I,creationist,oppose/discredit evolution theory
NOTE THAT IM NOT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THIS BUT I JUST AGREE WITH THE IDEA PRESENTED HERE.AT THE END OF THE POST YOU WILL FIND THE SOURCE.
DO NOT COMMENT,EXPRESS YOUR OPINION UNLESS YOU HAVE READ AT ALL,READ ALL THEN COMMENT.
What is Science?
Creationists are often accused of being unscientific or pseudoscientific, while at the same time those who promote evolution assume the mantle of “real scientist.” But what is science anyway? According to The American Heritage Dictionary, science is “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Or put more simply, science involves observing things in the real world and trying to explain how they work. The key word here is observation.
You see, creationists do, indeed, believe in real “observational science,” sometimes called “operational science.” We enjoy the benefits of observational science every day. Whether flying in an airplane, having our illness cured by the wonders of modern medicine, or writing this on a space-age laptop computer, we are benefiting from the technology that applies genuine observational science to real-world needs. These triumphs of science exist in the present and can therefore be the subjects of examination and investigation.
Another type of science is known as “historical science,” sometimes called “origins science.” Historical science is the process of using the methods of science in the present to determine what happened in the past. Since the physical world exists in the present, all the evidence a scientist has available to examine the physical world also exists in the present. The scientist has no method to examine directly the past; thus, he must make assumptions in order to come to conclusions. However, assumptions are unproven, and generally unprovable, beliefs. Assumptions are no more than untestable guesses.
Things that happened in the past are just that, past. They cannot be observed or tested in the present. They cannot be repeated or verified in the present. Then, you ask, how do we know so much about the past?
Understanding the past
Perhaps an example here would help illustrate this issue. If you were to ask a roomful of people, “Do you think George Washington was a real person?” what would you expect the response to be? Of course, everyone would say that he or she believed George Washington actually existed.
Now ask this question: “Can you give me a way to prove his existence scientifically, that is, by some experimental procedure?” The usual responses are “Test his DNA,” or “Dig up his bones.” But actually, these methods won’t work. First of all, DNA testing would only work if you already had a valid sample of his DNA to use as a comparison. If you dug up his bones, you still could not prove they were his. In order to make any conclusions, you would have to make some assumptions based on things you could not actually test.
Well then, if there is no scientific method to prove he lived, how do we know George Washington existed? It’s easy! We have abundant historical documentation of his life. These documents were held to be valid by the people who lived in that day and are not disputed. Thus, we have reliable evidence that he actually walked the earth.
What Does This Have to Do with Evolution?
Molecules-to-man evolution is based on the premise that, through mutation and natural selection, organisms have, over the past three billion or so years, become more complex. These organisms have then progressed into an ever-increasing array of creatures until, ultimately, humans arrived on the scene.
When asked if anyone has ever seen one type of creature change into another, the answer is always no. Confronted with this, the evolutionists will usually counter that it happens too slowly to be seen. The claim is that it takes millions of years for these painfully slow processes to occur. Well then, if the process is too slow to be seen, how do we know it happened at all? After all, no one was there to observe all these organisms slowly changing into more complex forms. Also, there is no way in the present to test or repeat what happened in the past. Any conclusions about things that are not testable in the present must be based on improvable assumptions about the untestable past.
Ernst Mayr, who is considered by many to be one of the 20th century’s most influential evolutionists, put it this way:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is an historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
He then amazingly concludes, “No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we know now to be a simple fact”
So-called Evidence for Evolution
What is so obvious in our world that Mayr can call goo-to-you evolution “a simple fact,” which according to him no educated person would question? There are many supposed evidences for evolution. We will now consider two of these supposed evidences here and will examine them in the light of observational, rather than historical, science.
Evolutionists often claim that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They argue that evolution only deals with issues of the changes in organisms over time. They contend that life has progressed through purely naturalistic means, without any supernatural intervention. However, if they argue that life progresses by purely naturalistic mechanisms, then they must also delineate a natural process by which life came into being.
One supposed evidence for evolution is that life began spontaneously in the earth’s vast oceans approximately three billion years ago. Textbooks, magazines, and television documentaries constantly bombard us with this so-called fact. Just what is the evidence for the evolution of life from nonliving molecules? There isn’t any! There is no method to determine what the earth’s “ancient atmosphere” was like or the composition of the oceans at that time.4 No one was there to test or examine that environment. No one can say with certainty what the chemical makeup of the primordial oceans was. So how can it be claimed that simple proteins and nucleic acids arose spontaneously?
Based on our knowledge of these molecules using observational science in the present, it is difficult to imagine these processes happening by naturalistic processes. No scientific observation has ever shown how these complex molecules could arise spontaneously, let alone evolve simultaneously and assemble themselves in such a way as to become alive. One prominent evolutionist, Leslie Orgel, notes, “And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.”
One of the primary evidences used to support the theory of evolution is the fossil record. Evolutionists have long proposed that the fossilized remains of dead organisms, both plant and animal, found in the rock layers prove that life has evolved on the earth over millions of years. Using observational science, how can this conclusion be reached? There are only the fossils themselves to examine. These fossils only exist in the present. There is no method to determine directly what happened to these creatures; neither to determine how they died, nor how they were buried in the sediment, nor how long it took for them to fossilize. Although it is possible to make up a story to explain the fossil record, this contrived story does not meet the criteria for true scientific investigation. A story about the past cannot be scientifically tested in the present.
The creationist looking at the fossil record reaches a far different conclusion from the evolutionist. To the creationist, the fossils in the rocks represent the result of a global cataclysm with massive sedimentation rapidly burying millions upon millions of creatures. This catastrophic event would account not only for the fossil record but also for the rock layers themselves. (Deposition of sediment in layers would have resulted from sorting in the turbulent Flood and post-Flood waters.) So which viewpoint is correct? Neither the creationist’s nor the evolutionist’s explanation can be tested in the present.
But in this regard the creationist does have evidence. Evidence is found in a book called the Bible. The Bible claims to be the Word of God. It is a record of what God did and when He did it. In the Bible we learn how life began—God created it. The Bible helps us understand the fossil record—much of it is the result of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8. Like the historical documents that establish George Washington existed, we have a reliable historical document called the Bible to give us answers about our origin and about our world.
An evolutionist has no historical documentation for his viewpoint. He relies on the assumptions of historical science for support. Herein lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and potential of science. Scientific inquiry properly involves the investigation of processes that are observable, testable, and repeatable. The origin and development of life on earth cannot be observed, tested, or repeated because it happened in the past.
So, is evolution observable science? No, evolution falls under the realm of historical science; it is a belief system about the past. How can an evolutionist believe these things without rigorous scientific proof? The answer is that he wants to. Evolutionists are quite sincere in their beliefs, but ultimately these beliefs are based on their view that the world originated by itself through totally naturalistic processes. There is a term for this type of belief system—that term is religion. Religion is “a cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”It should be pointed out that religion does not necessarily involve the concept of God.
Perhaps a few observations from some of the world’s leading evolutionists will now put the question posed in the title of this chapter into perspective.
Evolution as a Religion
Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than 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.
This is an incredible admission: the study of the origin and development of life-forms on earth is not “mere science,” but “a secular religion.”
However, this is also the view of William Provine, the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. Writing in Origins Research, he tells us, “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear.” Now you would expect this leading professor of biology to say that modern evolutionary biology tells us something about the origin of life or something about natural selection or something about the origin of species or something about genetics. But, no! According to this leading evolutionary biologist, modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear that:
There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.
It is obvious that these two influential biologists believe that evolution is a religion—a religion of atheism where there are no end products and where evolution reigns supreme.
Religion of Atheism
Writing a superb article about the rise of the Darwinian fundamentalism in The Spectator, the journalist Paul Johnson sums up the belief system of atheistic evolutionists with great insightfulness.
Nature does not distinguish between a range of mountains, like the Alps, or a stone or a clever scientist like Professor Dawkins, because it is sightless, senseless and mindless, being a mere process operating according to rules which have not been designed but simply are.
Although Paul Johnson uses the word nature, he actually is referring to evolution. By this he means chance random processes honed by natural selection over eons of time. This is the process by which everything has been created, according to the evolutionists. The everything can be an inanimate object like a range of mountains, or it can be incredibly complex creatures like you and the authors of this book.
This belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”
Evolution—an Attractive Religion
At first sight, believing in evolution may not seem an attractive proposition. However, what makes it attractive is that there is no God to whom you have to give an account of your actions. This is borne out by the following quote from an atheist:
We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.
Evolution therefore leads to the teaching that you can do as you please. You can live your life just to please yourself. Many people today live such a life. They have abandoned the faith of their forefathers and have embraced the doctrines of evolution with its atheism.
That leads us to the evil side of so called:“Religion evolution embraced with atheism“
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)
The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?
Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale can no longer be said to be evil.
Trotsky … another monster brainwashed by evolution
Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided was an enemy of the Soviet State.
He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno.
He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.
Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.
Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God's moral laws. He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.
World's worst mass-murderer was influenced by Darwin at 19
Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. The theological seminary expelled Stalin at the age of 19 because of his revolutionary connections.
Stalin is regarded as the worst mass-murderer the world has ever seen. With God out of his way after embracing Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Stalin had no restrictions of conscience or morals. He set up a terrorist police State, persecuted and murdered innocent communists, and instituted trials in which most surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and were executed. He encouraged “Stalinist adoration,” which included naming cities after him (such as Stalingrad, Staliniri, and Stalinogorsk), and advocated homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print. He murdered Leon Trotsky.
Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many innocent victims flowed from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after reading and believing Darwin's evolutionary theories.
And the most tragic aspect of all this? That while Stalin, Trotsky, and Hitler were turning their backs on their Creator, they were building their murderous, racist philosophies on a lie.
Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have some huge problems to explain...
How did the universe come about?
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.
Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem — which is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily — by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter-intuitive process than Christians put in God.
The problem is that if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
How could living creatures come from non-life?
Again, there is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.
But biology has found no support for this, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!
Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,
“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”
Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things? That's the atheist evolutionist's unanswerable dilemma, and shows the massive faith they have to hold in preposterous answers.
How could new genetic information arise?
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to turn into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something that was totally different from a moth.
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.
Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.
But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.
Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.
Alternative view
I believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.
Common comments against creationists:
We are uneducated !diots who don't have a clue what evolution is all about. They variously accuse us of being “mor0ns,” “gullible,” “dishonest,” “insane,” “opposed to science,” and similar unflattering words. And we should apologize because we don't believe in evolution? (So much for free speech!)
Source used in this post but slightly edited by me:
“The new answers book 2“ by Dr. Tommy Mitchell & Dr. A.J. Monty White
Originally Posted by The Dude
