Evolution – hypothesis, not theory!
This comment came about while studying Genesis Ch.1 & 2. Many alleged “scientists” will spout forth the evolution party line that so many adhere to: that evolution is science and creation (by God) belongs to the myths and legends of society. But it does come down to just one question: Could God have created the universe exactly as described in the first two chapters of the Bible? Most Christians (and even those who just like to be called Christians) might probably say a guarded “Yes”, even though many of them believe in evolution instead. So, if God could create the universe, why do they deny it in favour of evolution? The answer is that they ask the wrong question. Instead of “Could God have created ….?? they instead ask “Did God create ….?” They admit that God could have created, yet say that science proves that He didn’t. But does science actually prove this to be so?
It is interesting that so-called scientists should claim that that the biblical account of creation cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. For, if the truth be really known, their beloved evolution cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny! If evolution were in any way a viable hypothesis, then there would have to be a significant amount of fossil evidence that would verify this. The hypothesis (it cannot be called a theory because it has never been proven!) of evolution requires that creatures evolve via beneficial mutations from “lower order” species into “higher order” species. (Or else it would be negative or backward evolution. Or, at best, a sideways evolution, not gaining any ground either way – effectively no difference at all!)
Most mutations are not beneficial, and those that are beneficial do not often replicate in the next generation. The evolutionists would then claim that even if a very small percentage of mutations cause development into a higher order species, then evolution is still demonstrated. However, for every beneficial mutation, there are many non-beneficial mutations.
Also, creatures do not suddenly mutate into the next species. Even evolution scientists have to admit that logically there has to be a series of beneficial mutations, each complementing the other, until a species becomes literally another species. This rapidly decreases the probability of a new species evolving. A coin can be tossed and come down heads half the time. You have a 50% chance of predicting the outcome. But a prediction of 2 heads in a row has only 25% chance of success, 3 heads in a row 12.5%, 4 heads in a row 6.25% and so on. So, the chances of having a relatively unbroken series of mutations, all beneficial, all complementing each other, has a probability approaching zero.
But, say the evolutionists, even if only one in a million series mutates into another species, then it’s still very scientific. However, this preponderance of failed mutation series is their nemesis, for it means that there should be fossil evidence for the mutation series. For every species that “evolves” into another species, there has to be the fossil evidence of the beneficial mutation series that caused the evolution. And, for every beneficial mutation series, there would also have to be the overwhelming fossil evidence of so many failed non-beneficial mutation series.
And yet, to date, not one allegedly eminent evolution “scientist” has clearly demonstrated the fossil evidence for just one single mutation series, beneficial or otherwise! To date there is not one single species where fossil evidence demonstrates the beneficial mutation series necessary for such a change. Not one!
There are hundreds of thousands of species of creatures on earth. If you include plants, algae and insects, there are around 1.7 million species on earth. There are 66,000 species of vertebrate animals on earth. Even mammals allegedly have over 5500 species in their small group. (These figures vary according to how these species are recorded.) And if all life started with one small amoeba (single-celled organism in the “primordial swamp, soup or ooze”), then we should see fossil evidence for the evolution of at least those 66,000 species of vertebrate animals, and many more if we included non-vertebrates (including insects). Therefore evolution is impossible because it requires fossil evidence for the mutation series, and those fossils just do not exist.
What a disaster for those illogical supporters of an impossible evolution! Their problem is that there is abundant fossil evidence for so many of the species on earth. It would be better if fossils could not be found for the actual species, for then they could blame the lack of inter-species fossil evidence on the lack of fossil evidence in general. But while abundant fossil evidence does exist, none of it demonstrates the evolution from one species into another. None of it! These “scientists” are unable to explain just why this should be so. They grasp at straws but the facts are so clear: there just isn’t the fossil evidence to support their false hypothesis of evolution or origin of the species. After all, that great intellect, Charles Darwin, said that the process had to be gradual and therefore spread over long periods of time. It is impossible for one species to evolve gradually into another species leaving no fossil evidence of such, especially when there is abundant fossil evidence of the actual 2 species involved.
So those “scientists” put their heads together and decided that there had to be some way out of this mess. Evolution just had to be true, for if it weren’t true, then that would mean that all species on earth happened to appear independently of each other. This would clearly support biblical creation, and this is one thing those “scientists” just cannot allow. They claim to be teaching the truth of the origin of the species, yet if that truth might actually support the fact that God exists, then that truth must be suppressed or altered somewhat until it leaves God out of the equation. The real truth of evolution is that people wanted to have a world without having to acknowledge God as creator of it. They wanted a world that conveniently ignored God, left Him out of the equation. The equation of these “scientists” is, therefore, one that is not permitted to have God in any of its workings. (This is like taking a solution and turning it into a problem!)
So “scientists” set about trying to put a patch on this disastrous problem, coming up with an idea they called punctuated equilibrium (or the plural “equilibria”). That is, there are long periods of time where no change occurs (stasis), no mutation series exist. Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history. This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. (Wikipedia)
These long periods of stasis are then punctuated by short-lived periods of rapid change where either the species evolves into another, or splits into 2 sub-species, one of which may then develop into a new species. This, while pure unverifiable speculation, was their way of explaining that total lack of evidence for beneficial mutational series.
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. …. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. (Wikipedia)
This effort to state a belief in what must have happened (as opposed to documented scientific evidence of what actually did happen) redefines evolution as a belief system, not truth, for if it were truth, then it would have a logical and scientific solution for the lack of intermediate fossil evidence. But the truth is that this lack of fossil evidence actually points toward an all-at-once creation without the evolution of species. That the origin of the species as recorded in the Bible is true is a fact staring them in the face, but it includes God and that is unacceptable. They will then say that long periods of time are necessary, but refuse to understand that if God could have created as recorded in Genesis, then why not? Therefore, to teach otherwise is to openly deny the very existence of God. This is their real agenda!
The Bible does say that even a belief in God’s creation is an act of faith.
Hebrews 11:3 – Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The evolutionist bible says: Through faith we believe that all the species in the world came about by pure chance, and amazingly developed into highly intricate creatures without the assistance of any intelligence whatsoever.
Whatever we believe about this is therefore a matter of what we want to believe.
While I was principal of the Christian school in Echuca, the government officials (the VRQA) tried to shut down my school on the basis that we taught both creation and evolution, with an emphasis on biblical creation being correct. (That does seem to be what they should expect of a Christian school, isn’t it, unless they are trying to sanitise everything Christian!) In fact, at one stage we were given just 30 days to shut the school down because our Science curriculum taught creation. (Of course, we did teach about evolution but not necessarily favourably!) However, when I reminded them that just a few months earlier I had asked the VRQA what Science curriculum they would recommend, they named one from another Christian school as acceptable, and we had already commenced the changeover to this new curriculum, and this is what rescued us from closure. When they came again soon after that to reassess us, they noted that our Science curriculum was still completely unacceptable because it continued to mention creation. I told them that we had their official recommendation to use this curriculum. They mumbled a few things, said they’d check it out, and that we’d hear from them. The next time we heard from them it was by letter to tell us that they’d decided to permit us a conditional school registration to continue. You can’t overrule God’s sovereignty.
By the way, this same government school assessment body (VRQA) also, during one visit, questioned our school doctrinal statement that said that we believed God to be the creator and ruler of the universe. They asked us to remove it because it was blatantly anti-government. (We left it there!) They even questioned the whole of our doctrinal statement of beliefs (which was on our website) and wanted it removed too, because it was not acceptable curriculum material. I said that it was our statement of beliefs, and none of their business, and therefore they would leave it alone, thank you very much!
If the Bible is correct, then Adam’s fall was about 1650 years before the flood. (Noah may have been born not long after Adam died.) The earth was created 100% fertile, 100% productive. The growth of animal (and plant) populations would have been incredibly rapid. 1650 years of such fertile conditions (and an abundance of space) would have produced huge populations in a very short time.
Add to this the biblical fact that no death existed on earth before the fall. During this time, no animal ate another animal, and the food was abundant and wholesome. We have no idea how long it was after the creation week that Adam sinned. The Bible doesn’t give any real indication of this time-span. It could have been a long time, yet according to the Bible, no animal died during that time, for death only entered the world when sin entered. But there would have been a population explosion if you factor in the super-fertile land, wide open spaces for increased numbers, and no animal killing any other until after Adam’s fall into sin.
So, when the flood came on the scene around 2350 BC, and all animals (other than those in the Ark) were drowned, there would have been colossal piles of fossil evidence left behind for us to dig up today. In fact, if a world-wide flood were entered into the equation, it would explain a lot of things that so-called educated people try to “explain” otherwise because they just cannot believe in something that requires God to be included in the equation.
This is what it’s all about: that anything that requires God to be in the equation is being systematically removed from our belief systems until soon we will be left with a world uncontaminated by “God”. The world is being effectively sanitised against a belief in God. Anything that requires belief in God has been replaced (or will be soon!) so that more and more we can believe in the world that we want to believe in without being in any way obligated to acknowledge the existence of God. This includes evolution, marriage and sexuality, worship, rules and laws, in fact, everything that requires man to acknowledge the existence of God. And even Christian schools are being ordered to not believe in God now! How long before they tell churches that believing in God is also illegal?
Romans 1:22, 28 – Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ….. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.