To add this article to your site, click the "+MySite" button
A house without a floor—it
sounds impossible, doesn’t it? Who
could live in it? I’m not saying
that it has a dirt floor; I’m saying there is no floor at all, no foundation
on which the house can stand. It
doesn’t matter how the rest of the house is built; if it doesn’t (or
can’t) rest upon anything, it is useless.
Much of our understanding in the scientific community is based upon such
a house called Darwinistic Evolution.
You wouldn’t know it to hear the educrats and the media speak of it, because to them it is fact…an un-provable fact, but a fact nonetheless. But this ‘fact’ can be disproved quite easily by asking five questions.
What
is the origin of matter? Terry
Pratchett said it best: “In
the beginning was nothing…which exploded.” Four of the seven basic
theories of the origin of all substance in the universe duck
the question entirely. The
Nebular Theory states that there
was a giant spinning mass of material and eddy currents formed within it,
which broke off and became galaxies, stars and planets.
The Planetesimal
Theory says that two giant quasi-stellar objects nearly collided,
and the gravitational forces pulled off great chunks that became galaxies,
stars and planets. The Ancient Astronaut Theory says that
some unknown aliens created (by some unknown process)
all the galaxies, stars and planets. Finally,
the ever-popular Big
Bang Theory maintains that an explosion of material sent debris
spinning off through space to form galaxies, stars and planets.
Every
one of these theories presupposes their own
existence.
At least the Steady State Theory answers the
question. It says basically that there was no creation; matter has
always existed and has simply been recycled.
Never mind that this violates the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics (the Entropy Law).
This law maintains that through the passage of time, matter moves
from a condition of order to a condition of disorder—if we had always
existed, there would be no more order or energy in the universe.
The sun would’ve used up all its fuel.
The Continuous
Generation Theory (matter just ‘pops’ into existence by an unknown
process) has this same drawback; it violates a host of Conservation
laws (Conservation Mass, Charge, etc).
The only other theory that answers the question and doesn’t violate
known laws is Intelligent Design, and of course they will have nothing to do with that one.
What
is the origin of life? For
a guy who named his life’s work The
Origin of the Species, he sure avoided the topic of origins.
Darwinism is based upon spontaneous
generation—a concept that was disproved over a century ago. This refusal to look the issue in the eye is revealed by
George Wald: "One
has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet
we are here as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation...Most
modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the
spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative
belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I
think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a
hypothesis of spontaneous generation."
[emphasis added]
He admits that the only reason he
believes in spontaneous generation is because the only alternative is
special creation, which he refuses to consider, data or no data.
And they say that the Intelligent Design crowd is taking leaps of
faith? Another
tact the Darwinists resort to is Directed
Panspermia; the idea that our Earth was seeded by aliens, which only
pushes the question back a step.
What
is the origin of information?
Information
is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
Information requires intelligence, by definition.
Our genes contain information. So
where did this intelligence come from?
Of course, the simplistic answer is that it occurs randomly.
The classic metaphor is the alphabet soup.
Spill some on the floor, and randomly, some of the letters come
together to spell ‘CAT’.
My
question is this: in what language does ‘cat’ have meaning?
You see, first you must have a language before you can spell anything
in it. A code (like a language)
is defined as something that is 
neither
random nor periodic that contains
information.
Additionally,
language doesn’t develop from a series of nouns. Context needs to be present from the beginning for a
language to function, to carry meaning.
There is more to life than form.
Let’s say that on some island beach we discover a computer.
Our response is, ‘Look—petroleum randomly coagulated into a box
shape, while silicone formed on the front to make a screen and within to
randomly develop into chips.’
Absurd,
right? But even if you accept
this implausible premise and plug it into a power source, the computer still needs the programming
on its hard drive or it is useless. What is DNA if not our specific programming?
