Jasmine71's Weblog

March 19, 2009

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked

Help Spread the Word
var addthis_pub=”sharethisnow”;var addthis_offset_top = 0; Bookmark and Share Now

UnintelligentEvolution.com

Darwin said: “…we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” (Origin of Species, p488)

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words

The hypothesis: un-intelligence can make something intelligent, is not supported by any testable evidence, scientific principle, common sense, or even Darwin’s Origin of Species. It is useless for making testable predictions.

Darwin said: “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (Origin of Species, p. 188)

1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.

“…all physical theories…break down at the beginning of the universe.”
— Stephen Hawking.

2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the “Big Bang” defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God’s infinite nature, can exist.

3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can’t use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.

4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of “dust” and thus is part of the natural process, man’s creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.

New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.

These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don’t detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.

Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.

Fred Hoyle said: “there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible.” (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Material from Copyright: UnintelligentEvolution.com 2006-2009

Advertisements

March 10, 2009

Atheists : Princes Of Fools

This (revised) repost is in response to an atheist named Bob who claims God is not obvious . His post is very foolish. He answers my comments with sheer nonsense . God will have the last say. I assure you folks. You can read his post by going to the following link: http://irrationalbob.wordpress.com/2009/0308/an-obvious-god/

Psalm 1:7—
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”.

A popular online satellite map labels Israeli land as part of “Palestine”…A passport application, citing the birthplace of the applicant as “Jerusalem, Israel,” is refused because officials of a foreign country will not allow “Israel” to be associated with Jerusalem…These are just two recent examples of how people deny the existence of Israel. Unfortunately, since God mentions Israel over 2,500 times in His Word, when people deny the existence of Israel, they deny the existence of God, and the Bible clearly describes those who deny God as fools. What exactly is a fool? What should a fool consider in his denial? The Fool Denies God—King David paints the portrait of the prince of fools in one sentence: “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). The heart is the seat of reason and decision making, “for as he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). The word fool comes from the word nabal, which means “moral perversity.” The original text does not say, “Man is stupid.” We have gone to the moon, transplanted hearts, and harnessed atomic power—we are not stupid. David knew that, too, and picked the perfect word to talk about those who are “morally perverse.”
He is God Almighty— The word “God” in this text is not the normal word Jehovah but El Jehovah, which refers to the God of the covenant, the God who does something for us. El refers to the almighty God, the God of authority, the ruler, the judge, and the lawgiver. David’s choice of words shows that humans do not want to know a God who demands anything; they want to be free to participate unimpeded in their sinful behavior.
Hollywood labels God as someone up there who loves us. That’s true. However, He does demand that we present our bodies as living sacrifices, “holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1). We are not our own. We have been bought with a price. Paul taught that if you do not endure chastening, you are illegitimate—not a child of God (Heb. 12:5-8).
Faithlessness is foolish—A man who claims to believe in nothing still believes in something. It requires faith to be an infidel. The atheist must believe that God is not, that prayer is a waste of time, that heaven is a myth, that death is eternal unconscious existence, and that hope for a better tomorrow is weakness. The agnostic has been duped by Satan to believe the wrong things. Look at our massive universe with its innate organization and structure that work together. The fool believes that this magnificent earth is the by-product of an ecological accident. Only a fool would believe that billions of years ago the sun shone on a pond and that life began wiggling in the water, and that this life form developed lungs and legs and walked out on the land. Finally it climbed a tree and hung by its tail. Only a fool would believe that.
History Attests God—The fool denies history. Daniel asked God to show him the parade of nations that would come upon the face of the earth. God gave him a vision of the nations in the exact order in which they would appear, the personality of their leaders, and the military methods of conquest (Dan 2:7). How was that known hundreds of years before it happened?
The Risen Christ is Coming—The fool detests the Resurrection. Jesus Christ’s tomb is empty. Why? Because He is seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is alive. He is real. He is coming again in power and great glory (Matt. 24:30). How do I know God is real? I know He’s real because I can feel Him in the depths of my soul. In the Garden of Gethsemane, in the valley of the shadow of death, when the storms of life are raging, when the burdens of life are unbearable, I know He is there.
Receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and confess Him with your mouth, for “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting live. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16).
Material from :
(John Hagee Prophecy Study Bible, pp.596-597)

March 6, 2009

Atheists And Their Big Talk Against God

Atheists can’t prove there isn’t a God to Theists. Atheism is a belief system that requires blind faith.

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to this site and even link to us with derogatory remarks which is fine–they know they need Jesus, that’s why they keep coming here. They know hell isn’t a fairy tale.Atheists say, “There is no god,” like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, “The FOOL hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” In actuality, there is no such thing as a “real atheist”. Here’s an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

  1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth–criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person’s social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn’t know every single fact.
  2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars–right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He’ll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, “So in other words you know practically nothing.” The answer must be yes.The breakdown:The following box represents all the knowledge of the universe.
    empty box12

    The dot in the box represents the atheist’s knowledge of everything in the universe (the dot should be even smaller but you get the point). All the black space is unknown to them.

    . empty box1

    The X represents God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE of their extremely limited knowledge.

    . empty bo X

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we’ve seen above. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, “There is no God,” he’d have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE–and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, “I’m agnostic” although this is not true either…
We are not here by random chance or an ecological accident . Moreover, this is not a God of the Gaps illustration; For more evidence against atheism go to:
https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dna-and-protein/

I submit to you in accordance with the word of God (Romans chapter 1) that the big talkers and blasphemers know that God is real and they know that their day of judgment is coming. THAT is why they call themselves atheists–they are trying to convince themselves that that day of judgement will not come–the ostrich-head-in-the-sand syndrome. They would rather believe that a monkey is their daddy and a fly their cousin than give the reverence to God and Him alone. Plugging up your ears will not stay the wrath of God against you. When you get thrown in hell you will be without excuse and it will be too late to get it right with Jesus. It’s in this life you get it right or never. Turn or Burn. Repent or Perish [1].

Some man might say to me…

“Your God is a God of fear! A good God wouldn’t put His creatures in hell! If your God does that I don’t want Him!”

To that I say, “Oh so you want to continue in rebellion to your Maker? I see. And you got the nerve to think that you are automatically entitled to live in His home? Heaven is God’s home and it won’t be one evil, rebellious person living there. Either get washed in the blood of the Lamb or perish in the flames of hell.” An excerpt from a sermon by Charles H. Spurgeon entitled “Turn or Burn” will shed some nice light on the subject (the light maketh manifest)…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

First, we cannot expect that the God of the Bible would allow sin to go unpunished. Some may imagine it; they may dream their intellects into a state intoxication, so as to fantasize a God apart from justice; but no man who has any common sense, can imagine a God without justice.

You cannot conceive of a good king or of a good government that could exist without Justice, much less of God, the Judge and King of all the earth, without justice in His heart. To imagine Him all love, and no justice, would be to make Him less than God. He would not be capable of ruling this world if He had not justice in His heart.

There is in man a natural perception of the fact, that if God exists, He must be just; and I can cannot imagine that you can believe in a God, without believing also in the punishment of sin. It would be difficult to imagine Him elevated high above His creatures, seeing all their disobedience, and yet looking with the same composure upon the good and upon the evil; you cannot imagine Him giving the same reward of praise to the wicked and to the righteous…

This world is not the dungeon where God punishes sin…judgment is reserved for the next world…

Your own consciences will tell you that God must punish sin. You may laugh at me, and say that you have no such “belief.” I did not say you had, but I said that your conscience tells you so, and conscience has more power over men than what they think to be their belief. As John Bunyan said, “Mr. Conscience had a very loud voice, and though Mr. Understanding shut himself up in a dark room where he could not see, yet he used to thunder out so loudly in the streets, that Mr. Understanding used to shake in his house through what Mr. Conscience said.” And it is true so often.

You say in your understanding, “I cannot believe God will punish sin;” but you know He will. You don’t want to confess your secret fears because to do so would be to give up what you have so often most bravely asserted. But because you assert it with such boasting and high-sounding words, I think you don’t really believe it, for if you did, you would not need to look so big while saying it… I know that when you are dying you will believe in a hell. Conscience makes cowards of us all, and makes us believe, even when we say we don’t, that God must punish sin.

Let me tell you a story; I have told it before, but it is a striking one, and sets out in a true light how easily men will be brought in times of danger to believe in a God, and a God of justice too, though they have denied Him before. In the backwoods of Canada there lived a good minister, who one evening went out to meditate, as Isaac did, in the fields. He soon found himself on the borders of a forest, which he entered, and walked along a path which had been walked on before him; meditating, and still meditating, until at last the shadows of twilight gathered around him, and he began to think how he might have to spend the night in the forest. He trembled at the idea of remaining there, with the poor shelter of a tree that he would be compelled to climb.

All of a sudden he saw a light in the distance, among the trees, and thinking that it might be from the window of some cottage where he would find a hospitable retreat, he hurried to it, and, to his surprise saw a space cleared, and trees laid down to make a platform, and upon it a speaker addressing a multitude. He thought to himself, “I have stumbled on a crowd of people, who in this dark forest have assembled to worship God, and some minister is preaching to them, at this late hour of the evening, concerning the kingdom of God, and His righteousness;” but to his surprise and horror, when he came nearer, he found a young [man] speaking loudly against God, daring the Almighty to do His worst upon him, speaking terrible things in anger against the justice of the Most High, and venturing most bold and awful assertions concerning his own disbelief in a future state.

It was altogether a[n] extraordinary scene; it was lighted up by a fire of pine- knots which cast a glare here and there, while the thick darkness in other places still reigned. The people were intent on listening to the speaker, and when he sat down thunders of applause were given to him; each one seeming to emulate the other in his praise. The minister thought to himself, “I must not let this pass; I must rise and speak; the honor of my God and His cause demands it.” But he was afraid to speak, for he did not know what to say, having come there suddenly; but he would have spoken anyway, had not something else occurred.

A man of middle age, robust and strong, rose, and leaning on his staff, he said: “My friends, I have a word to speak to you tonight. I am not about to refute any of the arguments of the speaker; I shall not criticize his style; I shall say nothing concerning what I believe to be the blasphemies he has uttered; but I shall simply relate to you a fact, and after I have done that you shall draw your own conclusions.”

“Yesterday I walked by the side of the river over there; I saw on its waters a young man in a boat. The boat was out of control; it was going fast toward the rapids; he could not use the oars, and I saw that he was not capable of bringing the boat to the shore. I saw that young man wring his hands in agony; in a little while he gave up the attempt to save his life, kneeled down and cried with a desperate sincerity, ‘O God! save my soul! If my body can’t be saved, save my soul.’ I heard him confess that he had been a blasphemer; I heard him vow that if his life were spared he would never be such again; I heard [him] implore the mercy of heaven for Jesus Christ’s sake, and earnestly plead that he might be washed in His blood. These arms saved that young man from the river, I dove in, brought the boat to shore, and saved his life. That same young man has just now addressed you, and cursed his Maker. What do you say, Sirs?”

The speaker sat down. You may guess what a shudder ran through the young man himself, and how the audience in one moment changed their mind, and saw that after all, while it was a fine thing to brag and boast against Almighty God on dry land, and when danger was distant, it was not quite so grand to think ill of Him when near the verge of the grave. We believe there is enough conscience in every man to convince him that God must punish him for his sin; therefore we think that our text will awaken an echo in every heart.–“If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.” (Psalms 7:12)

…O, sirs, you may think that the fire of hell is indeed a fiction, and that the flames of the pit that lies beneath the earth’s surface are but someone’s dreams; but if you are believers in the Bible you must believe that hell is real. Did not our Master say: “Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched?” You say it is metaphorical fire. But what did He mean by this: “Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Is it not written, that there is reserved for the devil and his angels dreadful torment? And do you not know that our Master said: “They will go away to eternal punishment;” “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels?”

There is not a man who has been born and educated in this land whose conscience does not know that the existence of hell is a reality. All I need to do is to press upon your anxious consideration this thought: Do you feel that you are a fit subject for heaven now? Do you feel that God has changed your heart and renewed your nature? If not, I beg you lay hold of the thought, that unless you are born again then all that can be dreadful in the torments of the future world must inevitably be yours. Dear listener, apply it to yourself, not to your fellow men, but to your own conscience, and may God Almighty make use of it to bring you to repentance.

Sinner! You are so desperately set on sin, that I have no hope that you will ever turn from it of yourself. But, listen! He who died on Calvary is exalted on high “to give repentance and forgiveness of sin.” Do you this morning feel that you are a sinner? If so, ask Christ to give you repentance, for He can work repentance in your heart by His Spirit, though you can’t work it there yourself. Is your heart like iron? He can put it into the furnace of his love and make it melt. Is your soul like a very hard rock? His grace is able to dissolve it, like the ice is melted before the sun. He can make you repent…

O! what would I give if one of my listener[s] should be blessed by God to go home, and repent! If I had worlds to buy one of your souls, I would readily give them, if I might but bring one of you to Christ. I shall never forget the hour when God’s mercy first looked on me. It was in a place very different from this, among a despised people, in an insignificant little chapel of a peculiar sect…

I went there bowed down with guilt, laden with sins. The minister walked up the pulpit stairs, opened his Bible, and read that precious text: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:22) and, as I thought, fixing his eyes on me, before he began to preach to others, he said: “Young man! Turn! Turn! Turn! You are one of the ends of the earth; you feel you are; you know your need of a Savior; you are trembling because you think He will never save you. He says this morning ‘Turn!'”

O how my soul was shaken within me then! What! I thought, does that man know me, and all about me? He seemed as if he did. And it made me “look!” Well, I thought, lost or saved, I will try; sink or swim, I will run the risk of it; and in that moment by His grace I turned to Jesus, and though desponding, downcast, and ready to despair, and feeling that I would rather die than live as I had lived, at that very moment it seemed as if a new heaven had had its birth within my conscience. I went home, no longer cast down; those who saw me, noticing the change, asked me why I was so glad, and I told them I had believed in Jesus, and that it was written,

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2)

O! if one such person like I was should be here this morning. Where are you, you chief of sinners, you vilest of the vile? My dear listener, you have never been in church perhaps these last twenty years; but here you are covered with your sins, the blackest and vilest of all! Hear God’s Word. “Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” And all this for Jesus’ sake; all this for His blood’s sake! “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved;”…

Sinner, TURN from your sins or BURN for your sins!


[1] When we say perish, it does not mean that people will cease to exist. They will be forever tormented in hell and the lake of fire. To perish in our context is to be banished from the presence of God to everlasting punishment. John 3:16 tells us, “…that whosoever believeth in him [Jesus] should not PERISH but have everlasting life.” Those persons who find perdition their eternal home have perished and they will live forever in torment.

Written by Earnest Baxter on the Jesus-is-lord.com website


March 4, 2009

Atheism Debunked Again -Mutations

This is the third post in a series that shows the sheer folly of Evolution and therefore atheism; it is dedicated to an atheist blogger who demands proof. Please go to https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/the-atheists-religon-debunked-again/ to see the second post. The following material comes from evolution-facts.org

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 10A

Mutations part 1


Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change

This chapter is based on pp. 393-459 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 134 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures the individual; but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, it will be passed on to his descendants.

Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution.

Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only means (mechanisms) by which it could occur.

In the chapter on Fossils and Strata, we will learn that there is simply no evidence that evolution of life-forms has ever occurred in the past. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we learned that the accidental gene reshuffling (which evolutionists call “natural selection”) can indeed produce changes within species—but are totally incapable of producing different species.

So that brings us to mutations. The study of mutations is crucial! It is all that the evolutionists have left! If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can.

In this chapter you will learn that, far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,—they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear radiation is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that irreparably damage our bodies.

THE LAST HOPEIt is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.

“It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon.”—*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.

“The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

Yet they have not been able to provide proof that mutations produce evolution.

“The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.”—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, pp. 183 and 205.

OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATIONMutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.

Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficial—at least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.

NEO-DARWINISM—(*#1/25 What the Public is not Told*) When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the species.

Since then, scientists have diligently searched for examples—past or present—of natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horses—from miniatures to large workhorses to zebras,—but all are still horses.

Finding that so-called “natural selection” accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life-forms on Planet Earth.

“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations.”—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive.

1 – FOUR SPECIAL PROBLEMS

In reality, mutations have four special qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists:

(1) RARE EFFECTSMutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology,” in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life-form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Mechanism of Evolution,” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

(2) RANDOM EFFECTSMutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.

“It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next.”—*C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98.

*Eden declares that the factor of randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution.

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws.”—*Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109.

Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures.

Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.

EC322.jpg (234919 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

(3) NOT HELPFULEvolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”—*H.J. Muller, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

As mentioned earlier, scientists turned to neo-Darwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists on the neo-Darwinian bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings, even he knew he was on thin ice:

“A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear.”—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this:

“One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism.”—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.

So there you have it: four special facts about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate even one species into another, much less produce all the species in the world.

Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

MILLIONS OF MUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS—At this point, you might ask, “How can we be certain of such facts about mutations if they are so rare?” That is a good question.

The answer is this: Although mutations only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory researchers have learned how to produce mutations at will. The usual method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A sufficient amount of X-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of thousands of mutations, on millions of generations of certain creatures. More on this later in this chapter.

BASIS OF EVOLUTION—Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals.

Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life-form might greatly improve.

Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life-forms will emerge.

Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs. *Carl Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy!

“We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant.”—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.

Sagan’s idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level.

We have already mentioned four facts about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random in what they do. (3) They are never really beneficial. (4) They are harmful or lethal. But now the situation gets worse.

2 – TWENTY-EIGHT REASONS

Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution:

1 – NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!

Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution?

“Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, p. 102.

2 – ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not outright kill are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.

This gradual buildup of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.

“The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals.”—*Christopher Wills, “Genetic Load,” in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.

3 – USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out.

The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!

“After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.

“If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a dear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze.”—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174.

4 – MUTAGENSIt is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants.

It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts. How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life?

If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous. Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve?

“The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations.”—*Christopher Wills, “Genetic Load,” in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.

5 – DANGEROUS ACCIDENTSHow often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before?

Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]

Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.

“We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.

Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes:

“Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization.”—*Helen Bullock, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery,” The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.

6 – INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!

Touch such a delicate system with mutations and you produce interlocking havoc.

7 – ONLY RANDOM EFFECTS—So far in this chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of random results. What if mutations were plentiful and always with positive results, but still random as they now are? They would still be useless.

Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized.

Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their armpits or on the soles of their feet.

The random effects of mutations would annihilate any value they might otherwise provide.

8 – ALL AFFECTEDMutations tend to have a widespread effect on the genes.

“Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual . . Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole.”—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].

Each mutation takes its toll on large numbers—even all the genes, directly or indirectly; and since 99 percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas, they could not possibly bring about the incredible life-forms we find all about us.

Since each altered characteristic requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many genes would have to be mutated in a GOOD way to accomplish anything worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful.

More generations of fruit flies have been experimented on for mutational effects than mankind could have lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly produces “a new generation” in a few short hours; whereas a human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations have been breeding fruit flies for 80 years.

Thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile mutations. But only damage and death has resulted.

“Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs.”—*Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.

9 – LIKE THROWING ROCKS—Trying to accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you receive from your television set).

*H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad.”—*H.J. Muller, “How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution,” in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331.

10 – MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9 Math on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.

Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!

The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.

More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.

But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.

(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)

“The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism.”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that’s it.

11 – TIME IS NO SOLUTION—But someone will say, “Well, it can be done—if given enough time.” Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job of producing all the wonders of nature that you see about you. But 5 billion years is, in seconds, only 1 with 17 zeros (1 X 1017) after it. And the whole universe only contains 1 X 1080 atomic particles. So there is no possible way that all the universe and all time past could produce such odds as would be needed for the task! *Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionary spokesman of mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).

Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. And all those mutations would have to be non-random and intelligently planned! In no other way could they accomplish the needed task.

But, leaving the fairyland of evolutionary theory, to the real world, which only has rare, random, and harmful mutations, we must admit that mutations simply cannot do the job.

And there is no other way that life-forms could invent and reinvent themselves by means of that mythical process called “evolution.”

“A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.”—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1955), p. 73.

12 – GENE STABILITYIt is the very rarity of mutations that guarantees the stability of the genes. Because of that, the fossils of ancient plants and animals are able to look like those living today.

“Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more.” “Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years.”—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.

“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.”—*Edouard Kellenberger, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” in Scientific American, December 1966, p. 32.

13 – AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending years studying mutations, *Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter this way:

“If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms.

“The fact that systems [such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342.

14 – SYNTROPY—This principle was mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also. *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a theory which he called syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the chance results of mutations. It is an important point.

“In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of ‘survival of the fittest’ would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ.”—Jerry Bergman, “Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s Theory of Syntropy,” in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337.

15 – MINOR CHANGES DAMAGE OFFSPRING THE MOST—With painstaking care, geneticists have studied mutations for decades. An interesting feature of these accidents in the genes, called mutations, deals a stunning blow to the hopes of neo-Darwinists. Here, in brief, is the problem:

(1) Most mutations have very small effects; some have larger ones. (2) Small mutations cannot accomplish the needed task, for they cannot produce evolutionary changes. Only major mutational changes, with wide-ranging effects in an organism, can possibly hope to effect the needed changes from one species to another.

And now for the new discovery: (3) It is only the minor mutational changes which harm one’s descendants. The major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its offspring!

“One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.

“The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect.”—*George Gaylord Simpson, “Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory,” Chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.

16 – WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN ONE GENERATION—Not even one major mutation, affecting a large number of organic factors, could accomplish the task of taking an organism across the species barrier. Hundreds of mutations—all positive ones,—and all working together would be needed to produce a new species. The reason: The formation of even one new species would have to be done all at once—in a single generation!

“Since Lamarck’s theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin’s theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations . . deVries’ theory [large mutations, or hopeful monsters”] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of offspring.”—*Mark A. Hall and *Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in Biology, (1966), p. 363.

17 – INCONSEQUENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS—A major problem here is that, on one hand, mutations are damaging and deadly; but on the other,—aside from the damage—they only directly change small features.

“Is it really certain, then, as the neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is a settled matter? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine of neo-Darwinism . .

“The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ or the priming for a new function.”—*Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79.

*Richard Goldschmidt was the geneticist who first proposed miraculous multimillion, beneficial mutations as the only possible cause of species crossover. (More on this later.) This is what he wrote about the inconsequential nature of individual mutations:

“Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.”—*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94.

Later in this chapter, we will briefly discuss *Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” theory, since it is based on mutational changes.

18 – TRAITS ARE TOTALLY INTERCONNECTED—Experienced geneticists are well-aware of the fact that the traits contained within the genes are closely interlocked with one another. That which affects one trait will affect many others. They work together. Because of this, all the traits, in changed form, would have to all be there together—instantly,—in order for a new species to form!

Here is how two scientists describe the problem:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.”—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

“Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again.”—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, “Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself,” Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977), [Winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].

19 – TOO MANY RELATED FACTORS—There are far too many factors associated with each trait for a single mutation—or even several to accomplish the needed task. Mathematical probabilities render mutational species changes impossible of attainment.

“Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 480 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence; ‘random mutations,’ to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression.”—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

20 – REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW—Here is an extremely IMPORTANT point: Mutational changes in the reproductive cells occur far more infrequently than in the cells throughout the rest of the body. Only mutational changes within the male or female reproductive cells could affect oncoming generations.

“The mutation rates for somatic cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic cells.”—*”Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process,” in Science, August 23, 1963, p. 694.

21 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES INCREASING COMPLEXITY—The theorists have decreed that evolution, by its very nature, must move upward into ever-increasing complexity, better structural organization, and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal dictum of evolutionists. Evolutionists maintain that evolution can only move upward toward more involved life-forms,—and that it can never move backward into previously evolved life-forms.

But, in reality, mutations, by their very nature, tear down, disorganize, crumble, confuse, and destroy.

Here is how one scientist explains the problem:

“One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies.

“Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars.

“The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?”—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 51.

22 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW INFORMATIONIn order for a new organism to be formed by evolutionary change, new information banks must be emplaced. It is something like using a more advanced computer program; a “card” of more complicated procedural instructions must be put into the central processing unit of that computer. But the haphazard, random results of mutations could never provide this new, structured information.

“If evolution is to occur . . living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information.”—*George Gaylord Simpson, “The Non-prevalence of Humanoids,” in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

23 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW ORGANSIt is not enough for mutations to produce changes;—they must produce new organs! Billions of mutational factors would be required for the invention of one new organ of a new species, and this mutations cannot do.

“A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale.”—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958).

24 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED NETWORKING—A relatively new field of scientific study is called “linkage,” “linkage interconnections,” or “networking.” This is an attempt to analyze the network of interrelated factors in the body. I say, “an attempt,” for there are millions of such linkages. Each structure or organ is related to another—and also to thousands of others. (A detailed study of this type of research will be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for March 1984, pp. 199-211. Ten diagrams and seven charts are included.)

Our concern here is that each mutation would damage a multi-link network. This is one of the reasons why mutations are always injurious to an organism.

The kidneys interconnect with the circulatory system, for they purify the blood. They also interconnect with the nervous system, the endocrine system, the digestive system, etc. But such are merely major systems. Far more is included. We are simply too fearfully and wonderfully made for random mutations to accomplish any good thing within our bodies.

25 – VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE MUTATIONS—”Visible mutations” are those genetic changes that are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. *Winchester explains: (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill.

“Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.”—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356.

26 – NEVER HIGHER VITALITY THAN PARENT—Geneticists, who have spent a lifetime studying mutations, tell us that each mutation only weakens the organism. Never does the mutated offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated) parent.

“There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his].

27 – MUTATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING SPECIES CHANGE—Theory, theory, lots of theory, but it just isn’t happening!

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”—*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].”—*Richard B. Goldschmdt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, “American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

A “nascent organ” is one that is just coming into existence. None have ever been observed.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”—*Michael Pitman Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68.

28 – GENE UNIQUENESS FORBIDS SPECIES CHANGEThe very fact that each species is so different than the others—forbids the possibility that random mutations could change them into new species. There are million of factors which make each species different than all the others. The DNA code barrier that would have to be crossed is simply too immense.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.”—*Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, October 25, 1969, p. 342.


You have just completed

Chapter 10 Mutations Part 1

Chapter 10 Mutations Part 2


EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Material from evolution-facts.org

March 3, 2009

The Atheist’s Religion Debunked Again

This is the second post in a series that shows the sheer folly of Evolution and therefore atheism; it is dedicated to an atheist blogger who demands proof. Please go to the following link https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dna-and-protein/
to see the first post.

The following material comes from evolution-facts.org

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 18

The Laws of Nature


The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory

This chapter is based on pp. 805-829 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 37 statements in the chapter of the larger book, plus 87 more in its appendix. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

According to evolutionary theory, all matter came into existence by itself. At a later time on our planet, living creatures quite literally “made themselves.” Such views sound like Greek myths. But if these theories are true,—where did the laws of nature come from? Too often these are overlooked. There are a variety of very complicated natural laws. How did these come into existence? People assume that they too just sprung up spontaneously. But they are assuming too much.

INTRODUCTION—This chapter is of such importance that after reading it, someone will say, “Why did you not place it at the beginning of the book?” Someone else might add, “All you need is this chapter—and you can omit the rest!”

The earlier portions of this volume met evolution on its own ground. When given a hearing, common sense combined with scientific facts will always tear the theory of evolution to pieces.

Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws that crush those pillars to powder. Let us look at the two evolutionary pillars and the two laws that destroy them:

(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating; it can arise from nothing and increase. The First Law of Thermodynamics annihilates this error.

(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex, and continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory.

1- LOOKING AT LAW

DESIGNS AND LAWS—In our civilizations, we find that it is highly intelligent people who design the machinery and make the laws that govern the nation. Because of our human limitations, much time needs to be spent in improving man-made mechanical designs and rewriting human laws.

But in nature we find the perfection in design and laws which humans cannot achieve. Every bird and animal is perfectly designed, and fossil evidence indicates that each one has had the same design all the way back to its first appearance in the fossil record. The laws of nature are perfect also. If we need evidence about the perfection of natural laws, now and in the past, all we need do is gaze upon the planets, moons, stars, and galactic systems. The perfect balancing of their rotations on their axes and revolutions (orbits) around still larger spheres or star complexes is astounding. The laws are operating with total precision. Any aberration of those laws in the past would have brought the suns and stars and systems—and our own world— crashing in upon each other. The evidence is clear that, from the most distant past, the laws of nature have operated accurately.

NO SELF-MADE LAWS—Evolutionists work on three basic assumptions: (1) laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion, (2) matter originated from nothing, and (3) living things came from non-living things.

But just as matter and life did not make itself, so law did not make itself either.

“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are inter-dependent.”—*W.H. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

“Even if one day we find our knowledge of the basic laws concerning inanimate nature to be complete, this would not mean that we had “explained” all of inanimate nature. All we should have done is to show that all the complex phenomena of our experience are derived from some simple basic laws. But how to explain the laws themselves?”—*R.E. Peieris, The Laws of Nature, (1956), p. 240.

THE LAW OF MANUFACTURE—A law is a principle that is never, never violated. Let us for a moment postulate a couple candidates for new laws:

A cardinal rule of existence would be this. We shall call it the Law of Manufacture. We could word the law something like this: The maker of a product has to be more complicated than the product.” The equipment needed to make a bolt and nut had to be far more complex than the bolt and nut! Let us call that the First Law of Products.

Here is another “law” to consider. We will call this one the Law of Originator, and describe it in this way: The designer of a product has to be more intelligent than the product.” Let us return to the bolt and nut for our example of what we shall call our Second Law of Products.

Neither the bolt nor the nut made themselves. But more: the person who made this bolt and nut had to be far more intelligent than the bolt and nut, and far more intelligent than the production methods used to make it.

MANY LAWS—There are many, many laws operating in the natural world. It is intriguing that there are also moral laws operating among human beings: laws of honesty, purity, etc. We get into trouble when we violate moral law—the Ten Commandments,—just as when we violate natural laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

“Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise. Without them your theories are vain surmises. But while you are studying, observing, experimenting, do not remain content with the surface of things. Do not become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin. Seek obstinately for the laws that govern them!”—*lvan Pavlov, quoted in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 99.

Let us now consider the two special laws that we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter: the two laws of thermodynamics. As with other laws, these two laws operate throughout the universe.

The first is a law of conservation that works to preserve the basic categories of nature (matter, energy, etc.). The second is a law of decay that works to reduce the useful amount of matter, energy, etc., as the original organization of the cosmos tends to run down.

Let us now closely examine each of these laws:

2 – THE TWO LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—Simply stated, the First Law of Thermodynamics (hereinafter called “the First Law”) is also called the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy..

It says this: Energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged .”

Einstein showed that matter is but another form of energy, as expressed in the equation: E = MC2 (E = Energy, m = mass, c2 = velocity of light squared). A nuclear explosion (such as we find in an “atomic” bomb) suddenly changes a small amount of matter into energy. But, according to the First Law, the sum total of energy (or its sister, matter) will always remain the same. None of it will disappear by itself. (The corollary is that no new matter or energy will make itself.)

“The Law of Energy Conservation—‘Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created nor destroyed,’—is the most important and best-proved law in science. This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.”—*Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 6.

Since matter/energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself, only an outside agency or power can make or destroy it..

“The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside of and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.”—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.

THE ENTROPY PROBLEM

EC782.jpg (148761 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Only a power outside of all energy and matter could overrule the Second Law. *Blum of Princeton University has written:.

“The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 201 [emphasis ours].

And now we come to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and here we find an astounding proof that the entire evolutionary theory is totally incorrect:

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—(*#1/16 Universality of the Second Law*) The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also called the Law of Increasing Entropy (or disorder).

“It is a very broad and very general law, and because its applications are so varied it may be stated in a great variety of ways.”—*E.S. Greene, Principles of Physics (1962), p. 310.

Here are the three most important applications of this law:

“1. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

“2. Statistical Thermodynamics: The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder).

“3. Informational Thermodynamics: The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete.”—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987) p. 199.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

All science bows low before the Second Law. Genuine scientists do also. The exception would be (1) the evolutionists who, with no hesitation, ignore not only the First and Second Law, but also other principles and laws (such as those which govern matter, life, the DNA species wall, mutations, etc.), and (2) a number of scientists who did not receive an adequate education in basic laws in their university training, and therefore are favorable to deception by Darwinian errors. Such men have no clear conception of the fundamental laws governing nature. Evolution is an outlaw theory, and those who bow to it refuse to acknowledge the proper authority of law.

“To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently a few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem [of the Second Law] and who are trying to solve it.”—*Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, “Thermodynamics of Evolution,” Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, pp. 23-28 [Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University Libre de Belgique and one of the world’s leading thermodynamicists].

Regardless of the excuses that evolutionists may offer, the Second Law rises above the foibles and errors of mankind, and will not be overthrown.

“The Entropy Principle will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe.”—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 6.

THE INEVITABLE ARROW—(*#2/16 Entropy Is Always Increasing*) It was *Sir Arthur Eddington, a leading astronomer who coined the term “Time’s Arrow” to succinctly describe this second law. He said the arrow points downward, never upward. Although evolution requires an upward arrow; the Second Law says, “No, an upward arrow is not permissible.”

“There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy.”—*R.R. Kindsay, “Physics: to What Extent Is it Deterministic,” in American Scientist 56 (1968), p. 100.

“How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about.”—*Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970.

EVOLUTION SAYS NO—(*#3/12 Evolution Claims to be above the Second Law*) (*#3/12 Evolution Claims to be above the Second Law*) Evolution teaches an upward arrow all the way from nothingness to the present and on into a glorious future when mankind will eventually evolve into godlike creatures with fantastic minds, engaged in intergalactic space trips while founding intergalactic space empires.

You may recall a statement by a confirmed evolutionist, quoted earlier in this set of books, that the marvelous powers of evolution brought man out of dust, through microbes and monkeys to his present state and that, hereafter, we may next change into clouds. Here is that quotation again:

“In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of years.”—*Freemen Dyson, 1988 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician].

Although evolution is contrary to many physical laws, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, throughout the remainder of this chapter we will primarily concern ourselves with the Second Law.

Evolutionary theory stands in obvious defiance of the Second Law, but evolutionists declare that this is no problem, for they declare their theory to be above law!

3 – EVOLUTIONARY EXCUSES

“OPEN SYSTEMS” ARGUMENT—(*#5/5 The Second Law and Crystallization*) The evolutionist argument goes this way: Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say!

It is obvious that their neat denial denies too much. They argument effectively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are! In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best “open systems” of all!

ERROR IN “OPEN SYSTEM”—(*#4/12 The Second Law and Open Systems*) Here is the answer to this naive argument: An influx of heat energy into a so-called “open system” (in this case, solar heat entering our planet) would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues apace, just as the scientists said it would.

Reputable scientists discovered the working of the Second Law, yet sunshine was bathing the earth when they found it! If sunlight abrogated the Second Law, scientists could not have discovered the law.

But there is more: Heat energy flowing into our world does not decrease entropy—it increases it! The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more will its entropy and disorder increase. Energy by itself increases entropy, therefore random energy or heat will increase entropy.

Opening a system to random external heat energy will increase the entropy in that system even more rapidly than if it remained closed. Oxidation is increased, chemical actions speed up, and other patterns of degeneration quicken.

TEMPORARILY SLOWING THE SECOND LAW—Is there no way to temporarily curtail the effects of the Second Law? Yes, there is:

Energy that is brought into a system from outside, AND which is intelligently controlled and directed, can temporarily interfere with the operation of the Second Law. It can for a time apparently stop entropy. But deliberate, ongoing effort has to be expended to accomplish this. To say it another way: The effects of the tearing down process of entropy have to be constantly repaired. Consider the following:

There are many systems, especially artificial ones (buildings, machinery) and living systems (plants, animals) which appear to run counter to the Second Law. We walk down the street and stand in front of a house: A higher intelligence (intelligence higher than that which the building has) carefully constructed the building, keeps it heated, air conditioned, dehumidified, and in good repair. In spite of this, the building gradually ages. Eventually the higher intelligence steps back and stops repairing, replacing, and repainting—and the building decays much more rapidly and finally falls to pieces.

Ordered systems, such as a kept-up building or maintaining a human body, are working within the Second Law, not outside of it.

“Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

Consider a human body: We have to constantly feed, bathe, oxygenate, and maintain it, or it would immediately die. Yet, all the while, it keeps weakening. Eventually it dies anyway. But, before it did, the body produced offspring. But later the offspring die also.

*Harold F. Blum, a biochemist at Princeton, wrote an entire book on the Second Law. He maintains that this law does indeed apply to our world and to everything in it—including living creatures.

“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems, we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles [the First and Second Law], but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 14 [emphasis ours].

INFORMATION VS. THE LAWTheoreticians have decided that information is a partial disproof of the Second Law. The idea goes somewhat like this: If you were to write down all the sunspot data about a star for ages and ages, the star might be decaying, but your data would be increasing! This fact is thought to mean something, but it really proves nothing. It is just armchair theorizing. Nevertheless, it is a matter of deep concern to some.

Here is the answer to this “information theory” puzzle in regard to entropy: The men gathering the sunspot data keep dying, and if others do not take their place, the data is eventually lost or rots away. The gathering of data is much like continually repainting a house. As long as we keep working at it, the inevitable decay of entropy is masked over. But set the papers aside for a time and the information becomes out-of-date, and the paper it is on crumbles to dust.

QUANTITY VS. CONVERSION—Of all the arguments defending evolutionary theory against the Second Law, the “open system” argument is the most common. But the problem is that in using the “open system” defense, the evolutionists confuse quantity of energy (of which there certainly is enormous amounts sent us from the sun) with conversion of energy.

NO EVOLUTION EVEN IN AN OPEN SYSTEM—(*#5/5 The Second Law and Crystallization*) But even if “open systems” negated the Second Law, there could still be no evolution. The problem is how would the sun’s energy begin and sustain evolutionary development? How can sunlight originate life? How can it produce a living cell or a living species? How could it change one species into another one?

4 – SOLIDITY OF THE SECOND LAW

ACKNOWLEDGED BY LEADING SCIENTISTS—(*#6/12 The Second Law Destroys Evolutionary Theory*) Dedicated evolutionists declare that evolution stands above the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is not subject to it. In contrast, many of the world’s leading scientists maintain that everything is subject to the Second Law. *Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) was a leading British astronomer of the first half of the 20th century. He said this:

“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.

*Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is generally considered to have had one of the outstanding scientific minds of the 20th century. He made this highly significant statement regarding “classical thermodynamics,” which is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:

“[A law] is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”—*Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Universe,” in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509; also in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.

Einstein said that the First and Second Laws were so inviolate because they applied to so many things. By the same rule, we could speak of another law, the Law of Creatorship, and declare that it is even more inviolate. Everything in the skies above and the earth beneath witnesses to the fact that God made it all!

The Second Law has never failed to be substantiated::

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigation without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.”—*G.N. Lewis and *M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.”—*A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.

THE SECOND LAW POINTS TO THE CREATOR—(*#7/6 The Second Law Requires a Beginning / #8/7 The Laws and their Maker*) According to the First Law, matter can only be produced by an outside agency or power. According to the Second Law, its decay can only be postponed by activity of an outside agency or power.

“The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), pp. 201 [emphasis ours].

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator. The greatest scientists acknowledge the universality of this law. But if everything, everywhere is running down, Who got it started originally? If everything is moving toward an end, then it had to have a beginning!

The Second Law testifies to the fact that there was a beginning to everything, and therefore a Beginner.

“The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?”—*Paul C.W. Davies (1979).

All the stars and all of nature testify that there is a Creator. The perfect designs of nature and the precision of natural law—point us to the One who prepared all these things. Look at a pansy or a rose; pet a rabbit; watch a hummingbird in action. Consider the awesome wonders of island universes with their complex inter-orbiting suns. There is One who stands above and beyond all of this. One who made it all, who is thoughtful of the needs of the universe and cares for His own.

“It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”—*P.A.M. Dirac, “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature,” in Scientific American, May 1963, p. 53.

“The authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a Creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.”—Sonntag and Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 2nd Ed. Vol. 1 (1973), p. 248.

Very important: In order to round out your understanding of this topic, you will want to read the section, “Six Strange Teachings of Evolution” in chapter 10, Mutations. It presents several aspects of evolutionary theory which run remarkably opposite to the laws of thermodynamics, and also to common sense: (1) Evolution operates only upward, never downward; (2) evolution operates irreversibly; (3) evolution operates from smaller to bigger; (4) evolution only operates from less to more complex; (5) evolution only operates from less to more perfect; (6) evolution is not repeatable.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

Daniel Bernoulie was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulie’s principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well. These little creatures admirably apply this principle in making their underground tunnel cities.

The burrows have two openings—one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones. They work hard to make that second opening higher than the flat one on ground level. Having done this, the Bernoulie principle takes effect and nicely aerates their burrows with fresh air.

CHAPTER 18 – STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

THE LAWS OF NATURE

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1- If everything is under law, where did those laws come from? Could they have made themselves? Do human laws make themselves?

2 – Explain the “first and second laws of products.”

3 – Are even the smallest and largest things under laws? Why?

4 – There are many types of physical laws. There are also moral laws, and different health laws. Think about this and list about 12 different natural laws.

5 – Define and explain the First Law of Thermodynamics.

6 – In what way does evolution agree or disagree with the First Law.

7 – Define and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

8 – In what way does evolution agree or disagree with the Second Law.

9 – – Why do scientists speak of an “arrow” in describing the Second Law?

10 – Give three examples from practical life of the Second Law in operation.

11 – Discuss the flaws in the “open systems” argument.

12 – Some say that the Second Law only applies to “closed systems,” and that our solar system and everything in it is an “open system,” and therefore not subject to the Second Law. Explain why that idea is wrong. Everything in the universe is either a closed system, and both laws apply to everything, or everything in the universe is an open system, and both laws apply to nothing.

13 – Why do evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory is “above all law”?

14 – Write a brief paragraph or two, describing what scientists say about the importance and universality of the Second Law.




EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Only intelligent comments (positive and negative) will be posted.

« Newer Posts

Blog at WordPress.com.