by Anniel 2/19/15
Latest: Part 5: Exposing the Big Bang’s Fatal Flaws • 9 PhD scientists explain evolution’s fatal flaws – in areas claimed to be its greatest strengths. Edited by Robert Carter, PhD. Creation Ministries International (US) www.creationbookpublishers.com Also available on Kindle.
This book is the collaborative work of 9 PhD Scientists in different disciplines who deal with what they see as the impossibilities of Darwinian Evolution. The scientists all write from an admittedly religious perspective and tackle the following areas in Evolutionary thought:
• Natural Selection
• Genetics and DNA
• The Origin of Life
• The Fossil Record
• The Geological Record
• Radiometric Dating
• Cosmology and the Big Bang
• Ethics and Morality
I have finished reading the (long, but very interesting) Introduction to the book, written by Dr. Carl Wieland, MD. One of the first things Dr. Wieland gives is the following definition of evolution:
The word ‘evolution’ in this book’s title means much more than ‘genetic change’; more even than ‘the origin of life’s diversity.’ The term will be used to encompass the whole grand-scale scenario that modern culture takes as foundational in its rejection of the Creator God of the Bible: that stars, planets and galaxies supposedly came about when nothing somehow exploded; that lifeless chemicals, by largely mysterious processes, are supposed to have somehow formed the first living thing (a biological machine so complex as to be able to make copies of itself and to harness usable energy from the environment); and from this fortuitous first life has come the entire array of species, both past and present. Microbes have supposedly become not just microbiologists, but mosquitoes and magnolias, mushrooms and meerkats, and all this over billions of years of trial and error – random changes filtered by the unremarkable (and ultimately unguided) process of natural selection.
Dr. Wieland makes clear that evolutionists will not even consider God or a designer, and quotes one academic he knows as saying that science can only consider natural matters. Hence they cannot consider any evidence that points to ID because it’s not naturalistic. So we can only consider a world that made itself, no other can even be contemplated.[pullquote]One side sees the same rocks, stars, trees and animals as the other, so in the end evolution becomes a philosophical and moral matter of the will to believe what is actually seen.[/pullquote]
He also points out that both sides of the evolution controversy have the same “facts” to work with. One side sees the same rocks, stars, trees and animals as the other, so in the end evolution becomes a philosophical and moral matter of the will to believe what is actually seen. There’s that choice between truth and falsehood, good and evil popping up again. Like global warming, there can be only one “right” side in some people’s minds.
Genesis provides an eye-witness account of creation, a one time event that gives more clues about the history of creation and life than one might suppose. Evolution is thought of as an account of the same history as “science” based on theories about how these things must have occurred. Genesis may even be the historically correct account but there is no way to prove that one way or the other.
There may be debates about the how of creation and evolution, but it has become an article of faith to evolutionists that the universe and all life forms are the products of natural selection and the public must not be misled to believe otherwise, especially if one turns to the Genesis history.
Dr. Wieland closes by saying there is no third way to be considered in this battle. Either the world was created or it created itself out of hydrogen
molecules that had the ability to create themselves and everything else.
Otherwise it had to be created by a thinking being, who could only be God.
Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels – Part 1
Chapter 1 – Natural Selection Written by Dr. Don Batten, PhD, Plant Physiology [University of Sydney]
Dr. Batten has been involved for decades, as both a scientist and a Christian, in the philosophical battles over Darwinian Evolution. He writes that natural selection is the cornerstone of that battle.
I have to start by telling you this is a very long chapter, and one of the most eye-opening and astounding accounts I have ever read about beginnings and how God deals with all the creatures He made to inhabit the earth. To me there are so many new scriptural insights and ideas that this one chapter alone makes the book vastly worthwhile.
One of the first things Dr. Batten says is that, “Natural Selection is really a very straightforward, common-sense idea. Creatures with features (traits) suited to survival in a given environment tend to survive better than those who do not have those traits.” As an example, he says that wolves who live in the Arctic need thick fur, small ears and short legs in order to conserve heat. In a hot environment they would need the opposite traits.
Nature doesn’t “think”, so using the term “natural selection” makes sense when discussing how one species may thrive and survive in any given environment, while another will not.
