Evolution

Most scientists believe that evolution is the foundation for most or all disciplines of science. Biologists, geologists, archaeologists, biochemists, etc., would generally state that evolution is the starting point for further study.

Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact when it is classified as a theory? How did this occur? Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is often tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left out, and tedious; scholarly language keeps most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.

This publication will demystify the subject. You will know whether evolution is scientific fact or science fiction. Convoluted and illogical theories will be taken apart as never before. While some sections are technical, the more detail given, the better you will be able to see through the theory’s “smoke and mirrors.” Clear and simple logic always destroys ill-conceived suppositions.

Once evolution is dismantled, you will be left with many questions—all which have serious implications.

Conflicting Opinions

Even a cursory, broad review of the subject of evolution demonstrates that decades of scientific study have resulted in little more than assumption, disagreement and widespread confusion.

The late Colin Patterson, a foremost fossil expert, famously stated in a discussion group at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City on November 5, 1981: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it” (emphasis added).

He had addressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?” Each time, his question was met with weak explanations, hypotheses and theories.

The only salient comment came during the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.”

This led Patterson to conclude, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Patterson later felt these statements were taken out of context and noted that the lecture was specifically about the narrow field of systematics (scientific classification in biology).

Yet his concerns stand: What are the facts about the theory? What do we actually know? What is the basis for its near universal acceptance?

You will be amazed at what scientific evidence reveals!

Science Is Logical

No matter the discipline, when one is presented with a vast swath of data, sound logic must be used to interpret it. Right conclusions can only be reached when proper logic is employed. Faulty logic—often called logical fallacy—causes error, confusion and misinterpretation. Sometimes these fallacies are used by accident; other times there is intent to mislead.

In the latter case, fallacies are meant to cause an audience to misinterpret data and reach a wrong conclusion. By creating a tangled web of confusion, the data is made impossible to navigate and correct conclusions are lost.

While it should not be so, science is riddled with logical fallacies. Nowhere is this more true than with the subject of evolution. The seven fallacies below are the most commonly used in explaining evolution. As the evidence unfolds, try to recognize these fallacies in evolutionists’ arguments.

• Hasty Generalization: A small sample is used to reach a broad conclusion. Suppose your local car dealership only sells American cars; a hasty generalization would be to conclude that all dealerships in your state or your country only sell American cars.
• Begging the Question: Often referred to as circular reasoning or circular logic. An assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption.
• Misuse of Authority: Pointing to a group of experts to validate a conclusion, even if those experts disagree with each other or with the conclusion. An example would be stating that dentists prefer a certain brand of toothpaste without actually polling them on their preferences.
• Appeal to the People: Using the general public as a basis for proving a hypothesis instead of relying on relevant evidence. Stating, “Of course, everyone accepts that as fact,” is one example.
• Argument to Future: Stating that while a theory is not yet proven, it will be with further study and investigation.
• Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Repeating as new, a theory or hypothesis already disproven. This is akin to asserting that the Earth might be flat when evidence demonstrates otherwise.
• Chronological Snobbery: Refuting or proving a theory by dating “evidence” as extremely old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.

One theme flows throughout all fallacies: They are false! Through dishonesty and (seemingly willful) misunderstanding, proponents of such illogic mislead those who listen or read yet do not employ critical thinking. While this would be expected of a con artist, it is shocking how often scientists use such fallacies to promote the theory of evolution as irrefutable fact.

Inescapable Law

There is an overarching law governing the entire universe. It is so intrinsic to everyday life that most apply it without knowing. It is inescapable. Everyone is impacted by it.

It is the law of cause and effect.

Drop a rock and it falls to the ground. The effect is the rock hitting the ground; the cause is gravity. Jump into a swimming pool on a hot day and you are refreshed. The effect is feeling refreshed; the cause is the water’s cool temperature.

Cause and effect is so universal and proven, it carries the status of being a law: causation (or causality), which states that every effect can be traced to a cause that happened before (or simultaneous to) the effect. Some scientists maintain that there is no way to determine cause, only correlation—that two events or phenomena “tend to occur together.” This can apply to a certain degree in some cases, but in others, this notion becomes ridiculous such as, “The rotation of the Earth is correlated with the rising and setting of the sun” or “Death by starvation is correlated with a lack of food.”

All effects must have causes! It is that simple.

Linking cause and effect with another set of scientific laws—thermodynamics—sharpens the picture. The word “thermodynamics” comes from the Greek words therme, meaning “heat or energy,” and dunamis, meaning “power.” It is the study of how energy is transferred and is usually defined by three fundamental laws on which all disciplines of science are based.

We will focus on the second law of thermodynamics in this example. This second law states that the total entropy (unusable energy) of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In layman’s terms, when left alone, everything “burns” its usable energy and eventually reaches a point at which none is left.

Consider: Water is heated on a burner to its boiling point. If the stove is turned off, the water’s temperature will drop. Water will dissipate heat until it reaches room temperature.

Another example: Connect a light bulb to a battery and it will produce light. Over time, the battery will fully drain and you will be left with no light and a dead battery. Instead of having two usable items, both will eventually reach a state of complete entropy—no usable energy.

Left alone, energy always changes from usable to unusable.

Combining cause and effect with the second law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every physical effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. Stated another way, every cause results in a lesser effect—one that is lesser in magnitude. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated and be less advanced than its cause since usable energy has been lost.

The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved”—advanced—life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause), in violation of both cause and effect, and the second law of thermodynamics.

So begins the quandary of evolution…

Next, we will look into what the theory of evolution actually means. You may be stunned at how many differing definitions it has. Then we will investigate how scientific law and theory are defined—and into which category evolution fits! Also, we will tackle the first assumption of evolution: survival of the fittest.

After learning the facts, you will be amazed that this theory is so broadly accepted.

Originating as the brainchild of Charles Darwin, the definition of evolution has itself evolved into many shapes and sizes. In his book The Origin of Species Darwin postulated that all living creatures (and, by extension, even all matter) evolved from a less complex life-form or substance. His theory purported that life began by accident—blind chance—and that everything we know today is the result of happenstance.

While the general scope of evolution is still contested, even among evolutionists, it can be separated into six primary disciplines: cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro, and micro.

• Cosmic evolution encompasses the origin of the universe, time and matter. The big bang theory falls within this discipline.
• Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process by which those elements formed.
• Stellar and planetary evolution focuses on the origin of stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.
• Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Origin of life research centers upon this discipline.
• The two final disciplines, macro- and micro-evolution, are most often wrongly interchanged. They are not meant to detail the origin of living matter, but to attempt to explain the innumerable variety of plants and animals. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations (changes in genes and chromosomes over the space of generations that produce different characteristics) and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations within a species. Macro-evolution takes this further and states that such adaptations and mutations will, over time, create new species of plants or animals. Micro-evolution attempts to explain variety within a particular species, while macro-evolution attempts to prove a common link between all species, families or phyla.

This may sound complicated—because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the lines between these disciplines start and stop. Some even assert that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over extremely long time periods.

There is ample evidence demonstrating micro-evolution. For instance, when the population of a given group of people becomes taller on average over time, it is indicative of micro-evolution. Often, such evidence is used to “prove” macro-evolution, thus employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. But there is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution—none!

Blurring these disciplines has led to much confusion among the public and to heated debate among scientists.

Assumptions Are Not Proof

Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion, which is then in turn used to prove the original assumption. The crux of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many aspects of evolution’s fundament are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and “prove” other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method—and not how legitimate science operates!

Approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false—or impossible to validate—any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.

To remove all doubt, most of the major tenets of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so fundamental that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.

As we cover each point, the logical fallacies evolution employs will become clear. Prepare to be shocked by the “science” used to substantiate this nearly universally believed theory.

Neither Fact nor Theory

The first assumption is the gradual transition from referring to evolution as a theory to considering it a tried, tested and proven scientific fact—in essence, assuming evolution to be true. The certainty with which such statements are made leaves most people convinced that scientists have corroborating evidence. One statement from noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s book The Biological Basis of Human Freedom illustrates the point well: “Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”

Such blind conviction among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools in North America to teach evolution as both a scientific and historical fact.

But not all evolutionists agree with Dobzhansky’s conclusion: “What was the ultimate origin of man?…Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural” (Discover, emphasis added).

Pierre-Paul Grasse, a world-renowned zoologist, author of more than 300 publications, and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated: “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms).

While these quotes speak loudly, the purpose here is not yet to disprove evolution, only to demonstrate that it is not a tried and tested fact.

A scientific fact is defined as an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. The quotes above allude to evolution’s shortcomings and inconsistencies with an evolutionist and an influential zoologist unable to accept it as fact. How could evolution be considered such when divergent opinions exist?

In reality, by true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory!

“When used in non-scientific context, the word ‘theory’ implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena” (LiveScience).

A scientific theory can be defined as a group of facts, hypotheses or principles used to explain observed phenomena. Additionally, it must be falsifiable—subject to being disproven. To survive as a legitimate theory, there must be some test or tests that can at least prove its validity or else it should be discarded. Without a test, it is not a scientific theory.

For example, a theory arising from observing an orange sunset could state that the sunset is consistently orange. A test then exists to prove or disprove the theory. (One could watch sunsets for a long period of time and record the color of each.) This means the theory fulfills the requirements to be scientific. Of course, if a red, yellow or violet sunset is observed, the honest scientist would abandon the hypothesis and develop a new theory. The cycle would continue until a theory is proven as fact. This is the basis of the scientific method.

Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test?

It can be argued that with no observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific observation. Further, nearly all evolutionists purport that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven or disproven.

When evidence that is no longer available (because it is extremely old) is used to prove a premise, the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery has been employed!

Evolutionists should recognize their “theory” is neither a scientific fact, nor even a theory. This helps explain why most resort to convoluted arguments and logical fallacies.

Such thinking is best summarized by prominent biochemist Dr. Michael Denton: “His [Darwin’s] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, emphasis added).

Again, we can ask: how could a “highly speculative hypothesis,” contested even by those who profess to believe it, be taught in schools as fact?

Survivors Survive

One of the most basic tenets of evolution is the assumption of “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature grants preference to the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.

You may have heard this so many times that you have never questioned this seemingly logical statement. Remember, you must approach evolution scientifically, not based on assumption or ingrained presumptions.

Famous polymath author Arthur Koestler addressed this subject well: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness…Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction…We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Janus: A Summing Up).

In other words, the fittest are those who survive and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! It assumes that just because something survived, it is the fittest.

In science, you cannot base a conclusion on an assumption, especially if you then use the conclusion to prove the original assumption. This would not pass muster in a high school debate class, but has tragically become all too common in evolutionary science.

“Survival of the fittest” is a loose tautology (a way of saying the same thing more than once in a sentence using alternate words). For instance, “survivors survive,” “water is wet,” “matter is material,” and so on. Such statements do not prove anything because they are nothing more than truisms.

Yet, even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder…simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology that states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring.

“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection, emphasis added).

Survival Versus Arrival

Some scientists may argue, “We have witnessed natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. It is provable!” They point to natural selection as a means to remove the unfit—not a process that favors the “fittest.” At best, you could call natural selection a “survival of the average and above.”

Evolutionists must account for new species by, as Darwin purported, a successive series of minor changes. Natural selection removes the weak and promotes stability among a species, the exact opposite of what evolutionists require! Natural selection ensures that populations are healthy and thriving. It can be seen in the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The herd remains healthy because the weak are removed. But in no way, shape or form does it propel some supposed “fittest” to the front of the pack, nor does it push the “fittest” toward becoming a new species!

Botanist J. Arthur Harris explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (The Open Court, emphasis added).

Interestingly, natural selection did not originate in the mind of Darwin. In fact, it was documented 20 years earlier by Edward Blyth, a zoologist, chemist and creationist. Darwin changed the correct observation of a passive “natural process of selection” to the active “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted phenomenon to a circular logic truism!

Like all such truisms, the false interpretation of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this pillar of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement that proves nothing!

A House of Cards

Even with just two assumptions regarding evolution brought to light, you should already begin to understand how so many scientists illogically view evolution as fact. When logic is applied, it is clear that the theory of evolution has already begun to break down.

We previously questioned how evolution could be taught in high schools. Now ask: why it is believed by anyone? There is much, much more to cover as this faulty science is exposed and the house of cards completely topples.

As we have seen, the theory of evolution comes in many forms. But all stories must have a beginning, and evolution should be no different. It should be able to explain the beginning of the universe. This is the first step from which every evolutionary change must take place.

Evolutionists quickly state that the universe has nothing to do with evolution. It is dismissed as a different discipline of science.

But we cannot climb up the evolution ladder without explaining its first rung. Evolution was supposed to have begun when gas was affected by some unknown catalyst and formed a more complex organized state, leading to life. Explaining this part of the process leaves evolutionists stumped. They are left with no choice but to dismiss cosmic evolution as being unrelated to evolutionary theory.

Readers should not settle for flimsy explanations that pass themselves off as fact. Investigate the evidence! Use logic and determine the answer for yourself.

An Eternal Universe?

When understood, there are only two possibilities.

The first option is that the universe began—appeared—at a specific point in time. The second is that the universe is eternal—it has always existed. Each option requires some investigation.

Since one is unable to travel back in time, the universe’s age may seem impossible to determine. However, there are multiple ways for scientists to verify whether it had a beginning or has always existed. This is partly due to an amazing property of matter: decay!

Everything, in one way or another, decays. If you clean your house, it will eventually become dirty again. Even if the house is vacated, layers of dust would build up and its general state would decline. The human body also evidences this. Keeping oneself in shape requires work. Stop exercising or eating properly and your health will deteriorate. These examples are a broad application of the second law of thermodynamics.

What does this have to do with proving the universe’s origin?

With the advent of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie’s discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements produce radiation. As uranium decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. When each is released, the element’s nature changes (the first helium atom released results in radium). While this process takes a tremendous amount of time, eventually the final product is the inert element lead.

This means there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed! Otherwise, we would only find lead today. Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner. This also means there was a specific moment when all radioactive elements came into existence. It is impossible for any of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—to have existed forever. Each element had a beginning.

This is the second law of thermodynamics at work! As Henry Moore stated, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (Scientific Creationism). It represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence—in other words, the universe is not eternal! This much is obvious.

Therefore, we can ascertain that something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence. The universe is the effect—but what is the cause? Earlier we noted that an effect is always less complex than its cause. So, as vast as our universe is, something greater must have caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws already discussed.

Such basic logic and laws of science are not lost on scientists. They understand that the universe had a beginning. Hence there needs to be what is often called the “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, other theories have been formulated to explain the origin of the universe. The most common is the big bang theory.

Big Bang—or Big Hoax?

At its core, the big bang theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial event. After this first cause, another theory takes over. The “inflationary model” (a theory attempting to explain how the universe “inflated” from microscopic to billions of light-years across) was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today. (While the big bang appears in tens of millions of textbooks, the process, details and conclusions are hotly contested and scientists are far from agreement, beyond the basic concept.)

Both the big bang and the inflationary model break basic laws of science. We have seen that energy is continually moving into a more chaotic, less organized state—with less usable energy (higher entropy)—not into larger, more complex and organized systems, such as the universe.

For the universe to form in that manner there would have to be a nearly unlimited amount of energy that started the big bang and sustained the resulting process for unfathomably long time periods. This simple fact is usually ignored!

An even bigger problem is the first law of thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. Memorized by high school students, it is at the fundament of basic science. Essentially, it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. This flies in the face of the big bang theory!

If energy cannot be created, then an incredible amount of it cannot appear from nothingness. Evolutionists understand this problem. Often, focus is directed away from how the universe began to an explanation of how it grew. By burying the initial creation of matter as an irrelevant point, scientists have created layers of “smoke and mirrors,” which, as we have seen before, is often the only way to explain nearly every facet of evolution.

Many scientists, such as professor of physics Alan Guth, have also raised the issue of ignoring the universe’s origin: “First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing…Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (Show Me God).

Further, a concluding statement by one of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, debunked the inflationary model: “The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is…In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (A Brief History of Time).

Strong, clear statements!

However, like so many aspects of evolution, this model continues to be represented as fact, despite evidence demonstrating otherwise.

Inadvertent Proof

So how did the universe come into existence? The first law of thermodynamics points to a Creator’s eternal existence. Remember, this law sets forth that something cannot come from nothing.

Science has effectively proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would have never been a universe!

Since something can never come from nothing, then a Creator had to always exist! Since a cause must be greater than the effect, an eternal Maker—an all-powerful God—had to exist! Science has unwittingly demonstrated God’s existence while at the same time debunked evolution!

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Louis Neel stated, “The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be…leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe” (Darwin’s Leap of Faith). And, it should be added, any rational explanation for plants, animals and human beings.

Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, suppositions and deceit. Ignoring the evidence, evolutionists and others are forced to conjure illusions, which should be getting easier to see for what they are.

Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a chicken grow from a lump of coal? Such questions are silly. This is in essence, however, what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether inorganic non-living matter can transform, through a series of random events, into organic living matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as “spontaneous generation,” “chemical evolution,” “abiogenesis” or “biopoiesis.”

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated: “Evolution is not the study of life’s ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life’s origin on our earth lies outside its domain…Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life” (Bully for Brontosaurus).

Should evolution be restricted to the study of organic matter? Allow geneticist Dobzhansky to answer: “Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life” (Science).

Do not allow evolutionists to dodge the “origin of matter” question! If they try to separate biological evolution from the origin of life (or even the origin of the universe), towering questions remain: If evolution applies only to plants and animals, what caused the appearance of the universe and life on Earth? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must encompass the whole process—from the beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life today. No amount of scientific “spin” can change this.

Why would proponents of evolution blur the facts?

Unbreakable Laws

At the heart of the “origin of life” debate is the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis. It is the certainty that new life can come only from existing life—that is, only living organisms produce other living organisms.

George Gaylord Simpson’s and William Samson Beck’s biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology is clear: “There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.”

Also, Martin A. Moe wrote in Science Digest, “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological science has taught us that life arises only from life…”

Perhaps the most powerful statement is found in the biology textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity: “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization.”

