Evolution
is not a perfect theory, for evolutionists are yet to answer the most
fundamental questions.
The term “Evolution”
is an umbrella term to encompass three very diverse aspects:1
1. Small-scale
changes within a species or genepool a.k.a. microevolution (e.g. evolution of
new varieties of dogs).
2. All
organisms have descended from a single common ancestor a.k.a. Universal Common
Descent / Macroevolution.
3. Unguided
process of natural selection acting upon random mutation as the primary
mechanism of driving the evolution of life a.k.a. Neo-Darwinism / Macroevolution.
Most creationists
affirm microevolution. The macroevolution divides the population.
The public
perception is dreadfully wrong in understanding evolution and creation. The
general public perceives evolution to be highly scientific and thinks that the
entire scientific community endorses the veracity of evolution.
The average
man or woman considers creation to be thoroughly unscientific. They think that only
the mindless theists, who, by definition, [apparently] hate science, consider
creation to be factual. This is so wrong!
The entire
scientific community does not endorse Darwinian evolution. “Dissent from
Darwin” website reveals the growing number of scientists disputing the Darwinian
evolution.
Consider the
words of a few scientists who dispute Neo-Darwinism: 2
“New mutations don’t create new species;
they create offspring that are impaired.” (Evolutionary biologist late Lynn
Margulis - member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences)
“[m]utations
have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous
they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Past
president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse)
“There are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety
of wishful speculations.” (Biochemist Franklin Harold)
“the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of
nature is almost certainly false.” (Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel)
Among the
scientific community, renowned evolutionary biologists who have pronounced the
death of Neo-Darwinism are Francisco Ayala and the late Lyn Margulis of the
“Attenburg 16” (group of evolutionary biologists who met at Attenburg, Austria in
2008 to explore the mechanisms behind evolution).
The
scientific community is divided over evolution because evolution is yet to
answer certain fundamental questions!
Origin Of Matter:
Where Did Matter Come From?
Something
could not have come from nothing. Matter could not have created itself, for to
create itself matter should have been in existence (to create) and at the same
time matter should not be in existence (to be created). This is a
contradiction. Moreover, if energy is required to create matter, where did the
original energy come from?
If we
consider the universe as a case in point, one argument that could be posited is
that of an eternal universe – the universe always existed. But the 2nd
law of thermodynamics (flow of thermal energy) contradicts this notion. Our
universe is constantly losing energy.
Our
universe could not have been infinitely old, since it would have lost all
energy by now. Evolutionists believe that there is no outside source for
energy, for they do not believe in God. If evolution is factual, our universe
would have ceased to exist. Thankfully, our universe exists and evolution
remains a theory.
Our
universe still has usable energy. This indicates that it is not infinitely old;
rather it had a beginning, during which it was wound up with energy needed for
sustenance.
Cosmologist
Sean Carroll proposed a mathematical model for an eternal universe (with an
infinite past). But in a physical world it is impossible to count down an
infinite number of years, which is why mathematician George Ellis and physicist
Joe Silk, in an article in Nature,
ruled out infinity, since it occurs nowhere in the universe.3
Life From Nonlife: How
Did The First Life Originate?
Secular
minds do not recognize God, but life is in existence. So they have to explain
how life came into being. They then posit a solution that life must have
originated via a natural, spontaneous event.
The most
basic aspect of scientific test is observation. Thus far, science has not
offered an experiment proving origin of life from spontaneous natural
processes. On the contrary, we constantly observe that life comes from life
(biogenesis), which is a scientific law.
Life is a
fascinatingly complicated and a sophisticated operating system. All that science
has managed to conjure up until now is creative experiments proposing the
formation of strangely structured rings of amino acids and a few organic
molecules. But life is not a mere collection of a few organic molecules.
Science has not managed to come close to explaining origin of life. Moreover,
developments in genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry et al. push life
outside the reach of natural and spontaneous processes.
What would
happen if scientists do manage to prove that life could indeed originate from
non-life? Should evolution then be unanimously believed? Would God then be
irrelevant and dumped into the dungeons of darkness?
No! Not by
any chance!
Dr. Kevin
Anderson, Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center, debunks
this claim. 4 If scientists do happen to prove life’s origin in a
laboratory from elemental components through a carefully controlled and
designed process, their accomplishment will use not only preexisting
components, but knowledge gained over decades of scientific research and
understanding. This is not a creation of life, but a semi-synthetic reassembly
of life.
This is not
a spontaneous creation of life, but this creation demonstrates the extensive
amount of knowledge required to create life. This is an act of plagiarizing the
life systems that already exists albeit by discrediting the author of life,
God.
Information Of Life:
Where Did The Information To Life Come From?
Life, in
essence, is the information that operates all parts of an organism for
metabolism, growth, reproduction and adaption to environment. Life requires
vast amount of intangible information stored in the DNA.
Scientists
still endeavor to answer the question, “where did the information to life come
from?” Such information can only come from pre-existing higher source of
information.
Information
is an intangible nonmaterial entity, separate from mass and energy, without
material or physical existence. Other examples of such nonmaterial entities are
mathematics, logic, thoughts, emotion, consciousness etc.
Interestingly,
the most useful aspects of our universe are nonmaterial entities. This
information is comparable to an operating system of a computer or a mobile
device. This intangible operating system offers life to the device.
Dr. Werner
Gitt, specialist in information theory, proved that only nonmaterial entities
can create new information. 5 Evolution, by definition, is a materialistic
system predicated on unguided random processes. So evolutionists ought to
explain how a materialistic system adds nonmaterial information to the DNA so
to effect changes from one species to another and how the first cell acquired
information to activate its life.
Irreducible
Complexity: Complex Organs That Cannot Be Reduced In Complexity
The
defining test of evolution, as Charles Darwin emphasized, is that complex organs
evolve through small evolutionary steps. Any complex organ could have only
become complex through small steps of evolution.
But Darwin honestly
emphasized the innate risk in evolution, “If
it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down.”
Dr. Michael
Behe in his exemplary work, “Darwin’s Black Box,” broke down the Darwinian
evolution by positing “Irreducible Complexity” through the extremely complex
architecture of the bacteria E.Coli’s flagellar system. Dr. Behe argued that
the flagellar system could not have evolved, “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by
continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the
same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system,
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part
is by definition nonfunctional”.6
Presence of
complex organs continues to be evolution’s achilles heel. Although
evolutionists continue to suggest theories about the possible origin of any
complex organ, scientists from the opposing camp have found flaws in their
theories. These recent refutations are a case in point. 7
Desperate
for answers, evolutionists have even redefined Darwinian evolution by appealing
to “neutral evolution” (changes in DNA not resulting in a change in biological
function). But neutral evolution is only possible under impossible odds, for
it’s a matter of pure luck.8
Someone
said this, the chance of evolution actually happening is about as likely as a
blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space and knocking down a
satellite that then crashes onto a target on the back of a truck speeding down
the highway. Even with billions of years, that’s not going to happen.
Endnotes:
Cited websites were last accessed on 7th March
2016.
1 http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/
2 Ibid.
3http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/why_past_histor102661.html?utm_content=bufferc7e76&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
4 https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/three-puzzles-evolution-cant-solve/
5 Ibid.
6 Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, p. 39
7 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/the_danger_of_c098231.html
&
http://www.discovery.org/a/24481
8 https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/three-puzzles-evolution-cant-solve/
No comments:
Post a Comment