|Feature Article - April 1998|
|by Do-While Jones|
If you have watched many evolution debates, you no doubt have seen a common pattern. The creationist presents scientific arguments against the theory of evolution. The evolutionist uses all sorts of diversionary tactics and avoids factual discussion of the theory as much as possible. There is a good reason for that. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution.
The theory of evolution is built on three scientifically unsound pillars: (1) Life Happens; (2) Mutations Create New Species; (3) Life is Old.
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the past there were chemicals that assembled themselves by chance into Frankencell. Then Frankencell mysteriously came to life and began reproducing itself. This was plausible in the 19th century before Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. It was plausible in the early 20th century before we knew about the incredible complexity of the simplest living cell. It isn't plausible any more.
For the last forty years alchemists have been trying to change ammonia into algae without success. All they have done is shown why it could not possibly have happened. The theory of how life originated is quite literally dead on arrival, and it is still dead in the water.
The idea that species can mutate into other species is based on a misunderstanding of the laws of genetics. It is true that natural selection will favor different varieties of a particular species in different locations. The method by which this occurs is that species with unfavorable existing genes die out. That genetic information is forever lost to the gene pool (in that part of the world, at least). The small physical changes that occur due to the loss of genes do not add up over time to produce new genetic information. It is like the foolish merchant, who loses a little bit on every sale, but hopes to make a profit by increasing his volume.
"Survival of the fittest" is really just the spin doctor's version of "extinction of the least fit." The process that weeds out inferior genes does not create new superior ones.
Evolutionists say that life happens by chance, but not often enough to observe it happen in our short lifetimes. They claim it could happen given enough time. Then they claim that since it could happen, it did happen.
The preponderance of evidence, however, indicates that the Earth is young, and that there hasn't been time for life to evolve (even if it could). Geologic evidence indicates that the rocks are much younger than was believed in the 19th century. Rates of present processes (transfer of salt and sediment to the sea, production of helium in the atmosphere, cooling of the Earth, the orbit of the Moon, etc.) indicate that the Earth is not nearly as old as evolution requires.
The evolutionist knows he can't win a scientific debate of the theory. His only hope is to divert the discussion to something else.
He will likely use some personal attacks. He will question your real motives for doubting evolution. He will attack the credibility of any authorities you cite (and some you didn't cite). He will attempt to get you to defend yourself, defend the authorities he has maligned, or attack him. If he can get you to do any of these things, he has achieved his objective (which is to avoid talking about the theory of evolution).
The evolutionist will probably try to bring religion into the discussion. There are two reasons for this. First, if he can change the subject to an irrelevant discussion of how many animals could have been on Noah's Ark, he doesn't have to talk about evolution. Second, it seems relevant to him because he probably believes in evolution mainly because he doesn't believe in Noah's Ark. He doesn't have any good reason for believing in evolution. But creation and evolution are the only two explanations for the origin of life. If he doesn't believe one, he must believe the other. He believes in evolution by default, not because there is strong evidence to support it. He thinks the only way he can win is to make creation look even less plausible than evolution.
Don't let the evolutionist distract you. Talk about evolution, and try to make him talk about evolution.
The evolutionist will probably say that there is just too much evidence for him to present in the time allotted, when in fact, he doesn't have much evidence at all. What he does have is weak, and he knows it. That's why he will avoid presenting it at almost any cost. That's why it will be up to you to force the discussion. Make the evolutionist address the issues.
Demand proof that chemicals can form a living cell by chance. You can safely do this because there is none. If he tries to propose a speculative scenario, point out his many assumptions and inconsistencies. Point out that every attempt to create life in the laboratory has failed. These failures have shown why life can't happen, even under ideal laboratory conditions. If it can't happen under ideal conditions, it certainly can't happen by chance under less than ideal conditions.
Demand proof that mutations can add useful genetic information to a DNA molecule. There is none. If he tries to advance a speculative argument about the frequency of beneficial mutations, you should point out the assumptions and impossible probability of enough of these mutations happening to create a new body plan or internal organ.
