Evolution, TQFD 07.01.2008

At work recently I had to monitor a patient very closely and as a result I had the displeasure of seeing an episode of The Simpsons. The particular episode dealt with the topic of evolution and the growing controversy surrounding it as a viable scientific theory of origins. The episode had great fun with narrow minded, intolerant Christians and our superstitious beliefs. As one might expect evolution was painted to look rational, factual, and scientific while intelligent design was completely misrepresented and creationism was held up as an idea worthy only of ridicule. This evolution propaganda prompted this message.

You may say "Wait a minute brother Craig. I believe in evolution but only as the means by which God worked to accomplish His creation." Then you had better find another word to use to describe your belief. Because evolution is a word with a specific meaning and specific assumptions and implications. And part of the theory of evolution as it is taught, claimed, and promoted by the world is that there is no deity of any kind allowed as a necessary component of the theory. Evolution is by definition a atheistic theory of origins. It is intended to be such.

What are the claims of evolution as a theory of origins? Evolution claims that life arose spontaneously from a primordial soup of chemicals that randomly came together in the very distant past to form the first living single cell organisms. This was beginning of what we now define as “life.” These simple organisms replicated themselves and over time and through random chance mutated into increasingly complex life forms. All life, all bio-diversity, whether viruses, bacteria, plants, fish, birds, mammals, including man, is the result of this process of mutation over time through chance. Life forms that by chance inherited some trait or ability that gave them an advantage in the competition for survival prospered and multiplied. Those whom chance did not so favour became extinct. These same processes are still at work and will continue to work as long as life exists in the Universe. This, in a nutshell, is what is known as the theory of evolution.

Spontaneous generation was widely believed for many hundreds of years. As scientists of the times would observe some phenomenon such as maggots appearing on decaying meat, they would deduce that the decaying process of the meat some how produced the maggots. Today we know that flies laid eggs on the meat which then hatched and grew into the maggots. Back then such knowledge was impossible because the tools were not yet available for proper investigation (e.g., Leeuwenhoek did not invent the first microscope until the mid 1600s). Spontaneous generation was finally disproved by Louis Pasteur in experiments he conducted in 1859. Since then one of the first things all biology students learn is that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. Life cannot come from something that is not itself alive. Yet the entire theory of evolution rests on the premise that in the beginning life arose as the result of spontaneous generation. Years ago in some primordial goo, chemicals randomly came together in just the right order at the right time under the right conditions (no one knows what those conditions actually were) and presto-changeo, "It's alive!"

It is also worth noting that the second law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of entropy) holds that without external assistance or direction the natural tendency of matter in both open and closed systems is always toward disorder, not more complex order. This refutes the idea that random chance mutations over time could result in increasingly complex organisms. We know this as the second law of thermodynamics because no one has ever observed a case where it did not hold true.

Additionally, no scientist(s) has ever replicated the alleged primordial beginning of life wherein inanimate chemicals combined to form any kind of living organism. Even if a scientist did manage to cause such a condition to occur in an experiment the results would be invalid because the scientist in setting up and conducting the experiment would function as the external assistance required by the law of entropy. This external assistance/direction by a designer would invalidate the results. Remember, the argument is that life spontaneously originated from inanimate chemical compounds and that this new life did not merely replicate but in so doing grew in complexity and function.

Then there is the issue of the missing links. That's right, links. According to the theory, life evolved into increasingly complex organisms over time. As it did so it should have left evidence in the fossil record. In other words we should fossils of species in transition. If fish evolved into amphibians we should find fossils of transitional species. Likewise if amphibians became reptiles which in turn became birds, we should find evidence of this in fossils. Many people are under the impression that all or most of the species have been accounted for and that the only piece missing are fossils showing apes transitioning into hominids. This is not entirely accurate. While we do lack fossils showing the transition from ape to human, what we also lack are transitional fossils for other species as well. No fossils of fish to amphibians, no fossils of amphibians to reptiles, no fossils of reptiles to birds, zero, zip, nada, none. We have fossils of fish as fish, amphibians as amphibians, birds as birds, but nothing demonstrating transition from one species to another species. Evolutionists will claim this is not true and that transitional fossils abound. And they will cite various discoveries. Yet when one studies their work carefully one finds words like "probably", "might", "possibly" and other adjectives used to qualify the evolutionist's claims and which reveal the uncertainty of same.

Evolution runs into serious problems when trying to account for non-material things such as mathematics, logic, the universal concept of right and wrong amongst cultures, etc. Evolutionists often brush aside this argument by claiming that such topics are for philosophers not scientists. Yet a good theory must explain or account for all the facts. These non-material things are real, they do exist and yet they cannot in any way be explained by evolution. In addition, sentience (the ability to feel or perceive subjectively), self-awareness (the understanding that one exists), and sapience (the ability to exercise judgment) cannot in any way be adequately accounted for by evolution. Another tremendous hurdle for evolution is self-sacrifice on behalf of others. If survival through procreation (survival is now defined as passing on one's DNA) is the cardinal rule, then giving one's life for another, especially another who is not related to you, poses problems for evolution. According to what is known as evolutionary psychology, one's DNA causes one to behave altruistically toward other humans to whom one is not related because somehow DNA can determine that such behavior may result in reciprocal behaviour by others toward oneself or one's offspring thereby increasing the chances for one's DNA to survive and be passed on to subsequent generations. When you listen to professors lecture on this topic they are forced to describe DNA as "choosing" and "deciding" so that it almost sounds like DNA is self-aware and sapient. Such grasping at the wind is a pathetic and desperate attempt to provide a facade of science for what amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists in an attempt to shore up a crumbling theory.

Some other problems for evolution are irreducible complexity and Mitochondrial Eve.

Irreducible complexity is the idea that some biological systems are "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box). If evolution is the result of chance mutations which provide the organism an advantage in survival occurring slowly over time, then an irreducibly complex system poses a serious problem for evolution because such a system would have to evolve fully functional in order for it to provide any advantage to the organism. The mathematical probabilities of such occurrences make them virtually impossible.

Mitochondria are the power plant for the cells. They consume sugars that our bodies produce from the food we eat and generate electricity to power the cell. When a sperm and egg unite it is the egg's (i.e., the woman's) mitochondria that remains. This means that the DNA within a person's mitochondria always comes from the person's mother. A genetic survey was done that collected samples from people across the globe. When the mitochondrial DNA was analysed it was discovered that all the results could be traced back to a single woman who lived approximately 200,000 years ago. Scientists called this woman Mitochondrial Eve. It is important to note that this does not prove that this was the only woman living at the time nor does it prove that she was the only woman giving birth. It does however demonstrate that this one woman is the common ancestor of all peoples alive today.

In spite of all this evidence (and we have only touched the surface) and the increasing cogent arguments put forth by proponents of intelligent design theory, why is evolution being defended like it was the Alamo? The simple facts are that careers, reputations (individual and corporate), and most importantly, worldviews are destroyed if evolution is acknowledged to be unviable. These are things people are wont to protect fiercely. Then too, there are those who fight for evolution because they do not want to face even the possibility that the Universe and life is not the result of time and random chance and the moral and philosophical implications thereof. Finally, there are those who fight for evolution because they are sons of darkness who fight against God and His word and seek to keep as many as they can away from the light.

In closing, it is important to understand that for every argument put forth herein evolutionists have a counter argument. It is unlikely that any argument we put forth against evolution is going to change anyone's mind. Early last year some in the academic community were calling for Marcus Ross to be denied his PhD because he is a creationist even though his dissertation in paleontology and work met all the qualifications. (Dr. Ross was awarded his PhD.) Professor Guillermo Gonzalez who co-authored The Privileged Planet has not been so fortunate however and was recently denied tenure as the result of his work in support of intelligent design. His peers were not interested in exploring his arguments or in tolerance, they wanted him removed from the faculty and pressured the administration to deny tenure.

The sad fact is that even if evolution was conclusively proven to be false there are those who would refuse to accept it. As Jesus said in a parable, "If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16.31 NLT). If you're a Calvinist you know that no one comes to the truth unless God effectively calls them and He does not so call everyone. If you are of a more Wesleyan bent then you know that those whom God calls have the free will to refuse Him and many do. Still, we do not know in whom the Kingdom is working as leaven and for whom our words would or will eventually bring edification. And Scripture tells us to always be prepared to give a reason for our hope (1 Peter 3.15). Part of being prepared is being ready to refute the lies of the world like evolution.

For further study:

Darwin's Little Black Box by Michael Behe

The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe

The Privileged Planet (the book) by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards

For a excellent primer check out The Privileged Planet DVD and Unlocking The Mystery Of Life DVD

You may also want to check out The Discovery Institute (<FONTFACE=VERDANA size="2">www.discovery.org) or the Christian Research Institute (www.equip.org)

Toda raba!

God always gives us what we need and never more than we can handle; therefore the task ahead of you is never greater than the power behind you. So be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might (Ephesians 6.10) for He will never leave you nor forsake you (Hebrews 13.5).

Jude 20-22

Quote

"Duty is ours, results are God's."

- John Quincy Adams

2 Timothy 4.1-2

May God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us, that we may make His way known on earth, and His salvation known among all peoples (Psalm 67.1-2). Amen.

God Bless, God-speed, and dread nought for He is with thee!

Tags: evolution, intelligent design, creationism

Written by tqfdministry Blog about this entry

TQFD Blog Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

TQFD Blog

Evolution, TQFD 07.01.2008