Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 4 – Scientific Basis

I want you to know that the theory of evolution looks pretty good if you look at it from a distance. When you get right down to the `nuts and bolts` of evolution, it is in deep trouble. One of the leading scientists of this age has called evolution `incredible`. The definition of `incredible` is not `amazing`. `Incredible` literally means `without credibility`. He said that “the problem is, the only alternative is creation.” In effect he meant that since he `knew` creation is `wrong`, he HAD to believe evolution. This was not a man making fun of creationism. This is a scientist, and true scientists all over the world realize that the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. Yet they cling to it, because to do otherwise would be to admit the existence of God. In the 1800`s and in the past, we knew so little about the life process that scientists could make a case for the theory of evolution. However, as our knowledge of genetics and the human body as a whole progressed, facts began emerging that cause the theory of evolution to be in doubt. The same goes for our knowledge of the universe.

I believe it was Karl Marx that said that `religion is the opiate of the masses`. In other words he meant that the masses use religion as an opiate to mollify their existence. I say that evolution is the opiate of the scientist. I believe that every person has seen enough evidence to realize that sooner or later they will come face-to-face with a Holy God. In order to pacify their conscience concerning that inevitable meeting, the scientists have come up with a theory that, in effect, says `there is no God`. The theory of evolution basically says that we made ourselves. Creationism says that a Creator made us.

I went through a stage of theistic evolution, trying to combine creationism with the theory of evolution, because I had been taught that the theory of evolution is an absolute law. But I soon learned that the theory of evolution is totally contrary to the Scriptures. So I’ve come full circle. We will now explore the theory of evolution to see `what makes it tick`, to see what the scientific basis is for the theory of evolution. We will see how sound the foundation is for the theory of evolution.

Organic Freeze by nydialilian

We need to differentiate between ORGANIC evolution and INORGANIC evolution. ORGANIC evolution concerns LIVING matter; INORGANIC means non-living matter. We will be concerned only with ORGANIC evolution. There are those that say that the universe `evolved`. That subject would require a separate study. For now we are concerned only with `organic evolution. First, a definition of `evolution`. Simply stated, evolution is the theory that living matter arose from chemicals. When I was in college, one of the first laws I was taught was the `Law of Biogenesis`. This law states that life does NOT arise spontaneously from non-living materials. Needless to say, the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with this law. The theory of evolution says that life emerged spontaneously from dead matter. The origin of the theory of evolution was, of course, Charles Darwin. He was not the only scientist who postulated the theory, however. Lamar was another scientist who was a believer in the theory of evolution.

What is the `motor` that propels the theory of evolution? To understand the `motor`, we need to discuss the concepts that are necessary to the theory of evolution. Those are natural selection, mutations, and lengthy (or epochal) time periods. We want to look at these things individually, to see “where the evolutionist is coming from”, and to see how steady the foundation of the theory of evolution is.

NATURAL SELECTION is the tendency of nature to perpetuate the `survival of the fittest`. It says that as we `evolved` over the millions of years, the strongest of each of the species has survived, and have gradually changed into a new and different life-form. It is also the `natural selection` tendency to eliminate the inferior species, those unfit to live in a changing world. Natural selection is NOT a method of `macro mutation`, and we need to differentiate between `macro mutation` and `micro mutation`.

MACRO MUTATION is a major postulate of the theory of evolution. It says that species are able to `evolve`, and to change into A NEW AND DIFFERENT SPECIES. Natural Selection is NOT a method of `macro mutation`.

MICRO MUTATION is the ability of members of a given species to exist in different forms. For instance, a poodle and a saint bernard are examples of `micro mutation`. They are of course both dogs, but have different appearances. But you must remember that no matter what the color, no matter what the size, they are STILL dogs. They are not `evolving` into horses. I believe in micro mutations, but I do not believe in macro mutations. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that macro mutations have ever produced a more viable life-form.

Salt and Pepper Moth by D@lbo

An example of a micro mutation is the `peppered moth` of the eastern seaboard. Evolutionists love to say that this moth is `proof` of evolution, because the color of this moth has changed from light colors to dark colors over the past several hundred years. They say that since the trees of that area have darkened in color due to air pollution, the moth has `evolved` into a darker color to evade their natural predators by `matching` the color of the tree bark. They neglect to mention that the moth has changed color for the SAME REASON that the trees have, due to air pollution and smog. Yet evolutionists point to this as the `greatest proof` of the theory of evolution ever witnessed. If this is `evidence` of evolution, I say that they have not witnessed evolution at all, BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MOTHS. They still have the genetic material of a moth.

Thus there are limits to the extent of change within the many different species. It is amazing how far these limits extend. The genetic material has variations, but a dog will always be a dog. No dog has `evolved` into a horse. If one ever did, the theory of evolution would have at least a reprieve. But no solid evidence of such an incident exists.

Source

The Theory of Evolution: This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S (Freeware)

Reading Sources: First moon walk disproved evolutionary theory | Where’s the proof for evolution? | Darwin himself said there was no proof! | Can Evolution Produce an Eye? | There are NO Fossils to Show Even One Animal Turning into Another! | Is Evolution a Theory, Fact or Law? Or None of the Above? | There’s a Law Against Evolution–It’s Called the Second Law of Thermodynamics! | Evolutionists Say Mutations are Good–are They? | What About the Human “Tail”?