A Case for Creation: Session Three, Part 3 (b) – The Problem of Evolution

This week we are finishing the second part of “The Problem of Evolution” with evidence that shows the holes and inconsistencies with evolutionary theory when it comes to the origin of complex life. It is only fair to view the evidence from both sides because original creation and the origin of complex life by intelligent design is not presented in the public arena. Not only is the scientific evidence not presented, it is blackballed, and those that hold to the possibility of original creation and the origin of complex life via intelligent design, and not evolution, are made to feel incompetent, ignorant and are even excommunicated from the scientific community.

Watch the second part of the presentation here to understand the specific problems with evolutionary theory, and the many questions that evolution cannot answer for original creation and the origin of complex life:

A Case for Creation: The Problem of Evolution, part b:

Overview notes from the presentation:

“In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact!” 

– Ron Carlson, U.C. Irvine Professor and Author

Evolution is a misleading term because it is overarching and broad in its scope and definition

• There are two basic meanings to the word “evolution”

1. Microevolution:

• Evidenced in the changes seen in nature and in the diversity of species that are measurable and observable (different kinds of plants, dogs, cats, horses, etc.).
• This is also referred to as adaption and/or natural selection.

But does this observable evidence lead to the next conclusion?

2. Macroevolution

• Takes the evidence of microevolution and infers that species evolve through a gradual series of changes eventually becoming newer and better species (humans and monkeys come from ape-like creatures, amphibians come from fish, and birds comes from reptiles, etc.).
• Taken back far enough – we all began as a single cell bacteria-like organism in a primordial fluid (how that came about is not answered as they defer to abiogenesis=life originating from non-life, appearing out of nothing).
• Macroevolution is unobservable. It is not a result of the scientific method, and contrary to popular belief, it does not have the required evidence in the areas that it claims to such as the highly regarded fossil record.

Summary—Important take away:

Microevolution: Changes within species—this is true based on observation—this is observable adaptation, not evolution.

vs.

Macroevolution: A change from one “Kind” of living thing into a new “Kind” of living thing—this is false because it cannot be, and has never been, observed.

Who was Darwin and where did this theory of evolution come from?

• In the mid 1800’s Charles Darwin, an English Naturalist, took the idea of evolution (actually it was adaptation he observed) and wrote books called The Origin of Species and Descent of Man.
• In these books Darwin took his studies from the Galapagos Islands and transferred observable changes he saw within species (kinds) to the theory of the origin of species (kinds).
• This theory takes an awful leap of faith from the observable microevolution to the unobservable macroevolution.

Evidence that debunks Evolution’s Icons

(still taught as examples of evolution for the origin of complex life in the textbooks today)

Galapagos finches:

No missing links to a change of kind – they are all still finches

Haekel’s embryos:

Forgeries in the textbooks—there are no similarities in embryos of different species as depicted in high school biology textbooks—these are artist renditions

Ascent of Man Chart:

Misleading drawings—they are artists renditions of human evolution—the bones are actual bones of apes (not human transitions) leading up to the actual human anatomy

Additional misleading icons of evolution

• Fruit flies

Mutations here are not beneficial and the flies do not survive

• Bacterial mutations

Cause genetic limitations not improvements

• Peppered moths

Adapt and change color not species

• Homologous structures

Same designer (allows for optimal performance); not because of a common ancestor

• Vestigial Organs

Now know to be functional and not remnants of evolutionary transitions

The Problem

• Evolutionary theory uses philosophy not science. Evolutionary theory has become a religion itself. Questions of origin require forensic science and cannot use empirical science alone. Therefore all reasonable evidence should be allowed in the door.
• Biblical creation and the theory of “Intelligent Design” has by far the most reasonable evidence, and in abundance, so why is it so quickly dismissed in the scientific community?

Michael Ruse, (Ardent evolutionist and ex Christian) Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at the University of Gwelth in Canada has said:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than a mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true of evolution still today.”

Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission:

“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.”

Twelve questions Darwinian Evolution cannot answer, but must:

Keep in mind…

There are only two possible causes for life:

1. A supernatural intelligent cause that demonstrates design and purpose

or,

2. An undirected cause that came about by random chance conditions.

Which one can best answer these questions?

1) The origin of first life. Why is there something rather than nothing at all—where did it all come from originally?

2) Life does not consist merely of chemicals. If this were true mixing the chemicals of life would produce life—What is the missing ingredient?

3) There are no known natural laws that produce specified complexity. There is information in the cell that codes for the performance of specific functions—where does this information come from?

4) There are many human functions and actions that are immaterial. In modern science the search for the cause of origin does not allow for anything immaterial or supernatural, it is built upon a philosophy or presupposition that there is no God. How then can you address the immaterial nature of life (like the soul, intentions, emotions etc.)?

5) Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed. How can something come from nothing; and how can non-living materials give rise to living materials?

