Evolution and God.

There is considerable tangible, scientific evidence that God created all things, and evolution did not.

Charles Darwin, in a personal letter to Asa Gray in February 1860, expressed concern about how the eye could have evolved.

Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading advocate of theistic evolution, had written Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of organs such as the eye. See Francis Darwin, THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN, Vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pages 66-67.

Gray relates that Darwin expressed doubts:

The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his dilemma.

Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value?

No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility or survival, would seem to be irrelevant.

There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, on the subject of bees says:

Bees are entirely dependent on flowers for food, which consists of pollen and nectar, the latter sometimes modified and stored as honey.

Darwin's evolutionary natural selection theory is annihilated simply.

In the Washington Post National Weekly Edition, FOR CELLS, DEATH IS ALL PART OF THE PROGRAM, Jan. 16-22, 1995 writes:

The natural fate of cells is to die.

This is part of the social contract that makes it possible for a large number of individual cells to live together harmoniously as a single organism.

Some of them have to make sacrifices.

These examples show that some things are formed for the exclusive good of another, thereby annihilating Darwin's theory, according to his own words.

Evolution relies upon chance and randomness as its motive causal power, according to Jacques Monad, p. 112-113, CHANCE AND NECESSITY, (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1971):

Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere.

Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.

Chance and randomness are expressions of abstract intellectual mathematical concepts; they are not real forces.

Real forces operate upon matter and energy, and they are discernable, using adequate measuring mechanisms.

Darwin eventually conceded that chance is not a real motive causal power:

The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.

see

See also Charles Darwin's Correspondence to Lady Hope, 1873, section 6.6, pp 259-276, TRUE SCIENCE AGREES WITH THE BIBLE, by Malcolm Bowden, Sovereign Publications, Kent, 1998, available from THE BEREAN CALL, P.O. Box 7019, Bend, Oregon 97708-7019, 541-382-6210.

Yet, modern evolutionists have not considered that chance and randomness are non-sensical, non-real motive causal powers, says Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, in his April article DNA AND OTHER DESIGNS in FIRST THINGS:

Chance produces only meaningless disorder.

A scientist who earned 3 PhD's, Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, in his THE NATURAL SCIENCES KNOW NOTHING OF EVOLUTION, p. 145, ISBN 0-936728-1A (previously ISBN 0-89051-062-8), states:

Chance does not produce any conventions [order, structure, functionality, information in DNA] at all.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a French chemist who scientifically and satisfactorily proved that life does not spontaneously generate.

He proved that life only comes from life; he finally disproved the THEORY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

Even though Francesco Redi had convinced many scientists that visible living things do not come from nonliving things, many scientists still believed that spontaneous generation occurred for micro-organisms.

Although Lazzaro Spallanzani tried to disprove this with broth-filled flasks, many scientists were not convinced by his experiment. They believed that air needed to enter the flask in order for life to be created from nonliving materials, and Spallanzani's experiment did not allow air to enter the flask of sterile broth.

Louis Pasteur, however, was able to allow air to enter a flask of sterile broth. He performed the same type of experiment as Spallanzani, except both of his flasks allowed air to enter:

1st Flask, Top, had an S-shape neck that allowed air in, but not micro-organsms.

2nd Flask, Bottom, had a straight neck that both air and micro-organisms could enter.

1st Flask, Top, broth in the flask with an S-shaped neck did not become contaminated.

2nd Flask, Bottom, broth in the straight neck flask became contaminated with micro-organisms.

The fossil record does not show intermediate species, and there is no scientific evidence that lower and less complex forms of plants and animals were the original progenitors of life, but rather, the fossil record indicates that life came into being in the form which we now know it to be: that is, there was no gradual progression over great time spans of lower forms of life to higher forms of life.

see

see

The laws of science indicate systems break down, disintegrate, and degenerate over time, source: THE NATURAL SCIENCES KNOW NOTHING OF EVOLUTION, by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, ISBN 0-936728-1A (previously ISBN 0-89051-062-8).

