Association of Nature and Forest Therapy Guides and Programs
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.
Chapter 5 – The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?
The Proof that Darwinism is nothing more than a secular religion masquerading as science
Atheists and Darwinists including Naturalists do not have a valid explanation for the presence of life on earth. Any life on earth. Scientific discovery, specifically the nature of DNA, proves that the simplest life form on earth is made of detailed instructions that would fill over 1,000 sets of encyclopedias.22 Their theory is that original life spontaneously came into existence from nonliving chemicals. There is no scientific evidence for this theory. None. In fact all the scientific evidence points to an intelligence that created and designed the instructions that tell DNA to cause life to occur. There is no forensic evidence to support the theory either. That’s the same type of evidence which the police use to investigate crime. Forensic investigation is based on the Principle of Uniformity.23 The chapter has a useful analogy to describe that principle. If natural activity causes something today, then that’s what happened in the past. If intelligent activity caused something in the past, then that’s what is happening today. For example, the faces of presidents on Mount Rushmore could not be made by natural wind erosion today. Therefore in the past when Mount Rushmore came to look the way it does, it was caused by an intelligent action. Similarly, the Grand Canyon was created by water erosion many years ago, just like water erosion creates canyons in the present day.
When confronted with the complexity of DNA and the impossibility of life being created by itself, the atheists and Darwinists admit that they are committed to their theory regardless of the evidence. Moreover, they will not question it since to do so would require them to consider a divine cause.
This is compounded by the fact that all experimental efforts to re-create life by scientists have failed. So intelligent scientists have been unable to do what Darwinists and atheists claim unintelligent chemicals can do by themselves. And if some scientist is ever able to do it, it would only prove that it could be done by intelligent action!
Here’s a tip. If life could have spontaneously created itself from nonliving things as atheists claim, then according to the principle of uniformity it should have been able to happen more than once since the earth began. But there is no evidence of it ever happening even once! Not today, not last week, not last year, not ever.
Science is a Slave to Philosophy
Science is built on philosophy. Bad philosophy results in bad science and good science requires good philosophy. Here are three reasons.24
- Science cannot be done without philosophy
- Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact science
- Science doesn’t really say anything-scientists do.
There are five reasons why the materialism of the Darwinist naturalists’ worldview is false.25
- Materialism cannot explain how complex life exists from mindless nature creating it. The authors point out that its like saying the words on this page were not created by the mindless ink, but by the mind of the writer who held the pen.
- Human thoughts and theories are not comprised of only materials. Thoughts, convictions and emotions are not completely materially based. Therefore materialism is false.
- If we were nothing more than materials, then we’d be able to take all the materials of life – which are the same materials found in dirt – and make a living being.
- If materialism is true, then everyone in all of human history who has ever had any kind of spiritual experience has been completely mistaken.
- If materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible.
Let’s simplify this
If you could identify one paragraph that represents this lengthy and complex chapter, it would be this one on page 133
How do you find the right box top of the puzzle of life? Arriving at the right box top is not a matter of preference (you like atheism, I like theism). No, it’s a matter of objective fact. By using the self-evident first principles of logic and the correct principles of scientific investigation, we discovered in chapters 3 and 4 that this is a theistic universe. If this is a theistic universe, then materialism is false. If materialism is false, then the Darwinism promoters may not be interpreting the evidence correctly.
Here is a summary of some of the chapter’s main points.
Life isn’t made up of merely chemicals, it includes specified complexity which only comes from a mind. There are no known natural laws that create specified complexity. Science is a search for causes based on philosophy, and there are only two types of causes, intelligent and natural. Yet the Darwinists use a philosophy that rules out intelligent causes before they even look at the evidence. Spontaneous generation of life, which Darwinism requires to get the theory started, has never been observed. It is believed by faith. With such strong evidence against the Darwinian belief in naturalism/materialism, that belief has nothing but their faith in it to support it.26
In many public schools children are taught materialism, the idea that life occurred by chance from natural phenomenon. What are the consequences of teaching a theory that is not supported by any scientific evidence?
Remember the discussion on why we believe what we believe? This gets back to those four sources of belief. Sociological (parents, friends, society and culture), psychological, religious, and philosophical. Why do people believe that the science of evolution disagrees with intelligent design and creation? Is it because of sociological influence, what they’ve been told? Since there isn’t any philosophical or scientific proof to support materialism and a natural cause for either the creation of the universe or life on earth, why do some people believe these ideas?
22Geisler & Turek page 118 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
23Geisler & Turek page 118 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
24Geisler & Turek pages 127-128 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
25Geisler & Turek pages 126-127 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
26Geisler & Turek pages 134-135 I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.