Two parts of this chapter deal with the writings of Charles Darwin, and the many men who went before him, who not only believed the same things Darwin did, but wrote about them. He failed to give them any credit for their ideas. For instance, most of the scientists who predated Darwin were concerned about the term “Survival of the Fittest” because they feared it would be interpreted as meaning the biggest, fastest or strongest, when the truth is that the “fittest” are those who are able to produce the most surviving offspring. So when Darwin used the term it had already been in general use for some time.
Darwin and his adherents did wrestle with the question of what evolution actually is. Is it that things change over time (speciation), or is it the common ancestry of all living things? In his first writings Darwin addressed the issue of the common ancestry of all things and theorized that over time new traits arose that insured reproduction and survival and that those traits carried forward to the next generations. Later he discussed how one could see evolution in action in bird’s beaks that got thicker or thinner, and feathers and furs that changed colors. Even a peacock’s feathers were said to be an example of evolution because peahens preferred big, showy and colorful tails. But this speculation did nothing to say where the beaks, colors or feathers came from in the first place.
It would be 12 years from the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species before he published The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. He probably held back for fear of offending people. With Descent of Man everything was put out in the open. People were descended from apes with nothing special about them. They were just another evolved and evolving animal.
Of course Darwin and his fellow scientists had no idea of genetics or real heredity, so much of what they surmised and accepted as fact would soon begin to collapse under the weight of new discoveries in diverse fields.
Dr. Batten says, “It is a huge leap to go from looking at various changes in an existing feature (such as shorter, thinner, longer, fatter beaks) to explaining the origins of beaks, finches, birds, reptiles, mammals and everything else. How does looking at the variation in dogs explain the origin of dogs (wolves)? . . .”
Today researchers know that changes within a species are mostly from accidental rearrangements of genetic information in ways that are not always beneficial. If you try to go from microbes (if you can even make a self-replicating microbe in the first place) to higher orders of animals, how do you make information producing genes for muscle, bones, skin, feathers or any other necessary attribute? These matters are so complex that it is impossible to consider the transfer of necessary information occurring over ANY length of time.
Evolutionists seem to have a false impression they present to the public. Evolution is true because we say it is true. Here, they might say, we have a guppie which is bigger and more colorful, and then Richard Dawkins pronounces that this is “evolution occurring right before your very eyes.” But the color change may be the result of natural selection. If females prefer more colorful males and there are no predators in the environment, then more colorful guppies will be born. But if there are predators that eat the more colorful fish, more drab varieties of guppies will prevail and reproduce.
The same thing occurs with the wolves in the Arctic, discussed earlier. If there are larger, long eared and less furry wolves they will simply die out because of their liabilities in the cold. They are examples of natural selection, but their species does not change and they can still interbreed with other wolves.
Another quote from Dr. Batten, “. . .evolutionists . . . still like to talk of natural selection as a creative force, but it cannot create anything. It can only eliminate the unfit, not create the fit. Natural selection is not the same as evolution. ‘Survival of the Fittest’ (elimination of the unfit) does not explain the arrival of the fit.”
One thought from Dr. Batten that haunts me, “The desire to get rid of the Creator/God is a deep-seated human trait that did not start with Darwin.” The quickest path to destruction is for man to place himself on the throne of God.
And now we approach the creation history told in Genesis that clarified so much for me. I have chosen to cite the scriptures and to use the George M. Lamsa’s Translation From the Aramaic of the Peshitta, simply because I find it more clear than either the TANAKH or the King James Version of the Bible in this instance:
Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth vegetation, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, wherein is their seed, upon the earth, and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree bearing fruit, wherein is its seed, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was
Genesis 1:24-25 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and everything that creeps upon the earth after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Carolus Linneas (1707-1778) was one who wrote about natural selection long before Darwin, but he wrote from a biblical perspective that “Diversity has occurred with time WITHIN THE ORIGINAL GENESIS ‘KINDS’.” (quote from book note.)
I freely confess that the word “kinds” had no meaning for me at all before I read this book. I just assumed that when the text says God made every “kind” of animal, plant and insect, He did so all at once. While we acknowledge changes and hybridizations in both plants and animals happening around us, it never occurred to me that this natural selection had much to do with evolutionists claiming that species change and we all came from nothing because there is no actual Creator/God.
When we think of Adam naming the animals and that it must have taken a long time, maybe he assigned names to “kinds” and then by means of natural selection the same species went forth and by natural processes became differentiated.
The book shows a picture of all different breeds and sizes of dogs. They can all interbreed and produce hybridized offspring. Crossing a female chihuahua with a male Great Dane might not be wise, but the other way around would be no problem for the female. The point is they are still “dogs”. Wolves, coyotes, dingos, whatever, are still the same species and sometimes crossbreed with dogs.
It is also true that while some members of the same species can crossbreed, their offspring may be sterile so there is no new line. We had a neighbor with a mule, a cross between a horse and a donkey, and when it brayed we were glad it was sterile and not producing more mules.
Think of all the “kinds” that exist on earth in different locations that could arise from one prototype. All the “kinds” of horses, cattle, sheep, insects, arachnids, birds, vegetation – the list is long. But with the Creator’s sure hand at the controls of the earth’s birth and its flourishing, the whole matter makes more sense to me now.
The story of Noah and the Ark also makes more sense after reading and digesting this explanation.
Genesis 6:19-20 (KJV) reads:
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Dr. Batten says that “what we see is the outworking of the created ability to adapt/diversify within the limits of the created kinds, such that earth’s ecological niches could be filled with life.” Did God use and record the same method to spread life twice? I have lots of questions about natural selection still, but this seems like a very intelligent answer to me.
If we can agree that changes do occur in all living things, then the real arguments over evolution are about how life actually arose and became differentiated. For Darwin it was easy to propose a theory about the origin of species, but because of new understanding about the biochemical makeup and genetics of all life forms, today that theory is much more difficult to accept.
The rest of this chapter in the book deals with problems surrounding supposed changes that “prove” the origin of species over long periods of time. The information is good, but I think the most important part deals with genetic mutations, or adaptability within a group, which really are caused by shutting down or turning on a gene, or part of a gene, to enhance survival in a certain environment. There is nothing that shows any species change to be possible.
There are a stupendous number of mutations that would have to occur within a species to change it, and then the mutation would have to be a “good” one. The preponderance of the evidence is that most mutations are not beneficial in any way to a host.
Ionizing radiation and chemicals were once used in experiments to “speed” evolution, but researchers wound up disappointed when it was shown that most changes only created more problems and the changes occurred when something “broke” or got shut down in the genetic structure.
Even the simplest of creatures and plants have proteins and chemical properties too numerous to make changes in the information stored in the cells. The favorite insect to test theories on has been fruit flies because of the their rapid growth, prolific breeding and short life span. Researchers who have attempted to change fruit flies to show evolution in action have wound up with crippled, malformed fruit flies and dead fruit flies. Nothing else.
It also appears that the rate of mutations man is experiencing are moving much faster than anyone has anticipated because we cannot “select” which mutations to keep. Thus, according to the evolutionary paradigm, we are well on the road to extinction.
Dr. John Sanford, a retired Geneticist from Cornell University, has summarized the following problems for evolutionists:
• Mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them.
• Mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be ‘selectable.’
• Biological noise and ‘survival of the luckiest’ overwhelm selection.
• Bad mutations are often physically linked to good mutations, so they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.
What a bleak future that presages! If, and it’s a big if, you buy into current evolutionary thinking.
This chapter then explains in great detail how information is or is not forwarded to the next generations, and what happens when that information cannot be processed or transmitted properly.
The biblical account of the creation of “kinds” is much more cohesive and hopeful to me than anything the origin of species has to offer.
One item not in the book (so far) is the vehicle by which people were persuaded that mankind’s different embryonic stages “proved” evolution. Remember when we were taught we once had gills, proving we came from the sea, so maybe we had once been fish or frogs, and that it was impossible to tell the species of an embryo in the early stages of gestation? The books and pamphlets in support of the claims always were accompanied by artistic hand renderings of different types of fetuses, all looking the same size. The whole thing was finally exposed as a fake. Of course a horse fetus is not the same size as a human fetus. And the gills were shown to be slits that accommodated brain and facial growth. EVERYTHING was faked. (Note: My 18 year old grandson says he was shown the drawings and taught this in school. I looked it up and found that this is, in fact, still being taught. Nothing is said in the text books to clarify the matter.)
After thinking this chapter through, I am amazed by natural selection and the idea of “kinds.” I am convinced more than ever that man really is a product of the information present in every gene and cell of his or her body from the moment of conception.
• (24544 views)