The Evolution Myth

ERRORS IN EVOLUTIONARY THINKING

This is a list of some of the mistaken ideas that are used in evolutionary thinking.

 

1. Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships.

Similarity

When used as evidence for evolution it becomes circular reasoning. Similarities can have two origins, design or ancestry. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Another problem is that similarities don’t explain the differences. Evolution is about the differences, the change. If evolution did it, explain how the differences can and will occur. There are many features that can prove that similarity is not the result of common ancestry. Evolutionists have even given these evidences a name, convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is due, according to evolutionists, to similar behaviors or environments producing similar structures. How does the DNA know what mutations it needs to turn an arm into a wing or leg into a fin, or a fin into a leg? The fascinating thing about convergent evolution is that is showing up all over the place, right down to the mechanisms in the cell.

So, similarity indicates ancestral relationship, except when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t that should be an indicator of intelligent design. The better explanation is that the similar structures were designed for similar needs. That makes a lot of sense, but it’s anti-evolutionary.

Have you heard the popular myth spread by evolutionists that chimps and humans are genetically 98% to 99% identical? After examining the DNA sequences in more detail over the years scientists have now dropped the number to 94%. And the examination is not done yet. The 98% is the result of stacking the deck and selecting genes they already thought to be similar and then comparing only 1% of the genomes of both species. Wait for the gap to grow farther still. Even so, evolution needs to explain the vast differences, not the similarities.

 

2. Natural Selection is a creative force.

Natural selection, a false term according to Darwin, only “chooses” from available information. It cannot create any changes to an organism. It does not act on the genotype of an organism. Yet, evolutionists often give natural selection creative and goal seeking powers, and credit it with solving many of life’s problems. Features are said to have evolved because they gave the organism a “selective advantage.” But in actuality a selective advantage only helps to maintain the current genetic makeup, rather than forcing it in any way to become better. Natural selection is not creative. It does not change genetic information. It is not a force and it puts no pressure on any organism to modify its genes.

 

3. Appeals to future evidence for validation are acceptable.

The scientific method (evolution style)

1. Determine the answer.

2. Come up with a hypothesis.

3. Because it sounds good in theory, conclude your answer was correct

4. Gear all future experiments to fine tune the details of the answer from step 1.

FactTodayIs this science? First, you determine the answer. Secondly you devise experiments that will prove you’re answer. If you are unsuccessful you try again because you already know the answer. You believe the answer while you search to find the evidence to support it. One of the most common phrases in evolutionary literature goes something like this, “there is still plenty of testing that needs to be done.” This is after they’ve presented their conclusions and told you their facts. Right now, scientists do not know how the first macromolecules needed for life would form. They do not know how the first information bearing molecule would form. They do not know why all the body plans suddenly appeared, how the moon formed, how the planets formed, how legs turned into wings, fins turned into legs or legs turned into fins. They have no sure solution for any other evolutionary event in the history of the universe. Yet they claim it’s an established fact, one of the most robust in science!

Evolutionary literature is filled with “mights”, “maybes” and “probablies.” For every “answer” they present there is a potential question lurking in the background that will derail that very answer. When the problem comes to light, the “fact of evolution” is never questioned. Their belief tells them evolution must be correct. They continue to believe in spite of the fact that science has shown them to be wrong time and time again. They use imagination to fill in the gaps and by faith they believe that science will ultimately prove them right. They insist we believe it now and trust them. But, when you can’t believe what the science is showing you right now, before your very eyes, and must defer to a future discovery, that’s faith. It’s how you keep a theory alive for 150 years without having validation.

 

4. Complex coordinated information can arise spontaneously.

SymposiumLife is built on information. The DNA molecule holds volumes of information, instructions on how to build, maintain and reproduce an organism. Not only that, it holds instructions on how to interact with the outside world, the brains of all animals come loaded with a fully functional operating system. Evolutionists believe that this information was put together by many accumulated errors in DNA.

Experiments that claim to show evolution of information or learning all start with intelligently designed equipment, equations and programming. In the end these experiments only support the idea that information does not arise spontaneously. Very rarely do they test using molecules used by life, because those molecules are not capable of combining to create information bearing molecules without the aid of intelligence. In spite of the obvious, evolutionists still cling to the idea that the volumes of information contained in life could have arisen by chance.

 

5. Evolution is not based on chance.

In the “God Delusion Debate” Richard Dawkins, frustrated over comments by scientist John Lennox, said of evolution “It’s not chance, natural selection is the opposite of chance!” This exemplifies the problem. Evolution is not just natural selection. It is natural selection, variation and mutation. The factor that would generate new code is mutation. Mutation is by definition, an error, and it occurs randomly. Mutations may follow certain patterns, but they are not planned, they are random. Evolution relies on blind luck for the material that natural selection can act on. Everyone knows that chance will not produce codes out of randomness.  No wonder evolutionists attempt to keep the focus on natural selection.

 

6. Evolution proceeds by using trial and error.

This is another concept often found in evolutionary literature. Adaptations are often said to have developed through a series of trials and errors. This however is backwards. Since mutation is the supposed source of the adaptation, then the error precedes the trial. An error has to create a new functional adaptation before it can be put to the test.

