Thomas F. Heinze (last revised, June, 2006)
The
Big Bang 2
Scientific
laws and the Big Bang 4
The
origin of Big Bang theory 5
The
source of life 6
How
evidence is kept out of the schoolroom 8
New
evidence that God created life 10
Enzymes 10
Pathways 10
Machines 11
RNA 13
Reproduction13
Appearance
of design13
Information14
Here
is a prominent atheist who did17
Evolution17
Mutations18
Eyes21
Other
examples21
Natural
selection22
Human
Evolution24
The
Second Law of Thermodynamics25
Evolution,
ID and creationism27
Prophesy28
Present
day evidence30
Evolution
is a belief about history. It involves events that cannot be repeated or
reproduced in the laboratory, so it does not depend on science in the usual
sense of the word. Evolutionists believe that the basic categories of living
things had already evolved long before history began to be written so there
is no recorded observational evidence that any basic kind of animal evolved
from another. The idea that all of them did is a purely faith based belief
system. In spite of the facts I frequently read: “Evolution is science
and should be taught in science classes. Creationism and intelligent design
are religion and have no place in the science class.” You have probably
read or heard it too. It’s repeated like a mantra in the media, in lawsuits
against schools, and in materials that promote evolution. According to
my dictionary the principle definition of religion is, “a set of beliefs
concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,” so while evolution
fits the definition of a religion it is not science in the sense that chemistry
and physics are science.
Michael
Ruse, a well known evolutionist, scientist, and defender of evolution wrote,
“My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists,
and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion,
but rather between two religions.” { Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation
Struggle, 2005, p. 287, as quoted by Henry M. Morris in ICR’sBack
to Genesis, Feb. 2006}
To
be scientific an experiment must be repeatable, and a concept must be testable.
Evolutionists believe the process that developed the different forms of
life took millions of years; far to slow to demonstrate in the lab. Creationists,
on the other hand, believe God created certain basic types of animals as
a one time event. One way of checking out beliefs about science is by whether
or not predictions, based on them pan out. Predictions can, and have been
made of what we should find if living things were formed by one or the
other method, and we will examine these.
While
evolution fits the definition of a religion, it includes many scientific
elements. Is it more religious or scientific?To
determine which aspect is the most important, we will trace what happens
when the two aspects clash.
The
Big Bang
Let’s
start at what evolutionists generally consider the beginning, the Big Bang.
While the Big Bang may seem to have nothing to do with evolution, both
are important parts of the naturalistic viewpoint, so books on evolution
often include a section on the Big Bang. While
the same word, “naturalism,” also has other uses, when used in this sense,
it is the name of a philosophy that maintains that the natural world is
all that exists. It does not accept the supernatural.Naturalism
also fits the definition of a religion: “a set of beliefs about the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe.” Naturalism, in this sense of the
word maintains that the universe got here by itself, with no creation or
even direction by God. Since naturalism rejects God and Creation, it is,
in essence, atheism, the belief that there is no God.
Atheist
teachers, supported by our taxes, teach in the classrooms of public schools
and universities in a way that will bring students to follow them in doubting
that God created. While they are doing it, many of them actively attempt
to deny the simple rights of freedom of speech and religion to Christians.
As an example, as I write this they are leading schools to require that
the terms “Christmas” and “Christmas vacation” not be used. They find the
first five letters of the word Christmas offensive. In my opinion those
who try to deny Christians the right to use the word “Christ,” while they
themselves are actively teaching atheism and agnosticism are religious
hypocrites. Freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed in the constitution
which says nothing at all about freedom from being offended.
Many
evolutionary textbooks promote atheism under the name of “naturalism,”
or sometimes just “nature,” and begin teaching it in the section on the
Big Bang. Logically, the Big Bang would seem to imply a beginning, and
therefore a Creator, but those who believe in naturalism use the Big Bang
to make the Creator seem unnecessary. They claim that an explosion called
the “Big Bang” produced both the materials and the design of the universe.
They
see the Big Bang as beginning either with nothing, or with the tiniest
pinpoint of a compressed chaotic plasma: “Bam!” They see it exploding and
producing hydrogen! “Look! Evolving from the hydrogen are the other elements!
Now stars and galaxies are forming!”
Is
this reasonable? Roger Oakland asks: “Has anyone ever observed any kind
of explosion that has produced any kind of order? Do things proceed in
a natural direction from disorder to order?” {Witness to this Generation,
1998, p. 63}
He
observes:
“Our
common sense tells us no intelligent person would ever attempt to blow
up an object with the hope of obtaining another object of greater complexity,
no matter how much time was allowed. In other words, it is a plain simple
fact: explosions produce disorder out of order.” {G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland,
Larry McLean, The Evidence for Creation 1995, p. 102}
We
ask ourselves, is Oakland right that no intelligent person would ever attempt
to blow up an object with the hope of obtaining another object of greater
complexity? Do unguided explosions really produce disorder rather than
order? Yes, and there are laws of science that will help us understand
why.
Scientific
laws and the Big Bang
If
the Big Bang made everything from nothing, it would have been the ultimate
“free lunch.” It is exactly contrary to several fundamental laws of science.
Here are three examples:
•
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: More about this one later.
•Conservation
of Mass: “the amount of mass remains constant--mass is neither created
nor destroyed.”
•Conservation
of Energy: “energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot
be created or destroyed.”
The
Big Bang, as a part of the philosophy/religion of naturalism is something
from nothing for no reason! Because that contradicts these laws, many atheists
who believe in the Big Bang don’t claim that it was the origin of everything,
but that something existed before it, all squeezed into one tiny point.
Were
this true, the Big Bang would have been contrary to the laws of Cause and
Effect, and of Inertia. That tiny point of matter would have been a dud,
not a Big Bang. It would have continued as it had been before the explosion,
rather than exploding and forming the universe from which you evolved.
A few have suggested that the Big Bang blew up more like a balloon than
like an explosion. Others try to escape Big Bangs problems with science
by claiming that the laws of science must have been different then. I interpret
this to be a confession that they understand that the laws of science would
not permit what atheists believe happened. They are right! What they believe
has been completely falsified (shown to be false) by some of the most fundamental
laws of science. Instead of admitting that the idea of an explosion causing
a tiny point of chaotic plasma to produce all the elements and become an
ever more organized and huge universe has been proved false by the laws
of science, they take a mighty leap of faith that jumps over some of the
most fundamental laws of science, and over a great deal of physical evidence
as well. They believe it happened anyhow.
Understanding
that Big Bang theory clashes with important laws of science will help us
understand the authors of
The Evidence for Creation as they apply logic to the problem:
“From a logical point of view, it is difficult to accept an explosion as
the basis for all design and complexity in the universe, especially since
all the explosions ever observed have always brought about chaotic disorder.”