Demand proof that the Earth is old. If he tries to use radioactive arguments, show the fallacies of the fundamental assumptions of radioactive dating, and the widely published inconsistent results.
If there were a good defense of the theory of evolution, someone would have published it by now. The evolutionist could simply recite that defense. But since there isn't a good defense of the theory of evolution, his best strategy is to change the subject.
If the evolutionist can't get you to follow a red herring, and make you talk about something other than evolution, he may try to make a case for a dubious transitional fossil, such as Archaeopteryx or some mammal-like reptile. If he does, make him admit that these fossils are controversial. Counterattack with paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's summary of "the two outstanding facts of the fossil record-geologically 'sudden' origin of new species and failure to change thereafter."1
Ask him why some of the Cambrian critters (which he believes were the first multi-cellular life forms, which he believes evolved about 500 million years ago) were so highly developed that they had eyes (which should have taken a very long time to evolve). Ask him to defend Richard Dawkins' statement that "It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal kingdom."2
Any objective examination of the fossil record is devastating to the theory of evolution. Only fertile imagination and belief in innumerable missing links makes the theory of evolution even remotely possible. The theory of evolution has to be believed in spite of the fossil record, not because of it.
A favorite evolutionist dodge is to talk about Peppered moths, by which he can show that natural selection is a demonstrable fact. (This is true.) At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the trees got sooty and the ratio of dark Peppered moths to light Peppered moths increased because the birds could see the light moths more easily and ate more of them. The evolutionist may let the audience believe that light moths evolved into dark moths. He won't actually say it, because he knows it isn't true. He knows a creationist can show him to be a liar if he does specifically say that light moths evolved into dark ones. But he can avoid saying that light moths didn't evolve into dark ones, and maybe the audience will think that they did. Ask him directly if light moths evolved into dark moths during the Industrial Revolution.
The truth is that there were dark moths before the Industrial Revolution. In the days of cleaner air, they were more conspicuous than the light moths, and so they were eaten by birds more often than the light moths. As a result, dark moths were rare. The light moths did not evolve into dark moths. The dark moths, although rare, were there all the time.
The (faulty) logic the evolutionist will use, however, is that observation of the Peppered moths has proved that natural selection happens, and since evolution works by natural selection, evolution must also be true. Using the same faulty logic, we could claim that Santa's flying reindeer evolved from ordinary reindeer by natural selection. Since natural selection has been adequately demonstrated, it proves Santa really does have flying reindeer. There is exactly the same amount of evidence that reindeer evolve into flying reindeer as there is that some unknown ancestor animal evolved into a reindeer. There is no evidence in either case; there is just wishful thinking.
There is conclusive evidence that natural selection can reduce (perhaps even to zero) the number of moths that have genes that produce light or dark coloring. There is no evidence that natural selection can cause an entirely new gene to appear that gives the moth a previously unknown survival advantage. (That is, the moth cannot protect itself from birds by evolving into a cat.)
The evolutionist may claim that "good-tasting" (to birds, anyway) Viceroy moths evolved so that they look like bad-tasting Monarch butterflies. How does a moth know how it tastes to a bird? How does a moth know how particular butterflies taste? What kind of Lamarkian process did the moths use to make their children look like they taste bad? How does an evolutionist know that a bad-tasting Monarch butterfly didn't evolve into a good-tasting Viceroy moth? He can't answer any of these questions. The claimed change in appearance of Viceroy moths is simply a fairly tale that evolutionists made up to "prove" the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists don't want any honest investigation of the theory of evolution. That's why they use the court system to keep any reference to the problems with the theory of evolution out of the public school science books. If the theory of evolution had nothing to hide, then evolutionists would not need the courts to protect it.
The truth about evolution is getting out. Parents are responding by putting their children in private schools, or home-schooling their children, so that their children can get a good science education.
As these children grow up and take their place in society as geologists, biologists, and astronomers, unfettered by the fairy-tale "facts" told by evolutionists, they will make progress in these fields equal to the progress made in engineering and computer science.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
S. J. Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, page 259
2 R. Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996, page 139 (Ev+)