Then we have another term in evolutionary literature, “pre-adaptation,” this means that an adaptation evolved before it was needed, and therefore could not have been tested. This means that evolution proceeds through trial and error, except when it doesn’t.

But, since each system in life must have arisen before it was tested and could not confer a selective advantage until after it became part of the phenotype, then every feature in life must be the result of a “pre-adaptation.” Which means that pre-adaptation is just a way to avoid examining the question of why a feature would develop in the first place. Pre-adaptation aids evolutionists in dogdging the real question and real science. It ends up being another way of saying “that’s fortunate.”

 

7. Consensus is acceptable in science and evolution has consensus.

Do all reputable biologists agree that evolution is a fact or does believing that evolution is a fact make a biologist reputable? How many names on a petition does it take to prove a scientific theory? One of the problems with “consensus” on evolution is that it doesn’t involve everyone, those who disagree are excluded. Religious people come up with the same kind of reasoning. For instance, how could a million Hindu’s named Steve be wrong? This implies that number of believers proves the belief system. How many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, or Evolutionists does it take to make something true? What is odd, is that supposedly rational, intelligent, critically thinking scientists don’t recognize this, but that is because their belief system is not based on science. Science isn’t built on consensus; it is built on the scientific method, observation and experimentation, which should not allow for a hypothesis to pass for a fact.

Another point: Evolution has never had consensus. For evolutionists however, evolution has been a “fact” for over a century, and wouldn’t you know it, all evolutionists agree it’s a fact. It doesn’t matter that there are many scientists who for scientific reasons, don’t agree that evolution is an established fact. Consensus on evolution is imaginary.

 

8. Peer Review filters out evolution’s bad ideas.

If an idea makes evolutionary sense and doesn’t violate the evolutionary paradigm it passes peer review. How many bad ideas, mistakes and deceptions make it through the evolutionary peer review screen? Evolutionists would like you to believe that the peer review filters out evolutionists bad ideas, but if the peers are chosen based on their adherence to a belief system, then peer review would not filter out ideas based on that belief. This can be seen most clearly in evolutionary stories about ancestry and evolutionary development that pass through peer review seemingly without question or examination. Adherence to evolution does however filter out good ideas if they suggest that evolution might not be true or intelligent design is an acceptable alternative. That is, if your ideas don’t fit the predetermined template, they will be rejected.

This has forced many scientists to create their own peer reviewed publications, which attempt to critically examine all that science is currently showing us, rather than attempt to force it into a predetermined template. Evolutionists view these as illegitimate. Creationists, who have their own template, welcome these ideas, because they demonstrate that the scientific facts agree with the Creation template far better than the one presented by Evolution. The facts need to be force fitted into the Evolutionary template, where they seem to fall naturally into the Creationist one. This is why evolutionary peer review is failing science.

 

9. Victory in the courts equals victory in the lab.

MinistryofTruth SmallQuite often evolutionists will cite court battles as evidence that evolution should be the only view presented by the education system. Winning a court battle, is however not the same as demonstrating a scientific fact through observation and experiment. Legal decisions are based on the law, not on science. The law in the United States and in many other countries will not allow for government to support a religion. That is where evolutionists get their victories. Creationism and intelligent design both point to a creator. Therefore any ideas that are seen to support them are “religious” and the government is forced to reject or ignore those ideas on legal grounds. Evolution, even though it is faith based, is technically not “religious” since it does not recognize the existence of a supernatural being. So evolution wins in the courts because is not religious, rather than because science can be rigorously used to support it. Why do evolutionists go to the lawyers and judges to win their science battles?

Let the battle occur in the science labs and classrooms, where it should be taking place. Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, its not creation or intelligent design that’s loosing in the courtroom, it’s schools that are being sued. After all, it’s the school boards, parents and the kids in public schools who want the alternatives to be taught and the problems with evolution to be exposed. They are the ones who are getting defeated by the evolutionists. They want to control the education of children so they can indoctrinate them with their materialistic philosophy. And they believe that those that oppose them are just too stupid to know evolution is a fact. In that respect, they are really no different than most religions.

 

10. Belief in evolution has no detrimental philosophical side effects.

The holocaust and communism are two detrimental effects that come to mind immediately. How many millions have to die before you realize that there might be a problem? Evolution is a process so it makes no judgment call nor can it make any objections to any types of events. But, since survival of the fittest is an axiom, when one person kills another or when one race destroys another, it fulfills that basic idea. The ideas of evolution combined with materialism is the real problem. This is Darwinism. It allows materialists, to believe that the cosmos is all there is, that nothing beyond their experience exists, and that design is an illusion and anything beyond nature is a delusion. Evolution allows the philosophy of materialism to defend dropping the moral barriers associated with Christianity.

But they don’t actually drop anything, they just run from it unless it provides an opportunity. For instance, materialists point out that the church is not guiltless. They point out events such as the inquisition and the crusades and religion’s very violent and immoral history. Today we have suicide bombers, genocide in the Sudan and terrorism world wide in the name of Allah. So, they point out that religion not only produces similar results, but that religious people do it in the name of a god or religion and believe this justifies their actions. Religion, they claim, must be worse, because people believe that they are doing the will of God.