These are three plain, conclusive statements. How then do evolutionists bypass a linchpin of biology? Again, tossing aside the obvious, they are forced to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process.

Do not be fooled by discussions of scientists being able to produce a synthetic version of poliovirus. Every biologist knows that viruses are non-living organisms because they must have a living host to reproduce. Any biologist who says otherwise is either misinformed or dishonest.

Even if this did represent the creation of life, it took decades of scientific research and advancement by sentient beings to facilitate a carefully planned process in order to bring it about. Random, mindless events did not create it!

So how do evolutionists explain life on Earth?

A Land Far, Far Away!

When one tries to prop up a shaky assertion, he must quickly divert the focus from obvious holes or weaknesses. So, the thinking goes, if abiogenesis cannot happen on Earth, then perhaps it could happen in space.

The hypothesis that the precursor chemicals for life came from space is gaining popularity in the scientific community. Set aside for the moment that this theory is untestable. Evolution seems immune to basic logic!

Note that all forms of living matter, but especially simple forms of life, are highly unstable. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.

These highly unstable, simple life forms would have had to survive being ejected from a faraway planet (perhaps by a catastrophic event or explosion?), travel through the rigors of space (radiation, bitter cold, extreme heat, a vacuum, etc.), withstand the tremendous heat of penetrating Earth’s atmosphere and, finally, survive the severe surface impact. How ridiculous! One does not need a degree in science to see the ludicrous nature of such a theory—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!

Remember, this hypothesis is not meant to be a real theory. The attention had to be diverted from biogenesis. It is nothing more than a scientific “bait and switch.” Instead of addressing the law of biogenesis, which evolutionists cannot get around, they attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer, thus avoiding the original problem.

Biogenesis is a universal law. Just as it applies on Earth, it must apply throughout the universe that contains that Earth. Moving the problem to outer space is silly—and dishonest!

So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who are at least honest enough to admit there is no answer to the problem of biogenesis? They simply parrot a non-answer and apply the argument to future logical fallacy (as mentioned in Part One), and claim further scientific advances will reveal the origin of life on Earth.

Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer—because they have no answer!

Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reasons Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of the Zoological Museum and director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated: “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” (Gaither’s Dictionary of Scientific Quotations).

The Law of Laws

For the next assumption, we will play the game of “let’s suppose.” Suppose the previous assumption was not false, and that at some future time we will discover the naturalistic means by which living matter came into existence.

Obviously, in light of the proof, logic and statements above, this is a highly dubious supposition. But for the sake of argument, assume there was a time when only very simple organic compounds, such as amino acids, existed. We can even extend the game a few steps further and suppose these amino acids had already formed into enzymes. This is an overly generous leap, but it will serve to prove a point.

With this in mind, the most bedrock, central laws of science again come to the fore—the laws of thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called the second law the premier law of all sciences. Astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington stated, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature…If it [a theory] is found to be contradicted by an observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation” (The Nature of the Physical World, emphasis added).

These are very strong words from two renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more one works with these laws, the more respect he gains for them.

The laws of thermodynamics are immutable and apply to all disciplines of science. To be considered, evolution must function within the constraints of thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, it must follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Open or Closed—Still Impossible

Again, thermodynamics comes from two Greek words, therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a system, all processes will result in increased entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.”

The second law expresses that, over time, and ignoring certain variables, things tend to reach equilibrium—a point of stability—in an isolated system. And entropy is a measure of to what degree a system has been stabilized, or evened out—thereby reaching equilibrium.

Another way to look at it is best explained by world-famous science writer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “…‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about” (Smithsonian Institute Journal).

This poses quite a challenge for a theory based on an increase of order, complexity and intricacy. But evolutionists have not given up!

In an attempt to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems arises. The difference between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the second law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disorderly, entropic and stable over time strictly in line with the second law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system, external sources of energy allow a process to have more sustained energy—an increase in usable energy.

In the case of evolution, because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy, Earth is no longer a closed system and can become less entropic (have more usable energy). And, since the sun is winding down, effectively transferring energy, the laws of thermodynamics in a closed system (the universe) are satisfied.

Energy Alone Doth Not Evolution Make

But can simply applying raw, undirected solar energy to a system lead to a lower level of entropy—to more order and complexity? Can it really be that simple?

There are parameters to address the application of an external energy source on a closed system. Also, there are mathematical constructs demonstrating that the second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system.

While many evolutionists try to blur the correct application of an open thermodynamics system, some are more honest. Charles J. Smith stated: “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the second law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy [an increase in usable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. [Karl Ludwig von] Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology” (Biosystems, emphasis added).

Decades ago, it was understood there are “fundamental unsolved problems.” Nothing has changed today.

Raw energy alone is not enough to slow entropy! For this to happen, multiple conditions must be met. Three are summarized in another quote from Life: An Introduction to Biology: “But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed” (emphasis added).

“Particular work” is more than just raw energy; it is focused. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always and only destroys! The simple example of photographs left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and destroys. Or, think of the effect of raw solar energy on human skin.

There must be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a specific application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that breaks down and degrades whatever it touches.

Consider the process at work in plants, called photosynthesis. The parallel is most interesting because the energy source is sunlight—the same energy source to which evolutionists point. This complex energy conversion system is the process used by plants to change sunlight into usable energy needed to grow. Because this is biological, we are dealing with the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have information-rich DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), there is a highly designed and detailed specification for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a slowing of entropy—an increase in usable energy.

There are also similar systems in our body—digestive, respiratory, nervous, etc. Yet, in each case, the three conditions (particular work, specifications and information) are satisfied.

To perform specific work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those instructions to be carried out. This happens in the leaves of plants as well as with systems in the human body.

The highly specific work attributed to evolution—such as simple inanimate elements becoming simple life-forms and then changing into plants, animals and human beings—could never be brought about by supplying energy from the sun and “hoping for the best.” The work must be specific, there must be a conversion process and this must be supplemented with detailed instruction. No matter the argument, no matter how loud voices get or how frantically arms are waved, no one can circumvent thermodynamics.

Some scientists will admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (The Twilight of Evolution).

Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this or any other planet. Clever but dishonest arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.

The fundaments of science are based on these laws. They are sure! They are absolute and have existed since the beginning of our universe. These laws are immutable—and, as such, make evolution impossible!

The story of evolution continues. Next we will look at two more assumptions that are flimsy when carefully inspected.

At the heart of the evolution teaching is the assumption that mutations produce more advanced traits or characteristics. However, all geneticists admit that this requires new information.

The blueprint for a living organism is locked inside its DNA. For cells to develop and organs to form, this detailed information is required. For different types of cells to appear, new information is needed—the blueprint must be expanded. Evolutionists understand this. To explain the infusion of new information, they have put their hopes in mutations—random shifts within genes or chromosomes that produce new, inheritable traits.

This is fraught with problems.

The first problem is that nearly all mutations are negative in effect.

As discussed earlier, inferior organisms (such as those with negative mutations) are removed by the process of natural selection. This is also true of what are termed “neutral” mutations. Natural processes are designed to eliminate defects from the gene pool. In the light of proper interpretation of natural selection, consider the following from the head of the international Human Genome Diversity Project, evolutionist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza: “Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one. Natural selection makes it possible to accept the good ones and eliminate the bad ones” (Genes, Peoples, and Languages, emphasis added).

We have already shown that natural selection does “eliminate the bad.” In no way, shape or form has it been proven to “accept the good ones.”

We can again play “let’s suppose.” Imagine that “positive mutations” are accepted and retained. Would such mutations explain the appearance of new species? This idea is at the core of evolution, so proving that positive, sustainable mutations can result in a new species is critical.

An often-cited example is that of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It is purported that bacteria, through mutations, adapt to antibiotics. However, as the following quote asserts, what actually occurs is an information loss—not a gain: “In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance” (Refuting Evolution).

A simple analogy: Imagine all of the elements needed for a functioning dimmable light. There are electricity, wires, a potentiometer (controlling electricity flow), a switch, and a light bulb. These were all designed to function in a specific way. If the device controlling the flow of electricity were removed from the system, the light would get much brighter. The room appears better lit and it seems like the entire system has improved with the loss of a device (information). This may seem like an improvement.

However, the one who designed the system would know that this change stresses the system. Each component was designed to handle a certain amount of electricity. While the boost in current may not appear to be a problem at first, over time, the circuit will overload and stop functioning completely. So is the case with mutations. Even though something may appear to be an improvement (as in the case with antibiotic-resistant bacteria), the overall “health” of the organism is diminished.

Evolution cannot sustain itself with the loss of information. The result would be little then no information. The only way higher life-forms could develop would be with more—in fact, much more—information. For instance, imagine a fish “evolving” into a bird. While this sounds ludicrous on its face, it is considered a valid possibility in evolution. How could all the necessary changes to skin, bones, organs, limbs, etc., develop without new information?

Regardless of one’s belief concerning life’s origin, most understand that new information is required for more advanced life-forms. And, conversely, any information already present must be sustained. Ultimately, the continued loss of genetic information will result in the destruction of the life-form—not an improvement!

Finally, regarding the formation of new forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward stated: “Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life” (Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies, emphasis added).

Yet every day, millions of children are taught that mutations—defects—have resulted in millions of species of plants and animals and, ultimately, their existence.

Real Record of the Rocks

Often, media outlets run stories about new paleontological discoveries. These could be fossils dated millions—even hundreds of millions—of years old. Usually, these reports are accompanied by colorful renderings of the creature as it may have once appeared.

Most assume that such drawings are based on whatever is the discovery. They seem to be able to determine minute details needed to produce amazing illustrations. Surely, this must be based on mountains of evidence and research that have been cross-checked with past discoveries. By now you may have begun to develop a bit of skepticism. If so, you will not be surprised that the “facts” used to prove and illustrate these “ancient” creatures are based on little more than bone shavings, bad science, and invalid assumptions.

Despite all the splash and splendor that accompany such discoveries, the evidence behind them is more artistic and creative than scientific and factual.

To understand why evolutionists have become so creative with the fossil record, you must first understand the gaps in it. This record, once hoped to be the glue that bonded all aspects of evolution, has torn it apart. The fossil record is separated into certain eras—or strata. Each of these eras contain certain types of creatures, and is thought to be specific to a period in history. For instance, the Cambrian stratum is dated to about 530 million years ago (according to evolutionist dating methods).

The gap in the fossil record creates two interrelated problems for evolution.

The first problem lies in that, out of nowhere, fully formed creatures appear in the fossil record. The Cambrian era, for example, contains the oldest known vertebrates. However, as stated by evolutionist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University: “We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history” (The Blind Watchmaker).

Indeed, “just planted there”—or, better phrased, they were put there! The fossil record does not show the developmental stages of any creature; they all appear to be “just planted there.”

The second issue is related to the lack of any transitional forms. World-famous evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Simpson freely stated: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals…and it is apparently also true of the analogous categories of plants” (Tempo and Mode in Evolution).

Just five years later, Dr. Simpson was forced to admit, “It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist” (The Meaning of Evolution).

The lack of evidence has caused some evolutionists to adopt new versions of evolution. Others continue to embrace the idea of gradual transitions, asserting that transitional fossils have not been found yet, and will be discovered in the future. Not only is this the logical fallacy of argument to future, it ignores a well-established pattern of discovery.

Another analogy makes this clear. Imagine an opaque jar full of hundreds of marbles. Slowly, one by one, the marbles are removed. Each is examined for color and texture. At first it would be just as probable that each marble could be red, blue, yellow or any other color. However, if over time, only red marbles were removed from the jar, the natural conclusion would be that the jar is full of red marbles. Of course, a new color could be removed from the jar, but as more and more red marbles were removed, this would become less and less likely.

This illustrates what is found in the fossil record. In this case, well over a century of discoveries have repeatedly demonstrated there are only “red marbles.” There will be no “magic fossil” to change this, even though some scientists have tried to create such an artifact from tiny bone fragments.

Artistic Science

One such supposed discovery is worth reviewing. It received television coverage and was featured in National Geographic. Scientists believed they had found a “walking whale,” presumed to be a missing link between land mammals and whales. It led paleontologist Daryl Domning to state, “We essentially have every stage now from a terrestrial animal to one that is fully aquatic” (National Geographic).

The following month, impressive renderings of this walking whale appeared in the same magazine in the article “Evolution of Whales.” It was now settled—the whale’s evolutionary path had been established and the theory had been proven true.

Or had it?

All the excitement arose from nothing more than part of a jawbone and some skull fragments—nothing else! Creative minds drew a completely fictional rendering from almost no evidence. This could be compared to finding a scrap of metal and then asserting that you can render the exact replica of the building from which it came. This is beyond ridiculous!

Later, a more complete skeleton of this same creature was discovered. With more facts in place, it was obvious that this creature was solely a land animal. However, the later revelation received very little media attention and no retraction was published!

This is not the only example of data misconstrued to fit within the theory of evolution. The vast number of misrepresentations has led to statements such as this: “What the ‘record’ shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution” (Algeny).

The honest approach would be for evolutionists to admit their mistakes and dismiss the theory. Instead of admitting the errors in gradual evolution, scientists proposed an even more ludicrous idea: “punctuated equilibrium.”

While many still hope for the long-sought undiscovered transition fossils, punctuated equilibrium has gained much traction within the evolution community. The theory states that global catastrophes accounted for the sudden leap in evolution. These events would cause sudden and drastic “systemic mutations.” What the theory fails to address is that such mutations would devastate an organism. In addition, earth-shaking events would not provide the new—and vast—supply of information needed for the complexity of life to increase.

The concept of punctuated equilibrium has also been called “hopeful monsters.” For advanced life to appear out of the ashes of an enormous volcanic eruption or catastrophic asteroid impact—as opposed to the natural result, the destruction of life—is definitely hopeful!

Sad to say for evolutionists, “…these theories amount only to giving more or less fancy names to imaginary phenomena; no one has ever observed the occurrence of a ‘systemic mutation’” (Plant Life).

This conclusion is further supported by evolutionists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Francisco J. Ayala: “…the occurrence of systemic mutations, yielding hopeful monsters, can be excluded in view of current genetic knowledge” (Science).

So how do evolutionists explain the fact that neither gradual evolution nor punctuated equilibrium is consistent with the geological record? And how do they account for the sudden explosion of life in the first place?

They do not, because they cannot!

The body of evidence has led many scientists like geologist William Dawson to conclude, “…the record of the rocks is thus decidedly against evolutionists” (Nature and the Bible).

So paleontology is not a field of science in which evolutionists can find refuge or hope to repair their broken theory.

The Dating Dilemma

One of the most notable problems with the fossil record is related to how fossils are dated. Like many “sciences” dealing with evolution, there are sweeping generalizations and assumptions applied. Typically, two types of dating are used—radiocarbon and associative.

The first and most known, radiocarbon dating, measures the ratio of non-radioactive carbon (carbon-12) to radioactive carbon (carbon-14) to determine the age of the object.

In summary, scientists have discovered that when cosmic rays come into contact with Earth’s atmosphere, they react with nitrogen-14 and create carbon-14. In turn, carbon-14 then reacts with oxygen and produces carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide. Animals in turn consume plants and ingest the carbon dioxide. When plants and animals die, their decay changes carbon-14 back into nitrogen-14. And hence, the cycle continues.

For example, a sample of petrified wood could be measured. As a living tree, its wood would have had a similar ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as the air surrounding it. However, after death, its decomposition would slowly release carbon-14 into the air, while the carbon-12 remained constant.

If a scientist knew the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air when a tree was alive, and the rate at which carbon-14 was released from the sample, he could theoretically calculate the tree’s age. Scientists have generally assumed that the ratio of these isotopes has remained constant in the atmosphere.

The problem? Evidence demonstrates dramatic shifts in the ratio!

Notice what Andrew A. Snelling wrote in a research paper presented at the Third International Conference on Creationism: “Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent ‘isochrons’ and their derived ‘ages’ are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb radiometric system used to yield ‘ages’ can be valid” (Institute for Creation Research).

No matter how vehement are the confusing and misguided attempts to explain away the variations of these isotopes, there are variations. But findings are cross-referenced with items that have already been improperly dated. This makes it possible to declare the radiocarbon date “reasonable,” based on previous findings, which are also based on other findings. And so the cycle continues.

This is problematic because most samples used for comparison were also dated using radiocarbon techniques! Remembering the logical fallacies covered in Part One, this is an example of begging the question. Basing a conclusion on an assumption is not only unscientific, it is dishonest!

For the last century, science has used radiocarbon analysis to create a flawed chart on which to compare other finds. When a new fossil is discovered, it is compared to existing fossils at that stratum. It is assumed that millennia of time compressed the strata and, therefore, all fossils found at a particular layer are of similar age. Faulty radiocarbon tests further “validate” the date and the sample is used as proof.

Much more could be said about these dating methods. But they are far from reliable. It is troubling that scientists base so much on an unsound and easily manipulated method.

As the underpinnings of evolution are discredited, it continues to come apart at the seams. But there is much more to consider.

Bitter arguments between scientists from competing disciplines of evolution provide more incredible insight into the theory’s weaknesses. Evolutionists questioning evolution is more common than one might assume. Yet disagreements are often hidden or ignored.

Compare this to religion. Imagine that an archeological find somehow conclusively revealed the first-century apostles doubted that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. Such a discovery would shake the very foundation of Christianity.

Why should statements from experts in evolution be viewed any differently? Their statements show deepening chasms among proponents of this idea—ones that the tenets of evolution are no longer able to bridge.

Testimony by Scientists

At this point, evolution stands as a discredited idea—an empty non-theory. Allow the following quotes to close the case.

We begin with widely published French evolutionist Jean Rostand: “The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations…We are condemned to believe in evolution…Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1859 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted” (Darwin’s Leap of Faith, emphasis added).

While we have uncovered many assumptions, there are still others. Evolutionist and zoologist Dr. Gerald A. Kerkut, dean of science at University of Southampton, England, wrote a revealing conclusion to his book Implications of Evolution. Keep in mind that the term biogenesis used in the quote refers to “origin (genesis) of life (bio),” and not the Law of Biogenesis, as covered earlier. Notice: “The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption…It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur…”

“The second assumption was that spontaneous generation occurred only once. This again is matter for belief rather than proof…”

“The third assumption was that Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated…We have as of yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated.”

“The fourth assumption was that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa…Here again nothing definite is known…”

“The fifth assumption was that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated…The evidence, then for the affinities of the majority of the invertebrates is tenuous and circumstantial; not the type of evidence that would allow one to form a verdict of definite relationships.”

“The sixth assumption, [is] that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates…As [zoologist N. J.] Berrill states, ‘in a sense this account is science fiction.’

“We are on somewhat stronger ground with the seventh assumption that the fish, amphibia, carbon reptiles, birds, and mammals are interrelated. There is the fossil evidence to help us here, though many of the key transitions are not well-documented and we have as yet to obtain a satisfactory objective method of dating the fossils…The evidence that we have at present is insufficient to allow us to decide the answer to these problems.”

A stunning admission of inability to answer fundamental questions!

James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, wrote, “One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” (The Double Helix).

Concluding this series of quotes, an editor for Science wrote in the magazine: “One of the most astonishing characteristics of scientists is that some of them are plain, old-fashioned bigots. Their zeal has a fanatical, egocentric quality characterized by disdain and intolerance for anyone or any value not associated with a special area of intellectual activity.”

Allow these quotes to sink in! These are words straight from leading scientific minds, not “biased” creationists or fringe religionists.

Unanswered, Unproven and Untrue

You now understand many of the myths and fallacies surrounding evolution. It has been said that it is much harder to unlearn error than to learn new truth. You should be able to disprove the dishonest assertions made by evolutionists. And you should be able to see past the illogic they employ. The theory of evolution can now be clearly seen for what it is—ridiculous, absurd and baseless.

The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and the other co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, attempted to inoculate his fellow evolutionists by stating, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved” (What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery).

Rather, it is obvious that nothing has evolved! Yet science continues to blindly try to prove this impossible theory. They are doomed to failure, as stated by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert A. Millikan: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove” (The Rise of the Evolution Fraud).

No longer should confusing arguments blur the truth of the matter in your mind. Each assumption has been systematically broken down.

However, clearing the slate—and your thinking—of this manmade theory is only the beginning. The Bible states in the first chapter of the book of Romans, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (vs. 20).

Evolutionists have corrupted the truth of life’s origins. Even when presented with the facts, they ignore them—actually deny them—drawing from a blind faith that “what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

You can understand what so many have chosen to ignore! You have unlearned many false concepts. Your slate has been wiped clean—your cup emptied—and now you are ready to understand the profound implications of disproving the theory of evolution…

Evolution can be compared to a homicide case in a court of law. There may be physical “evidence,” and witnesses with “sound testimony.” However, if the defense attorney could provide an airtight alibi for the accused, there would be no need to prove that a murder weapon did not belong to the defendant or that other physical evidence (or so-called evidence) was not related to the defendant. A sound alibi would cause the case to be dismissed.

In this brochure, we have demonstrated that evolutionary processes could not account for the existence of the universe, that it is impossible for life to come from non-life, and that the theory violates fundamental laws of science! No amount of arguments, hypotheses or suppositions can change the fact that evolution has no foundation! The case is closed.

Read Romans 1 again: “For the invisible things of Him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (vs. 20).

You have seen the pillars of evolution torn down. The passage above now applies to you. May God’s words thunder in your mind!

Because of all the proofs showing “His eternal power and Godhead,” the same God who inspired Romans 1:20 to be written also inspired Psalm 14: “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (vs. 1).

It should now be no surprise why Arno Penzias, a recipient of the Nobel Prize for physics, stated, “Creation is supported by all the data so far.”

Turning to God’s Word

We do not have the space here to begin an in-depth look into Creation. Our website, rcg.org, provides an array of publications and videos demonstrating proofs that the universe was created. Nonetheless, with evolution debunked, it is important to look at God’s Word—the Holy Bible—to frame all we have seen.

There is much more to investigate—and some misconceptions to dispel concerning the Bible.

We have finished examining what man teaches—we are now ready to investigate what God teaches.

Foundation of the New Testament

There exists within professing Christianity an idea that one can believe in some variant of evolution while still advocating creation. This could not be further from the truth. The remainder of this part will demonstrate that these positions are diametrically opposed!

First, some groundwork. All buildings have a foundation, the base on which the structure stands. Without it, a building could never be sound. Therefore, a correct foundation is the first step toward a building that is meant to last.

You may be surprised to learn that the New Testament Church was also built upon a definite foundation. The Bible states that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).

In construction, a cornerstone is the first stone to be laid. Verse 20 indicates that Jesus Christ was established before the Old Testament prophets, as reflected in the many Old Testament prophecies foretelling His first coming.

The verse also has another interesting aspect. The teachings in God’s Church come from apostles and prophets, and tie together both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, the New Testament points to the Old Testament much more than most people realize. The apostle Paul, in particular, quoted the Old Testament frequently. In the book of Romans alone, it was quoted 57 times! The two epistles to the Corinthians are similar. The first quotes the Old Testament 21 times and the second 10 times.

But what does this have to do with evolution? How do all the quotes, references and scriptures prove Creation? The link is in who the New Testament writers quoted—­and the events they referenced.

The New Testament—­and the entire Bible—­was recorded for a purpose. II Timothy 3:16 states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Keep this in mind as we read New Testament verses.

The New Testament Record

The following scriptures cover a wide range of topics. Yet they all have one thing in common: Each is a statement from Jesus Christ or an apostle about events and people of the Old Testament.

When you read them, ask yourself if Christ and the apostles were confused, or had blurred the truth to help make a statement. The only other option is to see the quotes for what they are—the inspired Word of God! These verses will help you understand why it is impossible to espouse evolution while declaring oneself a Christian:

• “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (I Tim. 2:13-15). This verse directly endorses the account of the creation of man.
• “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…” (Rom. 5:14).
• “…the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Christ] was made a quickening spirit” (I Cor. 15:45). Christ, as the second Adam, is a type (foreshadowed) by the first.
• “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:22).
• “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam…” (Jude 1:14-15). Genealogies in the Old Testament are extensive. When summarized in the New Testament, this validates the detailed renditions in the Old.
• “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations” (Matt. 1:17).
• “But He [Christ] said unto them, Have you not read what David did…” (Matt. 12:3).
• “Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife…” (Matt. 1:20).
• “Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord…You have heard of the patience of Job…” (Jms. 5:10-11).

This list is extensive enough that most would not dismiss it as analogy or metaphor. But the most telling passage is recorded in the gospel accounts. The Old Testament is clear that Jesus would have direct lineage from King David. The book of Luke records this in exacting detail, identifying Christ’s lineage all the way back to Adam!

Notice: “When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi…the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:23-38, New American Standard Bible).

God did not inspire this to be recorded simply because it may be “interesting.” Jesus Christ’s lineage was extremely important!

It is ridiculous for one to believe that Jesus died for mankind’s sins, yet at the same time dismiss a passage validating Creation as described in Genesis. Further, the implications of Christ’s lineage to Adam are critical. To have been the “second Adam” and heir to David’s throne (upon which Christ will sit at His second coming), Jesus’ lineage must be clear. Would Luke—inspired by God—­make a mistake by incorrectly recording it? Was the Creator of the universe unable to ensure the accuracy of this passage?

While not related to the Creation account, there are many more New Testament scriptures pointing to Old Testament figures and events.

For instance, Christ compared the end of the modern age to “the days of Noah” (Luke 17:26) and to Sodom and Gomorrah (vs. 29). These verses alone prove two often-contested Old Testament events. Either these events happened or Jesus Christ’s words cannot be trusted!

The New Testament also refers to the “preachers of righteousness.” The lives of these men spanned hundreds of years.

Further, Moses is referenced in the New Testament 79 times. Are you beginning to see why the New Testament is built on the prophets—­and why evolution is incompatible with true Christianity?

Countless more examples could be given, and each serves to strengthen the others. However, we have already gone beyond the Creation event. Simply put, the New Testament without the Old Testament would be as useless as a building without a foundation—it would have no support, and much of it would not make sense.

If you profess to be Christian, yet somehow still have faith in evolution, examine your beliefs. Analyze why you believe what you do.

Two “Adams” Reveal Supreme Purpose

An important parallel between Adam and Christ must be understood. It offers another clue to God’s purpose and the validity of the Creation account.

Further reading of I Corinthians 15 provides deeper insight to a comparison that Paul makes: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Christ] was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward [at the Resurrection] that which is spiritual. The first man [the original Adam] is of the earth, earthy: the second man [Christ] is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also [by the Resurrection] that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy [made of flesh], we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [composed of spirit]” (vs. 45-49).

Paul’s inspired statement starts with a reference to Genesis 2:7. Notice the phrase there: “And so it was written…” Again, this is powerful New Testament verification of the Genesis account! Paul knew that Adam “was made” by God—that this event did happen. Paul believed and understood the Old Testament account.

God gave Adam and Eve “dominion” over the Earth (Gen. 1:26). This meant man would need to learn and produce—­to generate—­much knowledge as he exercised stewardship of the planet.

God designed human beings with minds that could create, devise, observe and experiment. Through an inherent ability to reason, mankind is able to properly process and interpret physical knowledge when it is placed within the framework God intended.

All knowledge falls into two categories: (1) the physical knowledge of how to work with matter and physical things, and (2) the spiritual knowledge necessary for people to develop personal relationships with both God and fellow man.

Adam’s and Eve’s problem was concluding that both kinds of knowledge could be obtained on their own, through experimentation. Once they deviated from God’s intended way, they had no hope of reaching the destination He purposed for them—and neither does mankind, which followed Adam’s and Eve’s choice. When the first parents accepted the wrong premise as their starting point—­that they could reason everything out themselves—­they were destined to fail!

The accumulation of vast amounts of knowledge over millennia has not changed—­and could never change—­the fact that mankind is currently headed for the wrong destination. Curiously, in its quest for ever more knowledge, humanity continues to ignore facts regarding the fallacy of evolution. Many have been led to conclude that they must live a life devoid of the most important knowledge—that about God!

Knowledge Brings Responsibility

Now that you have finished reading, something should have happened to your knowledge of evolution. You should now be able to prove what is true—not just assume it to be so. The facts will deflect the clever arguments of evolutionists. Proof is the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution. God’s Word challenges, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21).

To prove something means to demonstrate it to be true or false. You have seen evolution to be demonstrably false and, by the knowledge you have obtained, you are now able to debunk ridiculous assertions.

Evolution has gone from something “understood only by the scholarly” to an utterly illogical fallacy, believed only by the blind, foolish—and ignorant!

Does it not amaze you that evolution is taught as fact throughout much of the world, yet creation is ridiculed and lampooned as a simplistic and fanatical myth?

On the contrary, it is evolution that is simple—simply preposterous!

Consider. When you began reading, you unknowingly came to a fork in the road. As evolution was shown to be false, you began walking down a new path.

Throughout this brochure, you have been given new knowledge. It has been said that knowledge is of no purpose unless it is used.

In the Old Testament, the prophet Hosea summarized a problem that parallels that of evolutionists today: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you…” (Hos. 4:6).

With new knowledge comes responsibility. You no longer “lack knowledge,” but are now left with the question of whether you will accept or reject it. This means choices must be made as a result of receiving that knowledge. You must now act on what you have learned. Notice Jesus Christ’s words: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Luke 12:48).

Now we must ask: Who is the God you now know must exist? What is the nature of the Being who created the universe, man, animals, plants—everything?

Some may have read this brochure assuming that they already knew the answer to these questions. Their purpose was to gain knowledge in disproving evolution. But, like evolution, what most believe about the God of the Bible is not true.

Just as disproving the theory of evolution is only the first step toward understanding the origin of the universe and life within it, proving the existence of a Creator presents you with another path—that of proving who this God is. Taking this path will lead you to the understanding of why you were born.

Each of us has a specific purpose, unlike anything you have ever heard before. Learning that purpose—and your responsibility in it—lies down the new path that has been presented.

Only one question remains: Will you act on the new knowledge you have received?