If You Believe in Evolution,
Then You Believe . . .
Accidents and Random Chance
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that all of life occurred through random genetic mistakes and dying animals.
Evolution teaches that random beneficial mutations improve an organism's chances of survival. These random mutations are supposed to perpetuate the mutated organism and eventually create a new species.
Purely accidental and random beneficial mutations are supposed to have produced all plants and animals on earth. And survival of the fittest is supposed to have resulted in the death of the weak and left the world to the strong. That is all that evolution is. Chance creates, death destroys and the strong survive and reproduce. According to evolution, random mutation is the sole mechanism for the creation of the strong and the survival of the fittest is the sole mechanism for the elimination of the weak.
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that a series of perhaps millions of random beneficial mutations devised a language to describe the formulas for 20,000 complex human proteins and them upon a molecule (the DNA molecule). This process consumed approximately three billion letters.
It has been said that the DNA molecule is equivalent to inscribing the Encyclopedia Britannica upon a molecule. However, in actual fact, this comparison is inaccurate. It is more accurate to say that it is equivalent to inscribing 20 Encyclopedia Britannicas upon a molecule (click here to see the basis for this argument).
These 3,000,000,000 (or, arguably 6,000,000,000) letters are used to provide intricate instructions for combining particular atoms and molecules in the proper sequence to manufacture 20,000 specific human proteins. They are chemical formula encoded into a language that has no physical representation of the molecules that it describes. It is a code.
If you are an evolutionist, you believe that not only the proteins, but also the instructions for the assembly of the proteins were formed by thousands of chance changes (accidents). And you believe this even though each protein performs a different function that is intricately wedded to a particular requirement of the human body. All of these functions are complementary and all of the 20,000 proteins that make them possible must be produced constantly and in the right proportions and all of these proteins must work in harmony.
Of course, no single protein is of any use at all by itself, but if you are a true evolutionist, that fact is of no moment to you. If you are an evolutionist, there is no infinity of impossibilities that is sufficient to convince you that anything but accidents and survival of the fittest produced an incomprehensible organization, even if it is twenty encylopedias written into the arrangements of the atoms in a molecule. In fact, even if the chances of just the enzymes occurring by chance were 1 in all of the atoms of the universe (see below), an evolutionist would not believe that anything but chance and survival of the fittest produced them.
1,000,000,000,000,000 Fortunate Accidents
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that somehow 1,000,000,000,000,000 individual neurological connections that perform the functions of the human brain randomly came together through a series of accidental mutations in just the right arrangement. This translates into the accidental manufacture of a hard-wired electrical network containing approximately the same number of organized connections as there are leaves on the trees in a forest that is half the size of the United States. That is a forest approximately the size of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined. Or the size of Continental Europe or twice the size of India.
"In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million.
"Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves, the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain!"
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler, 1985), p 330. Dr. Michael Denton is a Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor who has lived and worked in London, Toronto and Sydney and who is best known for his biological research (emphasis supplied).
That is the equivalent of trillions upon trillions of minute wires connecting all of those leaves to form an incomprehensibly complex network that produces thought. It is simply irrational to believe that this occurred through beneficial chance mutations (that have never been observed) and dying animals.
One cannot begin to explain this kind of complexity by arguing that DNA is similar in similar species, that pelvic bones of birds look like pelvic bones of raptors or that an electric spark through a carbon liquid produces something that might be a protein.
One should not leave his common sense in the hall when he enters the biology classroom. Open your eyes and look. Think. They are teaching you that chance mutations and dying animals produced the human brain: that is a perfectly formed in place and organized neuro-connection evolving each minute for two billion years -- and that is assuming no mistakes. Do the math yourself. That simply cannot have happened - no matter how much one wishes to believe it.
It is simply unreasonable to argue that this was created by happenstance and the death of inferior animals.
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that pure chance and dying animals somehow invented a language and used it to inscribe the chemical formula for 20,000 human proteins into a molecule.
Inside of the cell, you believe that random mutations also produced a device that copies a precise segment of a DNA molecule for the express purpose of producing a particular protein. The segment is approximately 1/20,000th of the length of the DNA molecule. The copy bears no physical resemblance whatever to the protein molecule that it will be used to manufacture. It is nothing but pure code, pure logic. And the logic is separate from the arrangement of the atoms that carry the code - like the information contained on this page is separate from the pixels on your computer screen. It is separate in the same way that a chemical formula written on 4 pages of an encyclopedia is separate from the type and the ink on the pages. The type and the ink is of little relevance. It is the logic, the meaning conveyed by the ink that carries the substance, not the ink itself. This meaning and the logic and the structure of the code that conveys the meaning is non-physical and therefore not subject to to any mutation.
Inside the cell, a copy of the code is transferred to another device, which is operated through another encoded mechanism that reads the meaning of the code and then retrieves the necessary atoms and molecules described by the code and assembles them in the proper sequence to produce the protein molecule that the code describes. So we find one accidentally formed code reading another accidentally formed code to enable every cell in your body to constantly manufacture (molecule by molecule) all of the 20,000 different protein molecules that you need.
If you are an evolutionist, you believe that all of this was created by happenstance and dying animals. And if you believe this, then perhaps you will believe anything.
And yet, this is nothing in comparison to the design of memory.
- If you are an evolutionist, you believe that random chance produced a system for storing the memories of a lifetime into the electrical arrangement of the individual molecules in your brain. This arrangement is another undecipherable non-physical digital code. You believe that this non-physical digital code "grew" along side of the method for storing memories. You don't know how it did it, but you are sure that it did it by millions of beneficial mutations.
There are trillions upon trillions of these molecules that hold the code that records the memories of a lifetime. And when a living molecular computer indexed them all, the evolutionist says to himself, "My how fortunate that these same accidents that produced a method to record memory also happened to produce a mechanism that indexes trillions upon trillions of encoded molecules just so we can recall what we wish at the whim of a thought!"
And when the evolutionist finds this logic to be weakening under the ponderous weight of common sense, he has only to ponder the skull of Lucy. Surely that proves that trillions upon trillions of organized electrical connections operating in perfect sequence must have evolved. In reality, the real reason is that the alternative is simply unacceptable for other reasons. It is theologically incorrect.
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that a device that captures a pattern of light and then separates it into 126 million electrical signals (the number of rods and cones in both eyes) "occurred" by means of the natural action of time and chance mutations. These 126 million constantly changing electrical signals - by fiat of pure accident - are another extremely complicated electrical code that "grew" until it could convey moving images and millions of different colors.
You believe that this code was composed by a series of accidents and by chance it is transmitted to a living electrical processor that, also by means of a series of accidents, knows the same code and is equipped to translate it instantly.
This processor simultaneously reads 126 million constantly changing electrical signals and produces the perception of an extremely a high resolution three dimensional moving color picture and it does this in the space of nanoseconds, such that there is no perceptible delay between the action and the perception of the action.
Some of these devices work for more than a century without stopping. Fortunately, this device was somehow connected to another device that stores these pictures into memory and conveys the entire sequence rather than just the colors of the particular optic nerve endings.
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that it is logical to conclude that there is no Designer solely because evolution presumes that He does not exist.
Evolution says that it cannot make any conclusion about a supernatural being because it cannot posit the existence of anything that it cannot physically observe and measure. Therefore, it argues that since it has not observed a Designer, a Designer does not exist and since there is no such Designer, evolution is the only realistic explanation for all of life.
This is all well and good until the inconceivable complexities of life indicate that there must have been a Designer. Evolution cannot logically argue that a Designer does not exist solely because evolution refuses to consider Him.
If I say there must be a reason and under no circumstances will it be X, I have proved absolutely nothing about X, nor can I use my argument to prove that X does not exist.
Hypothetical Falsifiability (the quality of a theory of being susceptible to being proven wrong)
- If you believe in evolution, you follow a theory that cannot, by its own terms, ever be falsified.
It is a principal of logic that any theory must be subject to hypothetical falsifiability or it is logically irrelevant. That is, in order for any theory to be initially credible it must be hypothetically falsifiable.
For instance, if my theory is that purple spiders weave the snowflakes that fall, the theory is obviously foolish, but it is hypothetically falsifiable because anyone can fly a plane to the clouds to see if there are any purple spiders making snowflakes. On the other hand, if my theory is that purple spiders weave snowflakes and the purple spiders are invisible, the theory is illogical on its face because it is not hypothetically falsifiable.
Evolution's response to this argument is "No matter how complex life is, it had to have evolved because there is no Designer." Creation asks, "How do you know that there is no Designer?" And evolution responds "Because everything evolved." That is not a logical approach. Evolution is not hypothetically falsifiable because it refuses to even consider the existence of a Designer.
Evolution simply presumes that there is no Designer and therefore evolution is the best explanation, no matter what degree of complexity one can demonstrate. When the observed complexity strains the credulity and no substantive explanation can be provided, no matter, evolution simply responds "Evolution is too slow to be observed but we know that even the most complex elements of life must have evolved because they are there. That just goes to show how efficient evolution really is!" This response similar to the theory of the snowflakes. When one attempts to test it by showing that there are no purple spiders in the clouds, evolution's response is effectively that they are invisible and we know that there are purple spiders in the clouds because we have snowflakes!
The logical approach is to presume nothing whatever about a Designer and then to look at the complexities of life to see whether it is more reasonable to conclude that such complexities were designed or whether it is more reasonable that they are the result of random mutations and environmental pressures.
Intelligent Design is quite hypothetically falsifiable because it does not refuse to consider the existence of evolution. The theory of Intelligent Design may be falsified by showing that evolution is simply more credible.
For instance intelligent design may be proven false by showing some evidence that 10000000000000000 fully timed and organized neurological connections in the human brain (click here for our page on this issue) occurred by a series of random genetic mistakes. However, evolution cannot win that argument, so it argues things like whale bones and the skull of Lucy and presumes ab initio that intelligent design is the product of inferior minds blunted by religious oppression.
The refusal of evolution to even consider the existence of a Designer disqualifies the theory from proving that a Designer does not exist.
Have you ever noticed that evolution is the the simple answer to virtually everything?
The Brain and K
If you believe in evolution, you believe that the human brain, which is, among other things, a massive computer, was never programmed. Because, being an evolutionist, you have already excluded the possibilty of a Creator, no matter what the evidence shows.
There is a massive computer in Japan known as K. According to Wikipedia, K is so large it requires 9.89 megawatts of electricity to operate it. That is the equivalent of the amount of electricity needed to run approximately 10,000 suburban homes. Fujitzu, the maker of the computer, does not publish the physical dimensions of K, but photographs show that K is enormous. It is so enormous that one does not describe K by the number of feet, but by the number of aisles of massive computer cabinets. There are at least 12 long aisles. K has more than 80,000 2.8 GHz 8-core SPAR64 VIIIfx processors and it computes at the rate of 10.51 quadrillion computations per second. K is used for massive data processing such as earthquake and disaster simulations.
Recently, however, it was used for a human brain simulation program (see http://www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2013/20130802_1/)
For the brain simulation, a team of programmers programmed K to simulate a neural network of 1.73 billion nerve cells that interconneced with 10.4 trillion synapses. 82,944 processors were necessary and the memory required was in excess of that contained in 250,000 PC's. This massive programming effort was accomplished by an international team working together from 2009 through 2013. When one takes into account that the operation of such a program in real time would require every one of the 10.4 trillion synapses to be sequenced and timed properly, the enormity of the task becomes more clear. But despite the massive effort, the end product was a simulation of only 1% of a human brain.
Have you ever clicked the shutter of a film camera? The click on a film camera, depending on the lighting, is no longer than 1/25 of a second. There are actually two clicks, one for the opening of the shutter and the other for the closing of it. But they are so close together, one can hardly distinguish both clicks. In the time between those two click, K has processed 52 billion computations. Each one was logical and each one occurred pursuant to a pre-designed computer program that had been written by a team of international experts. That is the computing power that there were wielding.
They loaded the program into K and started the program. When K finished, it had completed the processing that is necessary for 1% of the human brain to process for one second. In order to accomplish this, it took K 40 minutes, 124.8 quadrillion organized computations and enough electricity to run 10,000 suburban homes for that same period of time. So it took K 2400 times as long as it takes the human brain to do the same thing - with the brain (or rather 1% of it) running perhaps on a crust of bread. Taking into account these figures (one second's worth of 1% of the processing power of a brain), the brain is 240,000 times as powerful as K ( seconds in 40 minutes x 100 ).
So there are two computers in this comparison. It took a team of renowned international programmers approximately 4 years to program one of them to process one second's worth of 1% of the other. If you are an evolutionist, you believe that only one of these computers was actually programmed: the slow one. As far as the other one goes, well, it was the cosmic rays, the environment and dying animals that programmed that one. And, if you are an evolutionist, you actually see this conclusion as rational. It has to be rational. Because to you, the alternative is simply unacceptable -- for "other reasons." So, really, anything is rational to you as long as it excludes the possibility of a Creator. My friend, if you are reading this, that is just not science.