{G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland, Larry McLean, 1995, p. 102}
They
are speaking of unguided explosions. A good fireworks guy can set up an
explosion that looks like the American flag, but no one has ever observed
an explosion that produced order unless some one who knew how was guiding
the process. Naturalism specifically excludes a Creator and insists that
the Big Bang was unguided by any such influence. The Big Bang was exactly
the kind of explosion that according to the authors of Evidence for
Creation always brings about chaotic disorder. Are these authors right
or wrong?
I
was able to check out explosions personally when I lived in a town in southern
Italy. Every once in a while, while walking to the center of town, we would
pass a shop that had been fire bombed during the night. It happened often
enough that we never had to ask, “Oh! What happened here?” We knew someone
had not paid the protection racket. I kept track of the percentage of bombs
that made the shops more disordered and those that made them more orderly.
It was:
•100%
more disorderly
•0%
more orderly.
We
are not, however, left to depend on our own observation. History pays particular
attention to wars, and explosions are important in wars. The undirected
explosions of history were not set off to make things, but to break things.
They did not build buildings, they destroyed them. They brought disorder
out of order. If I had enlarged my samples to include all the undirected
explosions of history, the percentages would have remained the same. No
one has ever observed an undirected explosion that brought forth greater
order.
We
can’t know by direct observation whether the Big Bang increased the order
or the disorder because no one was there to see it. No one, however, who
believes that undirected explosions bring organization out of chaos does
so for historic, logical, or scientific reasons. That would be like believing
it was nice of Mr. Hitler was to drop bombs all over London during the
second world war to “improve those English buildings!”
In
spite of the fact that it is contrary to all the evidence, many people
believe that there was one explosion that did bring order out of disorder.
They don’t believe this for logical, historical or scientific reasons.
They believe the explosion of the Big Bang did the opposite of all known
explosions for another reason: It is a major doctrine of the religion of
naturalism and if they want to hold to that worldview, they are stuck with
it.
The
Big Bang foundation on which materialism and evolutionary naturalism builds
is anti scientific. Explosions do not bring order out of chaos. Therefore,
evolutionary naturalism is, from its beginning an anti scientific religious
belief. It is contrary to scientific laws, to observation, and experiment
as well as to history. Evolution uses science, but when evolutionists must
decide between science and their religion, science comes in last, along
with logic, and history.
The
Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Your
intelligent powerful God brought about order. God is a sufficient cause.
An explosion is not.
The
Bible also says: “The fool has said in His heart, There is no God” Genesis
1:1, and Psalm 14:1)
The
origin of Big Bang theory
Astronomer
Edwin Hubble for whom the telescope that orbits the earth was later named,
became the father of Big Bang theory when he wrote the book, The Observational
Approach to Cosmology in 1937. In it he stated that observations of
redshifts make it appear that the earth is at the center and that the galaxies
are flying out from it in all directions. His conclusion was just the opposite:
“But
the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all
costs.” {Observational Approach
to Cosmology, 1937, p.51} Further on He explains, “…the density of
nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions,
leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position of
course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy within the
theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, …to escape
the horror of a unique position….” {1937, p. 58-59. See also the quote
and discussion in TJ 19(3) 2005, p. 96.}
Why
was Hubble so upset that he considered it intolerable to find the earth
in a favored position in the center of the galaxy? Hubble was an atheist,
and a special position for the earth suggests that God exists and placed
the earth in a central position on purpose. Obviously, he felt that an
important prediction of atheism was that earth would not be in a favored
position. To avoid a favored position for the Earth, Hubble added an assumption:
Space must be curved in a way that does not allow the universe to have
a center. Following Hubble, the idea that there are no special places has
become a tradition.
But
what if they’re wrong about that? What if the observational evidence is
right, and we are in a special place in the universe? That would be a serious
problem for every model that begins with the opposite assumption. Astronomers
whose naturalistic religion does not recognize God, don’t even want to
consider this evidence. But a few astronomers put their reputations on
the line, and consider it anyway. {See Tifft, William G., "A Brief History
of Quantized Time," Mercury, vol. 24, is. 5, Sept. /Oct. 1995),
p. 12} Arp, another astronomer concludes his discussion: “Hence the whole
foundation of extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away."
{Arp, Halton, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science,
Apeiron, Montreal, Canada, 1999, p. 195.}
Our
conclusion? The atheistic interpretation of Big Bang theory has from its
inception been rooted in the religion of naturalism. To make it fit the
prediction based on naturalism, it ignores contrary observational data.
I
could hardly say it better than the well known atheist and evolutionist
Richard Lewontin:
“It
is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,
that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create
an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, 'Billions
and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31)
The
Big Bang is important to atheists, not because of the evidence, but because
they need a cause for the universe that does not allow a divine foot in
the door.
I
would add that neither can the laws of science get a foot in this door.
The Big Bang is contrary to the most fundamental laws of science, which
are based on the best, most consistent observational evidence. Faith in
an atheistic Big Bang is not based on science but on religion. Atheists,
naturalists, humanists, and evolutionists do not arrive at their position
because of the laws of science, but in spite of them. While they probably
have never thought it through, in practice they allow the religion of naturalism
to trump the laws of science. When science and their naturalistic religion
clash to the point that they must choose one or the other, they follow
their religion.
The
source of life
Evolutionists
generally believe that among the products eventually formed as a result
of the Big Bang, are the macromolecules of which living things are made.
They believe that undirected by any divine intelligence, these complex
chemicals eventually came into being, made a concentrated organic soup,
and then A FIRST LIVING CELL!
Amazing?
Yes! Scientific? No!
Evolutionists
believed the ingredients of living things must have been easily available
because of the predictions of the naturalistic position.
An
atheistic philosopher of science points out the prediction based on naturalism:
“If life indeed started without the help of miracles, the first organisms
must have been made of materials that were easily available.” {Iris Fry,
The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 127. See also: Holt, Biology,
Visualizing Life, 1998, p. 192, and many other older biology textbooks.}
This obvious fact puts textbook authors who oppose the Creator in a terrible
bind because, as we will see, in spite of many attempts to make students
believe otherwise, cells are made of very large molecules that will not
form in nature except when assembled by already living cells. The order
of their component parts is not determined by which chemical reactions
are most likely to happen, but by the instructions in the cell’s information.
(Predictions based on an intelligent creator have generally been that living
things would be too complex to happen without intelligent direction.)
Evolutionists
first selected protein as the originator of life because protein is composed
of amino acids, and some amino acids really can form in nature. The proteins
of living things, however, are composed of all left handed amino acids
(which don’t occur in nature), linked together one after another like links
in a chain, with no side branches. The real proteins that living things
contain never form in nature except in already living cells.
Books
promoting evolution publicize Oparin’s protinoids, bunches of amino acids
put together by heat. These were not proteins, though many books mislead
students by giving the impression that they were. Oparin’s protinoids were
not long single strands of left handed amino acids, but chaotic arrangements
of right and left handed amino acids with side branches. They are of no
use in living things.
As
it became clear that proteins do not form in nature, many textbooks abandoned
them, and chose RNA as the most important ingredient of the first cell.
It was then found that, like protein, the mega molecules of RNA used in
cells never form in nature except when made by an already living cell.
Earlier evolutionists who accepted naturally occurring protein or RNA as
the simple precursor to life did so because the because of the prediction
of evolutionary naturalism.Those
who still accept such an idea do it by a leap of pure faith that soars
above huge amounts of solid evidence to the contrary.
Evolutionists
generally still believe that a string of events set off by the Big Bang
eventually brought into being chemicals that by undirected chemical reactions
formed the “first life”. They not only see the “first life” as having been
built up from non living chemicals with no outside direction, they see
it as having popped into existence with the ability to reproduce already
in place.
They
believe life started as a single cell something like a bacterium, though
when challenged with evidence of the complexity of even the most simple
bacteria, they back peddle from the bacterium and tell me, “You just don’t
understand how simple it really was.” Since there seems to be no way something
really simple could live, this is nothing but a statement of faith. How
do they develop that faith? Both schoolbooks and the media promote it.
Here is how one issue of Popular Science put it: “The formula for
life as we know it is carbon plus water plus an energy source.” {J. Hooper,
“…Life on Mars,” Feb. 2006, p. 71} Origin of life researchers have been
trying to develop life in the laboratory since the 1950s. Even though many
of them still believe in abiogenesis, they are not complete idiots. If
all it takes were “carbon plus water plus an energy source,” they would
have succeeded in making life in the laboratory long ago.
In
1953, when Stanley Miller found that some of the simpler amino acids could
really be made by adding energy to the ingredients of amino acids, evolutionists
predicted that amino acids would get together to form proteins, and that
that was the way life had formed. The prediction was false. Amino acids
don’t get together and for proteins. In fact, one discovery after another
has added to the overwhelming evidence that life itself requires a very
intelligent creator. Some of the most stunning evidence has been discovered
very recently, but first a bit of background.
The
Principle of Biogenesis
An
important scientific principle, directly violated by the idea that a first
cell pulled itself up by its bootstraps, is the “Principle of Biogenesis:”
Life always comes from life. This principle describes the fact that living
things can not be made by non living chemicals. Living things are always
produced by other living things. It can also be stated negatively: “Spontaneous
generation does not happen.” According to all the scientific evidence,
living things are born from living things. The Principle of Biogenesis
makes this universal observation into a scientific statement.
Contrary
to this basic principle of science, atheists and many other evolutionists
believe that non-living chemicals did get together once to form the first
living cell. Many biology textbooks strongly publicize this anti scientific
dogma. On one page they explain that spontaneous generation does not happen,
and on the next they ask, “but how did the first life start?” and maintain
that the first life was the exception to the rule. Because everyone knows
that spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible and does not happen,
that term has largely been replaced by the word “abiogenesis.” The first
letter, “a,” means “not,” so the very word, “abiogenesis,” alerts us to
the fact that this theory about the way life started is contrary to the
Principle of Biogenesis.
If
abiogenesis had been a scientific theory, the fact that it is contrary
to a fundamental principle of science would have proved that it was false,
and abiogenesis would have been discarded. Since belief in abiogenesis
is not based on scientific evidence, but on religious faith, its believers
just claim the first cell was an exception to the Principle of Biogenesis
and are off on their merry way, teaching it in the public schools and universities
as they go.
Is
there evidence for abiogenesis?
When
I began to write the book How Life Began, I planned to weigh the
evidence for abiogenesis against the evidence that God created life. I
had been doing research on the book for several years, reading what school
biology books, origin of life researchers, etc. had to say about life forming
from non living chemicals when one day I realized that with all the reading
I had done, I had never come upon even a single scrap of evidence for abiogenesis.
I
had expected to find more evidence for God having created than for abiogenesis,
but I was not prepared to find that no one presented any evidence at all
for abiogenesis. Some of the books and articles that I am writing are on
creationism.org, a popular website which has a way for readers to send
me emails. Since lots of atheists read what I have written on creationism.org
and write me, I put up a request several years ago for anyone that knows
of any evidence for abiogenesis to let me know. I receive several letters
a week from people who believe deeply in naturalism, but none have given
me any evidence at all for abiogenesis.
What
I find both in their letters and in the literature, are claims like: “Wherever
there is water life occurs,” and “Living things contain amino acids which
can form in nature.” This is a bit like saying, “because iron ore occurs
in nature, SUV’s pop up spontaneously with no need for a designer.” Everyone
agrees that some of the simpler chemicals of living cells also occur elsewhere
in nature, but the huge complex megamolecules: protein, DNA, RNA that characteristic
of living cells, are found no where else, nor is the way in which these
and other ingredients of living things work together. After years of looking,
I have never received or found any serious evidence at all for abiogenesis.
If you write to tell me that I am wrong, that abiogenesis did occur, please
include evidence that a first cell formed spontaneously without a Creator,
not that something simple like amino acid or water can also form outside
of cells. Until then, I am forced to conclude that those who believe undirected
chemicals formed life do so by a leap of faith that is contrary to the
scientific Principle of Biogenesis.
Even
if, for the sake of the argument, I were to suggest that somewhere there
may be a faint scrap of evidence that might uphold abiogenesis, it is clear
that no one, or almost no one knows about it. Books that promote the idea
do it with speculation. No evidence! Therefore, even if one assumes that
somewhere a small scrap of evidence for abiogenesis exists, it is clear
that almost no one who believes in abiogenesis knows of any evidence for
it. Why then do they believe? Mostly because it is a major dogma of the
religion of naturalism! If they are to follow orthodox atheism, naturalism,
materialism or humanism or evolutionism, they almost have to believe in
abiogenesis. Therefore, encouraged by textbooks written to convince students
to accept the naturalistic viewpoint, those who choose a form of naturalism
as their religious viewpoint generally also accept abiogenesis. It comes
as a part of the package, and as such is accepted without any knowledge
at all of any supporting evidence.
At
least one court has claimed that abiogenesis is science, and that schools
cannot mandate the teaching of alternatives. That judge’s faith in abiogenesis
has no foundation in fact or in science. Some of my readers will disagree
strongly with me on this. If you are one of them, I challenge you: As you
read, search diligently for evidence for abiogenesis. Your own fruitless
search will do far more than I ever could to convince you that there is
none.
