Thursday, June 28, 2018

Why I Reject Darwinism As Science

          In short, the concept of evolution revolves around changes in physical structures which take place over given periods of time. According to the Theory of Evolution, a source of matter brought about all the existing life forms that we see in our world today. It is maintained that all this took place stochastically through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection.

          Microevolution is the small, rapid changes within a particular animal species or a small group of living organisms. Macroevolution is the very gradual, major evolutionary transition which takes place among the different species of animals in becoming different types of organisms. The latter category of evolution has no evidence.

          The first major promoter of evolution named Charles Darwin was raised a Christian. In fact, he received seminary training. Darwin eventually became an atheist for the remainder of his life as a result of studying this naturalistic philosophy. This apostatizing process was not immediate, but took place gradually. The Theory of Evolution is now taught as a proven fact by many in the secular world, which stands in stark contrast to the creation narrative recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis. Even Darwin recognized that people would make objections to his novel scientific proposals:

           "...why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not nature all in confusion, instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?" (The Origin of Species)

          One factor that has made it especially difficult for me to accept the validity of macroevolution is that it cannot be verified using the scientific method. We have never seen life forms reproduce different life forms. In other words, all life forms produce after their own kind. Thus, the life reproduction pattern laid out by the Book of Genesis is more consistent with the modern scientific realm than evolution. Transitions between basic features in organisms are also rendered impossible by the fact that other vital functions would simultaneously be disabled. Yet, prominent biologist Richard Dawkins made this ridiculous statement during an interview with Bill Moyers:

          "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening."

          Consider this excerpt from Associate Professor of Biochemistry Douglas L. Theobald, who is definitely not sympathetic to supernatural worldviews:

           "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, 7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope 1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15."

          Biochemists D.E. Green and R.W. Goldberger said the following in their book Molecular Insights into the Living Process, p. 407 (cited in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, contributor Garret Vanderkooi, p. 57):

           "The macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture."

          A commonly accepted postulate by atheistic defenders of evolution in regards to how the universe began is the Big Bang Theory, which is a problem in itself for atheistic worldviews because of its theistic underpinnings. It is simply contrary to reason to suggest that something can originate from nothing. Living matter cannot originate from non-living matter and chemicals. Nothing cannot be the cause of a cosmic explosion. It is a fact that the Theory of Evolution cannot account for the origin of life. It is more reasonable by an infinite margin to believe that God created all things ex nihilo. Consider the following excerpt:

           "It is a physical and mathematical impossibility for matter to create itself from nothing as in the 'Big Bang' theory; the universe cannot be eternal because this violates several scientific laws such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which teach that the universe had to have a beginning, is slowly running down (or running out of energy), and that, left to its own, will one day become lifeless and inert. Creation scientists argue it is more logical that the universe was created by God than by nothing, because 'out of nothing, nothing comes.' To ascribe absolute power to nothing is to engage in myth-making and magic, not science." (Creation VS. Evolution What You Need To Know Quick Reference Guide, John Ankerberg and John Weldon)

           Genetic mutations are very rare, and are generally harmful. Changes can be made, but new genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code (which is what is required for evolution to work). Moreover, there is no agreed upon explanatory mechanism for evolution. Our DNA is intelligent information, which points to an intelligent designer. Interestingly enough, we have discovered soft dinosaur tissue. How did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species? Did some mysterious organism that had both pairs of genitalia have intercourse with itself? How did our essential organs (heart, lungs, stomach, etc.) develop in the first place? Why is it that some creatures supposedly evolved to a certain state of complexity over millions of years just to cease in the process since (we have found snakes and spiders that are dated back millions of years that are the same today as they were back then)? Can anybody tell us how language developed and proliferated?

            If the Theory of Evolution has so much evidence backing it up, then why are critics so harshly assaulted with ad hominem attacks? Academics who question particular features of Darwinism are at risk of having their careers terminated and reputations destroyed. How does one account for the times when proponents of Darwinism made forgeries? Examples would include Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor. How does one account for the fact that humans have characteristics that provide no advantages for survival such as music and religion? Where did our emotions come from? Why do living organisms have symmetry? Where did all the elements originate? When and where did compounds come into being? Many compounds must have came into existence as compounds because interaction between elements is relatively scarce. Which elements and compounds were included in the primordial soup? Where did gravity and energy come from? Where did life begin? When did the laws of physics come into being? How could the precise, natural process of blood clotting arise from blind, unguided chance? Is it reasonable to believe that the 37.2 trillion cells in our bodies are products of mindless evolution (one cell alone contains several volumes of intelligent information)? These are only a few of the countless questions that render Darwinism inadequate as a scientific postulate.

            One cannot simply have objective, reliable truths and laws in a philosophy of life which maintains that everything is merely a product of mindless and unguided chance. The overall design and complexity of our universe cannot simply be accounted for in an atheistic evolutionary worldview:

            "No rational person looking at Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper would suggest that this masterpiece came into being through blind chance. Incredibly, however, many blindly believe that chance operating through natural processes can account for the masterful precision and design of the universe in which we live. The eye, the egg, and the earth are but three examples of organized complexity that can not be accounted for apart from the existence of an omniscient designer. As the science of statistical probability demonstrates, forming even a protein molecule by random processes is not only improbable; it is indeed impossible." (Christian Research Journal, volume 21, number 1, from 1998)

            Contrary to what supporters of evolution would readily have us believe, there is a recognizable number of reputable scientists who have rejected (or at least have problems with aspects of) Darwinism:

            "Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry; Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)" (Georgia Southern University, "NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION")

1 comment:

  1. "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening."

    That is about one of the stupidest statements ever made! If you haven't observed something while it was happening, they you haven't observed it at all!!!

    The following is from a postcard, but it sums up the whole illogical evolutionist/atheist worldview:

    1. It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing, but it is rational and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.

    2. It is ignorant and superstitious to be believe that God is eternal, but it is rational and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.

    3. God is an effect and must have a cause, but matter is the uncaused first cause.

    4. If God made everything, then who made God? Matter made everything and nothing made matter.