Evolution as Bad Science – 11) And finally….

Let’s finish with what eminent evolutionist Steven Jay Gould called the trade secret of paleontology. The key word in the term “missing link” is missing. If evolution were true we would see transitional forms in the fossil record, something on its way to being something else. But with all the furore and clamour for publicity, not a single one has ever been found. Bill Bryson’s “Brief History of Everything” admits that all the bones that exist that are supposed to be ancestors of man would fit in a family car. And there are no transitional fossils between them, and no evidence that they really were anyone’s grand-daddy. Charles Darwin openly worried about the lack of missing links in the fossil record. He thought it was an argument against his theory, but put the problem off till the future, hoping that generations of fossil-hunters would find one for him. But there’s been nothing, nada, zilch. It just didn’t happen.

Some folk make a career out of evolution. They give speeches and sell books knocking the idea that God made us, and make a living out of making a monkey out of you. The BBC and the Discovery Channel help them along with the approach that blind repetition will make people believe them, and sadly, for the most part, that is what happens. But it doesn’t matter how many people believe it or how often they repeat it- if it didn’t happen, it didn’t happen.

Evolution’s success as a theory is dependent on the fact that it meets a very specific demand – the demand for some reason to reject God, so that we can reject the requirements he places on us. People don’t take heroin because it’s good for them – they take it because they like how it makes them feel. It’s the same with evolution – it will give you “the pleasures of sin for a season” – but ultimately it screws you up, and ignores the reality of a Creator who made us all, and who sent his Son to die for us, and to defeat death so that we can have forgiveness through him – if we’re willing to accept him as our Lord.

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 10) Living Fossils

No, not members of the House of Lords, but those rather embarrassing little creatures that ain’t when they should be. Now, as you and I both know, one of the key elements of the fossil Job Description is ‘being dead’. Go, climb a mountain, find a rock, split it open with a hammer, find something that looks like a sea creature, and while you consider whether this is evidence of whether the world was once covered by a global flood, like it says in Genesis, also take time to notice that this creature is an ex-creature. It is no-more. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. It is dead. Yet everything from sharks to Gingko plants have been called “living fossils” – and why? – because they are still alive, yet we find fossils of the same types of creature in rocks that evolutionists claim are think-of-a-number hundred million years old. Which becomes a worry once you work out one of the main ways biologists and geologists date rocks. The biologists date the fossils from the sorts of rocks they find them in – they trust the geologists. The geologists date the rocks from the sort of fossils found in them – they trust the biologists. And this is one big circular argument, just waiting to be punctured – except that it already has been, by the “living fossils”. You see, if the geologists are right, then the shark has been swimming around for 75 million years and hasn’t changed a bit – your Gingko plant has lasted even longer, and the last century’s chief candidate for “fish that walked”, the allegedly 300-million-year-old Coelacanth, turned up in the Indian Ocean in the 1940’s (oh and by the way, didn’t have legs, but fins as it turned out, and didn’t walk on to a beach, it’s a deep sea fish – bad luck chaps! Guess again!). This is a problem for evolution – 300 million years, and nothing happened – not one little change – and yet the dinosaurs are supposed to have risen and fallen, followed by me and thee in that time. One biography of early long-age theorist James Hutton is entitled “The Man Who Found Time”. Evolution needs to invent lots and lots of time in which things can happen – the more the better – just add time, and maybe people will believe that what is impossible will surely happen if you just wait long enough. But time isn’t just a place where you can hide all the evidence you mysteriously haven’t found yet – it is the enemy of evolution, allowing for more decay and a greater genetic burden. However long you’ve got, it still doesn’t work. And as for the 300 million years? – Well, when Mount Saint Helens blew its top in 1980, one scamp by the name of Dr. Steve Austin waited for the lava to cool, took a sample and sent it off to the lab for dating. The lab said it formed 300 million years ago – it wasn’t even 3 years old – it formed on camera in front of the entire world. Radiometric dating methods assume too much to be reliable.

