Continued… (or start from the beginning)
The key to understanding how one can figure the origin of the universe is in origin science. Evolution is origin science, which is science that tries to explain the origins of the earth through studying written history and physical evidence from ancient past.
Evolution does not try to explain the origin of the earth. It tries to explain the origin of biodiversity.
Operational science includes the discovery of information through experiments that are done today. Evolutionists have tried to prove evolution through operational science, like in Miller’s experiment (Ham and Mortenson 24).
Again, this type of experiment only supports specific hypotheses, not the theory of evolution. But otherwise you are correct; scientists have tried to prove evolution through “operational science.” And have been successful (look into evolution of pesticide and antibiotic resistance). Probably the greatest and most obvious example of all, however, is dog breeding. This is essentially a grand experiment done over thousands of years that has brought the original wolf ancestor to exist as one species with forms as diverse as a chihuahua and great dane. And this experiment wasn’t even done on purpose!
Which probably requires that I add this note: natural and “artificial” selection are the same thing. We call it artificial when it is done by people. So “natural” selection is when the environment selects for/against certain traits, and “artificial” selection is when the environment that does the selecting is controlled by people (in other words, an experiment).
Evolutionists claim that evolution can be seen in modern society, but this “evolution” that we see is mutations—a loss of genetic information, rather than a gain in genetic information that evolution requires (25).
Actually evolution is seen all the time, just not on a large scale since huge changes take place over thousands and millions of years. The best examples are infectious diseases and development of resistance to antibiotics or to the immune system. Though both of these situations can be caused by loss of genetic information, they are more frequently caused by gain.
Mutation being unable to provide novel function is a common and fantastically incorrect piece of information. New variation in DNA is definitely caused by mutation (by definition), but that doesn’t just mean that something breaks. There are many types of mutations, but they fall into two big categories: insertions, where new DNA bases are added, and deletions, where DNA bases are removed. The exact size of the changed DNA can vary drastically, from one base to thousands. Deletions and insertions (also called indels) are thought to usually inactivate genes, but are known to not always do so. Sometimes a deletion can remove a part of a protein that will then change the chemistry/structure so that it can do different chemistry. This would not be a loss of information, but a gain. Or a part can be added that leads to the same effect. Remember that animals actually have two copies of every gene, so have a mutation in one copy that leads to a new effect will then give them both qualities (a gain in information). And that new effect will be dumped into the gene pool in the next generation, and can then become more prevalent in the population (evolution).
However, the most important type of information creation in evolution is through gene duplication. There are many possible causes for this, one of them being retroposition. In this case, the mRNA from a gene (with introns spliced out) gets converted back into DNA by a reverse transcriptase (compliments of an invading retrovirus) and randomly reinserted back into the genome. This bizarre phenomenon has been seen several times, including in fruit flies (see Long & Langley, Natural selection and the origin of Jingwei, a chimeric processed functional gene in Drosophila).
However it is done, a duplication allows for evolution of one gene copy without selective constraint. Normally, changes to the gene would lead to negative effects because the animal needs that gene. However, when you have one functional copy it doesn’t matter what happens to the other. So one copy is free to mutate. Sometimes, those mutations will lead to a novel gene and function.
Also, genes can be brought across species barriers by viruses, and between parts of the genome by transposons. These are just a few examples of ways in which new genetic information can be created.
One can see that when interpreting evidence, both creationists and evolutionists come up with very different ideas. The starting point for both creation and evolution explains the outcome of the interpretation of the evidence (26). The only evidence that scientists have exists in the today and the now. Scientists can only try to explain something with evidence in the present. They cannot go to the past and see what everything really looks like. The Bible is the only written account of the beginning of the universe (Ham 32).
There are all kinds of written accounts of the beginning of the universe. These are mostly physics texts and the like, though there are also a bunch for non-scientists (I cannot more highly recommend A Brief History of Everything). If you meant that the Bible was written by people who saw the beginning of the universe, then you must not be familiar with the history of the book. In any event, it wouldn’t even matter if the Bible was the only written account. That doesn’t add an validity to it. For example, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the only written account of the destruction of the Ring…
Whenever new evidences are found, evolutionists have to change their theories to explain the new evidence.
Yep, that’s how science works…
They base their findings on their bias, not on science, because if that was so, then how has evolution stayed basically the same since the beginning of the human race, while no evidences have been found in its favor? Evolution is a perfect example of a religion for its dogmatic system of belief (36-37).
I can’t quite understand your meaning here. I’ve addressed the evidence part already, and the only thing I think you’ve added here is a claim that since we don’t fully understand evolution it must not be true. I’ll just refer you back to my extremely brief history of the improvements to physics (above).
Perhaps the most valid and biggest argument against evolution is in the laws of the universe. God has given the universe orderly laws that everything must abide by, and it is not possible to break these laws. Through his studies, Louis Pasteur discovered the law of biogenesis, which states that all life forms from previous life. All experiments in observational science have proven this principle to be correct. Even Miller’s experiment did not completely create life. Evolution requires life to come about with chemicals, but this contradicts the law of biogenesis (Ham 39-40)!
No it doesn’t. This is basically the chicken-or-the-egg problem. Of course biogenesis is correct, but in order for this to be true you must have first had life in the first place. The law clearly can’t apply to the origin of life. Just think about how this would work:
You start out with some random reaction that gives you a complex molecule. This thing is able to catalyze a reaction that makes more copies of itself (we have actually found RNAs that can do this), and with each copy made there is a chance for error (mutation). Some mutants might be better at reproducing, so they end up being more populous. This goes on for a long time, until there are so many molecules that they are actually competing for resources to build copies of themselves. At that point things like the ability to break down other reproducing chemicals (predation) for parts happens. You go on like this for a very, very long time, and as you go the chemicals more and more come to resemble a living thing.
Now, obviously, that is a completely hypothetical scenario (look up “RNA world”, it’s pretty fascinating), but I hope you get the point.
More importantly, the law of biogenesis is misrepresented here. It more accurately states that a fully formed living thing cannot spontaneously form. And this is absolutely true. Reread the preceding paragraph with this in mind and I think you’ll see that, in fact, this law is not broken by evolutionary theory.
The laws of mathematics are so perfect and precise that one cannot account for them without God. Mathematics absolutely must be present in every circumstance and dimension (Ham 44). Mathematics is so perfect that Dr. Jason Lisle has described it as “the ‘language of creation.’” Logic is a transcendent truth, like all laws, which means that it is present universally. Anyone from China can debate someone from Sudan, someone from England, and someone from Chile without problem and they can understand each other.
How do you account for them with God? Unless, of course, you define God as being those things. But that is a side issue. You should notice that, if math and physical laws are evidence of God, then so should be evolution.
Logic is so perfect that it cannot be accounted for in the evolutionist’s theory.
Of course not. It has nothing to do with evolution! That would be like saying “addition is so awesome that biogenesis can’t explain it.” The two simply aren’t related, regardless of one item’s “perfection.”
If the universe arose from chaos and disorder, how does a perfect, universal, unbreakable law like physics or logic come about? It is impossible.
The universe didn’t arise from chaos and disorder. And even if it did, this has nothing to do with evolution.
God created logic, and there is no proof to show otherwise.
There is also no proof to show that God created logic. And anyway, it’s not possible to prove otherwise, because this idea is not falsifiable. Let me generalize your statement: “[Idea] cannot be proven false, and there is no proof to show that [idea] false.”
Logic is a reflection of God, as humanity was created in His image. God cannot contradict Himself, so logically humans cannot contradict themselves and still make sense. By not believing in God, yet believing in logic, physics, and mathematics, evolutionists are hypocrites (Lisle).
You have based these claims on assumptions, which you were only a moment ago accusing evolutionists of doing. Notice the irony?
