Evolution, or The Godless Delusion

     an essay by Joe Boudreault

    In science, as in anything about life itself, something is proved and accepted through the evidence that supports it. A theory becomes fact when the unarguable proof is presented. Evolution is one of the most devious theories ever to wend its way into the human psyche. Ideas in and of themselves are fine when we want to explore the structure of our world. And our world, as we see it, does exist in all of its physical aspects. It follows, therefore, that we are curious enough to want an explanation of how and why it is here. There really can be only two possible explanations: it came into being through some mysterious and hard-to-explain process, out of a mysterious and misunderstood past; or, it was planned, devised and brought about by an entity or power great enough to do this. In essence, we have those two main theories: Evolution, a godless process in which a state of chaos is brought into a beautiful order, or Creation, a god-ordained (or God-ordained) process in which the universes and everything in it was presented in a wonderful state of order. Evolution assumes that no deity was involved. Creation assumes that an intelligent creative power was involved. These are both theories and both deserve further consideration. But both of them cannot be correct, only one of them can, and only one of them will in truth be born out by the evidence around us. Keep in mind that science and religion need not conflict with each other. Creation does not negate science; it merely explains beginnings. And it isn’t just Biblical Christianity which validates the idea of Creation. Science writer Harun Yahya, (also known as Adnan Oktar, who is a Muslim) spoke about creatures like the purported 350-million-year-old trilobites and cockroaches, saying: “If such creatures had really lived, then we should see their remains everywhere. In fact, if this (evolutionary) thesis is correct, the number of intermediate transitional forms should be even greater than the number of animal species alive today and their fossilized remains should be abundant all over the world.” But I want to emphasize the word theory here. Evolution, as taught by the Darwinists, has no basis in fact whatsoever. Most credible scientists agree that so far as it affects the physical and biological worlds at large, evolutionary reasoning is highly overrated. Even its chief proponent, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) had many doubts concerning it before he died. Yet this misleading theory has impacted our world like no other theory, bending thought and policy alike everywhere it was taught.

    In case you live under a rock (a possibility against this theory) then you must know that evolution teaches that all life came out of the chaos of the natural world and species themselves originated by way of diversion and natural selection, which was caused in turn by inexplicable mutations. The fittest mutations lived, the poorer ones died off.

    But it is all nonsense.

    To be sure, survival of the fittest is in many ways the law in nature, but what evolution offers, at best, is survival of the freakiest. Now listen to some of the evolutionists’ arguments: ocean chemicals (from out of the mysterious but convenient Big Bang) slosh around to form amino acids, which produce proteins and so on, which slosh around some more and become living reproducible cells. One cell joins a colony of cells to form an amoeba. Multiple-celled critters grow vertebrae and fins and eyes and prey on other critters. An amphibious reptile with eyes and lungs which can remain on land will survive better, hence the mammal class. An upright mammal is an improvement on a crawling mammal, hence the primates. A thinking primate with opposable digits can outperform a monkey, hence we humans exist. We’re some smart monkeys, but we’re stupid if we buy into this nonsense. All of it, according to evolutionists, took millions of years, then hundreds of millions of years, then billions of years. One current mathematical figure suggests 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth, and 17 billion years for the known universe. The more their theory falls apart, the greater is the stretch of time. Oh well, allow enough time and anything can happen, right? Let’s go back even before God, why don’t we?

    I will just point out a couple of fallacies in this mess. If superior species rise over inferior species, then what are all the ‘inferior’ ones still doing here? I can understand an extinction or two, but we still have one-celled things and amphibians with poor eyes and insects crawling over elephants and everything fighting and eating everything else. A Victorian era cartoon showed Darwin walking down a street with a monkey on a lease and a frown on his weary face. We evolved from the lesser primates and we are better? What is the monkey doing gaggling at us? Poor Darwin must have had some nightmares over that one. I admire this man’s observations in nature, but I do not subscribe to his interpretations. Evolutionists argue that changes from one species into another different species didn’t occur overnight (geologically speaking). Millennia were needed. My, my, how many millennia? How was this proved by them? Why, carbon dating and radioactive isotopes do that. The trouble is, cosmic radiation interferes with the levels found in fossils, and half-lifes are so long in years (by the evolutionary scientists’ own admission) that accurate measurement of these changes are impossible to make for any degree of acceptability. Example: if the isotope carbon-14 deteriorates to half its former level in 5730 years (so the story goes), then when did its initial level begin? Why, you keep doubling the measured level until you reach the full level that was there when the fossil was alive, so to speak. That would give you the time span for that fossil. Again, a huge problem: what was the original level? Well, you measure a living creature similar to the fossil, and then you backtrack. But the oldest living creature we could ever measure would be maybe a hundred years (a long human lifespan, or a turtle), IF we measure it while it is alive, and even at that there were no carbon-14 dating tools a century ago as ‘accurate’ as those we now use.

    Just the same, it’s a measuring stick of sorts, say these intrepid evolutionists. Think about it: half of something is still half, and half of that is half of something else, and so on ad infinitum. Well, not quite ad infinitum, because you will never get to the actual end of that propagating equation. Yet they are taking a tiny drop of time (very poorly measured, remember) and extrapolating into an enormous stretch of the past and declaring that they know a fossil’s age, give or take a few million years, of course. And radio-isotopes like cesium, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium offer much longer (I mean enormous) measuring spans, or so they argue. And evolutionists need vast amounts of time because eternity past can hide a lot of un-provable stuff.

    And how is the value of our lives to be measured against this yardstick of eons? What thinking person (evolutionist or creationist) would be willing to consider that his/her distant ancestor was a sluggish and brutish beast of cave and forest compared to us, and that our distant descendants will be leaps and bounds above us both intellectually and morally? Are we really just turds (pardon the simile) in the line of life that goes from inconsequential amoeba to brilliant ethereal supermen? Where does it all end? And why should it be like that?

    Another and simpler way to disprove evolution is in that impossible-to-date fossil record. Now, the evolutionists claim that their theory worked its way through billions of years, with life itself existing in at least many hundreds of millions of those years, and therefore the tiny changes needed to work their processes eventually came about. They do not disclaim the epochs of time in which these things occurred for life to battle it out and evolve so much in, and that is their downfall – their own mouths condemn them. If hundreds of millions of years (or billions, depending on which evolutionist you pay attention to) have passed and quadrillions of creatures deposited themselves into the sediments of land and sea, where are the huge deposits that should have come about? Especially on land where we do see a lot of life and where some coal and oil deposits exist? There isn’t a great deal of it, considering the gargantuan periods of time which have allegedly passed. In fact, there are no real missing links to connect one species with another descendant species. There’s no getting away from it: all that eerily long period of time and all those unthinkable numbers of living things, and still no discernible connections anywhere. Oh, there are some faked links and some suggested similarities, but nothing worth noting. It is as if I picked up a golden grain of sand on a beach and declared that, long enough in the past, the mountains were mostly made up of gold.

    It’s not hard to see how such a stupid theory as evolution caught on. When the majority of people decided to take God out of the equation, they needed to fill the scientific world with something to explain all the marvels and wonders that do exist (including the millions of species and the utter complexity of DNA, for example). But their Something is actually nothing. The cosmos is not a lot of chaos with a bit of order thrown in (and where would such order come from?) but it is a lot of order and harmony with a bit of chaos thrown in by God.

    Creationists do not (and should not) argue that biological changes cannot take place in the natural world. They actually do take place, in a lot of ways, much as Darwin saw them and described them. Creationists do not claim that the environment and our surroundings cannot affect the physical traits of creatures and plants. A sort of evolution, in the Darwinian sense, really does occur.

    What Creationists hold Evolutionists to task for is the theory that one species changes enough over time that it becomes a new species, and that species changes, over more eons of time, to become another new species, and therefore that given enough time, a one or two-celled life form becomes a man or woman. That is known as macro-evolution, a theory of major change in biological diversity. It doesn’t happen because it never could happen. What we do have is a process best described as micro-evolution, wherein changes within a species do take place. There is a thin line between what constitutes a species, but there should be no doubt that a human is a human and a bug is a bug, and never the twain shall meet. Let the clever Evolutionist point at the manifold changes that occur throughout a thousand generations of fruit flies, but in the end they still wind up with fruit flies, perhaps more resistant to chemicals and with changed colors or stronger wings, but fruit flies just the same. Let the Evolutionists point out that species can become a new species and that you can see evidence of that by looking at the lowly butterfly or moth. The butterfly is at one stage a larvae, at another stage a pupae, and still another stage it sprouts beautiful wings and flies away. Three distinct biological versions, so very, very different from each other. I agree (on the differences). But they are still the same species! The butterfly will lay an egg which becomes a larvae which becomes a pupae etc etc. This is a graphic picture, but only of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Otherwise, Mr Evolution would have to settle for the following idea or process: a human being propagates itself by laying a single-celled egg which becomes an amoeba which becomes a fish which becomes a lizard which becomes a mammal which becomes a primate which becomes a man, etc. You get the picture. Whatever complex and long-drawn-out process he chooses in order to arrive at modern homo sapiens… We know this doesn’t happen, and we know all of those previous creatures do exist alongside us, as separate species in their own right.

    So the scientific evidence around us backs up the one idea and not the other, for there is too much conflict for them both to be true. As someone once said, evidence demands a verdict. What does the empirical evidence of our natural world demand of us as a valid conclusion? A godless process or a special creation?

    Let’s rule out, right away, that this creation can be called intelligent design. There are those who like to think that perhaps we are indeed formed and created by some higher power, and just perhaps that power is something far advanced of us and outside our sphere of life. They are talking of course about extraterrestrial intelligence. Again that is a theory and, as interesting as it may be, it has never been substantiated by any evidence. Let’s upgrade that idea and say we are here by special creation and that only God can do that. He has, mind you, already claimed very clearly and unequivocally, to have done just that.

    So I ask you, which one of these two major theories holds true to the evidence which we hold in our hands? If you have come this far with me, go one step further, and consider these two-dozen or so major questions or problems which require an answer, and which of the two major theories explains these the best. Evolution cannot account for:

  1. Severe lack of fossils to connect “billions” of years of different species.

  2. No transition fossils between the “changes” of species.

  3. How did fossils get out of place in the earth’s strata?

  4. Evolutionists use circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc).

  5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.

  6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

  7. Complex organs (ie the human eye) could never just evolve.

  8. The immune system cannot evolve according to evolutionary theory – the one process contradicts the other.

  9. Languages are getting simpler, not more complex, and fewer.

  10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.

  11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.

  12. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints and next to trilobites in Cambrian formation.

  13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”.

  14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours.

  15. How to explain the existence of high pressures in oil deposits after “tens of millions” of years of them forming?

  16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.

  17. After “billions of years”, where is the abundance of moon dust, and where did the moon come from?

  18. After “billions of years”, where are the abundant remains of meteorites which should show up all through the earth’s strata, but only show up in the uppermost strata?

  19. How, for example, could a relatively small river like the Colorado create a gorge like the Grand Canyon when bigger rivers have not done so?

  20. Some of the world’s most powerful earthquakes occur very far away from the plate tectonics boundaries.

  21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.

  22. If the universe (and solar system) is billions of years old or even millions of years old, solar particles and planetary debris and formation gasses should have dissipated long ago. But they are still around (ie Saturn’s rings), defying cosmic physics.

  23. The shape of and the spacing of galaxies actually DEFIES the Big Bang theory and the belief in the current theories of time and light and (example) stellar births.

  24. The evolutionary explanation of the earth’s strata is not consistent with any known process of geology and does not even consider the proven phenomena of liquefaction, let alone the accepted principles of erosion and sedimentation.

  25. The alleged evidence to support the theory of evolution has often been subject to forgery; for example, Piltdown Man (an orangutan jaw that somehow became a human jaw), archaeopteryx (the alleged cross-over fossil between reptiles and birds, PROVEN to be a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig’s tooth that somehow became a human fossil), Lucy (an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton proven to be a consortium of various bones of different skeletons), the Yale Scandal (scientist Charles Sibley and accomplice Jon Ahlquist deliberately manipulated DNA evidence to try and “prove” apes and men are genetically related), and a living example of a “transitional species” in the tragic story of Ota Benga, an African pygmy who was displayed in zoos, next to chimpanzees and a gorilla, a century ago, as “evidence” of the closest ape-link to man.

    Evolution likes to think that it dominates science and nature and sociology, but it cannot begin to explain concepts like the finite versus the infinite, time versus eternity, the process of aging, dating procedures (fallibility of infinite regress), or morality. It merely removes God from the equation of life and tries, UNSUCCESSFULLY, to explain the existence of man and nature through the impossible mechanics of coincidence and chance. Many predominant scientists have already pulled themselves away from this theory. Creation science goes a whole lot farther in explaining the natural universe than evolutionary theory does. The biblical claim of a Great Flood, for example, can easily explain all of the above problems, using the very evidences relied on by all of the mainstream scientists themselves. If you look closer, you will see that it is the only explanation.

    Suggested reading:

  • In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation, 1996.

  • Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Duane T. Gish, Master Books, 1985.

  • Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, Harper and Row, 1986.*

  • What Is Creation Science?, Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, Master Books, 1982.

  • The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, William R. Fix, Macmillan Publishing Co., NY, 1984.*

*they are not creationists…