Once I was a monkey swinging tree to tree, now I am a professor with a PhD
Today some of the most reasonable, sensible people believe this. This theory [the theory of evolution] has captured and hijack the minds of so many, "because biology is destiny for many, this "principle" has become for them a way of life" (Breese 31). One consideration, of course, is our public education system as previously pointed out in my last post that essentially crams evolution down our throats. Practically the whole world is spoon fed Darwin's theory, which is only a theory, not a fact. All theories have holes, but some would argue that a theory is a "well-tested hypothesis" so it is now a proven fact. But great claims such as evolution require great evidence and unfortunately, science can only prove what is observable in the present moment and no human was alive to observe monkeys changing into humans and walking upright. Natural selection can not prove "survival of the fittest", the fossil record does not show any empirical evidence of transitions in a linear fashion and for a theory to be true, we need to see consistent empirical evidence and we do not, but most importantly, Darwin's theory still does not explain or answer the origin of life and the origin of the universe, which is the foundation by which all your beliefs stand or fall.
It is important to understand that evolution did not actually start with Darwin or any scientific theory. It had always been an established religious belief at the heart of occultism and mysticism long before the Greeks. Just as the serpent beguiled Eve and caused her to believe a lie through the use of sophistry, man has believed the lie that he is evolving upward into godlike status. W. L. Wilmhurst, a mason who wrote the book, The Meaning of Masonry, integrates this thinking in his very words, "This-the evolution of man into superman-was always the purpose of the ancient mysteries...occultisms....Man, who has sprung from the earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature, to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution by becoming a god-like being and unifying his conscience with the Omniscient" (Hunt 19). This thinking that man had evolved from amoebas and is now ascending into godhood is also at the "esoteric" core of many ancient perennial philosophies such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism (Hunt 20). In Darwin's book The Descent of Man he wrote, "Man may be excused of feeling some pride at having risen.....to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future" (254). It was this philosophy that perpetuated his belief in evolution that helped build the inadequate framework of his whole theory. The worst part of Darwin's theory is that it was used to justified the means of evil. The Nazis worshipped the occult and Himmler led the systematic slaughter of over 6 million Jews under the auspices of natural selection and survival of the fittest using Darwin's concepts in the theory of evolution, which gave way to eugenics. So we can see that evolution has been around long before Darwin. But how can something so evil be immortalized in our classrooms and all over the world? How is it that we see evolution, a soulless ideology, everywhere?
The answer is simple really: the field of science and academia today has been run amok by atheists and science has been given uncritical respect. Darwinism is given unquestioned acceptance and usually goes unchallenged by the masses. The reason for this, of course, is that if you are a scientist or a professor in academia and you believe in God, you will at best be considered incredulous or laughable and at worst, you will be fired, demoted, or not given tenure; you are not allowed to question the Darwin paradigm if you want grants and if you want to be given credibility in peer-review academic journals and publications. The result of this is that the other side of the argument (creation) is not even considered when in fact it is much more logical and rational due in large part to the many holes in Darwin's theory of evolution that isn't even credible science. British astronomer and mathematician, Sir Fred Hoyle said, "the scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth" (Hunt 26) and Michael Denton, an Australian biologist who wrote a book titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, basically agreed that Darwin's theory should be discarded (27). Even Richard Dawkins, the well-known God-hating atheist, states in his book The Blind Watchmaker that, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Hunt 28). So we can see that man is not capable of ignoring the evidence in front of him, but unfortunately, he still chooses to be willingly ignorant of the facts that prove evolution is a fraud.
