Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution

Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:42 pm



‘Selection, whether it be natural or by man, results in loss of genetic information—breeding discards genes for crooked trunks or low wood production in forestry trees. So selection causes a reduction in the genetic information in the gene pool. In natural selection, if dark moths are “selectedâ€?naturally and light moths die out, then we have a reduction in the genetic information as to the colour of moths. The theory of evolution needs increases in genetic information, but selection (natural or man-induced) results in reduction of genetic information. If evolution were true, then the microbe from which we are all supposed to have evolved must have had an incredibly complex gene pool as it would have to have contained all the genes of every subsequent species, from which all species have evolved by natural selection as the gene pool is reduced. This doesn’t make sense because a living organism with that degree of genetic complexity would hardly be a microbe! Couple this with the fact that mutations cannot create complex genes for new functions (needing new information) and are usually detrimental to the survival or features of an organism, and then the whole argument of evolution doesn’t stand up. Creation makes much more sense.

Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution

By Steven E. Dill, D.V.M.

Copyright 1995, 1998 by Steven E. Dill)

It has been said that fossils provide the only historical evidence for evolution. This explains the evolutionists' fascination with fossils.

However, the fossil record contradicts evolution!

   Every time you turn around, it seems like some evolutionist somewhere is digging up new fossils and making wild claims about proving evolution.   Unfortunately for the evolutionist, this dependence on fossils puts them in a very difficult position.  You see, if the fossil record fails to substantiate evolution, then it means that evolution was not a historical event.  This, in turn would mean that the evolutionists are wrong, and the fossil record has clearly ruined evolution.

   Just the same, the fossil record has not failed science. Rather, the fossil record has confirmed science.  Biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, mathematics, etc., all say that evolution can't happen.  The fossil record confirms this by proving that evolution didn't happen.  It is the Theory of Evolution that fossils fail to prove, not science.  (Which means, of course, that the Theory of Evolution is NOT science.)

   There is no fossil evidence to support the theory that life emerged from nonliving chemicals, or that life gradually underwent a series of changes until new and different species were formed.

Now, I would guess, you would want me to support my statement?

   The following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum Leap Into the New Age. (1*)  This video contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous.   This answer was based on their definition of "transitional."  To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved from, and what it evolved into later.  After these claims were made, they were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly showing themselves to be between species.  This is the creationists' definition of "transitional."   When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none.   Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support from the geologic record.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum:

1. "There are myriad transitional forms.  There's really no problem finding transitional forms."

versus his statement of:

2. "One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts.  It doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."

Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology, UCSB:

1. "In fact there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other."

versus his statement of:

2. "The problem of transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete.  It's incomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away."

Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:

(commenting on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)

1. "We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought not all that many years ago.  And creationism was overthrown in the scientific community by evolutionary thinking."

versus his statement of:

2. "Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."

   The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there aren't transitional fossils.  Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional fossils.  Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution.  Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms.  Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.

   "I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

   'I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it.… I will lay it on the line.  There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.'"

In case you happened to skim over that and missed it, I'm going to repeat this direct quote from Dr. Patterson.


   This admission has caused Dr. Patterson some grief from some of his fellow evolutionists.  Some even said he shouldn't say things that creationists might use.  Truthfully, Dr. Colin Patterson's name has come up several times in my readings.  I am impressed with his honesty and openness. I understand he believes in evolution, and I respect him for his sincerity. I think he is deceived by evolution, but unlike some evolutionists, as well as some creationists, Dr. Patterson does not impress me as the kind who would stoop to lies, half-truths, and tricks.  Such honesty deserves mention.  There's no reason he, or any scientist, should have to feel uncomfortable in expressing the truth.  To that end, I will show that Dr. Patterson and these others aren't alone in their admission that the fossil record lacks transitional (interspecies) forms.  Before evolutionists criticize Dr. Patterson, they should hear what other knowledgeable scientists say.

   Before we do that, however, let's look at what we should see in the fossil record if Darwinian evolution is true.  Classic evolution theory says that species gradually developed from previous species.  In fact, the process was so slow, it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly when a new species emerged.  Each generation would possess infinitesimal differences from the previous generation.   Only after several thousands, or even millions of generations, would one be able to recognize species differences.  This is much like looking at a motion picture.   Each frame captures a split second of time.  If you look at each frame one at a time, it would be hard to recognize movement.  There isn't much change between frames.  Only if you look at the frames in rapid succession do you see motion.   This is what classical evolution says we should see in the fossil record.   Fossils represent individual frames in the movie-of-life.  As we discover more and more fossils, the frames in evolution's progress, we should be able to piece them together into a film that shows how life evolved.  Like the images on the individual frames in a film, the difference from one frame to the next ought to be too small to distinguish.  Fossils should show such gradual changes that eventually we ought to have a fossil record with no exact boundaries between species.

   Is this what the fossil record has shown... over the last one hundred and fifty years?  The answer is no!  The fossil record shows no transitional forms.  It didn't when Darwin proposed his theory, and it has gotten worse for the evolutionist ever since.

   In his book, Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland reveals much about the truth of the fossil record.(2*)

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." (3*)

"Back in 1940, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt had faced the horns of this dilemma-of-the-gaps with his hopeful monster theory, the idea that every once in awhile an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different from its parents." (4*)

"Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum, was collaborating with Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard and calling their new theory, aimed at explaining the gaps, 'punctuated equilibria." (5*)

"Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,published an article in the January 1979 issue (vol. 50, no. 1) of the museum's journal entitled 'Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology' in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animal recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." (6*)

In fact, Dr. Raup actually stated in the article:

"Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time."

   How is this possible, you ask?  It is because many of the missing-links used as proof for evolution at Darwin's time have since been discarded by evolutionists because science has proven they weren't links at all.  I can't think of any other field of science that presently bases its beliefs on fewer facts than were available one-hundred and fifty years ago.

   Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist at The New York State Natural History Museum, was asked about transitional forms.

   "Did Dr. Fisher know of any transitional forms between the higher taxa?  He replied, 'Intermediates within families and even within orders, but not between phyla.' Why?  His only answer was the standard one—the imperfection of the fossil record."7

E. C. Olson, author of The Evolution of Life said this.

   "Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors." (8*)

   Steven Stanley, paleobiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University spoke out against the gradualistic theory of Charles Darwin.  His observations revealed that the fossil record lacks evidence for gradually changes species.   Defending the punctuated equilibria view of origins, he said this.

"Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrated a biological stability for species of animals and plants that I think would have shocked Darwin." (9*)

Luther Sunderland quotes Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, from the June-July 1977, Natural History magazine, showing how Gould agrees with this view of gradualism.

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,..." (10*)

Sunderland further mentions two comments Dr. Gould made during a lecture at Hobart and William Smith College in 1980.

   "The fossil record is full of gaps and discontinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record.  The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation." (11*)

   "The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier." (12*)

   In fact, Mr. Sunderland asked many well known evolutionists for fossil evidence for the gradual rise of insects, the change of fish to amphibians, the transition from amphibians to reptiles, the change from reptiles to birds, the gradual emergence of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of the horse, and the evolution of man.   Over and over again they admitted that the fossil record reveals no evidence of gradual changes.  Even though millions and millions of fossils have been studied in the last one hundred fifty years, the fossil record is full of gaps between species.   If evolution is true, then we should see an abundance of in-between species.   Although asked several times by Mr. Sunderland, not one of the evolutionists interviewed could site a single transitional fossil showing a direct connection between any two major groups of animals.

   J. Kerby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin, in their book Fossils in Focus, (13*) reveal the same fossil evidence against the Theory of Evolution.  They quote three notable scientists, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, and Norman Newell. George Gaylord Simpson said this:

   "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly.  They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution." (14*)

Dr. David Kitts said:

   "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.  Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (15*)

Norman Newell of the American Museum of Natural History adds:

   "Experience shows us that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record.  Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting." (16*)

According to Dr. Page Krynine:

   "Conventional uniformitarianism, or 'gradualism,' i.e. the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all-post Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record."   (17*)

   Others confirm that geology hasn't been kind to those who think they know all the answers about our origin.

   "Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale and later professor of anthropology at Harvard, wrote an article in 1978 entitled 'Rearranging Our Family Tree' in which he stated that we had been wrong in the past and that he was convinced we would not hit upon the true or correct story of human evolution." (18*)

"Richard Leakey summed up the situation on the final Walter Cronkite Universe program.  He said that if he were going to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a huge question mark.  He said that the fossil evidence was too scanty for us to possibly know man's evolutionary origin, and he did not think we were ever going to know it." (19*)

Literature is filled with statements from evolutionists who know the fossil record lacks truly transitional forms.

Dr. George Gaylor Simpson, the world's foremost evolutionary paleontologist:

   "The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known.  In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (20*)

   "This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.   It is true of all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate." (21*)

   "Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils.…  It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transitions, but by sudden leaps in evolution." (22*)

Dr. E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University:

   "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology, biogeography,and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (23*)

Dr. E. C. Olson:

   "The fossil record which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution..." (24*)

Drs. David Raup and Steven Stanley:

   "Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms."(25*)

Dr. L. du Nouy:

   "In brief, each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain.   When we discover them they are already completely differentiated.  Not only do we find practically no transitional forms, but in general it is impossible to authentically connect a new group with an ancient one." (26*)

Dr. A. H. Clark:

   "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla."(27*)

   "Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types." (28*)

Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt:

   "The facts of greatest importance are the following.  When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions."(29*)

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Biology, Geology, and the History of Science, at Harvard University:

   "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (30*)

   "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology.  The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."(31*)

Dr. N. Macbeth:

"The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed."32

Dr. Francisco Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Davis:

   "The evolutionary origins of taxa in the higher categories are poorly known.… Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them." (33*)

Finally we'll let Dr. Colin Patterson refute his critics:

"We have access to the tips of the tree; the tree itself is theory, and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on it—how the branches came off and the twigs came off—are, I think, telling stories." (34*)

   It's difficult to read through these confessions of evolutionists without getting the idea that something is very wrong with the Theory of Evolution.   It leaves one with the impression that the Theory of Evolution is like the "Emperor's New Clothes."  Many scientists think other scientists have absolute proof for evolution.  Rather than admit they see no proof for evolution themselves, they go along with the crowd, admiring what isn't there.  Not wishing to look foolish to their associates, they applaud evolution even louder and defend it all the more.  Yet, deep inside, they feel strangely inadequate as scientists because they can't seem to find truth for themselves.


   So you see, Dr. Colin Patterson is not alone when it comes to evolutionists who recognize that geology fails to provide unquestionable proof for evolution.  Some just aren't as straight forward about it as he is.  Geology fails to prove evolution because fossils, the only historical evidence, fail to prove it.  Classical evolutionists firmly stated, and staked their reputations, that someday enough fossils would be found to prove their argument.   They were wrong!  Over a hundred and forty years of intensive searching has resulted in more and wider gaps between the species.  Rather than being a friend to the evolutionists, the fossil record has now become their biggest foe. The historical evidence of the fossils clearly shows that life did not evolve; it was created.

Last edited by Admin on Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

2 Why People Believe in Evolution on Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:44 pm


Why People Believe in Evolution

The most insidious and damaging ideology ever foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion that human beings are but animals, and the offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It is known as the theory of organic evolution. This concept has been reflected in recent years in such volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal (1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by zoologist, Desmond Morris.

Tragically, multiplied thousands across the land have ingested, to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes even with a religious flavor), this nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks intellectually analyzed the matter, and thus, on the basis of solid evidence and argument, accepted this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety of emotional reasons, this concept is entertained so readily.

In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book titled, The Truth: God or Evolution? In the opening section of this excellent volume, the authors listed several reasons why the evolutionary theory is embraced by so many. With credit to them for the germ thoughts, I would like to expand the discussion.

Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin of Species (1859), there has been a massive campaign to flood the “intellectual market” with evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no means originated with Darwin, he popularized evolution more than anyone else. His book sold out (1,025 copies) the first day of its release.

Another significant milestone was the famous Scopes Trial, conducted in Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed to violate Tennessee’s Butler law, which forbade the teaching of any theory that holds man has descended from a lower form of life. The entire affair was “rigged,” but it brought together William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic nominee for president), who volunteered to represent the state, and the famed criminal defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast on radio, brought national attention to the issue of creation vs. evolution. As a result of that encounter, the concept of creationism was cast into an unfavorable light, and evolutionary dogma gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.

