9 Facts Evolutionists Hope You Never Learn.

pexels-photo-1329296.jpeg
Photo by Magda Ehlers on Pexels.com

Scientifically speaking… someone lied to you.  When they told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth“… they lied. They probably even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. (Also a lie.) But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution.  Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..

  1. The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see my prior blog post “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” (www.discovery.org/a/7271). As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
  2. Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See my prior blog post “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature.  Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
  3. The geological strata do not support gradual evolution.  Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.)  Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous.”
  4. The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution.  There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinctSome estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2)  Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
  5. There is no evidence of current evolution.  The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet  in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and these too are largely missing!
  6. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
  7. Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which  is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes,  as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth!
  8. No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
  9. Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for life to occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)

 

So, all things considered, the most plausible  SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

 

(1) http://www.discovery.org/a/7051/

(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

(3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(4) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745

(5) http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm

(6) http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/are-the-laws-of-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life

New Evidence Humans Recently Evolved?

flight technology tools astronaut
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

A Berkeley site developed to promote belief in evolution has some interesting comments on recent human evolution. They suggest that evolution is now occurring at an accelerated rate, and that humans are evolving at a much more rapid pace than in past millennia.  An article from Berkeley on “Understanding Evolution” offers some hypotheses about techniques investigating possible adaptations to the human genome…

When Henry Harpending of the University of Utah and his colleagues applied this technique to the genomes of people who trace their ancestry to different geographic regions (Europe, Africa, China, and Japan), what they found surprised them — lots of evidence for favorable mutations! Natural selection seems to have acted on these mutants in many different areas of our genome. In fact, the team identified more than 10,000 selection events (i.e., stretches of DNA bearing the marks of natural selection) that seem to have taken place in the past 80,000 years of human history. Interestingly, the researchers found that most of these selection events traced to the recent past, with the largest numbers having arisen in the last 10,000 years. Judging by these results, human evolution seems to have sped up: small numbers of beneficial mutations spread through human populations for most of our history, but since the end of the last ice age, we’ve experienced a renaissance of evolutionary innovation in which many new advantageous mutations arose and began to spread.(1)

Note the words “seems to have acted“, and “seem to have taken place“.  It is refreshingly honest of the authors to admit the weakness of their position.  Also note that the vast majority have arisen within a timetable compatible with the Bible in the last 10,000 years”!  In fact they even say that they have occurred since the Ice Age, which Creation scientists argue very convincingly, occurred soon after the flood!

Also note that in spite of 10,000 supposed mutations, in approximately the last 10,000 years, people still people look, act, walk, eat, and talk like people.  We cannot dig up skeletons or look at mummies from thousands of years ago and see any evidence of these supposed mutations. In fact, for the last several thousand years of recorded history, during this time of “accelerated human evolution” nothing about human appearance or capabilities appears to have really changed.

The authors go on to say, “These results are intriguing (and controversial — they’ve already generated much discussion within the scientific community), but they do have limitations. The technique that the researchers used (looking for genomic evidence of past hitchhiking events) is reliable, but it is not particularly good at detecting very old or very recent episodes of selection.” (2)

Now note further, that the evolutionists themselves admit that the results they depend on are controversial, and have substantial limitations.  Yet you will not see evidence of that uncertainty or controversy in the writings of most secular scientists, or hear it in their voices as they lecture on the supposed scientific certainty of evolution!

person s tummy and hand
Photo by Daniel Reche on Pexels.com

Nevertheless many scientists are finally admitting that research does NOT support the belief that humanity is constantly improving, getting larger or smarter or more robust.  “If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe … you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,’ said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. ‘Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed?” Some scientists believe humans are becoming less brainy and more neurotic; others see signs of growing intelligence and decreasing robustness, while some, like Jones, see evidence of us having reached a standstill. All base their arguments on the same tenets of natural selection.(3)

From this we learn two things.  First, these scientists who believe in evolution admit that the evidence support the sudden appearance of the modern human race (from whence they have no idea).  Second, that using the exact same evidence, they come up with many different theories or explanations.  Third, phrases like “you cannot predict” and “who knows” absolutely reek of conjecture, not scientific certainty! Yet they teach gullible college freshmen that they “know” evolution is a fact and creation is nonsense!

The real fact is that mere guesses and conjectures about past events that occurred many thousands of years ago are not “science”.  Claiming scientific credibility is not just an overstatement, it is a complete fabrication! Wherever you look into the details at the forefront of “evolutionary science” you will find observations and conclusions that are based not on science, but on the secular atheist world view!

For more proof that evolution is NOT scientific, please see my last blog “Branch or Vine”, and Jan. 14th blog, “A totally Modern View on Evolution.”

 

(1) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080101_recenthumanevo

(2) ibid

(3) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/feb/03/genetics.research

The machine that built itself

silver metal round gears connected to each other
Photo by Flickr on Pexels.com

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(1) 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 (2).  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 notes that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he notes thatNo 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.”(3) (This was true at the time it was written.  Further discussion will ensue on the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

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… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain beauty 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.” [4]

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 proteins function was more from its shape than from its chemical content.  This discovery tell 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.(5)  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.

 

(1) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/14545-if-god-were-small-enough-to-be-understood-he-would

(2) Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free PressISBN 0-684-82754-9LCCN 96000695OCLC 34150540.

(3) evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

(4)Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.

(5) https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-gene-code-for-more-than-one-protein-and-how-is-that-process-regulated

 

Micro-evolution under the Microscope.

technology lens laboratory medical
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on Pexels.com

1. We know that the formation of the universe from nothing was impossible. Even Marcelo Gleiser, writing for 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.(w)

2. We know that spontaneous generation of life was and is impossible, or 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.”(x)

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.”

But what if all three of these assumptions were wrong? What if everything appeared out of nothing, for no reason, and formed itself into life against impossible odds, and evolved into multiple magnificent and self replicating organisms.  What then?

Even then evolution is impossible.

Why? Because Proteins have shapes.  Proteins are fascinating, complicated, three- dimensional molecules that function as a result of their shape.  The basic shape of the protein allows it to present a particular molecule, or reactive agent, at a particular 3 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.”(1)

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 often damaging or fatal proteins.  (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).”(2)

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”).” (3)  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.

 

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.

 

(1)   evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_random_muta/

(2)  Stephen Shannon, Cystic Fibrosis News Today, March 12, 2015.

(3) Nancy Darrall PhD,  in six days, Master Books, pp. 190-193.

(4) Munita, J and Arias C., /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4888801/

(w)

(x) Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250

(y) Fred Hoyle (1981) “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, Nov. 12, p. 148

 

(For more see also “What is Natural Selection” and “Natural Selection is Magic”)

 

Try, Try, Trilobite.


20180907_105951

Most persons who have read anything about the fossil record, geological strata, or the theory of evolution have heard of the trilobite.  It appears in the lowest, supposedly oldest layers of rock.  It is called the earliest, most primitive of creatures.
According to Wikipedia, the earliest trilobites known from the fossil record are dated to about 530 million years ago. It “appears suddenly” (as if suddenly created) in the fossil record and flourished throughout the Cambrian and Permian periods and was then suddenly destroyed in a mass extinction. (Like the flood?)

It is interesting to note that even Wikipedia admits “By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. “(1) This of course supports Creation.  It is not supportive of evolution.  “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups do not seem to exist.” (2)

Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling goes on to explain that in addition to being highly diversified, they were highly developed and advanced.  Let that sink in.  The first creature we can find in the strata was highly developed, highly advanced, and highly diversified!

Often regarded as primitive creatures, their anatomy reveals that they are,  perhaps,  the most complex of all invertebrate creatures.”(3) Dr. Snelling describes their sophisticated aggregate schizochroal eyes as “the most sophisticated optical systems ever utilized by any organism“. (4)

So let’s stop there. The most highly developed, highly sophisticated optical system ever developed appears suddenly, at the the lowest layers of the geologic record.  It appears there with absolutely NO possible evolutionary ancestors.  It appears fully formed.  It appears all over the world.  Any geologist who does not recognize the ossibility (or likelihood) of creation in these facts  is looking with both eyes closed.

I particularly like the following quote from the American History of Natural History website,  “Yet dealing with the age of trilobites… the age of our planet… the age of the universe, often seems beyond the realm of what our “primitive” brain can deal with. Sometimes we imagine we’ve got all these Cambrian Explosion, Snowball Earth and Punctuated Equilibria things figured out — with all the adjacent, Plate Tectonic and Shifting Polarity mumbo-jumbo thrown in for good measure. Apparently, for a species that has existed in its present form for far less than a million years, and whose entire lineage can presently be traced back some 14 million years, we Homo sapiens can be an arrogant bunch.” (5) Arrogant, prideful, and foolish, I would add.

Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction”
Proverbs 18:2 “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

(2) ibid.

(3) Dr, Andrew Snelling, in six days, Master Books, pp. 293-4.

(4) ibid.

(5) https://www.amnh.org/our-research/paleontology/paleontology-faq/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/geologic-time

(For more information see blogs on “The Data in the Strata” and “Just the Facts”)

Natural Sexlection

No, I am not dyslexic, and this is not a typo. Natural selection is totally dependent on sex. For in order to occur, natural selection needs 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 mispaired 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.

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.

 

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.

(See also blog on “Natural Selection is Magic”)

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,