Richard Dawkins’ Brave New World

I think it is unfortunate that much of Evangelical Christianity is better known for its political point of view rather than what it preaches about Christ. Personally, I think it is a serious responsibility to vote, but I also believe it detracts from the Gospel to become a political activist. I don’t like politics in the pulpit, and I’ve actually voted against my local church’s position, simply because I was irritated with their attitude concerning the opposition. I believe change, if and when it comes, will come only through Christ, not political activism—especially religious political activism.

 

Evolution and the Scientific Method

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
(Image from Google Images)

Origin science is the study of singularities, that is, non repeatable occurrences, such as deaths, natural disasters, history etc. It is the study of how things happened (originated). Operation science, on the other hand, is the study of repeatable occurrences or ‘regularities’. It is the study of how things work. Origin science may find what is called a ‘primary’ cause, such as who caused the death of (or murdered) a specific person. Operation science isn’t interested in ‘primary’ causes; it is interested in what is called a ‘secondary’ cause. For example, all objects in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force—Newton’s first law of motion is an example of operation science, as are the law of gravity, computer science, medical science and mathematics.

 

Ape-like Man and DNA Myths

Has science proved that men have evolved from an ape-like ancestor? No, they haven’t, but to listen to their claims it would seem as though they believe they have! In fact, many people believe there actually is evidence showing the naturalist worldview is correct. Why is this so? It is because the naturalists have captured our educational institutions, and the ears of our political governors. That is quite a successful ploy in their effort to indoctrinate the world to their point of view. Even their outright failures have been used to help make them successful. For example, the Neanderthal man had been believed to be sub-human, but is considered today to be human in every sense of the word. Yet, if someone calls you a Neanderthal, what image do you get in your mind? Is the term complimentary or an insult?

 

Are Lifeforms Designed Poorly?

According to the theory of evolution, each step in the chain must be a small improvement on what came before. Nothing in life is built from scratch; from the molecule to man everything was built up through improvement on what already existed. Consequently, many evolutionists cannot appreciate good design. That is they **must not** appreciate good design in life. If they admit to good design, it must have had a Designer or a Creator. Therefore they point to things in nature that exhibit what they claim is poor design and could not originate from an intelligent Creator, so the poor design must be evidence of the accuracy of the evolutionary model.

 

Do Bacteria Evolve?

Bacteria Cell
(Image from Google Images)

In 1929 British microbiologist, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, an antibiotic produced by the common bread mold quite by accident. It became a wonder drug that was used to treat many types of infections, including pneumonia, gonorrhea, infections caused by streptococci such as scarlet fever and strep throat and infections caused by staphylococci such as blood disorders and boils. Penicillin was widely used during World War II, but in the 1950s discoveries were made showing bacteria that was resistant to the drug. Resistance ranged from about 2% in the 1950s to around 80% in the 1990s.[1] What can be made of such activity? Are Bacteria evolving?

 

Evolution and Symbiotic Relationships

Symbiosis
(Image from Google Images)

Symbiosis is defined as a relationship of mutual benefit; a close prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that normally benefits both members. The question as it pertains to evolution is: how could such a relationship occur, if the theory of evolution were true. In fact, Charles Darwin concluded that if it could be shown that any part of the organism of one lifeform could have been formed for the exclusive benefit of another, it would destroy his theory.[1]

 

Dinosaurs and Man

Did dinosaurs and man live at the same time? According to naturalists the two are separated by at least 65 million years, and their interpretation of the geologic column is offered as proof for the opinion they hold. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of evidence showing humans and dinosaurs coexisted from the beginning, but this “evidence” is ignored by evolutionary scientists. Why? One can only presume that it is to enable them to keep believing in their theory.

 

How Old Is the Earth?

Many scientists believe it is several billion years old, but creationists believe it is only thousands. Which theory is true, and can it be relatively proved through scientific calculation and observable phenomena? I believe it can be fairly accurately proved to be quite young, but let’s first take a look at the calculations made by many brilliant men and women, expert scientists in their respective fields, who believe it is actually several billion years old.[1]

 

Problems in the Geologic Column

A major problem for the evolutionary theory would occur if the geologic column could be shown to be thousands and not millions of years old. Indeed, the theory of evolution requires great ages of time in order to occur at all. If it could be proved the ages do not exist, then the theory would collapse under the weight of evidence for special creation, for each layer of the geologic column represents millions of years to evolutionists. Shorten the time needed to compile each layer and evolution simply runs out of time.

 

The Geologic Column

No doubt it would come as a surprise to many that the geologic column is poorly represented throughout the world. In fact, such a place as the Grand Canyon offers only about half of the ten presumed great periods of time. One would have to travel to other parts of the globe to find anything represented from the Mesozoic or Cenozoic eras. In over 75% of the earth (including under the sea) one would find only three of the geologic periods represented! In fact, 96.6% of the earth has at least one period missing, and only a meager .4% of the earth contains the whole geologic column, and even then geologists have concluded that the individual systems are deficient. In other words, the Geologic Column exists nowhere on earth except on the pages of science textbooks!

 

The Evolution of the Horse

(Image from Google Images)

Many museums and school textbooks today depict horse evolution as orthogenetic. That is, variations in the fossil record of the horse follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic. In other words, evolution is supposed to proceed undeviatingly in a single direction, regardless of environment, organic activity, or such factors as natural selection. This is **not** what evolutionists teach today. Orthogenesis has been proved wrong and is no longer accepted by evolutionary scientists.

 

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Evolutionary Tree of Life
(From Google Images)

According to the Theory of Evolution, life began millions of years ago on Earth in a primordial soup, appearing as the most basic form of life and from that evolving from the most simple into the most complex species. If the theory is true, there would have to have been a vast amount of intermediate species in the fossil record.[1] Darwin mused over the lack of transitional forms between the species he claimed had common ancestors, and concluded that the reason none could be found was the “extreme imperfection of the geological record.”[2]

 

Abiogenesis and the Scientific Method

After the death of Stanley Miller in 2007, the vials, holding the remains of his famous Miller-Urey experiment on the origin of life in 1953, were willed to his student and colleague, Dr. Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. Dr. Bada and Adam Johnson, a graduate student at Indiana University, reexamined Miller’s vials and found trace amounts of additional amino acids. The optimism resulting from the reanalysis, however, was far from realistic.

 

Was Life Ever Created in a Test Tube?

One of the most puzzling matters I’ve ever considered is the fact that some of the greatest intellects of the world—perhaps of all time—employing the most advanced technology in history to unravel the secrets of the most basic form of life, and failing thus far, still adamantly claim it could all be done through a chance mixture of chemicals excited by another chance spark of energy from the atmosphere. It is astonishing to find that intelligence so great, which is needed to understand and produce such a thing under controlled conditions, this same intelligence would deny its necessity to produce life from the beginning.

 

Louis Pasteur & Spontaneous Generation

The idea that life spontaneously erupted from non-living material was believed by the ancient Greek philosophers like Pythagoras and the Hindu priests before them. This belief was maintained throughout the succeeding centuries to the scientist/philosophers of the 17^th through the 19^th centuries. Some scientists before Louis Pasteur challenged this belief, but were ridiculed by those convinced that spontaneous generation was a fact that needed no proof beyond observation.