From that time, however, the theory of evolution has accelerated in influence via the media and the public school system. Today, there exists a determined campaign for the indoctrination of evolution, and millions have absorbed it into their minds.

Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist, circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists. It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law” which is as firmly established as the rotundity of the earth.

Since most folks want to be thought of as “educated,” and as they have been led to believe that “all educated people believe in evolution,” they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals could not cite a solitary argument in defense of evolution; they simply believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”

Informed people should know the following:
Evolution is not a scientific law.

Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
Scientific disagreement

There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”

Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact … It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling … If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught” (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).

It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought not to be cowed down; we should be more aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their confidence in evolution argue their case logically.
Religious Confusion

Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology because they are repelled by the confused (and sometimes cruel) state of the religious world. Religionists have sacrificed their own children in the name of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far East the cobra is worshipped as deity. “Christians” (so-called) have warred with the devotees of Islam.

Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the Eucharist” magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is administered only by immersion, while others allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion” will suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it takes all three “modes” to constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).

This disunity has driven many to disenchantment with religion in general, which includes a rebellion against divine revelation. This, of course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to be “one,” that “the world might believe” (Jn. 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.

But people need to realize that a departure from the original does not negate the genuineness of the original. The segmented status of “religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as divided as the religionists.

For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, contended that biological life evolved here on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually, over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.

There is wholesale disagreement among the advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have fled from religion because of its disunity, have found no haven in Darwinism.
A World of Disorder

Many feel that our world environment, which is so characterized by brutality and suffering, is more consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw, “survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is with the notion that the earth is tended by a benevolent God. There might be some leverage in this argument if there were no other rational explanation for the ills of this globe.

But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for the proposition that life’s tragedies are the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator; and negative consequences have been allowed to follow as an educational process on behalf of the human family. In our recently published book, The Bible and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter chronicling some of the values of human affliction.

But here is another matter for consideration. While the believer has some basis for explaining the presence of “evil” in a fashion that is consistent with the existence of a powerful and benevolent God, the evolutionist has no reasonable explanation as to why there is a human sensitivity within man that judges some things to be “evil” and others “good.” How can a package of mere “matter,” which, according to atheism, is the sum of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The problem of “evil” is more challenging for the evolutionist than for the creationist.
Tangible Evidence

Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary case because it is buttressed, they believe, with tangible evidence, whereas religion seems to partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After all, scientists have “fossils” to prove their case, don’t they?

This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the following reasons:

All of the fossils ever collected represent less than 1% of the potential evidence, according to David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum (Museum Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).

Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that clearly demonstrates a link between basic organism “kinds.”

All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation; and even evolutionists dispute the data.

For example, when Donald Johanson and his colleagues discovered the few bone fragments they dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged that this little creature walked on two legs, and was on-the-way to becoming human. Numerous evolutionists, however, seriously disputed this. We discussed this matter in considerable detail in the October, 1986 issue of the printed Christian Courier.

But Bible believers are not without “tangible” evidence in the defense of their case. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our book, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology.

If, then, a general case can be made for the factual correctness of the Bible, one may reasonably conclude that its affirmations regarding the origin of humanity are correct as well.
Escape from Responsibility

Another reason why many so readily accept evolution as the explanation for mankind, is that such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and hence to be free from moral and religious obligations. They thus can become their own “gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins says that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).

This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to the inmates of the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear him.

“I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible” (Arthur Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ).

This shocking statement reveals the motive of some evolutionists.

People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise.

View user profile

3 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:51 pm


Doctrine of Evolution, why it fails

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1.20-25).

Introduction: The Science That Never Was

No scientific evidence exists for evolution. By evolution I mean the idea that changes have occurred in organisms over time to produce new species and that life began from a common ancestor. When I state no evidence exists to support evolution I mean exactly this. I do not mean evidence is weak in some areas or lacking in others. I mean no scientific evidence exists period. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. This was true in Darwin’s day and nothing has changed in 150 years.

What I do not mean by evolution is the scientific fact that changes occur within species. Darwin observed that beak sizes varied among finches. In this, Darwin was practicing science. Everyone knows such changes occur. This is known as microevolution and it is science. It is observed and is replicated throughout living organisms.

What is Evolution?

Since evolution has no scientific support, what is it? Evolution is myth, ideology, religion, or philosophy. Take your pick. What it is not is science. When evolutionists talk about science in relation to evolution they use microevolution (which everyone has observed and agrees happens) as evidence for evolution. And, invariably the evolutionists “proof” departs the realm of science into the realm of metaphysics and teleology.

To give one a sense of how proponents of evolution think is a quotation by Richard Lewontin, the Harvard evolutionary biologist:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept 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 counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.1

This is not science. It is ideology and politics. In theological terms, it is idolatry.

What is Known by Science

The Bible is important in any discussion about the origin and progression of life for it is God’s revelation of reality. The Bible is a scientific book. Its record can be falsified by observation. We observe that species adapt, mutate, and variate. This is exactly what the Bible has declared. We produce seedless grapefruit. We breed sheepdogs. We observe numerous changes can occur within a species. But we also observe that boundaries exist. One species does not become another species. This is what the Bible asserts.

Gregor Mendel founded the science of genetics. Mendel discovered through science the boundaries the Bible has revealed. Though Darwin and Mendel were contemporaries, Darwin had no scientific knowledge of genetics. The evolutionary and family trees Darwin created were imagined. He had no scientific basis for them.

Another area in which the Bible is confirmed as science is the Bible’s statement that all biological life was created within a 3 day period. We observe that lifeforms go out of existence. We do not observe them coming into existence. This fits with what the Bible declares. God created all biologic life at a point in time and ceased creating. If evolution were true, we should see new lifeforms coming into existence. We don’t. We observe species going out of existence. This is because God ceased creating after day six. The biblical record is verified.

Proofs of Evolution

Evolutionists have proposed varying proofs for evolution. The problem with these proofs is that the arguments used can just as easily prove creation. Representative proofs of evolution are some of the following:

1. Evolutionists maintain we have a universal genetic code. So do creationists. The evolutionist claims the universal genetic code is evidence of a common ancestor from which all life descended. Is this a valid conclusion? It is one interpretation. But it is better explained that God created or programmed living creatures to have similar characteristics. All watches have numbers or dials. But all watches did not spring from a common ancestor. Rather, each watch or watch type was designed after a common design. Even if someone demonstrated all watches came from a common source, they would also discover they came into existence by a watchmaker. And watches are a lot less complex than single celled organisms.

Evolutionists expand such reasoning into the areas of morphology and pathology. But again, equally strong arguments can be made that similar morphologies and pathologies demonstrate creation. The same may be said of natural selection, variations, and mutations. The evolutionist’s arguments work equally well in a creation model.

2. Evolutionists claim the fossil record shows that the simplest fossils are found in the oldest rocks and a smooth and gradual transition exists from one form of life to another. But fossils are regularly found “out of place” in the geologic column. To complicate matters, “living fossils” remain relatively unchanged throughout their history. Then there is the nasty matter of the Cambrian explosion. Truly embarrassing.

Lasciate Ogne Prova, Voi Ch’entrate (Abandon All Evidence Ye Who Enter Here)
or Problems of Evolution

1. One problem is the fossil data. No transitional forms exist. Darwin was well aware this lacuna posed a significant problem for his theory. But he reasoned, given time, transitional forms would be discovered. They have not. Darwin should have recognized this was not a problem that could be resolved with more time. We have millions of species. For Darwinism to be true we should find billions of transitional forms for each species in the fossil record. Thus, considering the spectrum of living creatures would require septillions of transitional forms. We have none.

2. Another problem is life itself. How does life come from non-life? No scientific evidence exists to show this occurs. People used to believe in spontaneous generation in which life came from non-life. No one believes this anymore. Except evolutionists. They believe life came from non-life. They believe. They have no evidence. They just believe. This is why any discussion on evolution inevitable enters the arena of metaphysics.

3. A third problem is design. We observe incredibly diverse and complex designs in living organisms. How did this happen? By chance? By natural selection? William Paley’s watchmaker analogy remains unrefuted. Complex design requires a designer. Watch birds. They hurtle and suddenly brake into a mass of leafy branches to land deftly on a tiny limb. Think of the telemetry required. Our most brilliant computer, mechanical, and electrical engineers have no clue how to replicate this technology. Give scientists $100 billion. Tell them to develop this technology. They will fail. It is far, far beyond man’s intelligent design skill. Yet we are to believe such incredible capability happened by chance and random selection. Does anyone believe a million monkeys with paint kits would in a billion years paint a Mona Lisa? Or a Charlie Brown cartoon?

4. Another problem is the observational data. When we examine living organisms we discover that kind produces kind.2 Variations occur. Mutations occur. But kind always produces kind. Transmutations do not occur. A dog always produces a dog. A cat is a cat. A bird is a bird. A horse is a horse, of course, of course. We find no counter-examples in history. And beyond human history, the fossil record confirms this. It reveals millions of different kinds. Each is fully formed. None are transitional. It has been that way for millennia and it’s going to stay that way. No transitional forms will ever be found because God did not design life in this manner.

The first chapter of Genesis records God’s declaration that He created all animal life after their kind (Genesis 1.20-25). This was also true for the vegetable kingdom (Genesis 1.11-13). God built His biological systems with marvelous sophistication and complexity. They were designed and programmed to adapt to different conditions. Even at the cellular and lower levels we find immense complexity. God put limits on the design program so that kind always produces kind. That is what we see. That is science. We do not observe kinds crossing their programmed boundaries. We do not see transmutations. Transmutations are the magical mystery tour of evolutionists. They are the stuff of myth, not science. Evolutionary scientists (as oxymoronic a term as ever was) are the tailors of the emperor’s new clothes for evolution is a suit made from whole cloth.

5. Mathematics kills evolution. Scientists have proven the universe had a beginning. Given the complexity of life, mathematicians have demonstrated that insufficient time exists to make the evolutionary changes and variations we see. Even if the universe were a million times older than it is it could not happen. The probabilities are too vast. You have a better chance of winning the powerball lottery a billion times in a row than for life to emerge through random selection. Stephen J. Gould recognized the problem and introduced the idea of punctiliar equilibrium: evolution by leaps and bounds. But again, we confront that nagging problem: no evidence.

6. Whence morality? How does evolution explain man’s moral nature? Morality is universal. Societies and cultures may have different particular laws but everyone agrees it is wrong to steal, to lie, to murder, etc.

7. What about the mind? How did intelligence form? How do mind and body interact? What about sex? The simplest organisms reproduce asexually. How did sex come into being? What about language? Man is the only biological creature with a language with syntax and grammar. What about love? How does evolution explain love? It cannot. Why is man the only creature who worships God? Evolution provides no answers to these questions. Evolution also provides no answers for man’s deepest questions: Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? Where happens when I die? We could go on but I think I have made the case. Why beat a dead horse? Any of the above points is a mortal blow to evolution.

Why This Essay?

This essay is written for one purpose: to make you think. Evolutionists present assumptions as scientific proof for evolution. And invariably they enter into the realm of teleology and metaphysics. But assumption is not observation. The only scientific evidence capable of proving evolution would be a biologic record that demonstrated that transitional and transmutational forms have occurred or by observing them occur. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

In the early, heady days of evolutionary theory, evolutionists argued scientific facts supported evolution. Such “facts” have proved wanting. As more scientific investigation in the life sciences occurs, scientific evidence for evolution becomes ever more problematic. As a result, to preserve the myth, evolutionists increasingly rely on propaganda, intimidation, and the law courts to impose their will.

Evolutionists are the kind of people to whom theory is dearer than fact. Darwinism is a 150 year old dead theory. Evolution is a just-so-story, a Jedi-mind trick imagineered by those in rebellion against God. Trust God. Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed (Romans 10.11; cf. John 5.45-47).

