Believe in Evolution? Check Again.

Can you answer the following question: What do you know about evolution that is true? If you can’t answer it, you’re in good scientific company. ♦

There’s an account of a controversial speech given in 1981 at the New York’s American Museum of Natural History by Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. Though an atheist, Patterson made the following shockingly honest statement:

“One of the reasons I started taking a non-evolutionary view was my sudden realization that after working on evolution for 20 years I knew nothing whatever about it. It was quite a shock to learn that one could be so misled for so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution, and naturally I suppose there is nothing wrong with me. Over the last few weeks, I’ve tried putting a question to various people and groups of people.

The question is “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution – any one statement that seems to be true?”

I tried that question on the Geology staff in the Field Museum [of Natural History], and got no answer. I tried it on the members of the evolutionary morphology seminar in the University of Chicago. After a long silence, one person said “I know it ought not to be taught in high school.” 1

After his speech, Patterson was attacked by many of his academic peers. Patterson said he “went through merry hell for about a year. Almost everybody except the people at the British Museum objected.” He said that “I found that what you say will be taken in ‘political’ rather than rational terms.” He later said just before his death in 1998 that evolution is presented in textbooks as though it were “the unified field theory of biology,” holding the whole subject together – and binding the profession to it. “Once something has that status,” he said, “it becomes like religion…[It] is obvious that it is a faith.” 2

Two Major Scientific Evidences Against Evolution
To help one on either end of the evolution belief spectrum, below is a brief (2.5 minute) video transcription that refutes evolution:

You hear this one a lot. Science has proven evolution therefore evolution is true. Since evolution is true and Christians don’t believe it, then Christians don’t believe science and they aren’t rational people.

Really? Let’s put that claim to the test.

First off, evolution in the sense that things change is evident. No rational person disputes that. Therefore rational Christians believe it. We can observe change.

But evolution in the sense that life came from non-life and then that life began to randomly generate new genetic information and that over time it eventually produced humans is something entirely different, and something that quite honestly does not hold up against science.

In other words, evolution in the sense of molecules to man is not scientifically possible and therefore should not be viewed as scientific fact.  It is actually in great opposition to science; that is, observational science – the kind of science we can test and repeat and use our five senses to understand.

Science demonstrates that over time living organisms lose genetic information – they don’t gain it. That same science demonstrates that life doesn’t arise from non-life.

Fact 1: 
There is no known observable process by which genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code.

None. That pretty much refutes evolution right away because there is no way to go from a fish to an amphibian without adding new information, right?

If living organisms cannot produce new genetic information, how can something gradually change into something of higher intelligence or form or complexity? That is, how can anything evolve from an amoeba to a man without adding new genetic information?

The answer, of course, is that it can’t. Plain and simple.

Now, some have speculated and imagined all kinds of things and they’ve brought in artists to produce creative renderings based on guesses and they have been successful in telling a very convincing story that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures. But, those are just drawings. They are just stories.

What we really observe is that humans are humans and apes are apes.

Fact 2:
Never, ever has it been observed that life can come from non-life.

So, here are two major scientific evidences against evolution. First, that there is no known observable process by which genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code. Second, life has never been observed to come from non-life. So molecules to man evolution doesn’t really make scientific sense. Yet, we’re all here. And life is all around us in various forms.

Although evolution cannot account for this, the Bible can. The Bible reveals that the all-powerful, all-knowing, supernatural God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing, and all life according to its kinds; that is, each with its own set of genetic information.

So again, what the Bible reveals makes sense with what we see and understand. Evolution does not. 3

Do you believe in evolution? Who told you it was true? 
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. – Genesis 1:1

1 Darwin’s House of Cards, Tom Bethell, Discovery Institute Press, 2017, p. 142.
2 Ibid. p. 148.
3 Evidence Against Evolution, Answers in Genesis, Check It Out!, video, 2011.