The second law of thermodynamics teaches that within a thermodynamically closed system entropy tends to increase with time. p. 59

The behavior of matter in a thermodynamically open systems does not differ much, at least from the point of auto-organization, from that in a closed system. p. 65

An alternative formulation of the second law simply states that within a closed system the total order will tend to decrease. Accordingly, no overall spontaneous increase of order could take place in such a system. The total energy available for work within the system will tend to decrease generally and steadily. Obviously, no general progressive auto-organization of matter could take place within a system of this sort. p. 60

The artic tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans and returns with the skill normally associated with the navigational equipment of a modern jet, seen IN THE BEGINNING, by Walt Brown, CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC CREATION:

A round trip might be 22,000 miles.

The tern's electronics are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, and maintenance free.

If the jet's navigation equipment could not have evolved, how could the tern's more amazing, corresponding equipment have evolved?

Consider that lower life forms: worms, etc., live a shorter time than higher life forms, animals, etc.

Consider that for evolution to work, simultaneously both male and female representatives of the species would have to co-exist at the same instant in time, so that reproduction would actually work for that species.

How did completely functioning male and female representatives occur at the same point in time, so that reproduction could work correctly to produce descendents from the beginning?

Now if evolution did in fact work, it would have to permit two reproductive mechanisms that actually work simultaneously to co-exist in the lower life form, so the higher life form could get started, one reproductive system is passed on to the lower life form's descendents, another reproductive system passed is on to the higher life form's descendents, and these two reproductive systems in the lower life form would have to co-exist in a useful working condition in the much shorter life time of the lower life form. Then the second reproductive system in the lower life form passed onto the higher life form would have to "get rid of itself" so the lower life form could go on its merry way without any fossil trace of this second reproductive system ever showing up to "confuse us" centuries later.

Nobel Prize Winner Dr. George Wald, Harvard University, said in INNOVATION AND BIOLOGY, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100 says:

There are only two possibilities as to how life arose.

One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God.

There is no third possibility.

Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.

That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.

I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.

Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution.

J. W. N. Sullivan, in THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, The Viking Press, Inc., page 94 says:

The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable.

What was the origin of life on this planet?

Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of "spontaneous generation."

It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat.

But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life.

So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance.

It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity.

It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it.

For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.

Soren Levtrup in DARWINISM: THE REFUTATION OF A MYTH, Croom Helm, pages 274-275, says:

Darwin complained [that] his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival.

And the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.

Roger Lewin in EVOLUTION THEORY UNDER FIRE, Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, page 883, says:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution [variation in already existing species, say beak changes in one bird family different from another bird family] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution [evolution from non-living life to real life].

At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, NO.

Michael Thomas in STASIS CONSIDERED, Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, page 11, says:

One could argue at this point that such "minor" changes [micro-evolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macro-evolutionary change.

But the observational evidence will not support this argument ...

Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macro-evolution.

Those who argue from micro-evolution to macro-evolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy-especially when one considers that micro-evolution may be a force of stasis [produce stability], not transformation.

For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome.

For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.

Frank B. Salisbury, Plant Science Department, Utah State University, in NATURAL SELECTION AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE GENE, Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, page 342, says:

If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.

W. R. Thompson in INTRODUCTION TO THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Everyman Library No. 811, published by E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint edition, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), page 10, says:

If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently.

In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.

A. M. Winchester in GENETICS, 5th edition, Houghton Mifflin Co., page 356, says:

Lethal mutations outnumber viables by about 20 to 1.

Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.

Sewall Wright in THE STATISTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MENDELIAN HEREDITY IN RELATION TO SPECIATION, The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley, Oxford University Press, 1949), page 174, says:

The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration.

C. P. Martin in A NON-GENETICIST LOOKS AT EVOLUTION, American Scientist, January 1953, pages 100-103, says:

All mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms.

I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment ...

Accordingly mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely ...

Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.

Gordon Rattray Taylor in THE GREAT EVOLUTION MYSTERY, Harper & Row, page 48, says:

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.

Ernst Mayr in SYSTEMATICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Dover Publications, page 296, says:

It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.

This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth).

As for God, His way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless.

He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him.

Psalm 18:30