Evolutionists effectively apply a formula to
their theory which is a logical nonsense:
MATTER+TIME+ENERGY= abiogenesis (the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions).
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:
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:
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 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.'