Evolution as Bad Science – 4. Everyone needs a place of their own

Bad news about not having a cell – you need one. You and I depend on oxygen in order to live. But, oh dear, oxygen is a highly reactive chemical and will rip our DNA and RNA to shreds if they come into contact with it, which tends to happen, what with all the air and water everywhere, which is one reason why DNA has to hide behind a cell wall, so that any oxygen is only dealt with in a controlled and safe environment. But cell walls don’t just happen – they are constructed… by cells. So you need to have a cell, before you can have DNA – but you need DNA before you can have a cell. Consequently, you don’t start off with dead chemicals, wait a bit, and then get life.

Advertisements
Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 3. The Origin of Life

Even if you’ve got a universe where life is possible, before natural selection can get going, you need to have something to select. In other words, you need life to be in place before it can evolve into something else. Evolution, properly defined, cannot say anything about the origin of life, only about its development. So evolution can say nothing about creation – it just pushes the problem of “how did everything get started” back in time. But this is a formidable problem, because evolution as a theory was up and running way before anyone understood anything about how life was made up, and how difficult it was to start. The simplest forms of life have several hundred genes, each of which needs the pre-existence of DNA, RNA and the whole cell structure before it can exist at all. The DNA needs to be made up of the right proteins, but you need DNA in order to make proteins! The proteins need to be assembled out of amino acids, but it turns out you need the cell to be in place to stitch all the amino acids together, and the really bad news is that there are two mirror-image versions of each amino acid – right handed and left handed, but life only uses the left-handed ones, and if your chain combines with a right-handed amino acid then it will destroy the whole thing. And amino acids aren’t exactly common – you’ll wait a long time to get the right circumstances for even a few of them to occur, (in fact, we’ve never observed this – we had to get scientists to set up experiments to make it happen) and then you get half left-handed and half-right handed, and this is fatal to your chances of getting life. And then you have to get not just a few together, but the 20-or-so that make up life, in the right combinations to make up a letter on the DNA code, and that has to link up with the right other letters and separate RNA, and somehow fall into a double-helix (like a pair of helter-skelters, mating) that is (this time) right handed, (left-handed double helix’s need not apply). And still you don’t have a cell.

It’s too hard to do without God. Is it any wonder that the world’s most prolific atheist author of the 20th Century, Professor Anthony Flew, when he looked at the problem of the origin of life, decided he had better start believing in God after all?

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – 2. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

Why is the universe a nice place to live? Before you can have life, you need somewhere for life to do all the living in, and for the universe, this means that the laws of Physics need to be set up in such a way that allows life to exist. And they are – hence we are all here. But many Physicists are puzzled, because there is no reason that the laws of Physics have to be the way they are – in fact, many of them seem balanced on a knife edge. A little more one way or the other and there would be no life at all anywhere, just one big dead universe. In fact there are so many variables where our universe is ‘just right’ for it to be too suspicious, and so Physicists have tended to lump into two camps. One camp says, “OK, we hold our hands up. It’s just all too neat. Someone must have made it that way – accidents like this just don’t happen. Looks like we’re going to have to admit there is a God.” The other camp says, “OK, this universe is set up for life in a way that looks like a miracle, but if we imagine an infinite number of universes, the vast majority of which have different laws and consequently no life in them then, by the law of averages, a life-bearing universe had to happen eventually.” There is, by the way, absolutely no evidence for believing there is or ever has been any other universe than the one we are in, but an infinity of other universes is invented by people who know the only other option is God. This violates one of the basic rules of science and philosophy – Ockham’s Razor – don’t multiply entities in order to get round difficulties (Or in plain english,  – don’t just make stuff up – and you don’t get much more of a violation of this than making up an infnite number of alternate universes.)

Next we cover the Origin of Life…

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – Why is there anything at all?

As one patron saint of Evolutionists (Carl Sagan) said, “If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first of all create the universe”, so we’ll start at the beginning.

1. Why is there anything at all?

Of course, the Big Bang is all the rage nowadays. You can hardly move in cosmological circles without someone claiming to have heard the echo of this first blast of everything into existence, despite the fact that no-one can quite make the maths work, and so we have the “horizon problem”, and “lumpiness” and a bunch of other things that make it all a little bit suspicious when we are used to being told that scientists have got it all sussed. Forty years ago it was not so. Scientists then tended to believe that everything had always been and, while this view had its problems, they would tick off creationists for even suggesting the world had a beginning. In fact, the term “Big Bang” was invented by eminent British scientist Fred Hoyle as a way of mocking the idea that the universe popped into existence, so forgive us for being slightly smug, when they finally came around to at least a bit of our way of thinking.

But why is it there? When you get to the beginning, what caused things to begin? Those who believe in creation at least can claim a Prime Mover in the form of God. People may not like the answer, but it is at least an answer, and not an obviously stupid one. Those who believe in a Big Bang simply don’t have an answer, or even any basis for evaluating an idea. And it’s difficult for evolution to happen if there is nothing there for it to happen to. So evolution cannot explain how we came to be. But supposing we accept that we are all here, what then?

Our second reason for Evolution and related theories being Bad Science is…

2. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Evolution as Bad Science – an introduction

Our next few posts will cover just ten of the reasons that Evolution and its family of naturalistic theories are Bad Science. To let you know where this is all going, this introduction summarises the top ten.

1. Because the universe exists, didn’t need to, and had to be started by someone.

2. Because the universe is so hospitable to life, against all the odds, that it looks suspiciously like someone made it that way. I wonder who?

3. Because DNA cannot happen by chance.

4. Because DNA can only stay safe within a cell, but you have to already have a cell to make a cell.

5. Because evolution doesn’t just require a living cell to pop out of nowhere, but also that it must be able to reproduce itself. This is another impossible thing.

6. Because existence isn’t just about chemicals combining- it requires the existence of a genetic language system – or to put it another way, it needs the existence of information.

7. Because Male and Female need to be around at the same time – they can’t evolve separately, yet there is no reason for them to evolve together.

8. Because there has never been a mutation that increased the information content of a cell.

9. Because the cell, the body and the whole world displays interdependence – yet evolution only deals with individuals, and dependent things cannot wait for evolution to catch up.

10. Because “living fossils” either expose dating methods as nonsense or show that evolution doesn’t happen.

And as part of today’s special offer – 10% extra for free…

11. Because the missing links are still missing and the fossil record is a problem for evolution.

Remember – if any one of these points is valid, then the whole theory of evolution collapses – and what will you replace it with?

But first, a few words on ‘Evolution’ and related theories

Currently, the most popular versions of the theory of evolution claim that all living creatures are descended from a common ancestor. This is supposed to have occurred over the last 3 billion years on earth, from an unknown beginning. Somehow, chemicals are supposed to have accidentally got together in order to form something that could reproduce, and reproduction continued, guided only by the relative ability of the thing that was reproducing to survive in its environment. Random mutations are supposed to have happened with some of this “something” (to call it a creature would be to go too far, when we are not even aware of whether it had a cell wall), until they happily developed improvements that made them better able to survive against the original forms. This is supposed to have continued to happen over billions of years, with different creatures emerging remarkably adapted to their surroundings, and improving and adding new functions all the time, until we get to the unparalleled complexity of you, me and the world around us.

Oddly, this view is perhaps best at describing itself. The idea of evolution from a human ancestor has a long history, and uncertain beginnings. It certainly wasn’t Charles Darwin’s idea, and not even the idea of his eminent grandad, Erasmus Darwin, as it stretches back to ancient greek myths. Evolution has changed over the years, although not accidentally, but guided by human purpose, to fit the social environment in which it has come to reside, and the versions of evolution (for there are many) have survived according to their ability to exploit and thrive in their environment. Consequently, as in nature life thrives all over the planet, evolution as an idea has secured dominance particularly in the Western World, and as in nature there are grey squirrels just waiting to displace red squirrels from their habitat, so there are different varieties of evolutionary theory just waiting to step into any gap left by a previous version that has become discredited. In a real sense, in evolutionary theory the theory itself  is the only thing that has been seen to evolve, and every change has been the purposeful decision of an “intelligent” being, rather than the random actions of death and chance. Evolution’s only possible example actually denies its driving force, for it depends on Design from outside the system. Ironically, believers in Evolution need the God of the Bible for their theory every bit as much as creationists do. But as previous posts have shown, the God of the Bible is not available to evolutionists.

Why am I talking about science in an article that is opposed to evolution? Well, actually, there is plenty of scientific evidence that casts doubt on the idea that every living creature in the world is descended from a common ancestor by a system depending on chance, mutation and the ‘survival of the fittest’. Much of this evidence can be accessed via the ‘About’ sections of this site, accessible immediately beneath the logo at the top of the page.

However, it can take a bit of dedication, familiarity with science, and a reasonable amount of time and effort just to understand the debate, and that could seem like a bit too much effort, particularly with creation being dismissed on a regular basis as a ‘fringe’ view that is close to madness. So here I’m giving my current Top Ten among the many reasons why Evolution doesn’t work, in the hope that you might be inclined to take your research further.

As one patron saint of Evolutionists (Carl Sagan) said, “If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first of all create the universe”, so we’ll start the next post at the beginning.

1. Why is there anything at all?

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reasons that Evolution is Bad Theology – 8-10

8 ) Evolution denies several points about God’s character that the Bible teaches to be true. Evolution denies the necessity of God, by making his involvement in creation unnecessary, hence Richard Dawkins makes the claim that Darwinism “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. It further denies the Holiness of God, by denying there was a fall of man through sin, and therefore giving no need for man to be redeemed. It denies the Righteousness of God by denying He judged the earth with a worldwide flood, as he claimed, and it denies the Sovereignty of God by denying him the exercise of his power at Babel, when he confused the languages of the earth. See more here.

9) Evolution denies the Resurrection. The Apostle Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive . . . And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit’. If there was no sin and death in Adam there is no reason to believe there will be a resurrection to defeat death, as the Bible explicitly links the two. For the Gospel to be historically true, the account of Adam and Eve must also be historically true.

10) Paul, in the New Testament, specifically made the point that men are not the same flesh as animals, but evolution requires both men and animals to share a common ancestor (1 Corinthians 15 v 39).

See these additional sources for more –

Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?

A low view of Scripture

The Relevance of Creation

Next we will look at reasons why Evolution is Bad Science.

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reasons that Evolution is Bad Theology – 4-7

Following hot on the heels of the last post with the first three reasons why Evolution is bad theology, here are 4 more.

4) Evolution requires death before sin, but Christianity teaches that death is the result of sin. Evolution depends on death and random mutations to make the world a better place. The Bible (Romans 5vv12-13)  teaches that death comes from sin. The evolutionist places the biblical cart before the biblical horse. The evolutionist therefore doesn’t only say that God told stories that were not in fact true in order to convey spiritual truths, he also effectively suggests that God wasn’t even very good at telling these stories, because the truths they convey are directly opposed to the theory of evolution.

5) Evolution says man is an ape that rose to a new height, and so has no need of salvation. Christianity says man was made in the image of God, and fell to new depths, which is whay he needs salvation from sin. In Romans 5 v 12 we read that ‘sin entered the world through one man, and through sin – death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned’. The Christian doctrine of justification – that we needed Christ’s sacrifice to deal with our sins is based on the existence of Adam and Eve. They are part of the foundations of the Christian faith. The Bible says “If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” (Psalm 11 v 3).  If Adam and Eve never existed, there is no basis for justification, and so no basis for Christianity. See more here and here.

6) Evolution requires men to be judges over God’s Word. Christianity requires that we be judged by God’s Word.

In many ways this is the crux of the debate, for it asks the question as to who decides what is or is not the case, and who is in charge. If the Biblical God is really in existence then why would we pretend that we are best equipped to judge, and that man is the measure of all things. Instead we should allow him his place, for if we pretend not to, we are living in denial of the truth. So it is not a question of picking through Genesis and working out what we will allow to be fact, and what we would prefer to be fiction, but it is more like accepting that God is the only person able to write his stories not just on paper but on history, and not just with ink, but with real people and their real lives.

7) Evolution requires us not to believe God’s account of natural events, but Jesus taught that if we can’t believe God on natural things, we shouldn’t believe him on spiritual things. Jesus said “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3 v 12). Genesis was written by Moses, but Christ said “For had ye believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5 vv 46-47).

Three more reasons Evolution is Bad Theology will follow in the next post.

Posted in Creation versus Evolution | Tagged , | Leave a comment