Evolution

What is Evolution

Evolution: the quick bird catches the slow bug. Is this really the greatest show on earth or is it a barker selling tickets to a fraud? Did this really create every living thing on earth?

Evolution teaches that no matter how complex living creatures may be, the only thing that produced these complexities was random chance - pure accidents. After random chance had created these complexities, then natural selection weeded out the weaker, undeveloped animals. Evolution is accidental genetic changes shaped by environmental stresses.

Darwin, however, did not teach that. Darwin taught:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down. Charles Darwin. Origin of Species, p.189 1st ed.

Allegedly the entire panoply of life creeped up by accidental changes and environmental stresses separating the weaker from the stronger. Is this cavalcade of accidental mutations and dying animals really responsible for the creation of man. Or is there something more?

Evolution invariably teaches that chance mutations are the only source of change:

"... the process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability and hence evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist 45:385

Random chance, says evolution, is the engine that produced all the complexities of life, and natural selection (survival of the fittest) is the knife that cut out the weak and left the world to the strong. The foundational principle of evolution is that the only source of changes that resulted in vast improvements - and all of life - is nothing other than mutations caused by unadulterated random chance.

It is certainly true that the chance mutations that supposedly cause changes in species are acted upon by the environment and to that extent are not "by chance." But originally, it is always chance and chance alone that produces the mutations. It is blind chance that is supposed to produce the changes and it is the environment that shapes those changes.

But the chance of accidental mutations producing improvements to a species is miniscule:

"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. Mr. Mueller won the Nobel prize for his work on mutations (emphasis supplied)

No amount of random chance could ever produce what is common knowledge of science today. The pages of this website show incidents of life with inconceivable complexity that could never have been produced by chance mutations and dying animals.

___________________________

When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species in 1859, it was 40 years before end of the reign of Victoria in England, before the telegraph and before the American Civil War. At that time there were neither electric lights nor an effective microscope. And ever since that time, evolutionists have hammered evolution into medicine and into biology.

But much has been discovered since before the Civil War and what has been discovered is far beyond that of which Darwin ever dreamed. It is increasingly clear that life is not just complicated but inconceivably complicated - and intentionally designed down to the sub-atomic level. Unobserved beneficial mutations and dying animals simply cannot account for the organization of trillions of neuro-connections in the brains of humans, for the encoded chemical formula for thousands of human proteins encoded into the arrangement of atoms in a molecule or how the brain of a honeybee can perform a billion organized calculations in a thousandth of a second.

But evolution remains with us because it has created academic positions with vested interests and because the existence of a Creator is even more of an anathema to evolutionary academe than the scientific method, which, if judiciously applied would make no theological presumption whatever about the existence or the non-existence of a Designer.

Evolutionist D.M.S. Watson states the case with pristine clarity:

"[Evolution is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S.Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p. 233.

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins echoes his predecessor:

"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory ... we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism]" Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (NY Norton, 1986), 287, emphasis in the original.

These men (and practically all other evolutionary scientists) believe that since God does not exist, evolution must have occurred - and it does not matter to them what the evidence is.

The point is that if they had no pre-conception whatever about God, then their opinion of evolution would be drastically different.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not science. It is metaphysics.