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 9) Harry Hill

Harry Hill has noted that the type of people who tend to be vegetarians, are the same bunch of people who tend to go on about saving the environment. “Well”, says Harry, “perhaps there would be a bit more of the environment if you lot weren’t going around eating all the plants.” – I mean, how many burgers can you get out of the average cow? And how many beans do you have to kill to make a bean burger! – – All of which serves to introduce an important point – the interdependence of plants and animals. A little bit of basic biology will teach you that people and animals take oxygen from the atmosphere and produce carbon dioxide. Plants, on the other hand, tend to take the carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Which all works out really well. But on the timescales favoured by evolutionary biology it presents a problem. Have either side around for too long on their own and eventually they’ll use up the gas they need, and die. So you need both plants and animals and you need them to evolve at reasonably similar times – what a stroke of luck that they’re both here at the same time! And it isn’t just oxygen. Interdependence is a widely acknowledged feature of individuals and ecological systems. Evolution depends on bits being added randomly over millions of years, but if you depend on something, you can’t just wait millions of years for it to happen. Interdependence is seen across the planet, in your own body, and even inside your cells. And it isn’t just humans, but pretty much any function of any creature. A giraffe doesn’t just slowly develop a long neck – it needs a system to regulate the blood pressure in its head and cope with the differences from when nosing through the tree-tops to bending down and sniffing the grass. No system, no giraffe. The Bombardier Beetle needs to manufacture two chemicals in the right quantities to mix and explode and to only bring them together at the right moment, and in a way which doesn’t prejudice the Beetle itself, and so it carries around a heavy chamber to help it do all this. A beetle with a chamber and no chemicals is a slow soon-to-be-dead beetle. A beetle with all the right chemicals and no chamber is technically known as an explosion – and they don’t have descendents. Evolution cannot produce the inter-dependence seen in nature. Want some more? – then Exercise your Wonder

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 8) Getting lucky.

Now, back to that amazingly fortuitous bit of mutation. Evolution depends on mutations to DNA. Of course, it never used to – it was just mutations, which didn’t sound so hard, until someone worked out that it involved DNA, and then it became more of a problem. The problem with mutations is that DNA is all about information, and we only ever encounter mutations that lose information, mutations that don’t add anything new to the creature that wasn’t already there. But for us to get from goo, through the zoo, to you, we need millions upon millions of favourable changes that add new information. The only favourable changes ever seen are when things stopped working which in some situations got organisms in particular situations into trouble, like when various diseases develop antibiotic resistance by losing the characteristic that the antibiotic latched on to. A favourable mutation which added new information has never been seen in all of recorded history. Not one, never mind a few million. Mutations tend instead to be destructive, adding together over the years to produce new weaknesses, as evidence of a genetic burden which gets worse with each generation, not better. Change in nature goes the wrong way for evolution. It is a destructive, rather than a creative force.

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 7) …about sex.

R.D. Laing once wrote “Life is a sexually transmitted disease, and the mortality rate is 100%.” It takes two to tango, but evolution has us all descended from a single cell with no particular gender. So let’s say that these cells do well, and there are billions of them, and an amazingly fortuitous bit of mutation (of which more later) gives one of these cells the property and machinery of being male (or female – you decide). What happens? Well, there it is, with all these extra stretches of DNA to mutate with, and all this extra apparatus to go wrong, and it can’t do anything with them, because there’s no one to impregnate (or be impregnated by). The cell, or its descendants (presuming it is still capable of asexual reproduction), have to survive, against competing ‘normal’ cells, that don’t have the risks posed by the extra DNA, for the next one-in-how-many-million-years when another amazingly fortuitous event occurs that turns another cell into the opposite sex, in a way that makes them compatible, and with sufficient chances of them meeting up for it all to turn out alright in the end. Nope – didn’t happen – listen instead to what God says in Genesis 1 v27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 6) Let’s talk…

…which is itself a problem. Not us talking, you understand, but the whole concept of language and, indeed, understanding. This is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because our DNA doesn’t just have to miraculously form letters that curl up in the right way to form a code. The DNA, which doesn’t occur naturally, is the easy part of the problem. The real problem is the code. DNA means nothing, unless the language for understanding DNA is in place. Think about it – you’re doing it now – recognising each collection of dots as a letter, each collection of letters as a word, and each collection of words as a sentence, intended to convey meaning. You need the language to be in place and the apparatus to be in place to understand it (you know, eyes, brain, half-decent education) before it can truly mean anything to you. DNA is like this, but more complicated. It depends on the pre-existence of information and the whole language of genetics. This does not appear by chance, nor can it, for it exists on a different level from matter, and can only come from an information source – or as John’s Gospel puts it, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 5) One is the loneliest number

Congratulations, you’ve managed to get a cell, some DNA – perhaps it can sustain itself on a diet of rocks. Still not enough for life, I’m afraid, because life requires reproduction. Managing to survive for a while is no good – your cell needs to be a tiny machine that is not only able to function, but is able to make copies of itself. Mankind, with all our assembled intelligence and effort has, as yet, been unable to make any kind of machine that makes more of itself, and yet we are expected to believe it happened by chance. The closest we can get is computer programs that copy themselves, but these are designed, and live in computer worlds that are in turn designed and regulated by people. They don’t exist in the real world, and don’t happen by chance. Evolution depends on someone being able to invent a way for life to kick-start by chance, but no-one can. Life cannot kick start by chance – scientists today only tinker with existing life, despite having expensive educations, top-quality equipment, a pre-existing plan to follow (in the form of existing life), and the ability to remove anything that might otherwise get in the way, modern scientists cannot even create life from scratch themselves, and yet many of them expect us to believe it happened by accident.

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Leave a comment