View user profile

4 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:28 am



The flagship of the theory of evolution is macroevolution. Practically everything involved in the theory of evolution is eventually meant to lead to the change from one species into another. Evolutionists base their belief in macroevolution on other phenomena like microevolution, time, chance and for example the fossil record. They make use of metaphysical statements. True science consists of observations, hypotheses, and tests. Macroevolution is not true science. Even worse, the observations tell otherwise. The creation of specified information [contained in the genetic code of each life form] which is necessary for changing one life form into another is contrary to uncontroversial universal laws. Nothing comes from nothing, certainly not by itself or by means of blind and mindless processes. This makes macroevolution into an illogic and unscientific belief. In order to maintain that illogic belief evolutionists have invented many ways to deviate from true science...
Eugenie Scott - Evolution vs Creationism
Direct experimentation is a very powerful - as well as familiar - research design. As a result, some people think that this is the only way that science works. Actually, what matters in science is that explanations be tested, and direct experimentation is only one kind of testing. The key element to testing an explanation is to hold variables constant, and one can hold variables constant in many ways other than being able to directly manipulate them. In fact, the more complicated the science, the less likely an experimenter is to use direct experimentation.
It doesn't take much explanation to understand the dangers of using other methods than [true] science in order to explain particular phenomena. That way it becomes possible to control the outcome of certain experiments. Certainly when those experiments are done by biased scientists who eagerly draw conclusions conforming to their belief or preconceived worldview. Eugenie Scott is the director of NCSE, a large mainstream and pro-evolution science organization. She says here that they don't need to conform to the standards of true science in order to obtain data about difficult and complex aspects of life. This way of working has been implemented within mainstream science since naturalists took control of it. Uniformitarianism is a good example of an assumption which is presented as fact while no true science can offer the evidence for it. It originated from a worldview based on preconceived belief in evolution theory.
Wikipedia - Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.
Macroevolution Evolutionists assume that macroevolution happened with for example the appearance of feathers during the presumed evolution from theropod dinosaurs to birds. Archaeopteryx is one of their prime examples. Because macroevolution hasn't been observed in our time it is very suspicious they assume it did happen millions of years ago. The many millions of fossils found until today only show diversity of species without intermediate forms showing a gradual progress of for example mammals growing feathered wings. They base those conclusions on the idea that similarities between species are evidence for it. It's metaphysics. It's suspicious to make such assumptions after finding what should be called two completely different and unique species according to true science. The link is only imaginary and based on the preconceived worldview.
Wikipedia - Macroevolution
Abrupt transformations from one biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water into land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare. Few major biological types have emerged during the evolutionary history of life and most of them survive till today. When lifeforms take such giant leaps, they meet little to no competition and are able to exploit a plethora of available niches, following a pattern of adaptive radiation. This can lead to convergent evolution, where unrelated populations display similar adaptations.
Macroevolution The fact that transitions are labeled rare by evolutionists themselves says a lot. Giant leaps simply contradict evolution theory. Evolutionists truly believe that land animals evolved from water animals. Tiktaalik is their best example. It clearly shows how evolutionists base their ideas on similarities because no true science can possibly provide them with uncontroversial evidence. It shows the circular reasoning of evolutionists with for example the fossil record; in order to prove macroevolution they simply say that macroevolution is a fact beforehand and that two different species with somewhat similar physical traits are therefore "evidence" for it. Evolutionists are blinded by the idea that no other explanations are possible. However, not looking through the eyes of an evolutionist the missing links or gaps are more likely evidence of macroevolution never having occurred. The fossil record shows that species appeared abruptly with the Cambrian explosion. That's a fact and the rest is based on worldview.
Wikipedia - Macroevolution
... macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.
Macroevolution This is an obvious false and misleading statement as will be discussed in the chapter gene duplication. One can always simply ask the question whether gene duplication has been observed leading to the change from one species into another. Obviously not. Here evolutionists compare plants with humans, another form of reductionism and a misnomer in the world of mainstream science to believe that holistic and complex phenomena can be explained by it. Simple fact: plants produce plants, humans produce humans. Every kind produces its own kind, and that's all we've ever seen.
Youtube - Richard Dawkins tries to answer an uncomfortable question...
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
It is not surprising that prominent atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins could not answer affirmatively when asked if he ever witnessed macroevolution, a change in a species' genetic makeup providing the evidence for macroevolution. This is the kind of stumbling from someone who doesn't have a proper answer to one of the simplest questions about evolution. At least we can say that Richard Dawkins, one of today's leading atheists and a fanatic preacher of evolution, tries very hard to avoid answering the question. Of course any sane person knows that the only right answer to that question is not in favor of evolution theory. What we do see is observable degeneration due to genetic disorder. Richard Dawkins and his status as a hailed scientist by mainstream and popular science is just another evidence for this observation. In the real world the countless harmful mutations heavily outweigh the highly overstated beneficial mutations which only happen in the minds of evolutionists.
Grady S. McMurtry: It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called macroevolution. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents. It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.
These are striking lines of reason that make obvious what's so delusional in evolutionary thought in the 21st century; the belief that mindless processes cause specified complexity to arise. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists who fanatically preach events that are contrary to what is observed and known from genetics.
Grady S. McMurtry: Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism. Mutations do produce “microevolution,” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.
Roger Lewin: The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. ...At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
Ernst Mayr: Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels - that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided. ...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.
Creation - Defining Terms
Natural selection is a fact...
However, proponents of evolution repeatedly cite examples of natural selection - examples in which populations lose genetic information - as evidence of microbes-to-man evolution, i.e. macroevolution (which would require an increase in genetic information). This is clearly unjustified. The evolutionists’ vague and ambiguous definition of terms facilitates that bait-and-switch tactic, so often employed by Richard Dawkins. In theory, evolutionists look to mutations as being the process responsible for generating the new genetic information evolution requires, which is then sorted by natural selection. But in practice, does that really happen? When pressed to give specific evidence of mutations that increase the information in the genome, Dawkins and his cohorts cannot give coherent answers. They ought to be able to point to hundreds of examples of such mutations by now. But they can’t.
Objectivity in science is of vital importance to true science. Scientists must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc. This idea is challenged when evolutionists say that macroevolution is a fact or that all life forms today came from a shared common ancestor. There simply is no evidence for it. Similarities are mentioned as evidence for it but that is metaphysics because they might just as well be called evidence for common design. Therefore many use microevolutionary changes that fall within the limits of genetics as evidence for macroevolution. That is an obvious misnomer. The macroevolution theory is just an assumption based on preconceived belief. The process of macroevolution can never be proven and is in reality impossible because no mindless process can create [additional] specified information which would be necessary for macroevolution to happen. There is some very good advice from one of the most ardent atheists and evolutionists alive who logically can't answer THE question pertaining to evolution theory...

View user profile

5 Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science on Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:44 am


Philip Cunningham

Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science
What the vast majority of Darwinists fail to realize (or ever honestly admit to) is that Darwinian evolution is not even a 'real' physical science in any proper sense but that Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science. Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:

“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
- Jerry A. Coyne – Darwinian professor of evolution at the University of Chicago

The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigic mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math constantly shows us the Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
(Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…

Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.

Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.

Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video

Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper physical science it that Darwinian evolution does not have any demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.

Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.

Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evoluton’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video

Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are now both shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have presupposed for them. For instance, although Darwinian evolution appeals to ‘random mutations/variations’ to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any “random changes” from happening to DNA in the first place:

The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011
Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.”

Moreover when changes do happen to DNA they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ not ‘random changes’:

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.

Shapiro on Random Mutation:
“What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.”

Having ‘cell-mediated processes’ direct changes to DNA is in direct contraction to the ‘bottom up’ materialistic presupposition of 'randomness' which under-girds neo-Darwinian thought.

Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that neo-Darwinists attributed to it. Natural Selection is grossly inadequate to do the work required of it because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,,

Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video

Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population.

Here are a few more notes on this insurmountable ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection:

Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy (Kimura’s Distribution)– Andy McIntosh – video

The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009
Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level.

Moreover, as if that were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in organisms, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place:

The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology
Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale
with body size as power laws of the form:

Y = Yo M^b,

where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent.
A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling.

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79

i.e. Dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field so as to do the work required of it. The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure would be completely invisible to 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:

Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video

The reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinism has failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is busting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis:

John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video

“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
-Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.

In fact, matter and energy are now both shown to reduce to ‘quantum information’. In fact an entire human can now, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video

Thus not only is Information not reducible to 3-Dimensional a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality energy-and matter both reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism:

Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Last edited by Admin on Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

6 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:55 am



Amino acids must also be activated in order to be linked together to form proteins. Activation requires more enzymes to form the amino acid chains necessary to make proteins. Proteins must also be folded into the correct shape or they will not be functional, requiring additional information for what is the correct shape for a specific protein.

DNA and proteins work together to make a cell function normally. Changes in the DNA code called mutations can lead to changes in the amino acid sequence in proteins. Just one change in the amino acid sequence in a protein can cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. These mutations do not lead to more advanced organisms but to organisms less fit for survival.

View user profile

7 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:11 am



What Are We Talking About?

Here is Coyne’s definition of evolution:

In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. 1

Notice that he intentionally excludes the origin of life. He postulates the existence of a single kind of living thing, “perhaps a self-replicating molecule,” upon which all subsequent changes build. Because of this definition, he avoids all discussion of how a lifeless Earth produced that first living thing.

According to Coyne, evolution begins with a living thing that already contains a mechanism for obtaining energy from the environment, a mechanism for storing that energy, converting the energy to other forms, using that energy for useful purposes, the ability to grow, the ability to reproduce itself, intrinsic genetic information, and has a method for expressing that genetic information as physical features. This living thing came about by some natural process which we can’t even begin to imagine, but isn’t of any real importance to answering the question of how we came to be on this Earth.

Clearly, the origin of that first living thing is vital to the theory of evolution. Why doesn’t Coyne include the origin of life in his definition of evolution? You know the answer. He can’t begin to explain it. Defining evolution as he did gives him an excuse to not even try.

If you are expecting a book with the title, Why Evolution is True to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. What it really contains is excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true, why it is unreasonable to expect evolutionists to provide proof, and why you should believe in evolution anyway. Let the excuses begin!
Why We’ve Never Seen It

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as microevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens—we already know from the fossil record that it does—but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms. [italics his] 2

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information. But he is talking about “macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist.

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly.

For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time, much less to measure whatever type of selection was acting to make feathers larger. 3

The real reason why nobody has ever seen it is because it hasn’t happened! Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear.

He thinks he sees macroevolution in the fossil record. This is remarkable because he spends so many pages trying to explain why there are no missing links in the fossil record!
Why There Are No Missing Links

We don’t find any missing links in the fossil record but, according to Coyne, we should not expect to find any.

Taking into account all of these requirements, it’s clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. … we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life! [italics his] 4

What should our “missing link” with apes look like? Remember that the “missing link” is the single ancestral species that gave rise to modern humans on the one hand and chimpanzees on the other. It’s not reasonable to expect the discovery of that critical single species, for its identification would require a complete series of ancestor-descendant fossils on both the chimp and human lineages, series that we could trace back until they intersect at the ancestor. Except for a few marine microorganisms, such complete fossil sequences don’t exist. And our early human ancestors were large, relatively few in number compared to grazers like antelopes, and inhabited a small part of Africa under dry conditions not conducive to fossilization. Their fossils, like those of all apes and monkeys, are scarce. This resembles our problem with the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, for whom transitional fossils are also rare. We can certainly trace the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, but we’re not sure exactly which fossil species were the direct ancestors of modern birds.

Given all this, we can’t expect to find the single particular species that represents the “missing link” between humans and other apes. We can hope only to find its evolutionary cousins. Remember also that this common ancestor was not a chimpanzee, and probably didn’t look like either modern chimps or humans. Nevertheless, it’s likely that the “missing link” was closer in appearance to modern chimps than to modern humans. We are the odd man out in the evolution of modern apes, who all resemble one another far more than they resemble us. 5 [italics his]

We will return to this issue of humans being so different from modern apes later; but let’s stick to the impossibility of finding missing links for the moment.

Clearly, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says that complete fossils sequences don’t exist, except for a few microscopic marine organisms. Microscopic fossils are controversial because scientists don’t always agree that they even are fossils. But, let’s suppose they really are fossils. Just because they look similar doesn’t necessarily mean that they are biologically descended from one another. Even if they are descended from one another, they are all still just microorganisms which demonstrate variation—not evolution. So, actually, the alleged microscopic fossils don’t really show evolution.

Human and bird fossils allegedly provide the best (although incomplete) sequence of fossils, but even they don’t really show a clear pattern of evolution, so Coyne remains in full-blown excuse mode.

Although far from complete, the record of human evolution is one of the best confirmations we have of an evolutionary prediction, and is especially gratifying because the prediction was Darwin’s.

But a few caveats. We don’t (and can’t expect to) have a continuous fossil record of human ancestry. Instead, we see a tangled bush of many different species. Most of them went extinct without leaving descendants, and only one genetic lineage threaded its way through time to become modern humans. We’re not sure yet which fossil species lie along that particular thread, and which were evolutionary dead ends. The most surprising thing we’ve learned about our history is that we’ve had many close evolutionary cousins who died out without leaving descendants. It’s even possible that as many as four humanlike species lived in Africa at the same time, and maybe in the same place. Imagine the encounters that might have taken place! Did they kill one another, or try to interbreed? 6

After saying they unable to tell how the different fossils are related, he next admits they aren’t even able to classify the fossils with any degree of certainty.

