Evolutionists effectively apply a formula to
their theory which is a logical nonsense:
STAGE ONE:
MATTER+TIME+ENERGY= abiogenesis (the theory that life can arise
spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper
conditions).
STAGE TWO:
PRIMITIVE CELL (its now known that no cell is 'primitive' but we
will carry on for the sake of
argument)+TIME+ENERGY+MUTATION(????)+NATURAL SELECTION=EVOLUTIVE
SPECIATION!!! (In other words, evolved life).
But creationists may use a very simple .....and obvious!
formula to explain life:
STAGE ONE:
MATTER+TIME+ENERGY+INFORMATION=biogenesis.
STAGE TWO:
CELL+TIME+ENERGY+INFORMATION=All Life, including Homo
Sapiens!!
The evolutionist's complicated and odd formula occurs because
they are determined to avoid that word....INFORMATION! Why?
Because if there was information around at the beginning of time
it sounds too much like God!
But there is a real irony to this:
When scientists do all their research work, they themselves
employ the MATTER+TIME+ENERGY+INFORMATION=RESULTS!! formula. They
feel, of course, that this formula applies to them because they
have "intelligence" (hmmmm!), but they insist that
'intelligence' was absent at the beginning of time.
The fact that evolutionists effectively apply a formula to their
worldview which is a nonsense has, of course, been pointed out by
many scientists such as the late Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith, a
brilliant scientist who held three doctorates (and was a
creationist); there is nothing new in any of this, yet it remains
a mystery that presumably intelligent and highly qualified men
and women will twist every established rule of chemistry and
science necessary in order to prop-up evolution!
So lets look at the two words which evolutionists must substitute
for 'intelligence' in order to maintain their theory:
MUTATION
Mutations are defined as random changes in cellular DNA. They
change the genetic code for amino acid sequence in proteins, thus
introducing biochemical errors of varying degrees of severity.
Mutations have been classified as deletions (loss of DNA bases),
insertions (gain of DNA bases), and missense or nonsense
(substitution of a DNA base). Its not quite true to say that
mutations are always harmful, in fact they are quite often
neutral, but overall the picture is certainly that they are not
positive changes, yet the evolutionist must call upon 'mutations'
to do the kind of amazing things which mutations simply cannot
do! Here
is a whole page on mutations for those who want to research
it further. Mutations are random and have no intelligence, of
course, and they have simply never been observed doing
what evolution requires them to accomplish.
NATURAL SELECTION
Natural Selection is no mystery and we see it all around us.
Evolutionists love to confuse the issue by stating that natural
selection backs up their theory. But this simply is not so. The
fact that the best adapted animals and insects prosper in nature
and the fact that there are many varieties of moths, dogs and
spiders has nothing to do with Macro-evolution's grand vision
that all life evolved from rocks or slime by sheer chance! Two
quotes may help here:
"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his
theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as
such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . .
This, of course, is not something which helps create the
organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very,
very wrong with such an idea. As I see it the conclusion is
pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of
collapse."
Tom Bethell, Darwin's Mistake, Harper, February 1976, pp.
72, 75.
"Natural selection per se does not work to create new species.
The pattern of change in so many examples in the fossil record is
far more a reflection of the origin and differential survival
(selection extinction) of species than the inexorable
accumulation of minute changes within species through the agency
of natural selection." Niles Eldredge, in Natural
History, Vol. 89, No. 7 (1980) [Curator of Paleontology at
the American Museum of Natural History, New York City].
So, in conclusion, let us remind ourselves that we have briefly
considered 'mutations' and 'natural selection' as the two factors
which evolutionary theory replaces 'intelligence' with in their
formula. These are interesting subjects indeed, but can these
random features really have produced Humankind? Our brains are
more powerful and resilient than any computer, we compose, we
design, we plan, we love and we hate. Surely it is only the
spiritually blind who can be ignorant of the fact that we have
been created in the image of God! So just why is the
educational establishment so keen to hold on to a theory which is
now, in the opinion of many, effectively a dead and spent theory?
This is the very revealing comment of evolutionist Richard
Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity
of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill
many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of
the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of
science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our
a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door.'
Robin Brace
2004.