yet atheists and educators everywhere have for decades performed this sleight of hand, explaining one logical concept (NS) and then substituting another completely illogical and unsubstantiated theory (evolution).
Eve pro-evolution institutions like Berkeley admit that Natural Selection can NOT explain the origin of life, NS does NOT occur by chance, and evolution often occurs RAPIDLY. (4) All of these ideas would have been considered complete and utter nonsense to Darwin. Yet these institutions persist in pushing the idea of evolution, because they cannot accept the alternative of a Creator, God, with all the implications of Divine Creation.
NS does not create life, or create self sustaining molecules, or create DNA. NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS. But for now just know this. NS is real. Evolution is not.
Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”
(2) John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017. p. 172
Job 12:7-9 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
Chapter 7 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Are you old enough to remember the La Brae Tar Pits? I remember quite vividly being told that this is how the fossil graveyards were formed. Then when human and dog remains were found alongside saber-tooth cats and woolly mammoths (and other animals that we were told had been dead for tens of thousands of years) suddenly the pro-evolutionary scientific community lost interest in the pits. In reality, of course, the entire idea that thousands of animals accidentally fell into pits of tar and were preserved was absurd. Do animals do that today? Certainly not. No animals today walk into pits of tar so they can someday become fossils. In fact, the entire early thinking about the tar pits was likely erroneous. In reality, the oil tar formed far more rapidly than scientists were previously willing to admit and developed around the carcasses which had been rapidly buried in the flood sediments (see previous chapter).
Or as shown by the following article in the journal Organic Chemistry:
In many geological situations much longer time intervals are available but evidently the molecular mechanism of the decomposition is little changed by the additional time. Thus, within sedimentary basins, heating times of several years are sufficient for the generation of oil and gas from suitable precursors. The precise point in this range of times from seconds to years, at which the products adequately resemble natural gases and/or oils, remains to be established. Heating times of the order of years during recent times may even improve the petroleum prospects of particular areas. Flooding of a reservoir with migrating hydrocarbons is more likely to produce a reservoir filled to the spill point than slow accumulation over a long geological period with a possibility of loss …’.(1)
For generations, students have been fed a scientifically unsupportable line of atheistic propaganda about how dinosaurs and other organisms were fossilized. If you travel to any Museum of Natural History or even to places like Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, you will read nice (imaginary) explanations about how the fossils originated, and why they are at the site. All over the world there are massive “fossil graveyards” where thousands or millions of fossilized creatures lie buried or partially exposed.
These graveyards are not evidence supporting evolutionists claims. Rather, in the words of Roger Patterson, “the greatest testimonies to a worldwide flood are the many, massive fossil graveyards across the globe”. (2) Why would Patterson say this? Because the very presence of such massive graveyards is evidence, if not almost proof, of a global flood. Fossils do not form if a creature dies naturally and is eaten or decomposed by natural processes. Fossil formation requires sudden burial (as in a sudden, catastrophic global flood with massive mudslides in an environment that lacks oxygen) in order to fossilize!
Patterson also notes that in places like the Green River formation in Wyoming, we find birds, bats, ocean fish, insects, and land plants all buried together. How could these be buried together if not for a huge catastrophe like the flood?
And what about oil and coal in the deep earth strata? We are told that there was lush growth which gathered and was compressed over millions of years, forming oil and coal. Yet so many scientific facts and observations do NOT fit this storyline. For one, why would the deceased plants and animals not have been destroyed by bacteria and turned into simple organic matter (dirt) if this happened as a normal process over millions of years? That would comply with the uniformitarian views evolutionists claim to espouse!
Also, many samples contain carbon 14, which should be impossible if they are even 50,000 years old, let alone hundreds of millions of years old. In addition, coal often has readily visible bark from trees, and even track marks from crabs, dinosaurs, and amphibians (3) which might occur in cases of sudden rapid burial, but not with gradual accumulation over hundreds of thousands of years. And of course there is all that fresh organic material, and red blood cells they have been finding in dinosaurs that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old!
And what about those troublesome polystrate fossils (see the above picture). How can a fossilized tree be found vertically, penetrating what we are told is many millions of years of accumulated sediments? Author John McKay, who has found “there are polystrates of just about every fossil known if you look hard enough, and the reality is that any fossils even those that lie parallel to their strata yet are thicker than one lamina of sediment, by definition have to be polystrate.” (4) But the question is, how can a fragile fern be fossilized vertically in strata that would otherwise be thought to represent millions of years of accumulation? But for those who believe in the Great Global Flood, this represents no problem at all. It makes absolute and complete sense. The tree or fern happened to come to rest in a vertical position as all the sediments flooded in and around it and were then compressed into limestone rock formations.
Famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History magazine said, “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it — selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory.” He also tried to defend a fellow evolutionist, writing, “Goldschmidt raised no objection to the standard accounts of microevolution; … He broke sharply with the synthetic theory, however in arguing that new species arise abruptly by discontinuous variation, or macromutation.”(5)
This overt admission (by a prominent evolutionist) that life appeared suddenly, and that the fossil record does not support evolution has yet to reach the halls of academia, where evolution is still taught, and the fossil record is still used as proof. Yet Gould tries to rescue the theory with yet another unscientific proposal, seeming to believe that new species appeared fully formed in the past, but still, somehow he manages to call this evolution. But for an interesting and very readable account of this story, please see the article by Scot Wall in the Houston Chronicle from 2008. (6)
(1) Saxby, J. D., Bennett, A.J.R., Corcoran, J.F., Lambert, D.E. and Riley, K.W., 1986. Petroleum generation: simulation over six years of hydrocarbon formation from torbanite and brown coal in a subsiding basin. Organic Geochemistry, vol. 9(2), pp. 69–81.
(2) P 148, Evolution Exposed, 2008, Answers in Genesis USA.