By what process does an organism gain new genetic information? Darwinists say radiation induced genetic mutation is responsible. Take some primordial soup, zap it several million times, and presto! Human beings! From goo to you by way of the zoo. What they fail to acknowledge is that 99.9% of all radiation induced genetic mutation results in some breakdown in the organism, hurting not helping its ability to survive. In fact, no one has ever demonstrated even in a laboratory any improvement of a system that can be traced to this process. But even if you ignore the statistics and concede the point, that only covers half the problem. The solution must be two fold: first, the organism must be altered, and second, those changes must be encoded in the DNA so they can tell future generations to carry that trait. Additionally for a mere .5% of genetic change, it takes over three thousand generations for 97% of the species to acquire the trait. To transition from water breathing/dwelling life forms to air breathing, land dwelling life forms requires many alterations to survive. The mutation must create appendages for walking as opposed to swimming; a different suspension of the weight (even air breathing whales will die if beached); a system for containing body salts (unnecessary in salt water); new systems for fertilizing eggs; oh, and lungs would be nice. These mutations must be simultaneous or the organism would die. It does no good to have a mutation that covers appendages, weight suspension, body salts and fertilization if it doesn’t have lungs. That is far more genetic change than one half of one percent, and it still doesn’t explain how all this mutation was written into the DNA code to pass the information on to later generations. Given the odds of all this mutation being constructive, which is contrary to the observed trends for mutations from radiation, we quickly enter the realm of the absurd. Even situations that show diversity within species (like the many breeds of dog) have been proven to be the result of a loss of genetic information, not new information. One must eventually face the fact that there is not one credible transition fossil in the tree of evolution, yet transition is the basis of their theory. An attempt has been made to explain this 'phenomena' called Punctuated Equilibrium or "Punk Eek" for short. It basically states that the evolutionary process will plateau for a time and then suddenly jump forward rapidly and thus (conveniently) leave no transition fossils in the record to prove that either Darwinistic Evolution or Punk Eek ever occurred!
What is uniformitarianism? Another little known fact in this sequence of beneficial accidents is the necessary non-interference from a hostile environment. Uniformitarianism supposes that the Earth has always been as it is now (not counting the pollution). While the life forms are struggling to develop, the ecosystem needs to have a ‘hands off’ policy—any cataclysmic event would be fatal to this fragile progression. Events like a global flood (the evidence for which is overwhelming) would obliterate any progress for any but water dwelling life, and it would be back to the drawing board for such organisms, evolutionarily speaking. Similar events would include heavy volcanic activity, large meteors striking the Earth, Ice Ages, etc.; all of which without question occurred. Once again, Darwinism is based upon something we know didn’t happen.
When we observe a ‘simple
cell’ that is composed of several small interdependent sub systems, the
absence of any one of which would result in the cell’s collapse, we have to
conclude what any first year engineering system student will tell you: a
system like that cannot happen randomly.
All elements must be present and functional from the get go, or the cell
never gets of the ground. The
‘simple cell’ contains protein production factories that are error
correcting, quality control, digital languages and the ability to replicate
itself at regular intervals—hardly the ‘nucleic hunk of goo’ that comes to
mind when we think of the simple cell. The
concept of irreducible complexity
also presents the same death knell for randomness.
Scientists must go where the
data points and the data cannot guide them to an origin that doesn’t exist.
It needs a foundation to build upon that relates to what is observable.
So why is Darwinism the only philosophy allowed at the table after all
this nonsense? Because they claim
they are not contaminated by unrealistic faith in impossible scenarios, and are
unpolluted by dogmatic bias. …Okay,
maybe I’m missing something, because so far, bias and conjecture are all I
have seen. They admit that
everything is so intricately balanced and appears
to be designed, but they scoff the Intelligent Design crowd for saying there might be a reason it appears
that way.
What have the observable
facts been able to demonstrate about this theory?
Not one plank of Darwinism is
empirically verifiable, and as we have seen, quite a few planks have
been disproved.
And yet it is still touted as
irrefutable fact. It can’t explain where matter came from, how life originated, where it
gets its programming, how life develops into different forms, or why the chain
wasn’t broken by global deluges, meteors, volcanoes or the Ice Age.
What we are left with is a series of unrealistic
leaps of faith based on a premise
that doesn’t exist. Then
they turn around and speak authoritatively on what they know happened
millions of years ago. I can’t
believe I have to point this out, but they
weren’t there, so they don’t know. If that is not the height of foolishness, then what is?
I find it amazing that
proponents of Evolution will vilify religionists while simultaneously adopting
the mannerisms of Pharisaical zealots. They
don’t even want to talk about the controversy—no open discussion is allowed. When the topic is brought up, instead of sound, logical
refutation, you get name calling, bullying, blacklisting and highly emotional
ridicule (arguments like 'well that's just
stupid!')
It makes sense, if you think about it. Darwin was a theologian, not a scientist, so why should we be surprised if his disciples behave like a bunch of religious nuts?
Darren Turney
17 June 05