What
you will find are arguments built on speculation: “perhaps life started
this way, perhaps that way.” These statements give the gullible something
they can believe in, but for over 50 years origin of life researchers,
who are generally atheists themselves, have been trying out these suggestions
in the laboratory. By now, most of the speculations in which atheists have
placed their trust have already been tested in the lab. Zip, nada, zilch!
Living cells have never been produced by dead chemicals, nor have their
important components DNA and RNA. Scientists can put small proteins together
in the lab, but not even these happen in nature except in already living
cells.
Evolutionist
George Wald, Harvard professor and Nobel Prize winner wrote: “One has only
to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result,
I believe, of spontaneous generation.” He felt compelled by his religion
to believe something that he recognized was contrary to the scientific
evidence.
Before
you claim spontaneous generation should not be called impossible, remember
the lawsuits that follow when a school board wants its students to be able
to compare the evidence for intelligent design with that for evolution.
Clearly many atheists want censorship. They consider the availability to
students of any evidence at all against evolutionary naturalism to be an
unbearable threat to their belief system.
Are
they right? Can the evidence against evolution really be that devastating?
Yes it is, and I am one of those old fashioned people who think that students
should be able to confront the evidence for and against, rather than being
brainwashed with the religion of naturalism.
How
evidence is kept out of the schoolroom
Evolutionists
have overcome evidence for creation and intelligent design in two ways
that we need to consider.
•The
first is outright censorship. Honest presentations of the evidence for
the Creator, or against evolution, are quite effectively kept out of the
schools, making it appear that there is no evidence except that which supports
evolution.
When
it becomes known that a school is teaching evidence for creation or intelligent
design, or evidence against naturalism or against the theory of evolution,
the ACLU and like organizations threaten a lawsuit that will cost the school
much time and millions of dollars. (ACLU lawsuits are subsidized by your
tax dollars.) Usually the threat is enough. If a school does not back down,
they really do sue and sometimes win. With censorship so strictly enforced,
if anyone is to get the evidence to teachers and students we must allow
God to show us how we can do it.
•Evolutionists
also overcome the evidence by a redefinition of science that makes science
and naturalism the same thing, and the evidence unimportant. The new definition
is: “Science is the search for natural solutions,”People
whose religion is naturalism are now widely using the new definition.
When
I was growing up, science was a search for truth. It had to do with experiments
and observation that followed the evidence wherever it led. The new definition
has no interest in truth. It throws out all evidence that does not support
naturalism. No matter how strong the evidence is that God created, it is
declared not scientific, and thrown out simply because it does not support
naturalism. The new definition is not only used in textbooks and lesson
plans, but also in censorship lawsuits.
The
natural solutions definition is never applied uniformly, but only in cases
where the intelligent designer would have been God. It is particularly
used in the question of where life came from, because, as we will see:
•
There is a huge amount of evidence that indicates that God created life.
•
There seems to be no evidence at all that chemicals just got together to
make a first living cell.
•
Even if you are a firm believer in naturalism, you will not be held to
the new definition in cases where the intelligent designer would be a human
instead of God, so your science will not be questioned if you follow the
evidence and refuse to believe in a naturalistic origin for your Ford,
your wheelbarrow, or your toothpick dispenser. Otherwise, it would immediately
be clear that the new definition is ridiculous.
The
obviously strong desire of the naturalistic establishment that students
not have the chance to compare the evidence that God created with that
for a naturalistic origin of life seems to indicate that somewhere deep
down inside, atheists understand that if students were allowed to follow
the evidence, it would lead them to God.
If
you are an atheist, stop and think! You are living by faith in the impossible.
Move on!
New
evidence that God created life
Atheists
often claim that evolution is science and is right even though a few of
its problems have not yet been solved. I often read the claim that most
of evolution’s problems have been solved, and the rest will soon. This
is not true. In fact evolutionists are still trying to solve most of the
same problems they were working on when I was a schoolboy. In the area
of how life began, they have not presented a single evidence for abiogenesis
that I have been able to find. New lines of evidence that God created living
things, however, are being discovered at a surprising rate. Evolutionists,
far from getting the problems solved are slipping farther and farther behind.
Recent discoveries give strong evidence that God created, and present one
new problem after another for evolutionary naturalism.
Since
evolutionists are so successful at keeping evidence that God created from
getting a foot in the classroom door, I encourage you to learn the evidence
that follows, and get it into the hands of as many students and teachers
as you can:
Cells
don’t live long and the materials of which they are made decompose, so
cells could not exist if they had to wait around for their essential chemical
reactions to take place at their normal speeds. To solve this problem,
God made speeder-upper proteins called enzymes. They catalyze chemical
reactions, making chemicals combine (or break apart) millions of times
faster than would otherwise be the case. They also help them combine in
ways that will make exactly the right compounds for each situation.
To
do this, each enzyme must fold into a shape that will fit perfectly with
the chemical it is speeding up. Even evolutionists usually compare this
to the way a key fits into a lock. Enzymes are able to flit from one molecule
to another in a split second. An extreme case: one molecule of an enzyme
called catalase can take apart 40 million molecules of hydrogen peroxide
each second! Interestingly, most enzymes will only work with one specific
chemical reaction, so huge numbers of different enzymes are popping up
all of the time, each “key” in the right “lock.” The new enzyme does its
thing in a split second, and it’s out of there!
No
“first cell” (or any subsequent cell) could have lived without being able
to deliver many speeder upper enzymes to just the right places at just
the right times because the chemicals that cells are made of decompose
much more rapidly than the proper chemical reactions could happen without
enzymes, if the needed reactions would happen at all.
In
addition, the amino acids which link together to form proteins must all
be of the left handed variety. Those that form outside of cells are all
half right handed and half left handed, so they will not work in living
things. Not only that, when all are left handed, they tend to gradually
return to half and half. Spontaneously, one here and one there, they flip!
No way is known by which all left handed amino acids could have accumulated
to make up the proteins of the theoretical first cell, but had there been
an initial supply, without enzymes to speed the chemical reactions, many
of the left handed amino acids would have become right handed before the
needed reactions could take place. That is one reason we know that no cell
could ever have formed by the random action of unguided chemicals. Many
people whose worldview requires them to believe that a first cell did,
in fact, form by slow random chemical reactions consider evidence like
this an embarrassment that should be kept from the eyes of weak vulnerable
students and teachers.
Let’s
embarrass them!
Pathways
Cells
use many big complex chemicals that cannot be formed by just mixing the
right elements together. Making these materials from the nutrients that
enter a cell usually takes a number of steps which must be taken in a particular
order called a “pathway.”
A
simplified example makes the process easy to understand: We will call a
chemical the cell needs “ABCD” because its elements must be put together
in that order. If you just mix them, A will react with D or C so ABCD cannot
be made. To form ABCD, a helper chemical called an enzyme must first attach
A to B, making AB. Then C becomes available and another enzyme attaches
AB to C making ABC. After that, D becomes available, and a third catalyst
attaches D to ABC, making ABCD.
Many
pathways have eight or ten steps that must be taken one after another in
the proper order, helped at each step by by the proper catalyst. For a
cell to live, it must have many different chemicals, each doing its part
of the cell’s work. The only known way for many of the chemicals in cells
to build up is if each one follows its own unique pathway. None of the
chemicals that can only be built up following a specific complex pathway
can come about by lucky accidents. The evidence indicates that no cell
could live unless many chemicals which will only form by following pathways
are present and functioning at the same time. If we simply follow the evidence,
it brings us to conclude that the information that directs the building
of these chemicals was provided by a very intelligent God who knows a lot
about chemistry. Obviously, the “prediction” of evolutionists before pathways
and enzymes were understood was that slow random normal chemical reactions
would have explained the first life.
People
whose religion is evolutionary naturalism see the “first life” as a single
cell something like a bacterium built up by accident from non living chemicals
with the ability to reproduce already in place. They feel that from that
first cell eventually evolved the human brain, estimated to contain 10
trillion nerve cells, and so wonderfully coordinated that you can ponder
what I am saying even if it may still seem strange to you that I don’t
agree with the atheistic indoctrination provided by so many of the public
schools and universities. Perhaps the next section will make my viewpoint
more compelling.
Machines
Tiny
machines do much of the work of every cell. They are called “molecular
machines,” or “molecular motors.” Even tiny one-celled creatures must have
some of these machines if they are to live. The one that has been known
long enough so you have probably heard of it works like a tiny boat motor,
driving a microscopic one celled animal through the water.
Every
machine known is a product of intelligent design. Did you ever see a train
or even a simple wheelbarrow that was not made by somebody? Cells have
some machines that do jobs similar to the jobs of trains and wheelbarrows.
They transport things from one part of the cell to another. Lets look at
a few easy to understand examples of machines cells must have to live.
Even
“simple” cells have a covering that encloses them. Otherwise they would
just be loose goo dissolving into the water. There’s a problem: The membranes
that hold cells together let in water, but keep nutrients out. For a
cell to live, its membrane must contain little pumps that are molecular
machines made of proteins. Some recognize and selectively pass nutrients
in. Others pass wastes out. Unless both the machines that pass nutrients
in and those that pass the wastes out are present and functioning, no cell
can live.
Show
an atheist a simple mortar and pestle made by people living in primitive
conditions, and he will immediately recognize that they were produced by
intelligent beings to work together. The pumps are made of several specific
protein parts, specially folded to work together.
Like
these examples, there are many machines that are absolutely necessary.
No cell could live if a certain number of them were not present, designed
properly, and functioning. This is a fundamental problem to evolutionary
naturalism: Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex
organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” {Origin of
species, 1872, New York University Press, sixth edition, p 154 as quoted
in Reason and Revelation, Sept. 2005} None of us have ever seen
any machine just build up by accidental slight modifications without a
designer. Many people, however, have been taught to have so much faith
in naturalism that they believe that the machines in cells did gradually
build up by slight undirected modifications. Were it possible for this
to happen, it would not have helped a “first cell” because not one, but
many machines must be on line and working at the same time for a cell to
live.
What’s
more, the materials of which cells are made do not last long after they
are made. If even one of the machines a cell could not live without happened
to finish building up by numerous, successive, slight modifications a day
later than the others that were also essential for the life of the cell,
the cell would already be dead. Too late or too early and the cell would
have been dead meat. Faith that all these machines came on line with no
one directing the process at close enough to the same moment for a first
cell to live is more blind faith than should have to be asked of an Atheist.
All
of us have seen many machines, and none of us has ever seen any machine
that built itself by successive slight modifications undirected by a designer/builder.This
makes it obvious that those who believe the machines in cells built up
by undirected successive slight modifications did were not influenced by
the evidence. A leap of faith taken not because of the evidence but in
spite of it brought them to believe that all the machines necessary for
a cell to live came about by successive slight modifications. What brings
them to take that leap of faith? Many atheists have such a strong commitment
to their religion of naturalism that once they have taken that step of
commitment, they are willing to accept, more or less without question,
all of the sub doctrines that are included.
Strong
evidence indicates that a very intelligent designer created even the simplest
living beings. It was our loving Creator.
Machines
make proteins
Evolution
could not begin before life and reproduction, but since schoolbooks package
abiogenesis and evolution together, atheists and many other evolutionists
have faith that naturally occurring chemicals came together accidentally
to form the first cell. For years they believed in the spontaneous formation
of proteins from amino acids as the cause of the first cell. However, proteins
never form in nature outside of already living cells, partly because each
amino acid must be linked in the right order, one behind another to form
a chain with no side branches. {See my books How Life Began and
The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution for details and references.}
Proteins,
however, abound! Where do they come from? They are made in living cells
by molecular machines. In every cell, a number of RNA and protein molecules
fit together to form the machines that make proteins. They line up left
handed amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, in the proper order
and link them together one behind another like links in a chain. Most proteins
have from 50 to a few thousand amino acids, each chosen from 20 different
varieties. The machine links them together one after another in the order
specified by information in the cell's DNA, an order that is different
for each protein.
At
the end of each new protein, an address label is slapped on, and the new
protein is shipped off to the one place designed for it. During the trip,
each protein is folded so that when it arrives, it will fit with the other
molecules with which it must work. The folding process is so complex that
IBM built Blue Gene, at that time the world’s most powerful super computer,
in an attempt to help scientists understand how proteins fold to fit so
that they can work together. {http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/press_release.html}
No molecular machine will function if its proteins are not addressed so
they will come to the right place, and folded to fit. Errors not only make
a machine useless, but will usually cause a genetic disease. Proteins are
the main ingredients of cells and the main parts of most of their machines,
so no cell could exist without the machines that make its proteins.
Protein
making must be carefully regulated. Otherwise, the machines would make
too many of one kind of protein; an easy one for example, and not enough
of another. Lack of regulation would kill the cell, so protein making
had to be intelligently regulated from the very first.
One
type of protein regulation uses specific stretches of DNA called regulatory
DNA sequences. The DNA, however, cannot turn protein production on or off
by itself. Each regulatory DNA sequence works with a specific protein which
folds perfectly to fit the correct spot on the DNA and work with it. DNA
and protein working together form a machine that regulates the production
of a protein, a switch that turns its gene on and off at the right times.
No cell could exist without both the machines that regulate the production
of its proteins and the information that lets them know when to turn production
on and off. Because the contrary belief put forth by atheists and evolutionists
requires faith that many chemically impossible steps did indeed happen,
any worldview that depends on it is a false religion.
RNA
When
the fact that proteins won’t form in nature outside of already living cells
became well known, most whose religion was naturalism easily abandoned
their faith that proteins had come together to form life. With no evidence
that RNA could form outside of already living cells, they switched without
apparent discomfort from faith in the spontaneous formation of proteins
to faith in the spontaneous formation of RNA as the producer of the first
cell. Most of the older evolutionists who are reading this have made that
switch themselves.
RNA
has proven to be a most unfortunate choice. It not only won’t form spontaneously
in nature, scientists can’t even make it in the laboratory. Not even the
ribosome building blocks from which RNA is largely formed, will form outside
of already living cells.
Neither
will real RNA do the things evolutionists believe the imaginary “primitive
RNA” must have done. If it really could do them, why would it then invent
proteins and pass the job off to them? If the choice were determined by
natural selection, would it not be more scientific to believe that natural
selection would have chosen for better and better RNA? {To verify these
statements with references, check the quotes from evolutionist scientists
with their references in my books, How Life Began, p. 63-85; The
Vanishing Proofs of Evolution, p. 72-82}
The
religion of naturalism has been constructed on a foundation of false science.
If you are one who believes it, why not abandon RNA in favor of God, our
Creator like you abandoned proteins in favor of RNA?
Reproduction
Another
scientific evidence that a first cell could not have been generated spontaneously
without a Creator is that each cell must have a way to reproduce. If “the
first cell” did not have this ability already fully functional, there would
have been no second cell, and without a second cell, no more life, no natural
selection, no evolution! Since natural selection could not have been a
help until after reproduction was already taking place, the evolutionists
only hope up to this point is his faith that the Big Bang, unlike every
known explosion, was building order out of chaos, an ordering process that
continued through billions of years to build an ever greater order out
of a very small chaos.
In
reproduction, one copy of a cell's DNA is passed on to its offspring. This
is not easy because the DNA is long, thin, and its two strands are tightly
twisted together like the strands of a rope. The DNA strands must be untwisted
if it is to divide and give one of its strands to its offspring. How does
it get one strand separated from the other? Among the machines necessary
for reproduction are DNA unwinding machines. Without unwinding machines,
regulatory machines, protein making machines, and pumps all present and
working at the same time, no “first cell” could have produced a second
cell.” What produced them, built the necessary information into them
and made everything work together?
Appearance
of design
The
fact that every known machine is a product of intelligent design, and many
machines would have to have been present from the very first is powerful
evidence for an intelligent designer/creator. The evidence is so overwhelming
that even many who believe in evolutionary materialism admit that cells
appear to have been designed. They just have faith that they were not designed.
Even the most militant atheists occasionally admit that cells appear to
have been designed. Here is a quote by the famous anti creationist atheist
scientist Richard Dawkins:
“Biology
is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having
been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins,” {The Blind
Watchmaker, 1988. p. 1.}
I
agree with Him, both that the evidence really does make it appear that
things were designed for a purpose, and that much of the biology that is
taught today is man’s attempt to get around the evidence. The atheist has
as his ultimate criterion the religion of naturalism. The evidence must
be reinterpreted in a way that is consistent with naturalism rather than
accepting the normal explanation of the evidence. The atheist is attempting
to convince himself and others that evidence which taken at face value
indicates a Creator, must not be taken at face value. Think it through.
It will give you a glimpse into the dark realm of the power of the atheist’s
religion over science.
Information
The
information in cells is information with meaning. Like a complex instruction
book, it guides cells in producing widely diverse materials and machines,
many of which are far beyond the ability of today’s best scientists to
even understand. There is a level of meaningful information that comes
only from minds. It is never produced by matter or energy. Many scientists
consider meaningful information to be unfailing evidence of an intelligent
creator:
•When
an archeologist digs up an ancient book, he knows someone wrote it.
•The
science of cryptography depends on the ability to distinguish between random
code and meaningful messages. If a terrorist receives directions for building
an atom bomb in a suitcase, written in a secret code, he can be certain
the message came from an intelligent source.
•The
SETI Institute uses huge radio telescopes to search for extraterrestrial
intelligence. SETI scientists know that if they ever find an intelligent
message coming from space, it will prove that there are intelligent beings
out there! Meaningful messages are a sure indication of an intelligent
source.
The
DNA of the simplest bacterium contains huge amounts of complex meaningful
information! A tiny fraction of that amount of information coming from
space would convince the SETI scientists there were little green men out
there somewhere.
A
tourist who knows various languages can ask, "Where is the Bathroom?" in
English, Spanish, Chinese, etc. The message does not depend on the language
in which it is written. It is the same even if every letter in every word
of “Where is the bathroom?” in Spanish is different than the letters and
words in Chinese. When I speak of meaningful, translatable information,
I am purposely narrowing the definition, making the kind of information
I am talking about very specific. I must do this, because one person claims
ripples in the sand are information, and another claims sunbeams. By making
these claims, they have not discovered a clever way to invalidate my thesis,
they have just changed the subject. The same evolutionists who deny that
higher levels of information exist send their kids to the best schools
they can afford. If they really believe what they email me about information,
they would just buy the kid a puppy and have him listen to it bark!
DNA
shares a characteristic with telegraph, radio, television, computers and
paper. The material the information is written on does not dictate the
message. Like paper, the same DNA, can carry one message or another.
Where
did the information in DNA come from? Some atheists claim that the information
in DNA must have evolved from matter or energy. Others claim that it arises
from the chemical properties of the material that carries it. A look at
information traveling through a computer should help get us all on the
same track.
If
I download
from the internet
our old question, “Where
is the bathroom?” it
comes into my laptop through a modem with a little transmitter that sends
it to my computer by a wireless connection. It can enter my laptop in any
language. Once inside my computer, the question is no longer written in
letters with ink on paper, but has been translated into a two-letter code
called zeros and ones. Because the kind of information I am talking about
can be coded, it could also have been sent by an old fashioned telegraph.
The message is now in my computer’s memory. I save it to my hard drive,
and back it up on CDs or DVDs along with my other files. When I print it
out, the question moves in the form of some sort of electrical signals
through the wire that goes to the printer where it again becomes ink on
paper. The meaning of the message did not originate from the CD, the hard
drive or the paper in the printer. A new computer with nothing on it yet,
if taken off the production line and stored in a museum for 1000 years
will never think up any information. It has to get into the computer from
somewhere.