What they forget is their philosophy cannot logically object to any of these things. They forget that people who commit such atrocities also invoke survival of the fittest. They also forget that people who do these things can also believe they are justified without invoking God at all.

But the main thing they forget is that Christianity and not Darwinism objects to these things.

So, it doesn’t help their case to point to Christianity’s failures, because in order to do that they must unwittingly claim that the standards in the Bible are in fact correct. The Bible, not evolution, defines these things as wrong. Those who reject God and accept evolution don’t have a moral standard or definition of good and bad that extends beyond their own cultural beliefs. Why is something bad, wrong or evil? The evolutionary answer is “Because I don’t like it.” or “Everyone agrees its wrong.” They often attempt to justify moral actions by their evolutionary expediency. Hence, the holocaust, the mass killings of communism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics etc. Richard Dawkins attempted to explain this away by saying it was just something inside the individuals. What is that “something” and why is it not connected to what they believe? They use this double standard to excuse the wrong that is directly caused by their philosophy of materialism.

But the fact is that, God’s Word condemns these actions, no matter who is doing them. The holocaust, communism, the crusades and the inquisition all stem from human nature, i.e. something inside ourselves. Darwinism does not define morality as anything more than a chemical reaction. The Bible however does define morality. We know that all those things are wrong because God’s Word tells us they are wrong. None of those things happened because God commanded it or His Word demanded it, but through the rejection of his Word or making his Word secondary to an earthly authority. This leaves the door wide open.

Some people say, “I prefer to define my own morality.” That is a standard belief within evolutionary thought. However this is also a problem. Morality can’t come from within the individual. It has to be a standard that exists separate from the individual. Otherwise morality becomes nothing more than an individual choice and allows each person to justify whatever “evil” or “good” they desire. Relegating morality to society only causes good and evil to be defined by the ones in power. Rejection of God’s Word is what allows a leader to starve a million people, send them to a holy war, or for a sniper to kill an abortion doctor, or for a scientist to accept human cloning, create weapons of mass destruction, and practice eugenics. Morality is not a smorgasbord, you don’t pick what you like and ignore what elements you dislike. The evils of the church come from rejecting God’s Word as much as the atrocities connected with atheism and evolution.

Darwinism, begins with a rejection of God’s Word. Therefore there is nothing to counter the natural tendency we all possess to do wrong and justify doing wrong.

 

11. Evolutionists favor imaginary evidence to avoid falsification.

Imagine The EvidenceHow do evolutionists currently answer the question of how evolution would be falsified? The most common answer seems to be finding a fossil that is out of place, the mystical Cambrian rabbit. Evolution is a biological process, why wouldn’t the falsification come from biology? Because fossil evidence requires imagination to interpret, you see it in your mind’s eye. All you need is to imagine a natural cause. If you fail to imagine a natural cause or question an imagined cause you could be labeled “incredulous.” This explains why it is so important that you fully accept the doctrines of evolution before you begin imagining evidence.

Biological evidence however is something you can observe and conduct experiments on in the present. Do multiple mutations occur together to bring about beneficial changes? No. Does adding random sequences to DNA cause new information to arise? No.

Fossils are then a much better option if you don’t want to falsify evolution. Because if something is found out of place you can put it in place using your imagination. When evolutionists find fossils that are out of place they rearrange the timeline to make them fit or they create ghost (imaginary) lineages or they appeal to things like punctuated equilibrium (imaginary changes in the tempo of evolution).

What ever happened to Darwin’s test for falsification? “If it can be demonstrated that numerous small and successive changes cannot create new features, my theory would absolutely fall apart.” When did this not become a criterion for failure? It actually never was, because Darwin himself resorted immediately to imaginary evidence as proof of evolutionary transition when he proposed a possible path for eye evolution. Considering that Darwin was admittedly profoundly ignorant of the mechanisms responsible for variation, from the very start Darwin had already introduced evidence conjured up from his imagination.

 

12. Evolutionary Grants, i.e. you don’t need to start at the beginning.

Evolutionary scenarios, all of them, start off with already developed systems. When pressed to give an answer for the most difficult stage in the transition from molecules to man, the origin of life, the answer is “evolution does not address the origin of life.” Technically they are right; evolution doesn’t start until you have a self replicating organism. But the gap from the basic macro molecules to the simplest working cell is enormous. Grant us the first cell and we can start the story of evolution. The eye is another scenario where they don’t start at the beginning. Grant us a light sensitive spot and we’ll give you a working camera eye. Of course they need many other grants along the way. Every evolutionary story starts with a feature that supposedly evolved to the stage where they pick up the story. Quite often the granted advances are far more complex than the part of the story they want to tell. Some organisms like bats appear in the fossil record with no way to imagine a direct predecessor, therefore stories of winged flight in mammals start with a host of working mechanisms. If we didn’t allow evolutionary grants, there would be no story of evolution at all.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Powered by: Wordpress