Genetic limits:

6) New and beneficial information needs to be added to the DNA to create a new or different kind of living organism. Adding information to the DNA or the cell itself is genetically impossible from an evolutionary perspective. Where is the evidence of new or beneficial genetic information being added that creates a new kind of living thing from another kind?

7) Mutations in the genes do not make improvements in the species and almost always have a negative effect. Mutations take away or cause the loss of information in the cell. Cancer is caused by mutations in the DNA of the cell, this is an example of a negative effect not a positive one. Where are examples of mutations creating new kinds of living thing or contributing in a positive or beneficial direction?

9) Irreducible complexity in biological systems and their parts exist in all living things. Transitional forms would be non-viable and would die out. All pieces must be there simultaneously otherwise an organism would not survive. Where is the evidence of a living thing existing in a transitional stage with missing pieces in their functional parts?

10) Molecular isolation—outside similarities do no match up with inside similarities. Similarity in structure on the outside does not support the dissimilarity of molecular structure internally. Even though they look similar on the outside, they are molecularly different on the inside. How do you get new molecules added to completely different molecules, and DNA codes, that are isolated inside different kinds of species? 

The fossil record:

11) The fossil record is scare for transitional forms—Morphology suggests tens of thousands of transitional forms (missing links) should be seen if evolution was true, and they are not. The Cambrian explosion has exposed that the earliest fossils ever discovered have body plans identical to what we see today. Where are the transitional fossils (missing links)?

• David Berlinski, Mathematician and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, Poses this question about transitional forms not found in the fossil record:

“How many changes should we see if a complex life form goes, for example, from being a sea dwelling creature to a land dwelling creature? Most Morphologists suggest that even with a modest estimate you would need roughly 50,000 morphological changes to make that adaptation which requires specific changes in physiological features and evolutionists hold up maybe two. What happened then, to the other 49,998 forms that we should see in the fossil record? We simply do not know, but neither do the other guys.”

• Charles Darwin, said this about his own theory

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Charles Darwin also admitted:

“If it should be determined that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

-As we now have available to us, through the abundance of evidence from modern science and technology, Darwin’s theory does absolutely break down.

Mathematics—the nail in the coffin:

12) Mathematical probability proves that even if you allow for billions and billions of years there is not enough time for random chance to cause first life; even after first life there is not enough time for evolutionary changes to produce new kinds of living organisms from other kinds. Evolutionists keep moving their historical clock back and dating methods for the age of the universe and are all over the place depending on the institution. How do you account for the origination of first life—can moving the clock back ever answer the origin question?

• Probability of evolution by chance?

Walter L. Bradley, Mechanical engineering professor at Texas A&M University and co-author of the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins:

“Since evolutionary scientists have estimated the age of the universe at 14 billion years old and the earth being less than 5 billion years old the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism, even if you optimize the conditions here on earth in those early days, wouldn’t work.”

“…If you took all the carbon in the universe and allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10 with 60 zeros after it!”

That’s one chance in…

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000, 000,000,000,000,000

Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA has said…

“To produce the miracle of molecular construction, all the cell needs to do is string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain of DNA) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process. Suppose the chain is about 200 amino acids long and, since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some 200 times. This is conveniently written 20 to the 200^th power, that is, a 1 followed by 260 zeros? This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension.”

What does that look like?

To create this one single strand of DNA (by chance) is mathematically one chance in…

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

To simplify the astronomical odds of complex life forms developing over the course of the earth’s history, astronomer Fred Hoyle and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe have said…

“The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.”  Is this logically possible?

• Phillip Johnson, U.C. Berkley Law Professor and Author of “Darwin on Trial”

“Darwinism is based on an ‘a priori [prior] commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.”

• Evolutionary Biologist, and Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin admits…

“We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises…because we have a prior commitment to materialism…Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

• Our Creator God has warned us…

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.  Colossians 2:8 (NASB)

Going Deeper

1. What are some of the evolutionary icons that have been debunked that you can memorize to share with others? Pick 2 or 3
2. What questions do you still have about creation vs. evolution?
3. PTRs: Prayer focus – Pray that students in public school, whether university level or grade school, will be allowed to examine all the evidence for the the theory of evolution as it pertains to the origin of complex life.

Bible Study

Each week we will do a Bible study in the book of Genesis to practice our Bible study skills. This week read or re-read Genesis Chapter 5, then, to the best of your ability, answer the following questions:

Always remember to pray before reading and studying Scripture.

1. Make a chart or list of the descendants of Cain and Seth (4:17 – 5:32), include their ages (if listed).

2. Discuss these two lines of descendants – what are some things you observe or have questions about? (Consider the fact that at this early time everything had been perfectly created—the environment, the climate and atmosphere which included a protective canopy, the food sources, and their DNA).

3. There is an introduction to Noah in 5:30-32. What do you already know about Noah? (We will be studying the flood over the next several posts).

Join us next week as we continue our “Case for Creation and A Study in Genesis – Session 5: Noah and the Flood”

———————————————————————