Our
question, “Where is the bathroom?” is not only the same no matter what
language it happens to be written in, but also no matter which material
is carrying it at any given moment. We can trace it from the paper that
comes out of my printer, all the way back through each step along the way,
to its place of origin: A MIND!
Intelligent
messages are not composed by hard drives, wires, the airways they pass
through, or even by the current that powers them. They are different than
these things, and have a different source. They are information!
A
message is coded into DNA using the DNA equivalent of letters, words, and
language. Like a hard drive, DNA warehouses and recalls huge amounts of
information. DNA, however, stores it in the smallest space possible, much
smaller than men have ever been able to invent. {See my book How Life
Began, page 104-108 for interesting details.}
The
messages of DNA, like the tourist’s question, are real messages that can
be translated from the language of DNA into other languages. DNA instructions
are, in fact, normally translated into the somewhat different language
of the RNA that carries the message from the DNA to the tiny machines that
construct the cell’s proteins. The messages of DNA have even been translated
into computer language, printed out, and read by scientists!
Another
fact comes as a terrible blow to those evolutionists who insist that the
information in DNA is determined by the chemical structure of the DNA molecule:
People who know how, can write whatever information they want to in DNA. High
school student Viviana Risca won a $100,000 scholarship from the Intel
Science Talent Search for writing the words: "JUNE 6 INVASION: NORMANDY."
Why the prize? She wrote them in DNA, using its chemical code! {Gungan
Singha, Popular Science, June 2000, p. 83.} The same message that
another person can scribble on a napkin, Viviana Risca and genetic engineers
have learned to "write" in DNA.
DNA
itself does not make any of the proteins or other substances a cell needs.
It calls up messages from its storage and sends them by RNA messenger service
to other parts of the cell that follow the instructions to do the actual
work. DNA information for making proteins is routinely translated into
RNA which carries each set of instructions to the machine that will make
that protein. There the instructions are carried out: In most cases from
50 to 1000 left handed only amino acids are lined up in order, each amino
acid in the right position to make that particular protein. The machine
then links the amino acids together in a long chain with no side branches.
Are you beginning to see why no real proteins are ever formed in nature
except by cells?
If
you are an atheist, you can run, but you can’t hide! The information that
comes from your telephone, computer, or your DNA, was not a mindless accident.
The fact that the DNA of even the most “primitive” one-celled animals
is crammed with complex meaningful, translatable information without which
no cell could live is irrefutable evidence that our intelligent God created
the information that makes life possible.
Deal
with it!
Here
is a prominent atheist who did
At
the end of 2004, the newspapers called Antony Flew, a British professor
who taught at Oxford and other leading universities, one of the world’s
most influential atheists. The big news was his announcement that recent
scientific discoveries had convinced him that a God exists. Flew said that
investigation of DNA: “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity
of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence
must have been involved”. {The Sunday Times - Britain, December 12, 2004
} He also said that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for
"the first emergence of living from non-living matter"—that is, the origin
of life. He added that even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow
assembled itself from non-living chemicals, it would have had no ability
to reproduce.
The
fact that exposure to the evidence convinced even a long time atheist like
Flew, makes it easy to understand the desperate fight to keep all evidence
for our Creator out of the textbooks. School districts, which have wanted
to include even the simple statement that evolution is a theory, have been
hit by expensive, and sometimes successful, lawsuits claiming that evolution
is science, and that these school districts were trying to bring religion
into the public schools. Actually they were trying to keep the religion
of naturalism from being taught to their students exclusively, as if it
were the official approved religion of public schools and universities.
I can think of no example in American history where censorship has been
more effective than in keeping scientific evidence for creation out of
the schools.
Evolution
When
Darwin left on his world changing voyage, he took with him Lyell’s, Principles
of Geology which he read during the voyage. Lyell changed Darwin, who
then changed the world. Lyell followed a few earlier geologists in protesting
against catastrophism, the idea that most sediments had been laid down
in catastrophic floods which could have laid down a lot of sediment in
a short time. The main reason for the protest was to get rid of the Biblical
flood. His science was greatly motivated by his reaction against religion.
Lyell claimed that there had been no large floods or other rapid changes
in the earth’s features. Erosion and deposition had always been the very
slow processes usual today, therefore the earth was very old. Darwin had
found that the millions or billions of years needed for the small changes
he observed to produce the animals and plants around us today. Most Geologists
also accepted Lyell’s ideas including rejecting the Biblical flood.
While
most geologists today still have faith that the earth is very old, the
majority have been convinced by a huge amount of evidence that much erosion
and deposition did take place somewhat rapidly caused by water. While they
don’t accept the Genesis flood, they eventually came to accept the Missoula
flood which earlier geologists that followed Lyell rejected. They still
accept the same long ages as before, so the addition of a good number of
rapidly acting floods has left them with many extra years that don’t show
up in earth’s strata. They resolve this by placing millions of years between
one layer and another. Often, they put time into places that give evidence
of some time having passed, but sometimes they claim that millions of years
passed between layers which look like they were laid down one layer right
on top of another with no erosion between layers.
Moving
on from chemicals and geology to living things, we must now consider evolution.
Hopefully you agree with me that naturalism is not science but religion.
How about evolution? While most evolutionists would heatedly deny that
evolution is a religion, a few are more honest: Michael Ruse, an outstanding
evolutionist, and one of the few remaining who is not afraid to debate
creation/evolution with knowledgeable creationists wrote:
“In
particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious
responses to crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments
about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above
all what theologians call rival escatologies—pictures of the future and
of what lies ahead for humankind.” {Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation
Struggle, 2005, P. 3, as quoted in ICR’s Back to Genesis, Feb. 2006,
article by Henry M. Morris.}
Mutations
In
addition to being unable to account for the great amounts of meaningful
information that would have to have been present for even the simplest
cell to live, evolutionists have no satisfactory explanation for
the huge amounts of additional information which would have been required
to build up all those organs that exist in animals today that one celled
animals do not have. Their claim is that this information was produced
gradually from copying errors called mutations made while passing the genetic
information from the DNA of parents to offspring.
A
new organ, even a simple fin or finger, when none had existed, would require
coordinated changes in bone, tendon, muscle, blood vessels, and nerves.
If even one essential part were lacking, the others would be useless. Even
if a copying error could add a new gene containing newinformation,
trusting it to add genes commanding the construction of all the different
types of tissue needed to build a new organ would require more gullibility
than faith.