When Darwin boarded the ship called Beagle that sailed to the Galapagos, his objective was to collect as much data as possible on a myriad of "species." Out of this expedition came his diary called The Voyage of the Beagle by which he then drew his own myopic assumptions which led to his theory of evolution based in his 1959 publication of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin's numerous data collecting and observations in the Galapagos were just that...observations.....or at that time, present data. Just the sheer volume of his works and data collected from so many "species" impressed the scientific community that they believed his theory was correct. We have another classic case of Proof by Verbosity. What's even more remarkable though is that Darwin, who was candidly humble, professed his lack of certainty in his own conclusions, "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume in which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived" (Origin of the Species 28). Despite his lack of certainty in his conclusions, the scientific community ran with it and out of that came their version of the origin of life which Darwin really never intended. His intent was only to study the variations in different "species." Nevertheless, Darwin drew his conclusions on outward appearances which has only proven to be embarrassingly superficial. His myopic approach was/is based on faulty logic, "each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes" (Behe 22-25) [more on Behe down below]. It is a fact in science that no two birds are alike and no two mammals are alike. Yes, they have similarities, but once again this does not prove a whole new species as Darwin strongly argued as evidence for what he called "variation under domestication" out of which came his concept of natural selection (it was Herbert Spencer who later coined the phrase survival of the fittest, not Darwin). As Darwin observed all the slight variations of "species" on the Galapagos, he drew an assumption that only the strong survived and this gave way to not only the origin of each species but to the origin of life itself. These assumptions in no way prove the origin of a species or of life itself, "the scientists so impressed with Darwin's theory seemed to forget or ignore the fact that no way presently exists whereby data from the present can prove, of itself, anything about ultimate origins. Proof, to live up to its name, must mean demonstrating that something we do not know conforms exactly to something we do know. Consequently, there is simply nothing we know either by observation or through logical proof concerning the origin of individual species or the origin of life itself" (Breese 30). From this statement of Breese's, you can conclude that since man has been observing and recording history, no man has ever observed modern-day monkeys turning into humans. If evolution were true, you would literally be observing monkeys turning into humans and there would be no need for humans to give birth! Darwin's observations at that time were just that-present data-but present data could not tell Darwin about past data. As a result, Darwin's conclusions about the past from his present data were subjective considerations, not proof and so can not be considered real science. Another consideration is that no one even knows what a "species" is, not even the scientific community and it has not been answered to this day. Assuming the same identity based only on similarities is a common mistake many a man makes, "one can easily argue that a species exists only by human definition and not in exactly provable objective fact" (Breese 30). This statement is perfectly logical, one of which I wholeheartedly agree. We are all guilty of making assumptions just like Darwin did, but for something to be a fact, we need hard evidence and proof and clear definitions not troubled logic and inexact science.
Another problem with Darwin's theory is in natural selection, which he called a Law. It does not prove survival of the fittest, which is a ridiculous notion. As Breese points out, if natural selection were true, then there would only be one strong person left on the planet for men are stronger (therefore more fit) than women and so they would have to kill all the women. In the case with animals, the male lion would kill all the female lionesses and the offspring too because they are less fit than the male lion. But the Darwinist would argue that the law of natural selection is conditional upon filial forbearance so we don't kill our relatives. But what about the strong lion killing the relatives of another lion's family? The Darwinist would then answer, "oh but the lion does not always eat the other lions because he is not always hungry so now we have another condition of the law of natural selection. The problem with this so-called law is there is an infinity of conditions that could go on and on with no end in sight because you would also have to factor in natural causes of death such as sickness, lightning strikes, falling trees, earthquakes, hurricanes, and on and on. Therefore it is only a logical deduction to conclude that there is no one person who can say with certainty that "he will survive because he is the strongest. The only way to determine a survivor is to observe those who in fact did survive, "the survival of the fittest only means survival of the survivors. A survivor can only be defined ex post facto. Therefore, to make natural selection the determining factor in history is to make a false assumption. And even if the assumption were true, it could not be proved to be true" (Breese 33). So here we see again that assumptions rule out in science, not provable, objective facts. And we see this occurring not just in natural selection but the fossil record as well.
Concerning the fossil record, here is what Darwin himself said in Origin of the Species, "why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms" (321)? Here Darwin freely admits that evidence is necessary for a theory to be correct. Real empirical science, not conjecture, is necessary to prove evolution is true and once again, we do not see real science in the fossil record. From pre-Cambrian to Cambrian layers, we see the sudden appearance of complex creatures (pre-Cambrian explosion) created after their own kind (morphology) but that is all the data we see. This fact alone refutes natural selection and genetic mutation. If genetic mutations occurred in the form of evolution as Darwin believed, we should see the empirical evidence in the form of billions of intermittent stages filling the fossil record; a gradual linear change over the course of time. Instead, all we see is the sudden appearance of fossils (pre-Cambrian explosion). So where are all the copious amounts of transitions in a linear fashion necessary for empirical science to prove evolution is true? "Science" has yet to produce the evidence, "given the "fact" of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change form ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series" (Mayr 14). At least Dr. Mayr, a former Professor Emeritus at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, was intellectually honest. The "missing links" have not been found to this day and so the fossil record only gives us outward similar appearances (morphology) and we haven't even accounted for the biochemical structure of all the trillions of cells that came together to create that shape or form, "anatomy is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level,......so is the fossil record that tells us nothing about whether the interaction of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step" (Behe 22-25). Darwin's approach was seriously flawed because he only looked on the outside. Fortunately, there are some who see this lack of evidence. Once, such man was Colin Patterson that although deceased, made a profound statement to the many biologists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York as he asked them to tell him one thing they knew about evolution, "I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said that they do know one thing and that is that evolution should not be taught in high school" (Hunt 27). Darwin's theory has this substantial problem, the origin of life, to overcome and neither Darwin or all his worshippers can answer it. Not only do we not see any empirical evidence of evolution in the fossil record, but as we pry deeper, the fossil record also does not account for the molecular structure of life, of every living cell. But before we go into that we need to look at another question that evolutionists can not answer and that relates to the origins of the universe. This honest question is essentially the foundation (starting point) or framework on which you can build everything else, otherwise, you are building a foundation on permafrost!
To fully understand the beginning of life, one must ask the question, "where did the matter come from that makes up our cells?" (apologetics requires you to not only ask logical questions but sensible ones too). Without an answer to this question, you are starting with an inadequate framework on which to build your belief system. All living cells are made up of matter-hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc.,-and this had to come from somewhere. For an evolutionist to believe it just banged into existence is to believe in a miracle and that requires faith, faith which is anathema in science, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." (Guth 35). This is remarkable when something simply can not create itself out of nothing for that would violate the Law of Cause and Effect which states, for every effect there must be an equal cause and the effect can not be greater than the cause as Mike Riddle points out in his you-tube tutorial Four questions for evolutionists. There are professors with phd's that openly admit with intellectual honesty that, "it is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning" (Silk 15) and "astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness" (Odenwald 120). In just about every science textbook we see The Big Bang and since this Big Bang, based on the Law of Thermodynamics, the useable energy is continually wearing down. But if the universe has been continually wearing down for over 14 billion years, there would be virtually no molecular energy left. Simply put, based on both of these laws, The Law of Cause and Effect and the Law of Thermodynamics, you can logically deduce that the universe did not create itself (can something create itself? can nothing create something?) and the universe did not always exist but rather it was created. Mike Riddle states this succinctly in his tutorial, "If evolution is unable to explain the origin of matter and energy through naturalistic means, then it is without a foundation." Since evolution can not answer logically where matter came from, it can not answer the origin of life. You can't just start with a single cell and move up the tree of diverse life that inundates every science textbook without explaining where the cell came from and/or how did the cell come into being. By doing so, you have just passed over a quantum reality: the incredible complexity of a single living cell.
This quantum leap that evolutionists make and expect you to believe is in the matters of the origin of the cell. There are only 2 possibilities: life evolved through natural processes as Darwin wants us to believe or life was created. For Darwin and the evolutionists however, the origin of life has not been answered, "the origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight" (Harold 235). These men who have admitted this still refuse to acknowledge that evolution is not based in real science. Without logical answers, you would think that people would start questioning this whole evolution theory. Instead, we have in science textbooks what is called the Stanley Miller experiment. Stanley Miller is proclaimed as creating life is his laboratory with chemicals such as methane, ammonia, hydrogen, etc., He left out oxygen because based on repeated, observable science, he knew that life can not begin in the presence of oxygen for it destroys molecular bonds. But at the same time, oxygen is necessary to sustain life. Miller did succeed but the textbook does not tell the whole story. Miller created amino acids, the building blocks to life, but he created a combination of both right and left-handed amino acids, which are toxic and poisonous to life. Although both right and left-handed amino acids are mirror images of each other (this is called chirality in chemistry), only left-handed amino acids create life and sustain life and you have trillions of them in your body. When we die, all those trillions of left-handed amino acids revert back to a combination of right and left-handed amino acids. Even though the textbooks claim Miller created life, he did not succeed at creating life but rather he succeeded at creating death. This evidence simply can not be ignored and yet it is repeatedly ignored by the masses. Adding to this evidence is the fact that the early atmosphere contained far more amounts of oxygen than previously thought, "the only trend in the recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined" (Thaxton, etc., al 80). Based on this evidence produced, there is no way possible for life to have evolved through natural processes or by chance. The complexities of the oxygen atom, and the specific left-handed amino acids necessary for life to begin, give the overwhelming evidence of an intelligent designer. And these complexities arrive at the biochemistry level of a single cell which further shows evidence for a creator.
"The mathematical odds against life beginning and developing by chance are so astronomical as to render it logically impossible" (Hunt 29). When you consider the complexities of a single cell, not to mention each strand of protein in perfect sequence that if not in perfect sequence the cell will not function, it is impossible for it to have evolved. And we are not even mentioning the enzymes which act as catalysts for cellular function; without enzymes, your cells do not function. A single protein coming together by random chance is 10 to the 191st power and a single cell comprised of proteins coming together by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. Out of 2000 proteins, only 20 are essential for life and the odds of this perfect sequence defy the Law of Probabilities, "the simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance" (McFadden 85). This mathematical impossibility is well known to many geneticists but they still cling to evolution. As Dave Hunt points out quite clearly that not only do we have 3000 proteins coming together in perfect sequence but they are folded into precise structures (primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary) and if everything isn't in perfect order, it does not function (29). This truth is obvious to most rational thinking people. The cell and it's methods of communicating with specific receptors (molecules present of the surface of each cell) is beyond comprehension: if a cell is DNA damaged, diseased, infected, superfluous, or has not passed "boot camp" in the bone marrow it is destroyed through a process called apoptosis. Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, wrote a book called Darwin's Black Box and in his book he described the complexity of a cell in a concept called Irreducibly complex. The inner complexities of a cell completely unknown to Darwin when he was alive have only recently been discovered with the advent of the electron microscope, "the typical cell contains about 2000 mitochondrion compartments......each of the little compartments contains machinery necessary to capture the energy of foodstuffs and store it in a chemical stable, yet readily available, form......the system uses a flow of acid to power its machines, which shuttles electrons among a half-dozen carriers, requiring an exquisitely delicate interaction between many components" (Behe 188-193). The entire cellular system, it's engineering processes, it's methods of communication, and it's overall design, especially the immune system, is so complex and profound it shames even the most sophisticated computer system in the world and yet a single cell cannot even be observed with the naked eye. How is it then that these tiny little organisms contain the blueprints (RNA and DNA inside the nucleus of each microscopic cell tantamount to one gigabyte of information) that communicate design and life in such an organized fashion? No one in the evolution camp can answer these questions and the prestigious Journal of Molecular Evolution still has not given an answer or proposed a detailed model for the evolution of a complex biochemical system, "no one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed....no one has written about the obstacle posed by the need to regulate a cell's metabolic pathway immediately at its inception....AMP is not the only metabolic dilemma for Darwin. The biosynthesis of the larger amino acids, lipids, vitamins, heme, and more run into the same problems and there are difficulties beyond metabolism" (Behe 142-151). After realizing all the difficulties that arise when considering Darwin's theory of evolution, to believe in evolution is to show that you do not need a preexisting intelligence to do all the work in creation.
And so it is with the many people who still believe in evolution even though there is no evidence to support it. They have built their belief system on an inadequate framework. In academia and science, the old proverb that says publish or perish is required to establish credibility and dare I say, popularity. How much garbage comes out of science claiming to be scientific? So much so that you have to weed through the garbage to find the truths that are backed by real science and evidence, "if a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished" (Behe 185-186). Such is the case with Darwin's theory of evolution. But because of this apotheosis of evolution, it is readily and widely accepted even as the lack of evidence to support it is unequivocally ignored. No one would even consider that the internal combustion engine just banged into existence and anyone looking at a beautiful piece of artwork on a canvas would assume is just magically appeared, even so, the incredible complexities of a living cell and the beauty of the majestic mountains didn't just bang into existence. Dave Hunt quotes C.S. Lewis in his book Occult Invasion, "If minds are wholly dependent of brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind." We can conclude as Hunt concludes, "this simple logic destroys Darwinism. If man is the chance product of impersonal evolutionary forces, than so are his thoughts-including the theory of evolution" (21).
"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, invisible and visible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him"........Colossians 1:16 (KJV).
Citations:
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. Free Press (Simon & Schuster), New York, NY. 1996.
Breese, Dave. Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave. Moody's Publishing, Chicago, Ill. 1992
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of the Species. Castle Books. 1859
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton & Norton; Norton Co., Inc., New York, NY. 1996
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler; Adler Publishers, Inc. Chevy Chase, MD. 1985
Guth, Alan. Guth's Grand Guess. Discover, vol. 23, Apr. 2002, p. 35
Harold, Franklin. The Way of the Cell. Oxford University Press, NY. 2001
Hunt, Dave. Occult Invasion. Harvest House Publishers. Eugene, Or. 1998
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. Basic Books, New York, NY. 2001
McFadden, John J. Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life. W.W. Norton & Norton; Norton, Co., Inc., NY. 2000
Oldenwald, Sten. The Astronomy Cafe. 1998
Riddle, Michael. Four Power Questions for Evolutionists. Answers in Genesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJwwCItBFEM
Silk, Joseph. The Big Bang. Henry Holt & Co., LLC. New York, NY. 2001
Thaxton, etc. al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Lewis & Stanley, Dallas TX. 1984