Categories: Creation, Evolution, Faith

Tags: , , , ,

12 replies

  1. Fact # 1, are you aware of the flu? Are you aware that it mutates regularly? Are you aware they have to make a different vaccine every single year because it EVOLVES? Dumbass…

    Fact #2, Abiogenesis is what we lack factual evidence for, evolution is seen all the time. Of course if you are wearing babble glasses it is difficult to see. Bear in mind science is still looking for the spark of abiogenesis, it is a matter of time. It will have a rational explanation of course, no voodoo or magic fairy dust required, as we all know that is the dead end alley of stupid.

    You can make absurd claims all day long against your poorly understood caricature of evolution if you wish, the rest of the eduacted world is moving on, evolution firmly in tow. Unfortunately the ignorant will be left behind with much gnashing and wailing to do…

    • Shelldigger, I too believe in evolution. Micro, not macro. As stated in this and other articles in this Biblical Viewpoint blog site (see Evolution category), the issue that strong advocates of evolution always refer to are scientific research, tests, and findings that are simply supporting microevolution. I, nor anyone knowledgeable on the topic, is refuting microevolution – that evolutionary change occurs over time either through natural or artificial selection, mutation, gene flow or genetic drift. As pointed out by you and myself, it happens all the time. You highlighting the flu virus is a good example. To think that the anti-evolutionary viewpoint is anti-microevolution is to misunderstand the Christian/Biblical perspective.

      The big issue that people never speak of in honest scientific circles (my point with Colin Patterson’s comments in my article), is around macroevolution, or wholesale change of species from one to another. Fruit flies don’t become horses. Sparrows (or finches – read Darwin) can be biologically tweaked, yes (microevolution), but they don’t turn into turtles (macroevolution). Monkeys don’t turn into humans to get to the real issue. No truthful evidence exists that supports macroevolution. This leads to bitter and intolerant disputes when people on either side of the debate don’t clarify and account for this distinction.

      Likewise, as you point out, the origin of life (abiogenesis) is unproven by science as well. It appears, as I peruse your own blog posts, that you’re a spirited person and you place your full faith in man and the scientific process rather than in the existence of a Higher Power or the God of the Bible. I’ve read the articles you’ve submitted to me, I might suggest you peruse other articles I’ve written at on assorted topics to get a full picture of another man’s perspective.

      • I had a hunch the micro/macro thing would be where this headed, if there was a response at all.

        First I would like to point out that when I was much younger the stance of religion/religious was simply that evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell. Since that time they (religion/religious) have themselves evolved to accepting micro evolution because that does not appear to violate the totally creationist view, and they feel like they might be looking foolish in the modern world, gotta get with the times. So they believe there is enough wiggle room in the micro evolution world that they can accept “that” part, without compromising their biblical beliefs.

        The thing is, the only thing separating the micro/macro evolution scenario is vast amounts of time.

        I figured you would reply that in regards to the flu “well it’s still a virus” and I was right. (you did not say that specifically but it is inferred) I saw it coming from a mile away even. You see I know what has lead us both to this exact point in time. Which is the aim of religion to hijack science in an attempt to seem science- like, in the face of the massive onslaught of fact based science cutting to the core of the simply outdated creationist view. An act of survival.

        So the religious hijack science, in an attempt to seem science- like so you can shoehorn your beliefs into the facts, make up a mish mash representation that suits your cognitive dissonances, and pawn it off as “believable” to the rubes. So which are you, the rube or the perpetrator of the crime I describe?

        As I said before, the only thing separating micro and macro evolution is massive amounts of time, and ample niches to fill by our massive and diverse population of multi cellular organisms on this planet.

        But that’s the problem eh? Creationists tend to believe the absolutely childish tale of Noah’s Ark,.. and that the universe and all within it are a mere 6000 years old.

        I suppose it is fine if that is something you want to believe, but there is a serious issue with the factual evidence if you attempt to pawn those particular beliefs off as true.

        Believe what you like, but understand that beliefs are not the same thing as facts. No matter how badly you would like it to be true.