In
addition, in all of our experience, copying errors make things worse, not
better. The Encyclopedia Britannica compares the number of helpful mutations
to the number of harmful mutations it this way: “Most mutations, however,
turn out to be deleterious and often lead to some impairment or to death
of the organism. To illustrate, it is unlikely that one can improve the
functioning of a finely crafted watch by dropping it from a tall building.
The watch may run better, but this is highly improbable. Organisms are
so much more finely crafted than the finest watch that any random change
is even more likely to be deleterious.” {Life, Encyclopedia Britannica
2002”}
Most
evolutionists have irrational faith to believe that this statement is false,
even though the very examples they use to bring people to faith in evolution
show that it is true:
Eyes
Many
textbooks promoting evolution teach us that eyes gradually evolved from
dark spots on the skin. They support this statement with an example: Fish
that live for many generations in dark caves lose their eyesight. Making
fish go blind is the kind of thing that copying errors such as mutations
might do, but huge numbers of textbooks seem blind to the fact that fish
going blind are not examples of eyes being formed, but being lost. Those
who teach this are actually providing an example of the blind leading the
blind.
The
argument that the eye evolved from spots on the skin is deceptive for another
reason as well. The most perfect fossilized eye lenses are found on fossils
evolutionists date the oldest, the “trilobites,” index fossils of the Cambrian
period! Atheistic evolutionist paleontologist Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History marvels:
'…
We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history
of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics
has ever been able to formulate.’ {Quoted from Reason and Revelation,
Apologetics Press, Oct. 03 which quotes from Ellis, Richard (2001), Aquagenesis
(New York: Viking)”}
If
there is even one public school or college level textbook promoting evolution
to our young people that tells the truth about trilobite lenses I have
never found it! They could not build faith in evolutionary speculation
if they let the students know that according to evolutionary dating, the
best lenses ever formed were the earliest, and were already in existence
before the dark spots on the skin. Building faith in evolutionary naturalism
in slippery ways may lead to a fall if the truth gets out. Help me get
it out!
Other
examples
A
mutation that causes short defective legs in sheep is also frequently used
to support evolution. A huge amount of new information would be necessary
to evolve sheep from fish, and evolutionists don’t have evidence for up
hill mutations that progress from a lower to a higher level of genetic
information. However, mutations that make things worse abound, so while
evolutionists say mutations (accidental copying errors) produced all organs
now in existence that the first single cell did not have, the examples
they show us go backwards: Sheep with good legs become sheep with defective
legs.
I
admit that evolutionists also illustrate with trivial horizontal changes
that may or may not have been caused by mutations. Light colored moths
adapting to a smoked up environment by a shift to a darker color that predators
can’t see as well are an example. While not a downhill illustration, neither
do examples like this show moths becoming birds, or adding new, more complex
organs. The idea that mutations add complexity and form new organs is an
important dogma of the religion of evolutionary naturalism that is accepted
by faith and illustrated by examples of down hill or horizontal changes.
Had
random mutations really added all the genetic information needed to create
every organ, evolutionists should be able to overwhelm us with huge numbers
of examples of mutations that have been caught adding complex new features.
Instead,
whenever I point this out, evolutionists respond with the example of a
mutation that causes an often fatal genetic disease called sickle cell
anemia. This mutation causes a malformation of the red corpuscles that
diminishes their ability to carry oxygen. This example is claimed to show
upward evolution because the sickle cell mutation has a side effect: It
also confers resistance to malaria. The side effect really is a help where
malaria carrying mosquitoes exist, but it is a side effect to a deadly
genetic disease, and adds no part to any of the millions of complex organs
which evolution is claimed to explain, so it is not at allthe
kind of mutation evolutionists need to demonstrate. It is a down hill illustration.
It goes backward. It deforms the very efficient oxygen carrying shape of
normal red corpuscles into an inefficient sickle like shape that causes
an often fatal anemia.
Some
evolutionists, particularly among the scientists admit that mutations are
mostly bad. The famous atheist Richard Dawkins said:
“There's
nothing very inventive or ingenious about those novelties, I mean they
are random. And they mostly are deleterious - most mutations are bad. {
Richard Dawkins, on Jonathan Miller's "Brief History of Disbelief" BBC
Two, Monday 14th November, 7-8 pm, originally broadcast October 2004, BBC4,
as quoted by John MackayEVIDENCE
NEWSNo. 17, 23rd November, AD2005.}
Compare
random accidental genetic changes to living things to random accidental
changes to parts on an automobile assembly line. A cat stepping on the
keyboard that programs the assembly line for examplecould
make some real changes to the car. Could it, however, produce the kind
of accidental changes to Ford’s original assembly line that would give
a car electronic ignition, self sealing tires and air bags?
Neither
is there any way in which mutations could add code to the DNA that would
result in whole new types of organs, change a bacteria into a biologist,
or a fish into a monkey. As Gould and other evolutionists have demonstrated,
the fossils don’t show that such changes have taken place. {See my book
The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution, chapters 4 and 7 for details
and documentation}
The
religion of the evolutionist is based on faith in an idea that is false,
so it is a false religion.
Natural
selection
We
all know the prediction of evolution regarding natural selection. From
the time of Darwin, evolutionists have claimed that natural selection was
lifting organisms to ever higher levels. Many modern evolutionists attribute
almost godlike creative abilities to it. However, it could do nothing until
the first living thing existed and had produced the first offspring. Even
then, natural selection could not have transformed simple cells into fish,
monkeys and me.
Natural
selection is simple! Individuals that do not do well in an environment
die out. Natural selection really is able to weed out certain genes, because
when an individual is weeded out, all his genes die with him. Weeding out
unfit individuals adds no new genetic material, but it can eliminate some
of what already exists.
Keeping
in mind the fact that natural selection selects by eliminating genes carried
by the less fit, ask yourself: “Which genes in single celled animals can
you eliminate to produce people, cats, or elephants?” The obvious answer
is: “starting with a first bacteria like life form, no amount of elimination
will produce hands, eyes, the trunk of an elephant, or the sonar of a bat.”
It
gets worse! If a mutation were able to produce the bones, joints, etc.
of even a perfect finger (or whatever) when there no fingers existed before,
it would have been useless until other mutations produced a blood supply,
nerves, muscles and tendons. An individual with useless bones sticking
out would be less fit than one without them, so natural selection would
weed her out. That is what natural selection does. The result is that useless
partly formed organs don’t hang around for millions of years waiting for
helpful mutations to produce the other parts necessary to make a useful
organ.
New
Evidence for Human Evolution
A
long scientific sounding article had the honor of a place on the front
page of the March 7, 2006 New York Times because it began: “Providing the
strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have
detected…”
What
was this great new evidence? Had new organs evolved? No. Had they seen
a new species evolve? No.