Why Science is Against Evolution

Why Science is Against Evolution

The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

Life Happens

Creative Mutations

Lots of Time

So, let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved. )

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

Pinocchio

Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Creative Mutations

Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

scales had to have mutated into hair

breasts had to have evolved from nothing

hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb etc.

None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.

The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.

Lots of Time

Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

Conclusion

The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.

1998 Science Review

Science News summarized the most important stories they reported in 1998. It included some truly remarkable scientific advancements. Many of these advancements were made in biology, largely due to progress in gene sequencing and the resulting understanding of how living organisms function. This led to dramatic, and controversial, medical experiments. In other fields, chemists created a fullerene molecule smaller than a buckyball, and discovered how to make carbon nanotubes emit light. Computer scientists dramatically reduced the time necessary to decipher messages encrypted using the Data Encryption Standard, and wrote a program that can play poker well against expert poker players.

It was a good year for science, but not for evolution. Many of the 1998 articles in Science News fell into two categories:

things that evolutionists used to tell us were true, but now tell us are false; and

things that evolutionists used to tell us were false, but now tell us are true.

As you can imagine, it makes it difficult and frustrating for us when evolutionists debunk evolution faster than we can. But this happens every year. We are getting used to it, and we will try not to whine so much about it in 1999.

In 1998, evolutionists decided that ancient people weren’t so primitive after all. They now believe Homo erectus was smart enough to sail to Indonesia 800,000 years ago, and learned to talk 400,000 years ago. Mesopotamians knew how to make artificial rock about 2000 B. C. Ancient Peruvians were expert metal workers, and prehistoric Native Americans made "sophisticated sandals and slip-on shoes. " 1 But, on the other hand, they decided that Neanderthal people couldn’t really play flute. Australian aborigines took longer to get out of their cave dwellings and into the suburbs than previously believed.

Evolutionists embraced the asteroid collision theory in greater numbers, and decided "the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period happened much faster than previously thought. " 2 Then, "Studies of fossil teeth suggested that a drop in carbon dioxide concentrations redirected mammalian evolution. " 3 (Isn’t it wonderful what you can learn when inference from teeth is given equal weight with experimentation?)

Life evolved earlier than previously thought. "Fossilized soil deposits indicate that life may have colonized the continents as much as 2 billion years ago. " 4 "Researchers debated whether marks on 1. 1-billion-year-old sandstone were the oldest animal fossils. " 5 "The discovery of feathered dinosaur fossils in China boosted the theory that birds arose from dinosaurs. " 6 Some fish that went extinct 80 million years ago got new life, because some coelacanths were found alive and well swimming in Indonesian waters.

But the big news in 1998, which Science News reported on three times, is that the universe appears to be expanding at an ever-increasing rate because of some mysterious, anti-gravitational force. As a result, the cover of the January 1999 issue of Scientific American declared, "New observations have smashed the old view of our universe. "

We believe the Big Bang theory is totally wrong. So, it isn’t surprising to us that as we build more powerful telescopes on Earth, and put astronomical satellites in orbit, their measurements don’t confirm the theory. For example, the estimated mass of all the observed objects in the universe is much smaller than that predicted by the Big Bang. So, rather than declare the Big Bang wrong, astronomers said that 90% to 99% of the matter in the universe is Dark Matter which can’t be detected. But the gravity from all this imaginary matter predicts much different positions and velocities for the newly observed stars and galaxies. So,

The universe may not be governed by the gravity of ordinary matter after all. Instead the universe may be controlled by the so-called cosmological constant, a surreal form of energy that imparts a gravitational repulsion rather than attraction. Because physicists know so little--nothing would be a fair approximation--about the constant, the fate of the universe is back where it started: in the realm of uncertainty. "7

Why do evolutionists believe in the new cosmology? Probably because the old one is clearly wrong, and they know it. Why else would they embrace a new cosmology based on an anti-gravity force nobody has observed and for which nobody has proposed a mechanism?

Footnotes:

1. Science News, Vol. 154, December 19 & 26, 1998, page 402 (Ev)

2. ibid. page 407

3. ibid. page 409

4. ibid.

5. ibid.

6. ibid

7. George Musser, Scientific American, January 1999, page 6 (Ev)