Education and Current Events
The Unintended Tribute
by Sean Meek, Director of Project CREATION
It's still nice to be appreciated by your enemies!
In previous newsletters I have written how the Creationist movement is having an impact on society and causing fear and consternation in the evolutionist establishment. An article in the July 2002 issue of the evolutionist magazine Scientific American illustrates this point so well. Michael Rennie, editor of Scientific American, is so concerned with the success of Creationists that he wrote an eight-page article to warn people of those "dangerous" Creationists. Using the usual mixture of distortions and out-dated information, he wrote an article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". Following are what Rennie claims are 15 Creationist arguments, with Creationist answers to the evolutionist distortions in this article so that you can be prepared to defend the fact of Creation and authority of the Bible.
- Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Both Creation and evolution are claims about what happened in the past. Neither one is therefore scientifically testable. What can be tested is whether the claims fit the evidence that can be observed. This is where the controversy is centered. Each side interprets the evidence based on a bias that is determined by its predetermined belief system. This is a case in which where you start out determines where you will end up.
- Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. Natural selection is an observed phenomenon, but it is a conserving force, not innovative. It may amplify an existing trait, but it can never bring about a new trait. The finches on the Galapagos Islands are often used as an example of natural selection. While the beaks of these finches have been observed to change slightly over generations, what is never observed are birds or beaks that change into something else. That is what is needed for natural selection to bring about evolution.
- Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observable and can never be re-created . This is really just a restatement of claim #1. The fact is that evolution is not science, it is a framework for interpreting data. Evolution claims that organisms can arise without any intelligent design. Creation is based on a Creator deliberately designing things for specific purposes. Neither claim can be directly observed.
- Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution . Evolutionists loudly proclaim that all real scientists support evolution. The facts are quite different. In 1960 Henry Morris wrote a book on the Genesis Flood. At that time, he could not find 10 qualified scientists to review his manuscript; 40 years later, how things have changed. There are now thousands of scientists who proclaim their belief in the truth of Creation. There are several Creation Science organizations with membership in the thousands and many colleges teach the scientific evidence for Creation. According to a Gallup poll in 1999, 30% of those with a postgraduate degree, which includes many scientists, believe the Biblical account of Creation.
- The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
The disagreements between evolutionist biologists do show that evolution is not based on science at all, because no mechanism that would explain how evolution could happen has ever been discovered. Evolution isn't science, it is just elaborate storytelling, never able to establish any testable facts, thus leading to endless disagreements even among believers in the religion of evolution.
- If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This is one of those straw man arguments frequently used by evolutionists. Knowledgeable Creationists do not use this argument. The real argument is this: if we are supposed to have descended from a monkey type ancestor, than why aren't monkeys or other creatures still evolving today?
- Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
Evolutionists will tell how they can set up experiments that will form some simple protein compounds. What must be kept in mind though is that all of the compounds formed this way are dead and what evolutionists cannot be explain is how dead matter could ever spontaneously arise into living cells. All the storytelling in the world doesn't overcome this problem. All true science says that life only comes from life.
- Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as
a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by
Here is one of those areas where evolutionists want to have their cake and eat it to. They claim that it is unscientific to have any direction in the development of organisms, but then claim that organisms deliberately strive to bring about a predetermined result. To make this sound scientific they have invented the term cumulative selection, a situation where an organism is supposed to spontaneously seek out order. An example used in this article is of a computer program set up to pick out the letters in the phrase TOBEORNOTTOBE. The author admits it would take 78,800 years to randomly assemble even a phrase this simple. With a computer programmed to pick the letters in the phrase out of the alphabet it took less than 90 seconds to cumulatively select the phrase. What evolutionists never explain is how the organism knows in advance what will be beneficial to its survival. What this computer program really demonstrates is the necessity for intelligent input in order to have an intelligent outcome.
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become
more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have
evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have
evolved from protozoa.
This is another one of those misstatements about what Creationists are saying. What Creationists say is that without direction a system will become more disordered over time. Undirected energy, for example a hurricane, leads to increasing disorder, never to an ordered complexity such as life. Multicellular life, such as humans, can develop from a single cell, a fertilized egg, but only if it has the complete blueprint, DNA, that guides it in its development. What evolutionists cannot explain is how the guiding information necessary for life could have existed before there was life. The only rational explanation is that this information, DNA, was imparted to life by a designer, God.
- Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features . This is another one of those distortions evolutionists like to pretend are used by Creationists. What Creationists say is that mutations can only eliminate or alter existing DNA; they cannot produce the new information necessary to produce entirely new features. The example cited in the article is of a mutation in a fruit fly that caused legs to grow where antennae should grow. What mutations cannot do is produce the legs in the first place.
- Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life . Evolutionists like to pretend a new species is created when two groups of organisms with a common ancestor will not voluntarily reproduce. This definition of species is biologically meaningless because it fails to explain how species with genuinely new traits appear. For a species to become reproductively isolated tells us of its behavior, but says nothing about its physical structure, which is what evolution would have to explain.
- Nobody has ever seen a species evolve.
This is just a restatement of claim 11 and is another distortion of what Creationists are really saying. The question is not whether some organism can simply be defined as a new species, but whether genuinely new physical traits have ever been seen to evolve. This has never been observed. Quite the opposite is what is observed. Animals have been observed to lose features over time, blind cavefish for example, but are never seen to develop entirely new physical traits.
- Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils-creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
All of the so-called transitional organisms used by evolutionists are simply invented out of bits of fossil and show no real relationship between obviously physically dissimilar organisms. Archaeopteryx is generally cited as a supposed transition between reptile and bird, but archaeopteryx shows all of the features of existing birds with a couple of unusual extra features. In addition Archaeopteryx fossils have been found above the fossils of what even evolutionists admit are true birds. All of the claimed transitions are simply stories invented about bits of fossils.
- Living things have fantastically intricate features-at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels-that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution . The "argument from design" is the argument that is probably hated by evolutionists more than any other precisely because it is so logical. It has been used for centuries as a way of showing the logic of Creation and has been gaining enormous credibility precisely because scientific discoveries have shown the incredible intricacy of life. Half a cell or half an eye is not half-effective, it is entirely useless and so it is with other organs. An organ or organism is useful only when it is complete. Complete, effective organs are very compelling pieces of evidence for design.
- Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level,
life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through
This is just a restatement of claim 14. "Irreducible complexity" is the
phrase used to describe this fact. Whether it is blood clotting,
which requires 20 separate stages, each
interdependent on the other, or hundreds of other such functions, all
of them having interconnected dependencies, they cannot function if
they are incomplete. Irreducible complexity is another excellent
example of design in God's creation.
Evolutionists like to claim that "modern science" must be atheistic, but this is a perversion of true science. The hallmark of true science is the search for truth, wherever that search leads to. The search for truth, science, arose out of a Christian worldview and many of the greatest scientists of the past and present were and are Christians who believe in the fact of Creation.
The Scientific American article needs to be seen for what it really is, an unintended tribute to the effectiveness of Creationists and a desperate attempt by evolutionists to shore up their crumbling edifice of evolution.
.... keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
1 Timothy 6:20