|
$10,000 Reward for a proven Scientific Answer
(Enter the contest at: http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/ )
Evolution in Crisis in the United Kingdom also? http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/
The Roots and Fruit of Evolution
IntelligentDesign.org Top Feature
ID The Future Podcasts More
Questions for Evolutionists
Author(s): Walt Brown
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man�s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory�it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. The following questions were distributed to the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993. (The videotaped debate is #6, $9.95.) Questions added since the debate remarked with an asterisk (*).
- Where did the space for the universe come from?
- Where did matter come from?
- Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
- How did matter get so perfectly organized?
- Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
- When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
- When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
- With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
- Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
- How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
- Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
- Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
- When, where, why, and how did:
- Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
- Single-celled animals evolve?
- Fish change to amphibians?
- Amphibians change to reptiles
- Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
- How did the intermediate forms live?
- When, where, why, how, and from what did:
- Whales evolve?
- Sea horses evolve?
- Bats evolve?
- Eyes evolve?
- Ears evolve?
- Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
- Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
- The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body�s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
- The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
- The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
- DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
- The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
- The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
- The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
- The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
- The immune system or the need for it? 16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
- How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
- When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
- *How did photosynthesis evolve?
- *How did thought evolve?
- *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
- *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
- What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
- *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
- *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
-
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
-
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
- Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
- Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
- Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
- What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
- Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
- It is all they have been taught.
- They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
- They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
- They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
- Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
- Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don�t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
- Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
- What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
- Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
- Arent you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn�t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
- Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
See www.creationscience.com for more tough questions for evolutionists.
CLICK THE BANNER FOR LOTS MORE TEACHINGS
Videos
Autumn 2008
Spring 2008
Autumn 2007
Spring 2007
Back to Evolution Main Index
CHAPTER 15
Conclusion
| Darwinian evolution has been abandoned. Darwin was wrong, and that admission has finally been accepted. The scientific and geological findings of the past one hundred years have literally demolished the idea that life evolved by numerous infinitesimal steps over immense time periods.
On absolutely no evidence, and, indeed -evidence to the contrary, Darwinian evolution is still proclaimed by many to be quite true. The natural laws of thermodynamics have been violated; the billions and billions of 'missing links' of plants and animals don't exist; gigantic mountains turn upside down and move hundreds of miles without breaking or crumbling, to accommodate the discrepancies in the geological column; millions and millions of positive, beneficial, directionless, random mutations, apparently move life up the ladder of complexity, despite the fact that no beneficial mutations have ever been scientifically observed. Assumptions become the rule - assumptions bordering on fantasy.
Darwinism was a dream and now the dream has ended. Darwinian evolution was unique beyond comprehension. Widely propagated and promoted effectively, it became the only theory in history to be accepted on scientific grounds, despite the fact that it had absolutely no authentic scientific evidence to support its claims. How was this possible? What forces were behind such an enormous campaign of falsity?
To a certain degree, the Darwinist position was dependent upon our own ignorance; that is, our ignorance towards the true nature and content of scientific, geological and historical evidence conflicting with evolution.
There can be no doubt as to the fact that the media and communication world in general, have been able to effectively mask sensible contrary evidence conflicting with evolution. Darwinian evolution is still taught in many schools - that is, taught with bias towards evolution, without any reference to arguments contrary, some of which we have discussed.
Why are we happy to continue along a road paved with fallacies, discrepancies, and outlandish assumptions, to support the belief in a theory with absolutely no real or physical truth? How can the rational mind believe in a theory which violates natural scientific laws and offers no tangible evidence in its support? Despite this, different theories are churned out in abundance. From the beginnings of this essay to its completion, I have noted several new theories in both the Scientific Journal and National Geographic magazines.
Yes - Darwinian evolution is gone and evolution by infinitesimal steps over immense time spans has been relinquished.
It follows therefore, that if you still want to believe in evolution, you have no other option than to pursue the theory currently on offer - 'Punctuated Equilibrium'. |
| Let us briefly trace (in a simplified way) the general steps of this process from its very beginnings:
Firstly, we must recognize the theory of the 'Big Bang' or similar i.e. that the entire matter of our universe had eternally existed in an infinitely small volume. Following a completely unprovoked explosion, this awesome amount of matter burst forth, organizing in its chaotic path the great elements from which our planets and universe were born. Incidentally - during this explosion, the inclines, trajectories, constituents and motions of the planets would be established; the earth with a relative star and unique ability to support organic life, and so on... The great seas would also have been established at this point. The probability of such an event happening in the correct sequence, to produce the observed outcome - is more than 10 to the power of 200 - which is effectively no chance! |
 |
|
 |
Secondly, the operation of pure chance would mean that within the half billion to a billion year period, the organic molecules in the primeval seas would have to undergo more than 10 to the power of 130 trial assemblies in order to hit upon the correct sequence. Within the boundaries of time and space which we are considering, the probability is effectively zero. Furthermore, it can be shown that the necessary total of 2000 enzymes by randomly assembling amino acid chains is exceedingly minute. In fact, it might be equal to 10 to the power of 40,000 against. Such a number exceeds by a staggering amount - the total number of fundamental particles throughout the observed universe by very many orders of magnitude. |
| Thirdly, the formation of complex cells and DNA would have mathematical improbabilities far exceeding any rational intellect. Hemoglobin has an improbability of 10 to the power of 650, while the DNA of the T4 bacteriophage has a horrendous improbability of 10 to the power of 78,000. In a universe of only 1018old it is blatantly obvious that life did not evolve by chance!
Finally, if these countless improbabilities were overcome and life had begun its evolutionary journey, defying every known scientific laws in the process; much would still have to be achieved.
Thence we have the theory of one species spontaneously giving birth to a different species....
Punctuated-Equilibrium
For one species to give birth to another species with a marked difference, the genetic material would have to undergo radical re-configuration in a collective, systematic and constructive way. The improbability of this happening on a frequent basis is exceedingly greater than the improbabilities of the formation of simple organic molecules discussed earlier; it is effectively zero!
However, human arrogance and intellectual blindness that challenges these mind-boggling improbabilities then has to reconcile the final irrefutable time-bomb to this particular theory:
The birth of this new species would be accompanied by the random birth of an identical species of opposite sex; with fully functional reproductive organs and complementary sex cells - in order that the species propagate a male and a female of the species.
After all - the new species would be unable to breed with its parent stock - if it is indeed a new species. What is the probability of this happening?
Furthermore, the awesome scale and quantity of species of plant and animal testify to a peculiar event which must surely happen on a frequent basis.
It would be ridiculous if it were not laughable, to suggest that homosapiens will one day give rise to a completely different species. It was once taught that the 48 chromosomes of the ape and the 46 chromosomes of humans, demonstrated the clear spontaneous transition by punctuated equilibrium, through a simple shifting and rearrangement of genetic information. However, advances in genetic study have shown us that the interdependent genes pertaining to certain functions in apes; for example - the formation of eyes, ears, bones etc., are totally different from those in humans. The replication of genes and extraction of relevant information is conducted by unique 'punctuation marks' on the chromosomes. The ability for the RNA replicator to copy the information exactly is made possible by scanning the genetic information in a certain direction, thus enabling the replication of genetic information to be consistent. However, the ape to man transition has been renounced because it is now known that the replication of genetic information for man and ape is scanned from opposite directions. The entire genetic constituents of each species are therefore deemed to be completely different.
The theories continue to pour out in abundance, none of them ever seeming to stand the test of time. Every day another scientist proposes the way in which 'it happened' - hard facts once again unavailable!
You know, and I know, that evolution did not happen.
The 20th Century is the unfortunate century that has abandoned supernaturalism and replaced it with humanistic naturalism. The great appetite of secular man has been satisfied by an alternative doctrine to the doctrine of God; the consequences of which we are now beginning to reap...... |
|
 |
St. Thomas Aquinas -
Five proofs for the existence of God
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. |
| Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only in as much as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be in ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is impossible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore if anything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing were in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to begin to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to he found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph, ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things as is said in the same book. Therefore there must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Our "FAQs" and "Primers" are summaries (sometimes illustrated) of topics of interest in the debate over intelligent design (ID) and evolution. " F.A.Q.s" are answers to Frequently Asked Questions. " Primers" are short introductions to common topics. Some of these pages are general, and might not have references...so, if you thirst for more detail, try looking at the articles section or just e-mail us . It should be noted that answers to FAQs are our opinions of the best answers, and much of this material is covered in more (and often better) detail in the ID literature. See the links at right for more detail. Finally, we recommend our " Evolution Primer " and " Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell " as the most informative introductory articles listed here. Thanks and please enjoy!
Our mission is to help people learn about intelligent design and evolution. For your convenience, all of our FAQ's, Primers, and "Nutshells" are available in PDF [Adobe Acrobat ] format, which you may download, print, and reproduce freely for non-profit educational use! |
|
| Is there some FAQ or Primer topic you'd like to see covered here that isn't? Do you have an opinion or disagree with anything on these pages? We appreciate thoughts, criticisms, suggestions, concerns, or any other input (including encouragement)! Please e-mail us ! Thanks! | | |
|
