According to one of the more prominent, currently acceptable theories, the planets in our solar system were spun-off from the sun. Each planet was flung into space where it cooled and now revolves around the sun. However, if this was true, why do the planets rotate around their axis faster than the sun rotates around its own - in violation of the rules governing centrifugal force? Why do Uranus and Venus rotate on their axis in a direction opposite to that of the other seven planets if they were supposedly spun off from the same sun? Why do planets with moons, except the Earth, rotate faster than their moons? Why do eleven of the thirty two moons revolve around their planets in a direction opposite to that in which the planets revolve around the sun? Finally, if the earth was formed from the sun, which is 99% hydrogen, how did its heavy elements such as iron and nickel develop? The theory of neutron capture does not appear to be a satisfactory explanation because it does not adequately account for the problem of overcoming the instability of those elements with an atomic mass number of 5 or 8. You see, you cannot build on these unstable elements unless other elements with higher numbers are already present. In effect, they are the weak link in the chain.
It must be pointed out however that in addition to all of the above inconsistencies, there is one other law of true science which the entire theory of evolution absolutely and unequivocally violates. That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, more commonly referred to as 'entropy.' This law states in effect that all natural processes lead to an increase in the randomness of the system being considered . Things left to themselves to be operated on by chance do not get more and more organized, but rather more and more disorganized. It doesn't say first things get more complicated and then eventually less so, it says 'more and more disorganized.'
By definition, evolution is an idea which demands two things: first, chance happenings, and second, a progression from the simple to the complex. That puts evolution in direct conflict with one of the most accepted of all the laws of true science. The only defense to this objection given by evolutionists is a smoke screen which goes something like this. What could be more natural than the growth of a human being from the time that the egg is fertilized until death? It grows - becoming more complicated, and then it gets old - less complicated, and dies, thereby succumbing to the law of entropy.
They use this false example to allow for the intervening stage of complexity. This however is quite misleading because entropy operates only on a system which is left to itself to be operated on by chance. Whereas, the growth of a human being from embryo to adulthood is not controlled by random chance, but by the programmed chromosomes we received from our parents. But we should not be surprised by misleading examples because, as we will see a little later on in this study, outright hoaxes as well as misleading statements have played an important part in the development of the theory of evolution.
Not only does Darwinian evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics, but what has been long hailed by evolutionists themselves as the best example of evolution actually violates the very theory it is supposed to prove. I am referring to the famous horse example. Eldredge states, "...the fossil record is full of examples of progressive changes (from ancestor into descendent.) Horses to take but one, got larger..." # 1 The 1972 edition of encyclopedia Britannica states that the "horse family has the most complete fossil record of any group of mammals." (see also World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed. vol. 9, p. 326) Why there are not also 'complete' records of the evolution of all those mammals which are far more numerous than horses is another question which the evolutionists seem to ignore, but that is not the issue I wish to discuss here, so I will merely allow you to ponder that one for yourself.
According to the horse theory, our modern horse evolved gradually from the now extinct Eohippus, a 28 inch tall, multi-toed mammal. But here is the problem with that theory. Evolution says we go from the less complex to the more complex, from the weak to the strong. But this prime example of the evolutionary theory fails to comply with its own premise in at least three major areas. First, a more complex 4-toed mammal (3 toes on the hind quarter) 'evolved' into a less complex one toed horse. Secondly, a strong, arch-backed Eohippus 'evolved' into the much weaker straight backed or sway- backed horse. Thirdly, the Eohippus had more teeth than the modern horse. Each of these observations provide a clear example of the more complex 'evolving' into the less complex, and that is not evolution, but deterioration.
Furthermore, the charts and drawings used to illustrate this supposed change are unfair in that they generally show the smallest known Eohippus, about 27 inches high, alongside the largest modern horse. They do not show us that there were several species of Eohippus which were about the size of a Shetland pony, and at least one modern breed of horse that is only 29 inches tall. This distortion of what the fossil record actually does reveal concerning the horse family is so outrageous, that even Heribert Nilsson, a prominent European evolutionists has conceded that "(t)he family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. # 2 (parenthesis and emphasis added) Finally, the evolutionists who write the textbooks and encyclopedia articles which almost always cite the horse example as proof for their theory somehow forget to acknowledge the fact that noted evolutionists such as David M. Raup, formerly of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and currently Chair of the Geophysical Sciences Department at the University of Chicago, have stated that "Since the time of Darwin we have just as many gaps as before... a few we thought had been filled in, like the horses series are now known to be wrong." # 3 (emphasis added)
There are still other areas which the evolutionists regularly fail to discuss, and a careful examination of them will give us a better understanding of why it is statistically impossible for evolution to be a viable explanation for the origin of life as we know it. For example, if we used the evolutionist's own date of about one million years ago for the initial appearance of man and if population growth continued in the past at a rate equal to only 1/4 of its current rate of 2% per year, humans would be so numerous that we would literally pack the universe. For those who claim that this is impossible because of the lack of modern medicine and the outbreak of plagues, I suggest that you consider the fact that prior to the appearance of comparatively modern medicine in 1600 AD, world population was growing at a rate far in excess of 1/2 of one percent per annum. Also, plagues would not be a major problem until population became somewhat concentrated, and there is no evidence of such concentration before the middle ages. On the other hand, if we take the current level of the world's population and growth rate and then move backwards in time, we would be down to approximately 8 people by the date Archbishop Usher arrived at when he calculated the date for the Biblical flood by using the chronologies found in the Bible. # 4
Another statistical problem which is not mentioned very often is one which I am certain that most of us have not even considered. Evolutionists invoke astronomically huge numbers not because they want to, but because they have to in order to bring the odds of something happening as they insist it must have into a more mathematically acceptable range of possibility. Think about this for a moment. Evolutionists tells us that plant life evolved over a period of literally hundreds of millions of years. They also tell us that insect life evolved over a similarly long period of time. Considering the extreme complexity of both the plant and insect kingdoms, even that time span does not appear to be long enough. However, now evolutionists are asking us to believe that certain events coincided to such an extent that after all those eons of time, the fig tree and the wasp not only evolved into their present forms by sheer chance, but that they did so simultaneously. They want us to accept the notion that in the spring of the same year they reached that point of evolution where the fig tree could only be pollinated by the wasp, and the wasp coincidentally acquired the ability or inclination to pollinate the fig. The fact that both things had to have happen simultaneously more than doubles the statistical odds necessary for either event to have happened separately.
There are many other examples of such symbiotic relationships in nature. Each one further compounds the mathematical impossibilities which the evolutionist must overcome if his theory is to have even the slightest chance of working out as he says it did. Having mentioned the statistical problem involved in the relatively simple process of pollination, let us now turn our attention to the much more complex question of animal reproduction.
In the case of evolutionary asexual reproduction what had to have happened was not only the chance development of a simple cell, but a 'simple' cell which also had within itself the ability to reproduce. In and of itself that statistically complicates the whole matter by astounding proportions. Yet the problem for the evolutionist only increases as we move from simple cell division to sexual reproduction.
Concerning such reproduction, we have to assume that both male and female reproductive organs, with all their intricacies, appeared at the same time. If we do not make such an assumption, the evolutionist is faced with two insurmountable problems. First, how did animals reproduce sexually even at the lowest levels of life, if total development were not complete? Secondly, even if they did manage to reproduce in some non sexual or asexual manner, we must assume that they had organs, or portions of organs developing over eons which would not be used until all the parts necessary for sexual reproduction, came into being. This however would be a violation of another evolutionary concept called 'natural selection.' According to this concept, nature, acting by itself, will eliminate that which is not used. As such, the individual reproductive organs would be eliminated by natural selection before the other organs evolved unless of course all the organs necessary for reproduction in both males and females 'evolved' at the same instant. No wonder the evolutionists need billions of years to try to get things to work out just right. They have to overcome the statistical improbabilities of these events occurring as they say they did. The theory of punctuated equilibria compounds the matter even more. According to this theory we are expected to believe that even greater changes occurred in a shorter span of time in the majority of all species. But evolutionists not only overlook this problem, they totally ignore the final mathematical mountain they face. That is, it is a statistical impossibility for all the hard shell and soft bodied organisms which are found in the Cambrian rock formation, and which are acknowledged to have appeared simultaneously to have done so by chance in even the 4 billion years which evolutionists maintain as the outside age for the Earth. # 5
But then the Cambrian strata does not give the evolutionists the full 4 billion years to work with. You see, until 1995 most evolutionists took the position that the life forms found in the Cambrian rock formation which we discussed earlier, evolved over a period of 75 million years. While some evolutionists in the past admitted that 75 million years was an "impossibly short" period of time to work with, modern evolutionists have inadvertently boxed themselves into a much more difficult statistical corner. # 6 Current evolutionary theory now says that "…all but one phyla in the (Cambrian) fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years…" of that period. (parenthesis and emphasis added) # 7 Now I ask you, if 75 million years was an impossibly short period of time on the evolutionists clock, how much more impossible is 10 million years?
Even after all that is settled in his mind, the evolutionist is faced with the fact that the virus, the simplest of all known living organisms, will grow only in or on living cells of higher life form! Some evolutionary biologists attempt to get around this problem by asserting that a virus is in fact not a living organism. While most biologists would disagree with them, other simple organisms present modern evolutionists with an even greater insurmountable obstacle.
An example of just such an organism is the bacterial fagellum.
While this image appears to be that of a
machine, it is infact a living organism which contains over 50 different
protein parts. Note carefully that it has a minimum of three parts: a paddle,
a rotor, and a 'motor'. This particular bacteria 'swims' through our
body by rotating its flagella, which inturn rotates the rotor which is attached
to the paddles. As this organism is suspended in our bodies fluid, the movement
of the paddles in this fluid causes the bacterial fagellum to move throughout
our body in much the same way that a paddle wheel steamboat moves down the
Mississippi - only in this instance the bacteria has no rudder. (For an animated picture of this movement, click on the graphic.
As this animation is 137 k, it may take a few minutes to download, but it
is worth the wait)
According to Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, this bacteria, with its three parts, is irreducibly complex. That is, all three working parts must be there in order for this organism to exist. This in turn means that each part could not have 'evolved' separately, but must have all come into existance at the same time.#8 Now, given the statistical odds against each part of this 'living motor' developing by chance, how much more improbabable is it to maintain that ALL THREE parts evolved by mere chance at the SAME TIME?
It would appear that the electron microscope has shown us that so called 'simple' life forms are in fact anything but simple. Furthermore, assuming that scientists (not evolutionists, but scientists) are able to reproduce basic life forms under laboratory conditions, evolution will not have been proved. What it would prove is that thousands of human beings working in numerous laboratories throughout the world with the most sophisticated equipment, were able to produce simple life forms. In other words, they will have proved that intelligent beings can bring forth life, something any Christian could have told them from reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2.
But they are a long, long, long way from producing any form of life.
Amino acids, produced in a laboratory are not living matter. For that matter
evolutionists who have relied upon the 1953 experiments at the University
of Chicago involving methane gas and amino acid production are beginning to
admit that these experiments do not serve as proof of anything. In
1953 a graduate student by the name of Stanley Miller assumed that
earth's supposed primordial atmosphere must have been composed of methane,
ammonia and hydrogen gas.
To simulate the oceans, he added water into the glass chamber
containing these gases and then simulated lightening by sending electrical
discharges through the whole mixture. One week later he discovered that some
amino acids had formed in the bottom of the jar. Since amino acids are considered
to be the building blocks for the proteins which make up living cells, Miller
(and virtually every evolutionists since 1953) assumed that the mechanism
for life's inception had been discovered. And virtually every secondary and
college level biology textbook produced since 1953 have perpetuated this
concept.
From the scientific perspective however this experiment was woefully inadequate. You see, there is not now, nor has there ever been any scientific evidence to assume that earth's atmosphere was ever composed primarily of anything other than the gases currently found in it. To assume that earth's atmosphere was at one time composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gases simply because amino acids resulted from an electrical discharge passing through this mixture is to assume that evolution is fact. How then can this experiment be used as proof that evolution occurred when it's validity is dependent upon the notion it is attempting to prove in the first place. This is not science! What it is, is another example of the type of circular reasoning which evolutionists used in regards to the age of the fossils vis a via the rock layers in which they were found which we discussed earlier.
"New insights into planetary formation have made it increasingly doubtful that clouds of methane and ammonia ever dominated the atmosphere of primitive earth." # 9 Furthermore, "…more and more researchers believe that a genetic master molecule - probably RNA - arose before the proteins did." (emphasis added) # 10 What true science is finding is that the so-called 'simple cell' is anything but simple. In fact, the complications presented by the very existence of DNA and RNA in simple cells are such that no evolutionary biologist has yet had the courage to insist that we accept as fact the notion that DNA molecules are definitely chance happenings, having evolved from what ultimately must have been some type of inorganic matter.
Why won't they make such an absurd allegation? Simple, once you get past the whole issue of spontaneous generation (which Louis Pasteur was finally able to put to rest in the 1800's) the chances of even the first rung of DNA structure being reached randomly are 10 to the 87th power. That's 10 followed by 87 zeros, which translates to about 7 billion years. Not even the most ardent evolutionists is willing to take on the job of convincing anyone that it took close to 7 billion years for even the first single cell life form to emerge from what can only be described as primordial slime. # 11
But DNA does not work by itself. It works only if 20 different proteins are also there to perform their functions, but these proteins only work at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other to operate, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must of necessity also explain the origin of the other. As we saw in the case of the fig tree and the wasp, the relationship between DNA and these 20 proteins more than doubles the statistical odds of either one developing separately by random chance.
So much for the single cell organism. What about the cells of more highly developed life forms? Each nuclei of every cell in the human body contains 23 pairs of chromosomes which were inherited from our parents. If these 46 chromosomes were hooked together, they would form a chain 7 feet long (although it would be so thin that you couldn't see it even with an electron microscope). The information coded on that chain would be enough to fill over 4,000 average size books. What's more, each cell in the human body - all 30 trillion of them - contains this identical information. # 12 In addition to all that, we need to consider the following: While all the DNA material found in the average adult could fit into a space no bigger than an ice cube, if each strand in that cube were joined end to end, it would reach from the earth to the sun and back MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED TIMES. #13 However, we are expected to believe that all this somehow evolved by chance from nonliving matter!!!
The whole topic of DNA and the long term implications it holds for the theory of evolution could be the subject of a separate book in and of itself. However, I would be guilty of a gross oversight if I didn't at least touch upon one other point regarding DNA. This discussion will serve two purposes. First, it will again highlight the evolutionist's tendency to ignore the facts which disprove their theory. Second, it destroys a third major tenet of the evolutionary concept. This tenet holds that man evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world. In the words of Richard Leakey in 1977, "There is no single center where modern man was born." # 14
Anthropologists such as Leakey who hold to this position are now faced with a serious problem. According to an article which appeared in the January 11, 1988 issue of Newsweek magazine, "...a new breed of anthropologists ... (t)rained in molecular biology... picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single woman from which we are all descendants... (H)ers seems to be in all humans living today." (emphasis added) # 15 Geneticists have in effect proved what Genesis 1:27 has been telling us all along, which is, "...modern humans didn't slowly and inexorably evolve in different parts of the world." # 16 In fact, the evidence for this new discovery is so compelling that Eldredge's colleague Stephen Jay Gould, now acknowledges that "...all human beings despite differences in external appearance are really members of a single entity that's had a very recent origin in one " (emphasis added) # 17 The evolutionists are unwilling to accept a date for this occurrence which is less than 200,000 years ago, but that is a far cry from the dates and places they previously insisted upon as fact.
What Dr. Alan Wilson, one of the geneticists who made these discoveries back in 1967 will acknowledge, is that there were probably no more than a "few thousand" members of this women's generation living on the face of the earth at the time she lived. # 18 While scientists will not concede that this woman was the first women on earth, or the only one at the time, they also cannot totally dismiss the possibility that that is exactly who she was.
During the past few years questions have been raised concerning the computer programming techniques employed by the geneticists engaged in this study. Some scientists have even questioned the entire validity of this project because of these techniques. However, the results of this study havebeen confirmed by an even more comprehensive study conducted in 1991. The results of this verification study are so conclusive that the geneticists whoconducted it have stated that the odds favoring the single ancestor theory are now 16,000 to1 #19 In other words, there appears to be little doubt in the minds of most researchers that all people alive today came from a single woman who most likely originated in the vicinity of Africa or the Middle East. Furthermore, in a totally different study, this one dealing with men's genes "Scientists have dealt a death blow to the idea that modern humans arouse simultaneously in different parts of the world. Analyzing a gene on the 'y' chromozone of 38 men from all over the globe they found no variation." # 20
Traditional evolutionists also questioned the validity of the original study; however, they did so not for scientific reasons, but simply because it conflicted with their preconceived notions about the origin of man. The point is, this study was initially denounced not because of any supposed flaw in its technique, but solely because of the contradictory nature of its findings. Such reasoning represents the very anthesis of true science.
In regard to our supposed primate ancestry, many evolutionists still insist that the human line split off from that of the Chimpanzee about 15 million years ago. Geneticist though have proved that this simply cannot be so. The difference in the molecular structure of a particular blood protein in chimps and humans is so small that they could not possibly have gone theirseparate way any more than 5 million years ago. (Remember, the evolutionist's denial of a creator God forces them to see similarity in design not as evidence for a designer, but as evidence for evolution.) The point is, as Newsweek reported, "Traditional anthropologists did not appreciate being told that their estimates were off ... by ten million years.The geneticists calculation was dismissed and ignored for more than a decade." (emphasis added) # 21
Richard Leakey, while having no formal education beyond high school, was trained by his father Louis Leakey to know how to "organize an expedition and ... to find fossils." #22 He represents one type of traditional anthropologist who spends his time in "disiccated African rift valley(s)" looking for bones, as opposed to the more laboratory bound molecular biologists who have disproved the simultaneous appearance theory. # 23 Yet the concern of even many of Leahey's more academically accredited "stones and bones" colleagues appears to be more closely related to their image than to their 10 million year mistake. "What bothers many of us paleontologists," said Fred Smith of the University of Tennessee, "is the perception that this new data from DNA is so precise and scientific, and that we paleontologists are just a bunch of bumbling old fools ... we may be bumbling fools, but we're not any more bumbling than they (the geneticists) are." (parenthesis & emphasis added) # 24
Because of the insurmountable problems faced by the evolutionists, such as the ones we have just examined, 52 of the world's top mathematicians and evolutionists met at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA to analyze the mathematical problems presented by the so called 'scientific' theory of evolution. After computer assisted analysis of all the data, they came to the conclusion that evolution was a mathematical impossibility. Dr. Murray Eden of the Mass. Institute of Technology stated that, "So great were the problems, that before we could have a viable theory of evolution there would have to be the discovery and illucidation of entirely new natural laws; chemical, chemical/ physical, and biological." # 25 Why did Dr, Murray make such a statement? Simple, the theory of evolution violates virtually all of the known laws of true science.
Even all this though has not stopped the intrepid evolutionist from continuing to push his 'scientific' theory. Now however, it takes on more of the characteristics of science fiction than science. With but one notable exception, evolutionists can state only that the origins of DNA and RNA, like the explosive appearance of all those Cambrian multicellular life forms, are a mystery. That exception is the suggestion by Nobel prize winner Francis Crick that simple life forms originated somewhere else and came to earth by unknown means. # 26 Needless to say, from the scientific perspective, this "it came from outer space" idea (otherwise known as 'directed aspermiai') leaves a great deal to be desired. First of all, like many other evolutionistic concepts, it is totally untestable. Secondly, by shifting the location of life's mysterious appearance from the earth to some other planet in some other solar system, the evolutionist is hoping that you will not notice that this explanation still does not explain how‚ simple cells appeared. (Crick's theory is a perfect example of an infinite regression which directs the reader's attention backward but never actually answers the original question)
Think about this for a moment. Why would it be even logical to assume that a life form which is so well suited to earth would have a better chance of evolving on some other planet, which must have had an identical atmosphere to that of earth's, and then survived the journey to earth on some asteroid or meteor?
When you think of it, the theory of the origin of the species known as Darwinian evolution actually has a very poor record of explaining origins. As we have seen so far, the origins of basic molecules such as DNA and RNA, and the explosive origins of Cambrian multi-cellular life forms are each classified as mysteries. But then from the evolutionist's standpoint, this is as it must be, for not one single piece of evidence exists among the fossil collections in all the museums of the world to prove that their origins were evolutionary in nature.
Evolutionists however have not limited their use of science fiction to explanations which deal with the appearance of lower life forms. While it is true that Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkley was one of the first academicians to publicly mention the fact that the fossil record simply did not support the notion that there were transitions between higher category life forms, it must be remembered that he was first and foremost, an evolutionist. Therefore, rather than accept the fact that the fossil record does support the concept of special creation, Goldschmidt proposed a hypothesis which became known as the theory of the "hopeful monster." # 27
Since no graduated transitional forms could be discovered, Goldschmidt rightly assumed that none had ever existed. To explain the 'leap' from reptiles to birds he relied upon the concept of mutations. Even though it can be seen from simple observation that the vast majority of all genetic mutations are harmful, he assumed that within one generation there must have been literally hundreds of beneficial mutations which resulted in a higher life form. In effect, he was saying that a lizard laid an egg, only this particular lizard embryo had virtually every one of its organs altered by massive genetic mutations. When this egg hatched, what emerged was not a funny looking lizard, but a fully developed bird!!
Printer Friendly Version
1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 75
2) Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWE Gleerup, 1954) pp. 551-552, also Dr. Andrew Snelling, The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990) p. 13
3) Dr. Walter T. Brown Jr., Radio Interview, Point of View, USA Radio Network - October 3, 1988
4) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) p 63
5) Eldredge - Monkey Business, op cit. 46
6) J Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995) p. 70
7) ibid
8) Michael J Behe - Darwin's Black Box - The Biological Challenge to Evolution (Free Press - 1996) pp 72-73
9) National Geographic March 1998
10) ibid see also Time, October 11, 1993, p. 71
11) Dr. D. James Kennedy, Sermon: "Creationism vs Evolution - Is Creationism Scientific?" Broadcast August 14, 1988, 10:30 AM CDT, WBGL Radio, Champaign, IL
12) Brown interview,
13) Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1980) p. 46,
14) John Tierney, "The Search for Adam and Eve", Newsweek Vol.111 No.2 January 11, 1988, p. 47
15) ibid p. 46
16) ibid p. 47
17) ibid p. 47
18) ibid p. 50
19) William Allman, "The Origins of Modern Humans - Who We Were", US News and World Report, Vol 111 No. 12 (September 16, 1991), p. 58
20) Time, Vol. 145 No. 23 (June 5, 1995), p. 21
21) John Tierney ) Newsweek, op cit. p. 49
22) "Puzzling Out Man's Ascent", Time, Vol 110 No. 19 (November 7, 1977) , p. 77
23) John Tierney, Newsweek op cit. pp. 46-47
24) ibid p. 47
25) Kennedy, Sermon: "Creation..." op cit
26) Eldredge - op cit. p. 136
27) Eldredge - Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory
of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985) . p. 73; also
Dr. D. James Kennedy, Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge
Ministries, 1981) p. 4