The audacity of evolution
“Evolution is a fairy tale for adults,” says Professor Louis Bouroune, president of the Strasbourg Biological Society, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum and director of the French National Center for Scientific Research. In other words, believing in evolution requires one to throw rationality out the window.
The “theory of evolution” formulated by Charles Darwin is based on faulty observations and data. Actually, there is much evidence that contradicts this teaching. In fact, evolution is not really a theory, a law, or even a science. Theories can be tested. Scientific law is tested and proven by experimentation; Not so with evolution. As we shall see, evolution is closer to wishful thinking than to science.
Consider an illustration:
A man was chatting with his new neighbor in his garage. The man asks, “Have I told you about my watch?” The neighbor replies, “No. What’s the story?” “One day, I was here in the garage looking for a flashlight. My daughter left her skates and I slipped in the toolbox. Springs and screws flew everywhere! When I regained consciousness, I looked at the mess and all those things came together to make this watch”.
In this scenario, a complicated machine (the clock) was randomly assembled by accident. Evolution happens the same way. According to Darwinians, all life on earth began with a “primordial ooze” or mud struck by lightning or some other energy source, causing the building blocks of life’s chemical building blocks. Over the course of billions of years, these components somehow became single-celled organisms, eventually evolving into every living thing on Earth through random mutations.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, scientific law cannot allow this to happen. The second law of thermodynamics states that natural processes progress in a direction that increases the total entropy (disorder) in the universe. In nature, nothing becomes more ordered or complex in structure than that from which it comes. Nothing can create something more complex than itself.
Many people assume that the main evidence for evolution is in the fossil record. We often hear reports of new species discoveries. Dinosaur skeletons, “ape men” and other finds seem to prove that evolution does occur. The scientific explanations of the experts make the arguments seem even stronger.
The fossil record also opposes evolution. There are no fossils of animals in transition phases. The “new” species have just appeared. For example, there are no fossils showing the development of wings to link reptiles and birds.
Man’s oldest ancestor is said to be a species identified by a skeleton known as “Lucy”. It is not commonly known, but in most biological circles, Lucy is considered a chimpanzee (1). Neanderthals have been found to be “anatomically correct humans who were pathologically impaired by iodine deficiency diseases” (2, 3). Articles published in the journal Science in 1996 admitted that Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man and modern man lived during the same time period (4, 5). Furthermore, there are not enough fossils to support the idea that the Earth was inhabited by various forms of life for hundreds of millions of years.
The effectiveness of carbon-14 dating has been questioned. For example, the blood of a seal that had just been euthanized in Antarctica was analyzed. He indicated that the seal had been dead for 1,300 years (6).
There are many reasons to reject claims of evolution other than those we have briefly discussed in this essay. Seeing that there is no clear scientific or rational reason to accept Darwin’s theories as fact, those who deny the truth choose to “believe” in evolution. British physicist HS Lipton says: “Evolution has become, in a sense, a scientific religion; nearly all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘twist’ their observations to fit it.” Instead of believing in a Creator who made humans and the rest of the universe for a purpose, they make time and chance their creators. Believing in something that cannot be seen, tasted, or even proven will be considered by many to be religious faith.
Sources:
1) Science News, col. 123 February 5, 1983, p. 89
2) John Noble Wilford, New York Times, December 1, 1999
3) Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post, May 24, 1999
4) Science, Vol. 276, May 30: 1331 and 1392, and Science, vol. 274, Dec.
13, 1996: 1841 and 1870
5) Science, Vol. 274, December 13, 1996: 1873-1873
6) W. Dort Jr., Ph.D., United States Antarctic Review,
September-October 1971, p. 211