“Just the Facts Ma’am.”

For generations now a debate has raged between the so called “scientific community” and those who believe this universe, and we ourselves, are not an accident or cosmic mistake.  For all these years we have seen a creeping, insidious indoctrination of all areas of society.  It started with the “academics” and infiltrated the schools, and it was aimed especially at our children.  They are told that evolution is an established fact, solid science.  But nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, most of the examples I was given as proof of evolution during my education in the 1960’s and 1970’s have been proven to be either mistaken, or outright fraudulent in the decades since.  Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Haeckel’s embryos, Java man, Lucy, and more recently Paderborn (Sande) man, and Archeoraptor to name a few.  Archeopteryx has been shown not to be an evolutionary intermediate, since it occurs in strata much later than modern fully formed birds appear (thus making it impossible that it was the missing link between dinosaurs and birds).  Nevertheless, the indoctrination continues.  Textbooks continue to be printed, approved, and distributed to our children, showing texts, tables, pictures, and diagrams that are known to be FALSE.  Why?  Because the alternative is admitting that evolution is NOT a fact, but rather a scientifically unsupportable theory.

Let me establish one thing first.  Some critics will infer that I (in fact anyone who believes in creation) is foolish, juvenile, unscientific, or a Bible-Thumper.  But this site is not about bragging or name calling,. It is about the scientific facts.  Neither is this site primarily a discussion of philosophy, or opinion, or even evangelism, although there will be instances of such. There are many other sites more qualified than this one for extensive conversations on the interpretation and meaning of scripture, or the social implications of Christianity vs atheism.  Each of these is certainly of great importance, but they are not our primary goal here.

This site is dedicated to the evaluation of the scientific underpinnings of evolution.  In light of that fact, and to that extent, all opinions pro, con, or otherwise, are welcome.  Please feel free to comment.

 

John 4:24  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.

Job 17:14 If I say to corruption, ‘You are my father,’ And to the worm, ‘You are my mother and my sister,’ Where then is my hope?

Antithetical

the chronicles of narnia book
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

an·ti·thet·i·cal

ˌan(t)əˈTHedək(ə)l/
adjective
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.  Einstein himself believed in a static, eternal universe.  Most scientists currently believe in a 14 billion year old universe. In fact 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.  If our understandings of the meaning of life, and the origins of the universe are based 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 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.

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 they 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.

And our youth, as well as our entire society, is paying the price for believing the musings and imaginations of men like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. Nevertheless, one thing is certain amidst all the uncertainty.  Evolution did not happen. It has been proven scientifically and statistically to be an impossibility.  And not a single atheist has any explanation for the origin of life, other than to say “There is no God so it must have just happened somehow.”  Not too 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.  In fact, when seen objectively, the Big Bang is patently ridiculous.

In a later post we will deal with the false, illogical and impossible “primordial soup” model, and with the scientific proving 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 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.

 

 

(1)Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations state in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, pp. 159–60:

Who are you going to trust?

When people say “Scientists believe… or Science teaches…” the statement that follows is likely to be erroneous, or at least a gross oversimplification.  All scientists cannot be lumped together any more than all preachers or teachers or truck drivers can be lumped together.  It is virtually impossible to get even the scientists within a specific branch of inquiry to agree on their research conclusions.  So it should come as no surprise that scientist in different branches of science may disagree as well.

So when an atheist says they “know” that evolution is a fact, or they “know” that the universe is 14 billion years old, that atheist is speaking for himself or herself.   When they say scientists agree that evolution occurred, they are at best uninformed, or at worst deliberately lying. There are hundreds of thousands of very intelligent, scientifically trained individuals who would disagree.

When we put our faith and trust in science, we should be aware of a few facts.  Science is quite good at telling us how high, or how far, or how big, or small or hot an object might be. Science can develop wonderful ways of evaluating this marvelous world, and seeing into the vast reaches of the universe.  But “Science” also brought us the Titanic, the Hindenburg, methamphetamine, LSD, and the Atomic bomb.

Some people say they “trust science” and so they believe in evolution and abortion and global warming.  Does that mean they also trust science and want to take meth while enjoying a ride on the Hindenburg? No, probably not. But each statement is equally illogical.  You see, science makes many claims.  Some are easily verifiable and others are not.  Take the science of pharmacology.  The belief in “better living through chemistry” has been both a blessing and a curse. Pharmacology has both saved millions of lives with medicines like insulin and antibiotics, and destroyed millions of lives with opiates, LSD, and addictive benzodiazepines.

So when it comes to the age of the universe or the origin of life, it is reasonable to question “scientists” who claim they have an intimate knowledge of such things.  Especially when they change their minds at least every 50 years when new findings require a whole new theory.  It is far more likely that they are spouting a popular opinion than offering a proven or time-tested Truth.  Behind closed doors, most scientists frankly admit they don’t really know much about the origin of the universe or how life originated.  “This matter is far from being settled by astrophysicists and cosmologists, so stay tuned. There could be radical new developments in the future.” (From the site Stringtheory.com.  Article entitled “How old is the universe”.

Consider that fact that scientists and astronomers (the same ones who say they know exactly how old the universe is) quite literally cannot find or measure 90% of the universe.  Yes, we can observe, see, or measure less than 10% of the mass of the universe.  The scientists have no idea what comprises the other 90%, but according to their calculations “it must be there”.  According to author Vera Rubin in Scientific American,  “As much as 90 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible. Detecting this dark matter will help astronomers better comprehend the universe’s destiny.”

So here is the latest, as the astrophysicists continue their guessing games. “Overall, dark energy is thought to contribute 73 percent of all the mass and energy in the universe. Another 23 percent is dark matter, which leaves only 4 percent of the universe composed of regular matter, such as stars, planets and people.” SPACE.com Senior Writer Clara Moskowitz.  So like I said, over 90% of the universe is missing. The very scientists who claim they KNOW there is no God, cannot find over 90% of His creation. I don’t know about you, but I think I will wait for the other 90% of the facts to arrive before I make any conclusions.

Nehemiah 9:6  “You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 24:4-6  The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish with the earth. 5 The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth’s inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left.
(See also blogs entitled “What about Public Education” and “Operational vs Historical Science”)

What about Fossils?

Fossils disprove evolution. Twice.

First, paleontologists discovered many decades ago that life appeared SUDDENLY on Earth. They cannot, of course, say that life appeared suddenly on earth. That would sound too much like creation, so instead, they made up a term called the Cambrian explosion. They postulated (guessed) that maybe for some reason there was a bunch of radiation and maybe it suddenly caused all life to appear. Then they postulated (guessed) again that maybe it wasn’t so sudden. Maybe it lasted 20 million years. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, in cosmological terms, 20 million years even if it were true, would maybe allow for an amoeba to “evolve” to a more advanced amoeba. If evolution were even possible. Of course it is not.

Second, fossils disprove evolution by showing a complete lack of undisputed transitional forms. There are hundreds of millions of fossils. So by any account there should be at least millions of transitional fossils (Fossils showing animals in the “in between stages of evolution”). However there are few if any. Now at this juncture some will complain that we have a very detailed history of the evolution of the house in the fossil record. That is indeed what evolutionists teach. In fact they are so evangelical in there cause that they preach that EVERY fossil ever found is transitional. But what do the facts show?

Since it would require many pages of explanation, and since it has already been done so beautifully, with illustrations and timelines included, I will defer to the article by Mats Molen, “The evolution of the horse,” found on the Creation.com website. Suffice it to say that the evolutionist timeline makes no sense, and there are at least three species of horse involved. They all lived at about the same time, were all buried at about the same time, and do not support the theory of evolution at all.

But what about all those nice drawings in the textbooks about “ape to man” evolution. Well evolutionists cannot find any evidence of direct descent. They can only find “shared or similar DNA”. (Which could just as easily mean the Creator used similar DNA to do similar things.) What about the fossils which have been used to “re-create” the missing links? They were fragments, or partial skeletons. Sometime of the entire drawings of transitional forms were “imagineered” (like Disney movies) from how a paleontologist viewed a single bone from a wrist or hip or ankle or jaw. Sometimes a single tooth has been used to “rebuild” an image of how the imagined creature might have looked.

We will have much more to discuss about evolution and fossils. Some of the greatest fakery in science has occurred in the area of paleontology. But that is for another day. As I have said before. I am not a proponent of teaching creation rather than, or in place of evolution in the public schools. However it think it is essential for scientist to admit that we do not know (as scientists) much at all about the origins of life. It would be far better to educate our youth in honest intellectual observation and analysis, rather than an inaccurate agenda based on full and total rejection of the possibility of Creation.

There has been so much written about the interpretation of fossils, the age of fossils, the origin of fossils and proper dating of fossils that we will return to some of these topics in future writings.  The facts, it seems, are subject to various interpretations. Few people will acknowledge that many of the suppositions on which fossil dating is based are questionable, and some are patently false.  But more and more well trained scientists are coming forth to question these presuppositions.

Jeremy L. Walter, who has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, and received the prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, writing of the sedimentary layers, states;  “The vast horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to that observed today in a typical river delta.  This concept of uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the region…By contrast the catastrophic processes observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time… The canyon walls resemble others that are assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be less than 20 years old.” (1)

If that is not enough, let me add just one more illustration. A December 2018 article in Nature describes the findings of an analysis of the soft tissue remnants of a supposedly 180 year old Ichthyosaur. No reputable scientist would have predicted intact, well preserved skin and soft tissue remnants in a fossil that is 180 million years old.  They would have been laughed out of the room. But that is just what Johan Lindgren, the lead researcher on this study states they found. (2)

Finally, consider the following description of the Fox Hills Formation, one of the many “dinosaur boneyards” in existence, and see if the findings mesh better with a great flood, or with a series of extinction events described by secular paleontologists.

The bottom line is that the Fox Hills Formation directly below the HCF is accepted as a marine deposit (Figure 1), and the unit immediately above the HCF, the Cannonball Member of the Fort Union Formation, is accepted as a marine deposit, yet Hell Creek itself is claimed to be terrestrial solely because it contains dinosaur fossils. But it’s filled with marine fossils from top to bottom.” (3)

This is nothing new for the global rock record. We see this same fossil mix across all continents. Even most European Cretaceous dinosaurs are found not just mixed with marine fossils but in actual marine rocks like chalk and limestone.8 Spinosaurus, the largest theropod dinosaur ever discovered, was found in Morocco with car-size fossils of coelacanth fish, which today are only found in the deep ocean.(4)

 

Psalm 95:4-5  In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him.  5 The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.

Job 12:7-10   “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;  8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.  9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?  10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

 

 

(1) Steven A. Austin, “Mount St. Helens and Catastophism,” Impact, Article No. 157, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (July 1986)

(2) http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0775-x

(3) https://www.icr.org/article/11253/

(4) ibid

What About Public Education?

We may be testing the limits of civility now. Discussions of this topic are frequently known to degenerate into brawls. So let me say at the outset. I do not believe that all students should be forced to recite Bible verses. I do not believe that teaching of the creationist view of science is the only appropriate material for study. In fact, I am not at all sure I want public school teachers educating my children about anything to do with the Bible. In most cases that would be worse than the blind leading the blind.

I do believe, however in an honest, level playing field. As a scientist and a supporter of science education, I would far prefer honest admissions of where science is supportive of evolution theory and where it is not. I would appreciate sincere admissions, on the part of educators, that evolution is NOT in any way settled science.(1) Far from it. There is as much evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, as there is supporting evolution. (In my opinion there is actually vastly more contradictory evidence.) No right thinking science educator should allow students to be taught things that are untrue. But unfortunately, this is the state of affairs in public education today. Classrooms should be for facts, not propaganda.  And open minded discussions should be the rule when the facts are in dispute.

In schools and universities alike, students who question any of the underpinnings of evolution (for any reason) are often bullied and intimidated. They are often called science deniers, or anti-science Bible Thumpers. There are countless examples.  In describing his education, Dr Evan Jaimeson describes multiple occasions when, confronted with the scientific inconsistencies of the theory of evolution, “often there was an angry reaction and feeble, if any, explanations.”(2) He goes on to say “the lack of credible answers makes me quite skeptical of the theory of evolution.   After all it wasn’t an obscure theory; it was basically accepted worldwide and had been studied for many years.  Simple and obvious questions should have been given simple and obvious answers — so where were they?”(2)

But suppressing classroom debate does not advance the cause of truth. Just as suppressing free speech about other topics is counterproductive, taking an “evolution or else” approach is not good for students or for the educational system. There are many unknown effects that can occur with changes in worldview, and we are seeing many of these today. Few would say that the emotional and spiritual levels of peace of mind and satisfaction with life have increased in past decades. In fact, most would agree we are in the midst of a mental health crisis. Some part of this may be attributable to our feelings of meaninglessness and hopelessness as a result of evolutionary teaching.

Dr Ariel Roth , former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda California, writes, “When it comes to answering the great questions of origins, meaning, and destiny, science has lost its credentials.  This happened over a century ago when science decided to exclude God from its explanatory menu.  If God exists, science will never find Him as long as it refuses to consider God as a part of reality.”(3)

Any objective scientific examination of the texts used to teach science and to “debunk creationist nonsense” will find that most of the diagrams, facts, and statistics used to teach evolution are not only out of date, many are absolutely false. So perhaps the Bible-Thumpers and the Neander-Thumpers should all get together and choose a set of non-disputable facts that all can agree on. And perhaps that is what we should use to teach our children. When all else fails, stop to propaganda and teach the facts.

Isaiah 37:16  “O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth You have made heaven and earth.”

 

(1) Nicholas Satin, “Sorry USA Today, Evolution isn’t “settled” science. Crisis Magazine, January 20, 2014

(2) Evan Jamieson, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, P. 324

(3) Ariel Roth, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001  p. 99.

 

Evolution, God, and Probability

When evolutionary thinking was in its ascendancy, the arguments were often augmented with “anti-creation” factoids. One of the most common was “where did the universe come from?”  Another was “you can’t even explain where God came from!” Of course, if any creationist is honest and forthright, it seems impossible to “prove” creation or “prove” the existence of God. (Nor could any being on earth (created or evolved) ever be expected to understand or explain the origin of an almighty, ever-present, omniscient being such as God.)

This “where did God come from” argument seemed to blossom into a full-blown “anti-God movement” as society (and particularly the West) became ever more affluent and less dependent on God’s daily provision. There is something about living on a farm, or in the country, where you can see the summer rains come and watch the crops grow, that suggests a dependency on something higher. There is something about sunrises and sunsets, spring and fall, summertime and harvest, crickets and whippoorwills, that suggests we are not here by accident.

Nevertheless, at this time in history, in the fast-paced, fast food, fast internet 21st century, everyone fancies themselves a “scientist”. Everyone who has watched Star Trek or Star Wars fancies themselves an expert on black holes and quantum physics. We don’t need God. We have Science. We don’t need farms and rain, we can create our food in a lab. We don’t need marriage and monogamy. We can treat our STD’s with antibiotics and grow our babies in a test tube… if not now, in just a few years. We don’t want restrictions or responsibilities. We want freedom.

So if we are indeed scientists, and if we indeed believe in the power of the human mind to understand all things, we must believe all our scientific findings. Including those that do NOT support our presuppositions. Open-minded scientific inquiry is the basis of scientific advancement. Always. Foundationally. Except when it comes to evolution.

Evolutionists are quick to disallow the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life), proven by Louis Pasteur, stating it is only applicable today (not in the past). They will inevitably, when faced with the impossibility of their position (scientifically, biochemically, or statistically) resort to TIME as the explanation. TIME it seems can do the impossible. Life cannot come from non-life… unless you wait a really long TIME. Positive mutations are vastly outnumbered by neutral, negative, and lethal mutations, making evolution (of even ONE SINGLE organism) statistically impossible, unless you wait a really long TIME. The complexity of 3D folding proteins makes repeated sequential DNA point mutations incapable of advancing any organism with more and more complex features, unless, you guessed it… you wait a really long TIME. Time, it seems, can do anything.

There are just two areas that are absolutely out of bounds in modern institutes of higher learning. We are encouraged to study and advance virtually every possible area of inquiry except these two. We must keep our minds open to every possibility and aggressively pursue knowledge (with these two glaring exceptions.) We must not under any circumstances invoke the possibility of God, or a Creator, or a Higher power, and we must NEVER question the doctrine of evolution. We are our own gods. We created ourselves and raised ourselves up from the muck. We make our own rules. We bow to no one. Even when the evidence points to God, we cannot allow our minds to bend in that direction. God is anathema.

The trouble with this approach is it is unscientific. Even if you worship at the altar of the god of science, you will find the god of science pointing to a higher God. Take for example the writing of Julian Huxley, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century. He notes that at least a million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve (although in reality, his understandably minuscule understanding of genomics and proteins resulted in a woefully gross under-estimation of this number of mutations, in reality, it is in the tens or hundreds of millions). Nevertheless, using this number he calculated the probability of a single cell to horse evolution to be “impossible” Of course he believed that Natural Selection was the answer (See prior post on Natural Selection). And thousands of “true believers” in evolution have done the same. For decades we have heard that although evolution would have been impossible otherwise… Natural Selection is the answer.

But can Natural Selection operate without mutation? No. It would still require single point DNA mutations (which it has been shown cannot bring about evolution). (See prior blog) What would it “select”? Those who attribute such power to natural selection understand neither natural selection nor mutations. Of course, for generations, scientists have been loath to admit that the ratio of positive to negative mutations is so astoundingly, infinitesimally small that this statistic alone should disallow evolution. But that is another topic entirely. In fact, negative, neutral, and lethal mutations are vastly more likely than positive mutations. Yet “science” believes in the process of evolution NOT because of the evidence, but IN SPITE of the evidence.

So much for an open-minded scientific approach. Even when all the scientific evidence says that the complexity of living systems could NEVER evolve by chance, that there are thousands of systems and proteins which are examples of irreducible complexity, and that life absolutely cannot evolve from non-life… our schools teach evolution.

As written by Brian Thomas, “Coded information in living things gives the full appearance of being purposefully programmed to resist just the kinds of DNA alterations that would harm organisms. Unfortunately for evolution, these are also just the kinds of DNA changes that would be required to turn microbes into man. Evolutionists have yet to find any realistic resolution to this problem, but for creationists it is no paradox at all. Instead, it is another cellular signature from the Creator.“(1)

Psalm 8:3-8  When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!
2 Peter 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

Vestigial Organs (Vestiges of Evolutionary Arguments)

nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

For over a century evolutionists have argued that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. Using classic circular logic, they say an organ is vestigial because they believe we have “evolved’ past it and then they use the organ as “proof” of evolution. Of course many of their most touted example have since been found to be functional, but don’t expect to find formal retractions in the textbooks any time soon.

Take as an example, the human male nipple and breast. It is still listed on evolutionary websites as evidence of evolution. But in reality it is merely an example of sexual dimorphism. (In many species the male is readily identifiable as different from the female.) Do evolutionists actually believe that males are a separate species, or that males thousand of years ago used to nurse their young? No, certainly not. So even by their own definitions male nipples cannot be vestigial.  This is yet more evidence of the shallow thinking of evolutionists in this area.

Vestigial structures are NOT leftovers. They do NOT prove evolution. In fact over 150 structures in humans were once thought to be vestigial. Most are now known to be functional. It should be an embarrassment to evolutionists. The only thing vestigial structures have proven so far is the anatomical, physiological and embryological ignorance of evolutionary proponents.

At one time the tonsils, thymus, and appendix (and in some circles still…) were declared to be vestigial. Any modern day surgeon will tell you that they are not going to rush to take out these organs, as modern thinking has “evolved” (pardon the pun) into an understanding that only an emergency warrants removal. In fact, many are now recommending a trial of antibiotics rather than immediate appendectomy even for appendicitis!

Another important example of a so-called vestigial organ is the tailbone.  For probably a hundred years evolutionists claimed that the tailbone is a vestigial remnant, left over from the time when we were monkeys with tails.  However, I would challenge ANY evolutionist to voluntarily give up their tailbone.  It is a critical component of the pelvis.  Without it, our ability to lift heavy objects and control our bowels and bladder are impaired.  Without it, our pelvic floor would be greatly weakened.  In fact, it is critical in our sex life, due to the attachment of the pubococcygeus muscle.  Once again, the tailbone is not a vestige of a tail.  It is a critical part of our “modern” human anatomy!

One more thing evolutionary scientists cannot explain is why so many features that should have aided in our “survival of the fittest” have been lost during the evolutionary process. Thick skulls, brow ridges, the ability to digest cellulose, just to name a few. If evolution favors survival of the fittest, why have humans “evolved” with such frailties as thinner skulls and inability to digest cellulose, when our more robust predecessors had such obvious survival advantages. Why are we now subject to brain damage and starvation? Is this not evidence for survival of the weakest?

All the evidence from genome-sequencing projects shows that virtually all of an organism’s DNA is transcribed into RNA.  That means that even though most of that RNA is not translated into proteins, it performs essential regulatory functions. Science journals continue to publish articles describing more and more such functions. The evidence has been accumulating since scientists finished sequencing the human genome that “pseudogenes” and other so-called “junk DNA” sequences are not useless after all.(1) 

Finally, let me say in the way of a compliment, Darwin was no dummy. Even he knew he had a problem with vestigial organs. He wondered why, once an organ was useless it would continue to atrophy. What would make it do so? What process would cause the shrinkage? Anatomic changes require genetic changes over successive generations, and that means alterations in DNA. What possible explanation is there for genetic modifications that serve absolutely no function, like further shrinking an already atrophied organ? Darwin had no clue, and still today there is no explanation.

 

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

1. A few of the many scientific articles published since 2003 that document the function of so-called “junk” DNA are:

  • E.S Balakirev & F.J. Ayala, “Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA?” Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 123-151.
  • A. Hüttenhofer, P. Schattner & N. Polacek, “Non-coding RNAs: hope or hype?” Trends in Genetics 21 (2005): 289-297.
  • J.S. Mattick & I.V. Makunin, “Non-coding RNA,” Human Molecular Genetics 15 (2006): R17-R29.
  • R.K. Slotkin & R. Martienssen, “Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome,” Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2007): 272-285.
  • P. Carninci, J. Yasuda & Y Hayashizaki, “Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology 20 (2008): 274-80.
  • C.D. Malone & G.J. Hannon, “Small RNAs as Guardians of the Genome,” Cell 136 (2009): 656–668.
  • C.P. Ponting, P.L. Oliver & W. Reik, “Evolution and Functions of Long Noncoding RNAs,” Cell 136 (2009): 629–641.

Psalm 139:13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.

What is Natural Selection?

 

Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.

Fact.  NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.

In reality it 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 as 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”. But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution.

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.

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.”

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.”(1) NS does not create life, or create 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 know just know this.

NS is real.  Evolution is not.

 

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?
(1) John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017.

Evolution: Just the facts

Evolution is not plausible.  I am a practicing physician and I depend on science daily in the practice of medicine. Why would I not “believe science” and why would I trust instead in a “fairy tale” story from the Bible? Because facts matter.  Truth matters. And the facts are decidedly NOT on the side of evolution.

Evolution (by definition) requires increases in the complexity of the genetic code. Evolution as an explanation for life on earth as we know it would have required trillions of trillions of trillions of increases in the complexity of the genetic code. The massive information content of DNA could never have happened (evolved) by chance. As an example, a pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4 gig hard drive. In fact “we would need only about 4 grams (about a teaspoon) of DNA to hold everything from Plato through the complete works of Shakespeare to Beyonce’s latest album (not to mention every brunch photo ever posted on Instagram”. (1)

Yet as of this writing there has not been one single example of any mutation at any time, in any living thing, that has increased or added to the complexity of the DNA. Not One! I have of course read many vague imprecise, pseudo-scientific articles on websites that claim the contrary. However their examples are usually at the macro level (living systems or organisms) and not at the molecular or genetic level, and their arguments are always “presumed”, not proven. We live in a society in which you can send off  a packet in the mail to find out about your genes (23 and me), yet all the scientists in the world cannot find ANY genetic proof of evolution!

On the factual side, a study by Axe and Ann Gauger showed that one of the very simplest “evolutionary” changes, the conversion of one enzyme to a closely related enzyme, would require seven simultaneous genetic changes.(2) This is so improbable that statisticians calculate the probability at less that one chance in a trillion trillion. Such an unlikely event has probably (statistically) not happened even once in the history of the earth. Yet for even the simplest example of evolution to be possible it would have of necessity happened countless times!  Or as explained by Dr John Baumgardner (Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics) the mere formation of a relatively short sequence of 200 amino acids to form a simple protein is 20 to the 100th power.  He explains that “this is a hundred billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist  in the history of the cosmos.” (3)

Or for another example, the simplest free living organism is Mycoplasma genitalium.  It has 470 genes with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs. (4) The average protein molecule coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids.  The probability of forming just ONE such protein by random assembly is 1/10 to the 451st power.  The total number of atoms in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power.  This is beyond improbable. It is statistically impossible.

Sites like TalkOrigins.org or NewScientist.com will obfuscate, and try to confuse the reader by changing the subject or the terms of the conversation. They will give examples like Trisomy (which involves transferring genetic material that already exists) or use code words like “increased genetic variation”or “creating diversity”, which have no relation to the question of an increasingly complex genome (they may result from, but cannot be the cause of such variation). The bottom line is that after over a hundred years of lab scientists radiating the poor, rapidly reproducing fruit fly, all we have is normal, dead, or deformed fruit flies. And after studying hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria, not one evolutionary scientist has shown the addition of new genomic material.

Even Wikipedia admits that Biologists “used to believe” that evolution was progressive.(7) The claim of progressive evolution is scientifically absurd now in the age of genomics.  Genomics has shown, in fact, proven, that the supposed evolutionary Tree of Life cannot be real. It exists only on paper.  Scientists have rearranged it, diversified it, changed it, and even cut and pasted it to no avail.  The Tree of Life is dead.  Belief in evolution should have died with it.

  1. qz.com/345640/scientists-say-all-the-worlds-data-can-fit-on-a-dna-hard-drive-the-size-of-a-teaspoon/
  2. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  3. creation.com/john-r-baumgardner-geophysics-in-six-days
  4. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/genomes/270-5235-397.pdf
  5. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  6. Dr. Gary Parker, Mutations, Yes; Evolution, No 3/28/2016
  7. Wikipedia, Evolution of Biological Complexity.
  8. Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
  9. Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247
  10. Jacob Aron, 11 February 2015 Glassed in DNA makes the ultimate time capsule, New Scientist

Isaiah 66:2  “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”