That fact is such a serious blow for evolution that evolutionists have had to find ways of not admitting it. One way they have devised is to re-define the words used in evolutionary theory to mean something else – without making this clear to any but a small minority who know the new definitions. Often these new definitions come from two techniques used in systematics – phenetics and cladistics. These techniques compare creatures but do not even try to identify ancestors, descendants, or anything actually relevant to evolution. But they use words like “intermediate” which evolutionary dogma uses, with new definitions having nothing to do with descent. It is then possible for evolutionists to say there are many intermediate fossils known, to give the false impression that this means what Darwin meant, and leave the dishonest impression that his prediction has been fulfilled.
Besides using devious definitions evolutionists often use simple dishonesty in pretending that there are intermediate and transitional links. One famous example is the story about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. The story is illustrated with drawings of skulls, quite similar, but with a gradual change in size, shape and position of two of the bones of the jaw which end up as bones of the middle ear. It is made to look like very convincing proof of evolution. But what we are not told is that two of the most critical stages are purely hypothetical (there are no fossils at all to back them up); others are reconstructions from fragments of fossils in which the very bones in question are missing; the sequence jumps backwards and forward in geological time; and the illustrations are drawn at various scales – some of the skulls are actually very large, others very small. And to cap it all, the original paper in the Journal of Morphology from which the story was embroidered actually states that there is no possibility of this sequence representing a genuine line of descent. When evolutionists have to use tactics like this to bolster up their tottering hypothesis it is clear that it is untenable.
Another requirement for a scientific theory is that it should be consistent with well established laws of science. The best established law in the whole of science is the second law of thermodynamics. It is also known as the fundamental law of science. The famous atheist Isaac Asimov gave a picturesque definition when he said:
“The universe is constantly getting more disorderly! Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”
In other words the second law is directly opposed to evolution. Evolution says that all by itself inanimate matter spontaneously became organized into complex living organisms, and subsequently into vastly more complex ones.
The only way open for evolutionists to try and get round the second law of thermodynamics is to claim that it only applies to “closed” systems (systems where no energy comes in from outside), and then to point out that the earth is not a closed system, the sun’s energy comes in from outside. Well informed evolutionists themselves admit that this is not so. As Dr. John Ross of Harvard university noted:
“…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems … there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
The claim that the theory of evolution does not violate the second law is an error being perpetuated by evolutionists unwilling to face reality. The theory of evolution (at least in any meaningful form) is not only unscientific, having no measurements to support it, but is also anti-scientific, it runs counter to the best established law in the whole of science. The well known atheist scientist Arthur Eddington stated the consequence for the theory of evolution:
“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.”
It is only the philosophical prejudice of the secular humanist which stops the humiliating collapse which honest science demands for the theory of evolution.
Perhaps the most powerful device used by evolutionists in putting forward their theory is relying on public ignorance so that they can “blind one with science”. How does a member of the public respond when a professor of biology tells them there is a clear case of evolutionary descent from Mesonochid via Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus and Basilosaurus to modern whales. Most have heard of whales, but for the rest? Who would dare to question such an impressive sequence? Now the biologist who tells the story knows that there are two fairly well known types of Mesonochids, they are called Dissacus and Ankalagon. No biologist believes that either could have been part of a line of descent towards whales. There are three other Mesonochids (called Dissacusium, Hukoutherium, and Yangtanglestes) which have been reconstructed from just a few fragments of skull. There is too little evidence to connect any of the three with a line of descent towards whales. So which Mesonochid did the whales evolve from? It must have been some unknown variety not yet discovered – a figment of the evolutionary imagination. In the technical literature it is clear that the evolutionists know this, Robert Carroll for example, stated in “Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution”:
“All known Mesonochids are excluded from the actual chain of descent by the evolutionists’ own criteria.”
The other steps in the sequence are no more impressive – the line from Pakicetus to Protocetus suffers from the same kind of problem, also many authorities note that they may have lived at the same time or even in the wrong time sequence. None of the specimens actually known is a credible rung in the ladder of descent. The final step, to Basilosaurus, is even more unconvincing. All the previous creatures were about the size and proportions of a walrus (about 3 metres long), but Basilosaurus is suddenly a 20 metre long giant with the form of a sea serpent! Without knowing all this how will a member of the public be able to challenge the impressive but fatuous claims of highly qualified but less than honest scientists?
There are many demonstrations that evolution is scientifically untenable.
For example, another of Darwin’s conditions:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
This has been met in microbiology where many cases have been found of “irreducible complexity” which could not have evolved piecemeal. It is also met in cases that Darwin should have been aware of. The lungs of birds, for example, are so specialized, and so different from any other kind of lung that no sequence of small changes could have produced them.
And yet evolutionists continue to close their eyes to the evidence and defend their theory, ridiculing all who dare to question it and putting forth devious and dishonest support which is little more than “smoke and mirrors”.
A Christian should not be taken in by this. He needs to take to heart the warnings of Romans 1:21-23:
“they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” and of 2 Thessalonians 2:10 “…they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
A Christian should not believe the lies that humanists are compelled to believe because God has sent them a strong delusion.
Did Chance Make a single Human Cell?
- Revolution against Evolution | True.Origin Archive
- Answers in Genesis | Center for Scientific Creation
- Access Research Network (ARN) | Design Inference
- Charles Darwin — The Truth? | Amazing Discoveries
- Arthur S. Lodge’s page on Evolution | Biblical Creation Society
- Creation Research Society | California Institute of Omniology
- Lambert Dolphin’s Library | Creation Compass
- Creation Perspective
- Creation & Evolution Debate by James Perloff
Chronological History of Evolution vs. Creation Science
Bacteria Collaborate to Survive Contradicting Darwinism
Study: Vaccines Found to be Deliberately Formulated with Hundreds of Cancer Genes to Ensure Repeat Business for Big Pharma
Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR Test and Anthony Fauci’s Longtime Critic, Dies
Japan Approves Scientist’s Plan to Create World’s First Humanimals
Rape Charges Dropped Against Cops Who Admitted to Sex With Teen They Kidnapped
Gates Foundation-Funded GM Mosquitoes Designed to Alter Sexual Development Released in High-Security Lab Experiment
Research Scientists Stunned to Discover DNA Survey Concludes All Mankind Came from a Single Couple as did Animals at the Same Time
Paper: Recent mitochondrial DNA barcoding results bode well for the recent origin of species
Paper: Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve
