App
The Law of Biogenesis establishes that life can come only from other life. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows all matter is becoming increasingly random and chaotic—not better organized, as the theory of evolution demands. Yet despite these proven realities, many with educated, supposedly rational minds still believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution—that life on earth somehow came into existence spontaneously, all by itself. Then, starting with the simple lower forms, life evolved into betterorganized and more-complex “higher” forms (by a process of “mutations followed by natural selection,” “supervised by no one”) —and culminated in the human species.
Geneticist J.C. Sanford has his own expression for this idea: “Modern Darwinism is built, most fundamentally, upon what I will be calling ‘The Primary Axiom.’ The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection.” 16
Does Charles Darwin’s theory of macroevolution, as outlined in his oft-quoted but little-read The Origin of Species, really disprove the existence of God, or has the “disproof” itself actually been disproved?
Belief in macroevolution has attained such a state of entrenched fundamentalist orthodoxy—the blind faith of evolutionists (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary)—that disagreement is no longer permitted in most academic circles. “The proponents of ‘Darwinian liberalism’ tolerate no dissent and regard all criticism of Darwin’s fundamental tenets as false and reprehensible.” 17
“Critics [of Darwinian evolution] are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for ‘peer’ review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of the scientific community altogether.
“In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find it. Once the critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is no scientific debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. Using such tactics, defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy have managed to establish a near-monopoly over research grants, faculty appointments, and peer-reviewed journals in the United States.” 18
Who says politics has nothing to do with science and education? It has EVERYTHING to do with both!
Despite the enforced orthodoxy of Darwinism in academic circles, there are a growing number of honest scientists often risking their careers by voicing their misgivings—based on their own empirical findings—about one aspect or another of the theory of evolution. And despite the attempts of Darwinian fundamentalists to paint them as “religious fanatics,” most of them have no religious agenda. Many in fact are still evolutionists. These scientists simply are pointing out the discrepancies between the Darwinist paradigm and their own scientific findings.
Since evolution as a dogmatic belief is considered a “disproof of God” (though some God-believers also embrace macroevolution), we need to ask some questions. First, what are the fundamental tenets of the Darwinian theory of biological evolution? Second, which of those tenets (if any) are scientifically established, and which are not? Third, do any of the provable tenets of Darwin’s theory by themselves prove the over-all theory of macroevolution?
Basics of Darwinian Evolution
The fundamental tenets of Darwinian evolution are essentially two:
1. All life traces its descent to a common ancestor— probably a “simple” single-celled organism of some kind that was spontaneously generated by random natural processes acting upon whatever elements and compounds existed on the primordial earth.
2. The simple forms of life evolved into more and more complex higher forms—by a combination of inheritable chance variations (mutations) and “natural selection”—until ultimately the human species came into being, evolving out of primate ancestors. The entire process occurred over millions of years, but with no external causal or guiding factor; and at no time was the process in any way supervised or directed. None of the organisms, or any parts of them or their functioning metabolic systems was in any manner, shape, or form “designed,” despite how much it may appear so.
Tenet number two above actually consists of several subtenets:
(a) Initial changes in an organism usually occurred by mutation.
(b) The mutations must have been inherited by subsequent generations.
(c) Those mutations which made the species “more fit” prevailed, over those which did not, by “natural selection.”
(d) After multiple such changes and selections, one species gave rise to a new species—a process repeated thousands of times over millions of years, in the direction of more-complex “higher” life forms, culminating in the development of the “human species.”
It should be noted that what is being questioned in this chapter is the concept of macroevolution, not that of microevolution. Microevolution is basically adaptation within a species or genus. Microevolution—adaptation—has been repeatedly demonstrated, and is not here in question.
Because adaptation within a species or genus (kind) has taken place, Darwin and all believers in evolution since have begged the question of whether that means one species eventually gave rise to another species or genus—macroevolution. But NO SUCH CHANGE has ever been proven to take place!
Tenet #1: Spontaneously Generated?
How likely is it that the first life formed all by itself without any outside causal agency? How likely is it that even the necessary proteins—basic building blocks of life, but FAR FROM being life
itself—could come into existence all at once in the same place, with all component amino acids forming almost simultaneously and in the correct necessary order, by random events?
One of the most loudly heralded supposedly “scientific” experiments ever conducted occurred in 1953. A graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, reproduced what was assumed to be the atmosphere of the primordial earth. By sending electrical sparks through it to simulate lightning, he managed to produce some residues containing a few amino acids. News media jumped on the report of this experiment with screaming headlines such as “Scientists Almost Create Life!”
What few have heard since (and no evolution-teaching textbook has admitted) is that the experiment ultimately was discredited for several reasons. Miller’s presumption of what elements comprised the primordial atmosphere has since been so altered as to make the findings of his experiment irrelevant. To repeat the experiment using what is now believed to have been the makeup of the early atmosphere would not yield even amino acids; but indeed if it could, the gap between that and actual life would still be incalculable. To say that by the creation of a few amino acids “scientists ‘almost’ create life” is about as believable as saying that an astronaut who hasn’t yet even boarded his spaceship has “almost crossed the universe.”
Another and oft-overlooked reason the Miller experiment constituted no “proof” of Darwinian evolution is that, while Darwin’s theory requires no outside agency to have been involved in the evolutionary process, the Miller experiment, in order to produce any amino acids, required an outside agency—Miller himself and the apparatus with which he created the artificial “lightning.”
Astrophysicists Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle calculated the odds against all of the necessary proteins for life, with their component amino acids forming in one place at the same time and in the right order by chance. Their finding was that the odds against such a random occurrence would be 1040,000 power to one. The number of atoms in the entire known universe is only about 1080 power. It is clear that such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE, “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” 19 Not only that, but all the matter of the universe would have to be in one contiguous mass, not divided into billions of separate bodies, and it still would be impossible! Mind you—we’re not even talking about a complete “simple” organism coming to life, but only about one of the proteins needed for that life!
The difference between having the necessary proteins for life and having an actual organism might be illustrated by contrasting a small pile of building materials dumped from a single truck, versus a carefully designed and fully constructed high-rise building.
For the sake of argument, however, let us suppose that a few “primitive,” “simple” one-celled life forms managed to come into being all by themselves. In the absence of other life, what would nourish them? What would they eat—each other? If natural selection eliminated all but the biggest, strongest, or “fittest,” then what would that one organism eat? If the single cells divided and thereby multiplied, then the competition for nonexistent food would be even more fierce. Surely, if the theory of “survival of the fittest” were at work here, there would soon be fewer of these organisms, not more. The last few would most likely starve to death before they could reproduce, and certainly in any case before they had chance to take the very first step in any upward evolutionary process.