        I have seen your perspective already, and reject it for reality. Anyone understanding of the facts, having some insights to the situation, and able to be completely honest with themselves would reach the same conclusion.

      • While I understand your reaction to the “micro/macro thing” I don’t see any logical explanation, facts, or rebuttal from you. Please explain your factual evidence for micro/macro distinctions. I’ve never seen a coherent answer to the dilemma that even Darwin anticipated and couldn’t answer in his lifetime. He simply posited the theory. The past 150 years have supported micro, but not macro. Time alone is not the answer. Even 16 billion years is not enough time for random materialistic speciation to play out. This is not an anti-science stance or an attempt for religion/religious to hijack science. If anything, it seems like you’re holding on pretty tightly to what you believe like a religion of its own. As you say, “beliefs are not the same as facts.”

      • You are asking me for evidence of macro evolution when it is all over the internet? I’ll tell you what, try doing some of your reading from reality based sources rather than AIG.

        I could do all of the research for you, and post it, but I refuse to do that. If you cannot manage to find plenty of evidence for evolution on the internet in this day and age, it is because of your own intellectual laziness.

        Tell you what I will post a link for you. This is where I was many years ago when I still did not really know myself about the evidence for evolution. This link removed all doubt for me, and all other things I have read from actual sources doing real science has supported that position.

        The entire site is a trove of information but this page, and it is a long read, and gets quite deep, dont just read it once. Read it until the little light bulb in your head goes off. If that fails to happen, consider yourself a sucker for the biggest fake news on the planet. AIG.

      • Shelldigger, thank you for reducing the evidence supporting evolution that’s “all over the internet” to the research paper by Dr. Douglas Theobald. It’s thorough work, as is the counter document by anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp of True Origins, I won’t get into the middle of their ongoing debate. Needless to say, both sides dig in their heels.

        I will however point out a striking comment in the link you sent to me by Dr. Theobald. This seems to be at the heart of our disparate views: “The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.” This assumption that the theory of universal common descent is the only possible explanation excludes the possibility of a Higher Power or God. By eliminating the option of a Creator, that is God, who not only has revealed another very well “known hypothesis other than universal common descent” in the Scriptures (which I suspect you do not accept as legitimate), as well as an explanation of the origins of man and the universe, you have reduced your options to analyze these issues solely through the lens of the scientific method. While I pay homage to the scientific method, this approach forces one to paint oneself into a finely defined corner made up of broad assumptions, predictive models, and inconclusive speculations. With extensive footnotes. Almost like a narrow-minded religion.

        The search for truth in God via the Bible is far more productive and fulfilling than a lifetime searching for answers to God-sized questions hindered by restrictive scientific assumptions that essentially leave you perpetually with one hand tied behind your back. While Psalm 14 would refer to you as a fool, I won’t do that. You’re a smart guy, Shelldigger, with good intentions. I’d challenge you to use your gifted and inquisitive mind and tap into the God-shaped void within your heart and soul.

      • Have you perhaps ever heard of the word projection? You might want to look that up.

        If you want warm fuzzies then cling to your religion. Those of us willing to accept the harsh realities of this world will take that which science shows us.

        But hey Im glad we got to the point that divides us so quickly and efficiently. You are entitled to your opinions, and you AIG materials, and your counter arguments from whomever, that tells you what you want to hear.

        It is a human failing we all must work to keep at bay, if we want to be honest with ourselves.

      • Shelldigger, I’m not about warm fuzzies. Nor religion for foolishness’ sake. Reading some of your own blog postings I see that behind your rational tough exterior you have questions yourself about life and death. You apparently have accepted the “harsh realities of this world and take that which science shows us” but if that’s where your quest ends, then that is a human failing, although honest and sincere, which will always be left found wanting. I’ll leave you with this:

  2. Oh, you’re censoring comments that prove you wrong?

    I see.

    Enjoy living in your lie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: