In order to believe in evolution, a person has to accept some weird science. I’m not just talking about points of the theory that seem counterintuitive; I’m talking full-blown denial of things we know to be true. The well published, evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin, made this amazing admission [Billions and Billions of Demons, January 9, 1997]:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In this candid statement, Lewontin has revealed the true heart of many evolutionists. They would rather cling to even the most absurd “natural” explanation of our origins rather than accept the possibility of a supernatural Creator. What are some of these patently absurd constructs that he was talking about? I’m glad you asked. In this post, I’m going to list a few of the more far-fetched ones. Prepare to be amused!
There was once a time when people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation. It’s the idea that life could rise spontaneously out of non-living material. For example, people used to believe that maggots would spontaneously appear in rotting meat or that mice would appear in appear a jar containing wheat husks.
Over a couple of centuries of experimentation and observation, most examples of spontaneous generation had been debunked. In the case of maggots, it was learned that flies were laying their eggs on the rotting meat. It was understood that spontaneous generation did not occur in “higher” or more complex forms of life, like mice. However, the idea still endured that “simple” forms of life, like single-celled creatures, could spontaneously appear. If a jar of clean water was left in the sun, it would begin to cloud. When examined under the primitive microscopes of the 19thcentury, they could see the water teeming with microorganisms.
Louis Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin, remained skeptical. He designed an experiment using special flasks that would allow air to reach the water but prevented air-borne microbes from falling into them. He boiled the water inside the flasks to insure that nothing already in the water was left alive. After several months, no microorganisms had formed. It was through this experiment that he devised the process we now call pasteurization. It was also the final nail in the coffin of the theory of spontaneous generation; all believed examples of life rising from non-living had been disproved.
Spontaneous generation had been replaced with the Law of Biogenesis. It is the scientific principle that life can only arise from life and not from non-living material. Of course, this creates a quandary for evolutionists: if life only comes from life, then how did life begin in the first place? What a pickle!
Secular scientists still cling to spontaneous generation, only now they call it abiogenesis. Regardless of its new title, it’s still the same idea that life can arise from non-living matter. Continuing under the delusion that spontaneous generation must have happened, scientists have spent decades trying to create life in the laboratory. Yet even artificial life eludes them. The closest they ever came is the famous Miller-Urey experiment which produced some amino acids. Since DNA is made up of amino acids, they believe they had made the first step toward finding how life could arise “naturally.” It’s funny how they are conducting experiments, trying to create life, just to “prove” that it happens by itself!
Everything we have learned from science, everything we have observed for centuries, every experiment we have ever conducted has proven over and over that the origin of life is a miracle. It cannot happen apart from a supernatural cause. Yet, in spite of all the evidence, evolutionists still want us to believe in an idea that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting! Excuse me while I laugh my head off!!
GRAVITY CREATED EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING
Where did matter come from? That question strikes at the heart of the problem with all secular explanations of our origins. Natural science has no theory or even a credible story to explain the ultimate origin of matter. In fact, matter (or energy) simply appearing naturally seems to contradict the well established, scientific principle that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. The mere existence of matter lends itself strongly to the idea that there was a supernatural cause for the universe.
Unfazed by secular science’s lack of a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, Stephen Hawking, made this humorous quote:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
What I find most comical about this statement is the sheer hypocrisy of it. How could there even be a law such as gravity until there’s a universe? Hawking’s “solution” seems to suffer from a chicken-and-egg dilemma. If natural laws are properties of the universe, how can they be used to explain the origin of the universe? That’s like saying natural laws created natural laws! You can believe that if you want but I think it’s looney toons.
EVOLUTION ADDS TRAITS BY REMOVING TRAITS
One day, an enterprising young man in the city thought he’d start a business selling watermelons in suburban neighborhoods. He’d drive out to the country, buy watermelons for 35 cents each, then resell them 3 for $1. They were very popular and always sold out quickly but each time he drove to buy more, he always seemed to have less money. Not sure what he was doing wrong, he explained his business plan to his father. His father thought about it for a minute, then slapped his son on the back. “I see the problem,” he told his son confidently, “you need to buy a bigger truck!”
Natural selection is an observed phenomenon where traits not suited to the environment are removed from the population. In the famous, peppered moth example of “evolution,” birds would eat light or dark colored moths as environmental factors changed. Over time, the ratio of light/dark moth in the population would change and evolutionists call any type of change, “evolution.” According to evolutionists, these little changes (microevolution) will accumulate over time to become big changes (macroevolution).
My question to evolutionists has always been, “how long would birds have to eat one color of moth until new colors appear?” The significance of the question usually escapes them but the answer is obvious. You cannot create new colors by continuously removing one color. It doesn’t matter how long you do it. Duh!
For evolution to occur, new traits have to be added to the population. For a dinosaur to become a bird, you have to add feathers. The supposed first ancestor did not have feathers. Neither did it have hair or scales or even skin. Nor did it have bones, blood, or organs. For a bacterium to become a bird, there must be a continuous parade of novel features added. That is the only way for one kind of creature to become another kind. Evolutionists love to bring up examples of natural selection and say it’s evolution. They believe the change just needs to happen for a long enough time.
If natural selection REMOVES traits and evolution requires animals to ACQUIRE traits, then we have a problem. Continuously removing traits will never add traits no matter how long it continues. It’s like trying to make money by losing a little bit at a time. The idea that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution is a joke. It’s a joke funnier than the one above because the one above is fictional and the evolutionists are serious. I agree that populations change. I don’t agree that “change” over a long time could ever amount to evolution. Time is not the savior of evolution. Time is the “bigger truck” of evolution.
THINGS THAT LOOK DESIGNED AREN’T DESIGNED
Have you ever heard an expression like, “Cheetahs are built for speed” or “Bird wings are remarkably well designed for flying”? Most of the time, when evolutionists makes statements like these, they don’t really mean to say these things are actually designed. Yet intended or unintended, they are admitting there is an apparent design in nature. A tired complaint I hear from evolutionists is that there is no evidence for creation. Evidence for design is everywhere but evolutionists refuse to see it because of their circular reasoning. Note that I said, “they refuse to see it” and not that they can’t see it. Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the book, Dawkins said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.”
It’s been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one. It’s like the old joke: Why did the chicken cross the road? The first time people hear this, they usually search for some deep meaning or clever answer yet completely overlook the obvious answer – to get to the other side. I think that’s what’s going on here.
Q: Why does everything look designed?
A: Because it’s designed!
Evolutionists may be blind and foolish, but most of them aren’t stupid. They know the obvious implication of design. Yet not only do they refuse to accept design as evidence for creation, they also go to great lengths to explain to others why they too should not make that reasonable conclusion.
I normally like to link to non-creationist sources but I couldn’t find a direct link to read Julian Huxley’s book, Evolution in Action. In the book, Huxley is cited as saying, “Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words ‘as if.’ As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.”
That’s just a fancy way of telling people, “I know everything looks designed but it only looks that way. It really isn’t.” Huxley could see design. To even use the word, “built” implies a builder. Huxley knew that the most reasonable implication of design is the “purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim.” Nevertheless, he boldly denounced the obvious and correct answer.
Another shameless example of explaining away design comes from Francis Crick , the co-discoverer of DNA. Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved.”
Gee. How more conspicuous can anyone be? Crick is overtly saying, “I know it looks designed but keep telling yourself everything evolved!”
Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain away design but the more they explain, the more they prove my point. They would not put in such effort if they didn’t grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer. It’s almost funny to see how they reject the most reasonable answer for such an unlikely one. It’s like they’re saying, “No! The chicken did not want to get to the other side!’