Chapter 6 – New Life Forms: From the Goo to You via the Zoo?
The Most Difficult problem for Darwinists. Where did the first life come from?
Darwinists don’t have an explanation for first life. Yet they still force the very bad – completely unsupported – science of macroevolution on innocent children in American public schools.
Comedian Steve Martin used to say, “I know how you can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! First get a million dollars, okay, now…”27
The joke of Darwinism is worse than that because, 1) they can’t explain how first life occurred, and 2) they can’t even explain where the non-living chemicals came from that first life consists of.
Darwinist Theory of Macroevolution
The belief that all life on earth came from one common original one cell organism, naturally, with no intelligent direction, no God, all by accident.
The only scientific evidence that has ever been found, shows that microevolution takes place. That is when a life form changes BUT still remains the exact same type of life form. There is no scientific evidence of any lifeforms ever evolving into a different type of life form.
The Darwinists use the evidence of microevolution to claim that it proves macroevolution. That’s their proof! Remember that the next time anyone asks you if you believe in evolution. Which one? The one that there’s evidence for or the one Darwinism teaches that has never been observed?
Five reasons why natural selection cannot support Darwinists’ unproven macroevolution.28
- Genetic Limits
- Cyclical Change
- Irreducible Complexity
- Nonviability of Transitional Forms
- The Fossil Record
Artificial selection, man made efforts to change species, has never been successful because each species of life is limited by its genetic makeup. And once again, Darwinists tell you that natural, unintelligent random selection can do what artificial, intelligent man made intervention can’t.
The evidence of change within a species shows that they change back and forth over time in response to environmental influences, not in one specific direction without returning to a previous form. Natural Selection may be able to explain the survival of a species, but not the arrival of a species.
In his book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, provides the evidence of irreducible complexity that disproves Darwinism.29 Here is his conclusion.
The idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in the scientific literature – in journals or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.30
Here is what Behe wrote about the contribution of this scientific study.
The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein.31
Nonviability of Transitional Forms
Darwinism claims that macroevolution takes place slowly, minute changes over long periods of time. So the problem for the Darwinists is twofold: first they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds, and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway.32
At a molecular level there is no trace of the evolutionary transition from fish >amphibian>reptile>mammal. So amphibia, always traditionally considered intermediate between fish and other terrestrial vertebrates, are in molecular terms as far from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals! To those well acquainted with the traditional picture of vertebrate evolution the result is truly astonishing.33
The Fossil Record
Darwin thought that further fossil discoveries would reveal that his theory was true. Time has proven him wrong.34 Even though the fossil record has not shown the ancestral relationships Darwin hoped for, it doesn’t matter because it is irrelevant since the irreducible complexity problem revealed by microbiology trumps it.
Anatomy is, quite simply irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record.35
Even though Darwinists have no support for their theories, they object to Intelligent Design.
Four Darwinist Objections to Intelligent Design36
- It is not science
- It commits the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy
- It is religiously motivated
- It is false because the so-called design isn’t perfect
Why are there still Darwinists when their theory has been proven false?
Motivations for supporting Darwinist beliefs37
- Darwinists would lose their claim as the highest authorities on truth. (Power)
- By admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they don’t have absolute authority when it comes to explaining causes. (Miracles)
- By admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. (Power/Money)
- By admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they don’t have the authority to define right and wrong for themselves.
The authors propose teaching the scientific evidence that supports Intelligent Design in American public schools. They argue why not give children all the scientific evidence, pro and con, and let them make up their own minds. They say that Darwinists fight to prevent this from happening. The reason why, they say, is because in this area Darwinists lack faith.
They lack the faith to believe that their theory will still be believed after our children see all the evidence.38
For me the discussion must be about what appears to be the source of the conflict. This is a moral battle. Truth is at the center of this battle. I argue that it’s a form sophisticated deception. Advanced lying. In every adversarial confrontation there are winners and losers. Do you think there is a more important issue in the debate than that? If so what might it be?
27Geisler & Turek page 139 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
28Geisler & Turek pages 142-155 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
29Geisler & Turek page 145 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
30 Michael Behe page 183 Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design. William Dembski
31Michael Behe pages 232-233 Darwin’s Black Box.
32Geisler & Turek page 148 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
33Michael Denton page 285 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
34Geisler & Turek page 152 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
35Michael Behe page 22 Darwin’s Black Box.
36Geisler & Turek pages 156-161 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
37Geisler & Turek pages 162-163 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
38Geisler & Turek page 167 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.