Evil-ution

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”

The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”

The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else."

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter*1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed .*.*. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1)*stability and (2)*limited ranges of variation.

Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.” And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life .*.*. reproduces with incredible fidelity.” Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.” And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’”

Similarly, geneticist C.*H.*Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. .*.*. it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.”

The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion .*.*. that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.”

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"As we have seen, the evidence for creation is enormous. Why, then, do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Science textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

In the magazine American Laboratory a biochemist wrote this about his children’s schooling: “The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children’s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.” Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, he said: “A student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ‘correct’ and the grade is lowered.”

Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear or read phrases such as, ‘When man evolved from the lower animals,’ or, ‘Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.’ Thus, people are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed."

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.” But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it. They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?”

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"In similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.” It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.” But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?"

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"In a foreword to John Reader’s book Missing Links, David Pilbeam shows that scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts. One reason, says Pilbeam, is that scientists “are also people and because much is at stake, for there are glittering prizes in the form of fame and publicity.” The book acknowledges that evolution is “a science powered by individual ambitions and so susceptible to preconceived beliefs.” As an example it notes: “When preconception is .*.*. so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accommodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.” The author adds: “Modern [evolutionists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators .*.*. [who] dismissed objective assessment in favour of the notions they wanted to believe.” So, because of having committed themselves to evolution, and a desire to further their careers, some scientists will not admit the possibility of error. Instead, they work to justify preconceived ideas rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts."

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"This unscientific attitude was noted and deplored by W.*R.*Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Thompson stated: “If arguments fail to resist analysis, assent should be withheld, and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable.” He said: “The facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long-continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position.”

Thompson also observed: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. .*.*. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.” He concluded: “This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"Similarly, a professor of anthropology, Anthony Ostric, criticized his scientific colleagues for declaring “as a fact” that man descended from apelike creatures. He said that “at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that.” He noted that “there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance.” The anthropologist said that the vast body of professionals have fallen in behind those who promote evolution “for fear of not being declared serious scholars or of being rejected from serious academic circles.” In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also comment: “You either believe the concepts or you will inevitably be branded as a heretic.” One result of this has been an unwillingness by many scientists to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice. As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: “Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I’m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.”

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"An additional reason for evolution’s acceptance is the failure of conventional religion in both what it teaches and what it does, as well as its failure to represent properly the Bible’s creation account. Informed persons are well aware of the religious record of hypocrisy, oppression and inquisitions. They have observed clergy support for murderous dictators. They know that people of the same religion have killed one another by the millions in war, with the clergy backing each side. So they find no reason for considering the God whom those religions are supposed to represent. Too, absurd and unbiblical doctrines further this alienation. Such ideas as eternal torment—that God will roast people in a literal hellfire forever—are repugnant to reasoning persons."

 

---------- Post added at 02:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------

 

"However, not only are reasoning persons repelled by such religious teachings and actions, but the evidence in the Bible is that God also is repelled. Indeed, the Bible frankly exposes the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders. For example, it says of them: “You also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matthew 23:28) Jesus told the common people that their clergy were “blind guides” who taught, not what comes from God, but contrary “commands of men as doctrines.” (Matthew 15:9,*14) Similarly, the Bible condemns religionists who “publicly declare they know God, but [who] disown him by their works.” (Titus 1:16) So, despite their claims, religions that have promoted or condoned hypocrisy and bloodshed do not originate with God, nor do they represent him. Instead, they are called “false prophets,” and are compared to trees that produce “worthless fruit.”—Matthew 7:15-20; John 8:44; 13:35; 1*John 3:10-12.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"Also, many religions have capitulated on the matter of evolution, thus providing no alternative for their people. For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.” At a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church agreed to this conclusion: “We are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute.” With such religious endorsement, are uninformed church members likely to resist even when, in reality, “masses of evidence” do not support evolution, but, instead, actually support creation?

The vacuum that this causes is often filled by agnosticism and atheism. Abandoning belief in God, people accept evolution as the alternative. Today, in a number of lands, atheism based on evolution is even the official state policy. Responsibility for much of this disbelief can be laid at the feet of this world’s religions.

Too, some religious doctrines cause people to believe that the Bible teaches things contrary to scientific fact, so they reject the God of the Bible. For example, as noted in an earlier chapter, some erroneously claim the Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days, and that it is only 6,000 years old. But the Bible does not teach these things."

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Some people sincerely reject the concept of a Creator because they feel, as it has been said, that ‘seeing is believing.’ If something cannot be seen or measured in some way, then they may feel that it does not exist. True, in daily life they acknowledge the existence of many things that cannot be seen, such as electricity, magnetism, radio or television waves and gravity. Yet, this does not alter their view, because all these things can still be measured or sensed by some other physical means. But there is no physical way to see or measure a Creator, or God.

However, as we have seen in previous chapters, there is sound reason to believe that an unseen Creator does exist because we can observe the evidence, the physical results of his handiwork. We see it in the technical perfection and intricacy of atomic structure, in the magnificently organized universe, in the unique planet Earth, in the amazing designs of living things and in man’s awesome brain. These are effects that must have an adequate cause to account for their existence. Even materialists accept this law of cause and effect in all other matters. Why not also regarding the physical universe itself?

On this point, the Bible’s simple argument puts it best: “[The Creator’s] invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.” (Romans 1:20, The New English Bible) In other words, the Bible reasons from effect to cause. The visible creation, the awesome “things he has made,” are an evident effect that must have an intelligent cause. That invisible cause is God. Too, as the Maker of all the universe, the Creator no doubt possesses power so enormous that humans of flesh and blood should not expect to see God and survive. As the Bible comments: “No man may see [God] and yet live.”—Exodus 33:20.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"MANY view the Bible simply as a book written by wise men of a bygone era. A university professor, Gerald A.*Larue, asserted: “The views of the writers as expressed in the Bible reflect the ideas, beliefs, and concepts current in their own times and are limited by the extent of knowledge in those times.”1 Yet the Bible claims to be a book inspired by God. (2*Timothy 3:16) If this is true, it would surely be free from mistaken views prevailing at the time its various parts were written. Can the Bible withstand examination in the light of present knowledge?

As we consider this question keep in mind that, with the progress of knowledge, humans constantly must keep adjusting their views to conform to new information and discoveries. The Scientific Monthly once observed: “It is too much to expect that articles written in some cases as [recently] as five years ago could now be accepted as representative of the latest thinking in the areas of science with which they are concerned.” Yet the Bible was written and compiled during a period of some 1,600 years, and was completed nearly 2,000 years ago. What can be said today about its accuracy?"

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

"When the Bible was being written, there was speculation regarding how the earth was held in space. Some, for example, believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Yet rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at its time of writing, the Bible simply stated: “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) Yes, over 3,000 years ago the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support, a fact that is in harmony with the more recently understood laws of gravity and motion. “How Job knew the truth,” observed one religious scholar, “is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture.”

Regarding the shape of the earth, The Encyclopedia Americana says: “The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe. .*.*. The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance.” Some early navigators even feared sailing off the edge of the flat earth! But, then, the introduction of the compass and other improvements made possible longer ocean voyages. These “voyages of discovery,” another encyclopedia explains, “showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed.”