The reason it is not hypocritical to not believe in God but believe in the rest (though I’m not sure why you think people must not believe in God if they understand the others) is that there is no scientific link between these concepts. The existence of gods is not falsifiable (a recurring theme) and therefore not in the realm of science. Really, it would be pretty hypocritical for a Scientist to accept that God is responsible for all these things, since it cannot be proven false.
Note: I have capitalized Scientist because I don’t simply mean one who practices science, but one who lives by the scientific method. I quite highly doubt such a person exists, since it would require seeing the evidence for absolutely everything before tentatively (and transiently) accepting it. This person would either have to have studied everything, or be quite comfortable in simply claiming ignorance about nearly everything.
Similarly related is the subject of morality. Morality is yet another universal truth that evolutionists cannot account for. Evolutionists can wonder how all humans can agree on most moral issues, yet creation science has the answer. Morality has its basis in the Book of Genesis, in the Bible.
Morality is not a universal truth. If you have studied morality in other cultures you would know this. There are certainly many similarities, however (and keep in mind that many cultures don’t base any of their belief/tradition/knowledge on the Bible), and these actually can be accounted for by evolution, specifically with social and cultural evolution. For example, let’s say that killing family members becomes really popular in some ancient human(oid) group. What happens to that group? Well, it kills itself off. And any other groups that get the idea also kill themselves off. Or at least have tiny populations.
As the extreme counter example, what happens to a population that feels bad about hurting its members and good about helping them? That population grows, and spreads these morals to others. The one with the moral set that has higher evolutionary fitness wins. By the way, this is quite hypothetical, but it is just an example of how Logic (which you claim is perfect) can easily demonstrate a scenario where morals are selected for.
The claim that morality comes from the Bible is also hard to defend. Sure, there is some good, moral stuff in there. But there is also a lot of bad stuff. I imagine you agree that genocide of babies, killing kids for talking back to their parents, etc are bad. But it’s in the Bible, and the Bible does not say that it is bad. So how do you decide which parts of the Bible to follow as a moral guideline? You must have some innate knowledge of good vs bad. And this innate knowledge could very well be a product of evolution (as explained above).
God has equipped all humans with a “conscience,” otherwise known as the Holy Spirit.
I’m not terribly fluent in the topic, but there is a lot of active research into evolution of the human brain and the development of conscience.
The evolutionists cannot logically account for morality, for if there were true laws of morality, then the universe would have to be governed by a supernatural force, also known as God. Morality cannot be universal, like logic, if we lived in a world descended from chaos, as the theory of evolution states (Lisle).
Yes they can (directed toward your first claim), see above. There are no laws of morality, and evolution doesn’t predict any. And, again, even if there were laws of morality, why must they come from a supernatural force? As I said earlier, you might as well just define God as “all laws.” Your last sentence simply doesn’t make logical sense. The theory of evolution does not state that the world descended from chaos (which, by the way, should probably be defined to make your meaning clear). Our understanding of the origins of the universe, from physics, is actually quite beautiful and orderly.
From all this evidence against evolution,
You haven’t given any…
one can see that one must have faith to agree with the theory. Evolution is a religion, a belief system, a worldview. Webster’s dictionary describes religion as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Does not evolution fit this description?
After investigating the evidences for evolution, one, if unbiased, must come to the conclusion that evolution is not indisputable fact, but in fact a religion with very little backing and proofs. (Word count: 1,461)
A note on the “unbiased” claim: read through your sources a few times and then think back on your accusations of hypocrisy.
Ham, Ken. The Lie. Green Forest: Master Books, 2000
Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book. Green Forest: Master Books, 2006
Ham, Ken and Mortenson, Terry. “Science or the Bible?” Answers. June 2007: 22-26.
Lisle, Jason. “Atheism: An Irrational Worldview.” 10 Oct. 2007
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/atheism-irrational> (Accessed 29 Jan, 2008)
“‘Lucy’ isn’t the ‘Missing Link’” June 1990.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp> (Accessed 23 Feb. 2008)
Morris, Henry M. “Evolution is Religion—Not Science.” February 2001.
<http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455> (Accessed 4 Feb. 2008)