And the names of ancestral human fossils can’t be taken too seriously. Like theology, paleontology is a field in which the students far outnumber the objects of study. There are lively—and sometimes acrimonious—debates about whether a given fossil is really something new, or merely a variant of an already named species. These arguments about scientific names often mean very little. Whether a humanlike fossil is named as one species or another can turn on matters as small as half a millimeter in the diameter of a tooth, or slight differences in the shape of the thighbone. 7

It is important to remember that when paleontologists talk about “human fossils” they generally aren’t talking about complete skeletons. Often they are talking about one or two bones, a partial skull, or a few teeth. One can’t even be sure that the teeth and bones go together. This is why there are so many arguments. The models of our “human ancestors” that are displayed in museums are based on a few bones and a lot of speculation based on the presumption of evolution.

Here is his self-contradictory summary.

Looking at the whole array of bones, then what do we have? Clearly, indisputable evidence for human evolution from apelike ancestors. Granted, we can’t yet trace out a continuous lineage from an apelike early hominid to modern Homo sapiens. The fossils are scattered in time and space, a series of dots yet to be genealogically connected. And we may never have enough fossils to join them. 8

It is indisputable and yet unproven. How can you argue with “logic” like that?
For the Birds

Coyne makes general claims that the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and the origin of flight, is well documented in the fossil record. But when he gets to specifics, he just makes excuses for why they don’t really know anything at all about the evolution of birds.

Because reptiles appear in the fossil record before birds, we can guess that the common ancestor of birds and reptiles was an ancient reptile, and would have looked like one. We now know that this common ancestor was a dinosaur. 9 [italics his]

Coyne so easily goes from “guess” to “know.” Even if the fossil record showed that a particular reptile died before a particular bird, it doesn’t prove that the bird is a biological descendant of the reptile. It is an indisputable fact that Big Brown (the horse that won the 2008 Kentucky Derby) died in 2008, and President George Washington died in 1799. Does that prove that Big Brown was a biological descendant of George Washington? Of course not!

We want you to get the full impact of Coyne’s explanation about bird evolution, so here is a long passage. As always, colored highlights are ours, but the italics for emphasis in the quote are his.

But if feathers didn’t arise as adaptations for flying, what on earth were they for? Again, we don’t know. They could have been used for ornamentation or display—perhaps to attract mates. It seems more likely, though, that they were used for insulation. Unlike modern reptiles, theropods may have been partially warm-blooded; and even if they weren’t, feathers would have helped maintain body temperature. And what feathers evolved from is even more mysterious. The best guess is that they derive from the same cells that give rise to reptilian scales, but not everyone agrees.

Despite the unknowns, we can make some guesses about how natural selection fashioned modern birds. Early carnivorous dinosaurs evolved longer forelimbs and hands, which probably helped them grab and handle their prey. That kind of grabbing would favor evolution of muscles that would quickly extend the front legs and pull them inward: exactly the motion used for the downward stroke in true flight. Then followed the feathery covering, probably for insulation. Given these innovations, there are at least two ways flight could have evolved. The first is called the “trees down” scenario. There is evidence that some theropods lived at least partly in trees. Feathery forelimbs would help these reptiles glide from tree to tree, or from tree to ground, which would help them escape predators, find food more readily, or cushion their falls.

A different—and more likely—scenario is called the “ground up” theory, which sees flight evolving as an outgrowth of open-armed runs and leaps that feathered dinosaurs might have made to catch their prey. Longer wings could also have evolved as running aids. The chukar partridge, a game bird studied by Kenneth Dial at the University of Montana, represents a living example of this step. These partridges almost never fly, and flap their wings mainly to help them run uphill. The flapping gives them not only extra propulsion, but also more traction against the ground. Newborn chicks can run up 45-degree slopes, and adults can ascent 105-degree slopes—overhangs more than vertical!—solely by running and flapping their wings. The obvious advantage is that uphill scrambling helps these birds escape predators. The next step in evolving flight would be very short airborne hops, like those made by turkeys and quail fleeing from danger.

In either the “trees down” or “ground up” scenario, natural selection could begin to favor individuals who could fly farther instead of merely gliding, leaping, or flying for short bursts. Then would come the other innovations shared by modern birds, including hollow bones for lightness and that large breastbone.

While we may speculate about the details, the existence of transitional fossils—and the evolution of birds from reptiles—is fact. 10

The only real science here is the study showing that wings can help birds run uphill. All the rest is, as Coyne admits, speculation—and therefore an undeniable fact!

We don’t have space this month to point out all the times Coyne makes bold general claims about the fossils, and then makes excuses for why the fossil data doesn’t support the general claim. We hope we have given you enough examples to prove our point, and hope that you read his book to find more examples for yourself.
Not Like Apes

Earlier in this essay we did promise, however, to examine Coyne’s statement about humans being so different from apes. This is important because evolutionists are stuck in the middle. On the one hand, they need to prove that we are so close genetically to apes that we must be biologically related to them. One the other hand, they need to explain how such a small genetic difference can produce such obvious, significant differences between men and apes.

That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps. … Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change. 11 [italics his]

He is pretty close to the truth here. We’ve shown before that the allegedly small genetic difference between apes and man is a fictitious result of some artful mathematics. 12 There really is a substantial genetic difference between apes and humans which evolutionists don’t like to admit because it weakens their argument that we share a common biological ancestor.
The Discontinuity Problem

The most basic problem with the theory of evolution is staring us right in the face, but it is so obvious that it is often overlooked.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups. When we look at a single wild cat, for example, we are immediately able to identify it as either a lion, a cougar, a snow leopard, and so on. All cats do not blur insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates. And although there is a variation among individuals within a cluster (as all lion researchers know, each lion looks different from every other), the clusters nevertheless remain discrete in “organism space.” We see clusters in all organisms that reproduce sexually.

These discrete clusters are known as species. And at first sight, their existence looks like a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution is, after all, a continuous process, so how can it produce groups of animals and plants that are discrete and discontinuous, separated from others by gaps in appearance and behavior? How these groups arise is the problem of speciation—or the origin of species.

That, of course, is the title of Darwin’s most famous book, a title implying that he had a lot to say about speciation. … Yet Darwin’s magnum opus was largely silent on the “mystery of mysteries.” And what little he did say on this topic is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled. 13 [italics his]

If the theory of evolution were true, then plants and animals really would blur together without clear distinctions. It really is a problem for which Coyne has no good answer.
No Excuse for Sex

The origin of sex is one of the hardest things for evolutionists to explain. Coyne doesn’t have an answer. As usual, he just punts.

The question of the number of sexes is a messy theoretical issue that needn’t detain us, except to note that theory shows that two sexes will evolutionarily replace mating systems involving three or more sexes: two sexes is the most robust and stable strategy.

The theory of why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy. This condition presumably evolved from that in earlier sexually reproducing species in which the two sexes had gametes of equal size. 14

False Claims

On those rare occasions when Coyne isn’t attacking creationists or making excuses for why there isn’t any real proof for evolution, he makes false claims about evidence for evolution. Here are just a few.

If we know the half-life, how much of the radioisotope was there when the rock was formed (something that geologists can accurately determine), and how much remains now, it’s relatively simple to estimate the age of the rock. 15

Geologists have no possible way of knowing how much radioactive material was in the rock when it formed.

Several radio-isotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariable agree. 16

No, they don’t invariably agree, unless you throw out the ages that don’t agree! The discordant dates of the Apollo 11 moon rocks are typical. (Only 10 of 116 measurements agreed with the “accepted” age of the moon. 17)

The fossil record documents the gradual loss of toes over time, so that in modern horses only the middle one—the hoof—remains. 18

This story about horse evolution has been debunked by evolutionists themselves for years! Even the Chicago Field Museum admits it. 19 20 How could Coyne not know that?
Getting His Haeckels Up

Coyne even goes so far as to try to defend Ernst Haeckel’s biogenetic law, sort of.

Noting this principle, Ernst Haeckel, a German evolutionist and Darwin’s contemporary, formulated a “biogenetic law” in 1866, famously summarized as “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This means the development of an organism simply replays its evolutionary history. But this notion is true in only a limited sense. Embryonic stages don’t look like the adult forms of their ancestors, as Haeckel claimed, but like the embryonic forms of ancestors. Human fetuses, for example, never resemble adult fish or reptiles, but in certain ways they do resemble embryonic fish and reptiles. Also the recapitulation is neither strict nor inevitable: not every feature of an ancestor’s embryo appears in its descendants, nor do all stages of development unfold in a strict evolutionary order. Further, some species, like plants, have dispensed with nearly all traces of their ancestry during development. Haeckel’s law has fallen into disrepute not only because it wasn’t strictly true, but also because Haeckel was accused, largely unjustly, of fudging some drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar than they really are. Yet we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Embryos still show a form of recapitulation: features that arose earlier in evolution often appear earlier in development. And this makes sense only if species have an evolutionary history.

Now, we’re not absolutely sure why some species retain much of their evolutionary history during development. The “adding new stuff onto old” principle is just a hypothesis—an explanation for the facts of embryology. 21 [italics his]

In summary, embryos look similar during development, except when they don’t; and this only makes sense to evolutionists. They don’t know why this happens. They don’t know why it only happens in some species. But it explains the facts of embryology!

We don’t know why Coyne thinks Haeckel was “unjustly” accused of faking the drawings. There is no question that he did fake them. His guilt has been known for decades.
Ignore the Contradictions

The theory of evolution is full of contradictions, resulting in debates and arguments among evolutionists. Coyne says these controversies prove how strong the theory is.

Critics of evolution seize upon these controversies, arguing that they show something is wrong with the theory of evolution itself. But this is specious. There is no dissent among serious biologists about the major claims of evolutionary theory—only about the details of how evolution occurred, and about the relative roles of various evolutionary mechanisms. Far from discrediting evolution, the “controversies” are in fact the sign of a vibrant, thriving field. What moves science forward is [sic] ignorance, debate, and the testing of alternative theories with observations and experiments. A science without controversy is a science without progress. 22

This is just amazing! There are controversies precisely because the theory is wrong. He says all the people who believe in evolution really believe in evolution (they just believe other believers in evolution are wrong). The fact that there is so much ignorance and controversy about evolution proves how true it must be.

If it is true that debate about evolution promotes scientific progress, why is it that evolutionists go to court to prevent debate about evolution from being discussed in American public schools?

The more you read about evolution, written by evolutionists, the less you will believe it!

View user profile

8 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Fri May 16, 2014 4:57 pm



View user profile

9 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:07 pm


Tracy Kreckman I've seen this same tactic used by religious cults to indoctrinate people into erroneous thinking - take baby steps through a process, each of which seems reasonable on the surface, but have buried assumptions or incorrect facts at any or all steps along the way.

The HUGE problem here is that no matter what step you finish at, if there's disagreement, the response to the inquirer is "you don't understand". This makes the correspondingly HUGE assumption that the theory of evolution is correct and that there are no problems with the theory.

One hidden assumption is that mutations are generally beneficial or neutral for a population. If necessary, evolutionists may nod to the fact that a mutation may be detrimental, but shrug it off and talk about how natural selection will simply do away with organisms that have developed a defect. Anyone who has seen photos of babies born near Chernobyl after the disaster knows that not a single one benefitted from genetic mutation. Law firms thrive on cases of birth defects caused by chemical exposure. I'm unaware of a single known instance of an improvement in a human caused by random genetic mutation. The more complex the organism, the more likely a random mutation results in crippling damage rather than improvement.

Another related hidden assumption is that random mutations can produce the infinite variety of possible combinations and permutations of DNA that have resulted in the 1,000,000+ species of plants and animals that exist today. Need to grow lungs to get out of the slime? Evolution can make them! Need to grow wings to escape predators? Evolution will build them! Obviously I'm being flippant and facetious, but given the generally harmful nature of random mutation, even the evolutionist's magic wand of "millions of years" simply isn't powerful enough to bring about such successful diversity.

There are a lot of other problems, but simply put, there's a fourth option to the above that's completely ignored, and that the theory of evolution comes to the wrong conclusion about the observed facts.

View user profile

10 Re: Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution on Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:03 pm



View user profile

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum