Topical Category:
Creation Science
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Bible Believers Resource Page

This page is best viewed in Internet Explorer 4.0 or higher and Netscape 4.0 or higher.  

---

Science Books and Television Don't Tell the Truth About Evolution -
The Case for Evolution Has NOT Been Proved!

by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D
21st Century Creation Evangelism
Glendale, California
(818) 244-5289; email Truth4Free@aol.com
©FOUNDATION Magazine, Jan-Feb 1999

---

A. The Argument Outlined

1. Supposedly people evolved as follows: single cell => invertebrate worm => vertebrate worm => fish => amphibian => reptile with scales => mammal with hair => ape => university professor.

2. Therefore, evolution's biggest problem is:

1. The origin of newly designed complex biological structures.
2. Amoebas to people required thousands of series of intermediate steps leading to each of thousands of new complex structures.

3. Therefore, proof of the evolution case demands:

1. Sequences of intermediate fossils to prove that gradual evolution did indeed "create" new complex biological structures.
2. An experimentally testable theory that explains how it happened.
3. Discovery of the biological mechanisms that did the job.
4. Demonstration of these mechanisms creating new designs today.

4. The above elements demanded for proof have yet to be achieved.

B. The Fossil Evidence

1. The fossil record is loaded with gaps between the groups of organisms that have different complex design structures.

1. The "Cambrian" rocks and a few formations just below them contain over 2000 different fossilized complex species, covering every major group of marine animals, including fish.
2. Thousands of feet of "Precambrian" rocks contain only fossilized single-celled bacteria and algae.
3. The assumed huge evolutionary "explosion" from Precambrian single cells to thousands of species of complex many celled Cambrian creatures is the first great gap in the fossil record.
4. Vast areas of Precambrian rocks sit on top of Cambrian rocks, with no proof that any geologic process reversed them. In Montana and British Columbia are found 13000 square miles of this.
5. The so-called Geologic Column may be questioned because of this and much other contradictory evidence.

2. Bats supposedly evolved from tree shrews 40 million years ago.

1. Living and fossil bats and shrews exist, but no intermediate fossils or living species exist showing shrews evolving into bats.
2. But the gradual change of tree-climbing shrews into flying bats is logically impossible. Assumed intermediates could not survive.
3. We are not at all "unscientific" if we believe the God designed and created tree shrews and flying bats to be shrews and bats.

3. Leading evolutionists have admitted that the fossil record is filled with gaps. Intermediates to show evolutionary process are missing.

1. Charles Darwin in Origin of Species G. M. Dent, London, 1972) p. 292: "...Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against it [his theory of evolution]."
2. T. Neville George (Science Progress , Vol. 48, Jan. 1960) p. 3: "The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
3. Stephen Jay Gould(Natural History June-July,1977)pp.22,24: "... The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ... All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. "
4. Steven M. Stanley (then at Johns Hopkins University), Macroevolution (W.H.Freeman,San Francisco,1979)p.96:"...The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. "

C. Design in Living Creatures

1. The mystery of a microbe with propellers driven by constant torque, variable speed, reversible electric motors. The motor shaft connects to the propeller through a universal joint. This is a complex combination of complex interdependent parts. No part could evolve and be useful without the other parts. A partially evolved drive train would be useless, rejected by natural selection before the system could evolve. Therefore, creation by God is the only explanation.

2. Woodpecker's long retractable tongue, anchored in the right nostril, extended and retracted by long, flexible hyoid bone. Anchored in right nostril, bone divides to run under skin over top of skull and forward under ears to tongue. This had to be created all at once by God.

D. Classical Genetics Argues Against Evolution

1. During thousands of years intelligent human beings have selectively bred many varieties of sheep, roses, apples, dogs, etc., but they are still sheep, roses, apples and dogs.

2. In nature, there are many different related varieties and species of, for example, ladybird beetles, but they are all ladybird beetles.

3. For eighty years scientists hav6 radiated fruit flies in the laboratory with X-rays to produce thousands of mutated varieties. But they are all sick fruit flies, unable to compete in nature with the wild varieties.

4. The modern varieties of cattle are not the products of evolution. Rather, they are the produces of selective breeding by intelligent humans. Mixing up the modem breeds recreates the ancient European wild aurochs that is now extinct. The same thing has been done with modem horses to resurrect the extinct wild horse called a tarpan.

5. The famous peppered moths of England are still the same species. All that changed is the relative numbers of the dark and light colored moths. More moths now have the gene for dark color. But as the tree bark is getting lighter, the light moths are coming back. This is by natural selection in action, not evolution of something new.

E. Mathematical Probability Shows That the Chance Beginning of Life Is Impossible in This Universe, Even in a Trillion Years.

1. The simplest conceivable living cell would require 124 different complex protein molecules. Yet Professor Hubert Yockey calculated that the random formation of a single rather simple protein molecule, cytochrome c, is only one chance out of the number 1 followed by 65 zeroes.(Journal of Theoretical Biology vol.67, 1977) pp.357-398.

2. This means that the probability for the chance formation of the 124 proteins needed for the simplest possible living cell would be one chance in the number I followed by 124x65=8060 zeroes.

3. Only left-handed amino acid molecules form proteins. No theory explains how left handed amino acids separated from right-handed.

4. And the probability that all of these molecules occurred at the same place and time in some ancient mud puddle is essentially zero.

5. And from whence came the complex cell membrane that is absolutely necessary to hold all these molecules together as a living cell?

6. Professor Harold Morowitz estimated the probability of all of this clever chemistry occurring by chance to produce one living cell. He assumed an ocean covering the earth and containing all of the necessary small building block molecules. From the chemical energy needed to assemble them into the larger molecules of life, he calculated the probability of forming by chance a single living cell in a billion years would be only one chance in the number I followedby340millionzeros!(Energy Flow In Biology Academic Press, N.Y., 1968) p. 99.

F. After Forty Years, Molecular Biology Still Cannot Explain the Origin of Life or of Complex New Biological Structures.

1. John Horgan, "In the Beginning," (Scientific American, vol. 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991) pp. 116-125. Subtitle: "Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where, and-most important-how life first emerged on the earth." On page 125, Professor Stanley Miller of the University of California at San Diego, "Mr. Origin of Life,' expresses a hope that he or some other scientist will one day repeat life's origin in the laboratory: 'I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. When we find the answer, it will probably be so d ----- simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?"'

2. Lewis Wolpert (A British scientist with international reputation), "Do We Understand Development?" (Science, Vol. 266,28 Oct. 1994) p.572: '...So what will the next 20 years bring? ... Even so, we do not yet have an example where we understand in detail the development of a single adult organ. ... We can also look forward to great progress in the area of evolution and development. ...We may then see the solution to grand problems like ... how basic body plans emerged ... and the origin of developmental novelty [i.e., the origin of complex designs]." [Note the admission that the solution still eludes them.]

3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996). Behe reports that the Journal of Molecular Evolution during 25 years published about 1000 papers per decade on molecular evolution. Not one paper even attempts step-by-step to describe how evolution could "create" any complex biochemical system, of which there are thousands in living cells. A survey of the hundreds of articles on the same subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yields the same barren result. Behe shows how such molecular structures and biochemical systems as the chemistry of vision, the Bombardier Beetle, cilia, the motorized bacterial flagellum, the human immune system and the biosynthesis of amino acid molecules all require "minimal function" and possess "irreducible complexity" that deny the possibility of stepwise development from a "proto-system." Each system requires all its parts to have any value (pp. 18-36, 45-46, 130-131, 59-97, 117-139, 143-161, 165-183).

G. Our closing comment:

Since biologists cannot explain how an egg becomes a chicken in 21 days, all claims that they have explained how an amoeba became a university professor in 3 billion years are fiction. We believers in creation don't have all the answers, but neither do evolutionists.

H. Good News & Bad:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "Jesus Christ, He is Lord of all" (Acts 10:36). He is Lord over science and all scientists. They will be judged for misusing science against God, but we all are sinners who need God's forgiveness. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3:36). We Christians walk by faith in Jesus Christ, the Light of the world, not by sight-"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" John 8:12).

Other Articles On This Site Under the Topic of Creation Science:
[ Up ] [ Case for Evolution Not Proven ] [ Darwinism and Racism ]