Critical Thinking
An Apologetic Defense for Creation
Foreword
I present this argument from a little different perspective. Instead of focusing on the comparison of evidence between creation and evolution, I focus primarily on the evolution argument itself. With only a few exceptions, I quote evolutionists themselves and not creation sources. There are a couple of reasons I have taken this approach. First and primarily is that people have the tendency to believe the last argument they hear. If I present all the evidence for creation, many may think it sounds good. However, when they hear it from the evolutionary side, it will be presented as a viable argument as well. This leaves people confused and not knowing what to believe. My goal is to show the need to critique what we are hearing rather than to be led by the hand to the conclusion evolution wants us to accept.
Second, when the evidence is presented, I hear the same criticisms. Evolutionists discredit creation sources without giving them an ear. I hear comments like, "These are the same old arguments with the same evidence". However, in this case almost everything is presented directly from evolutionary sources. Now the criticism I am hearing on this paper is, "Where is the evidence, you are hiding from it". In reality, a committed evolutionist will believe what they have already pre-determined themselves to believe. My hope is that people will not just believe the group that shouts the loudest or presents the last argument, but they will examine what is presented and look past the argument to the substance. Instead of being led by the hand to what evolution wants them to see while avoiding the contradictions, I want people to see and question.
I also want to address one last issue since I have already received much criticism regarding my definition of evolution. I have been told that my whole argument is worthless because I don't know the difference between biological evolution and physics or astronomy. However, I never identified evolution as biological only. Physics, astronomy and biology are all presented by evolutionists as a part of the evolutionary model. When I refer to evolution, I am referring to the evolutionary concept or model. Contrary to the claims of critics, the 'Big Bang' is just as much a part of evolution as the formation of life, chance mutations, and natural selection. The galaxies support or contradict evolution just as much as biological evolution.
With such a wide scope to defend, many evolutionists try to separate the two and claim that arguments against one part of the model are irrelevant to their defense in another part of the model, but this is not true. If the planets and galaxies did not form, neither could life. I use the noose that evolutionists tie in every area and I show how they hang themselves. The only way an evolutionist can defend evolution against its own leaders is to put leaders into separate categories. Most respondents have tried to distance themselves from the leaders I quote, but if the leaders and those fashioning the model are wrong, the model is wrong.
Table of Contents:
The Psychology behind the argument
Discredit anyone who believes in
either.
How do we know ‘Theistic Evolution’
is wrong?
Does a gene have intelligence?
Where did the knowledge to
manipulate come from?
Did this show evolution or
design?
The Psychology behind the argument
One important thing that we should be aware of is the intimidation that precedes the evolution debate. The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently preceded the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state is from that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.
If these two facts were true, then evolution would have a valid argument. The true debate is whether these two ‘facts’ are facts. It is taken by faith that these two must be true. Therefore, everything else must agree with these two true statements. Creation challenges these two statements. These are founded purely on faith and cannot be defended scientifically, therefore, evolution defenders turn to psychology – whether they realize it or not.
The psychology of the argument is a two-step process. One, intimidate critics; two, establish claims to authority.
Intimidate critics
Most of the critics of evolution are Bible believing Christians. Evolution arguments are presented with the knowledge that Christian scrutiny will follow. Because of this, evolutionists will almost always attempt to silence critics by discrediting the Bible, discrediting creation as non-science, and to discredit anyone who believes in either.
Discredit the Bible
Here is one example of attempting to make Bible believes ashamed of their held belief of the truth of scripture.
Frank Zindler
The people who transmitted the books of the Bible were, of course, not very honest people. They had an axe to grind. And so we see that the later the manuscripts, the more harmonious they become. But the earliest manuscripts show great contradiction.
This is a typical type of argument. Frank stated a fact without facts. In the debate I copied this from, he offered no sources to back his claim and the Bible defender did not challenge this claim. There is a wealth of information that supports the reliability of scripture. Critics of the Bible base their arguments on assumptions and those assumptions are stated as fact. For example, when Peter Jennings aired his documentary on ‘The Search for Jesus’, he only used liberal scholars that are known to openly denied the scriptures. They argued that the apostles were not reliable witnesses and Jesus didn’t rise from the dead but was eaten by dogs. They offered no evidence to support this contradiction of scripture and they did not even acknowledge (much less attempt to refute) the evidence that supports the resurrection. This evidence comes from both biblical and non-biblical sources. According the liberal scholars, the eyewitnesses were not reliable and should not be believed, but liberal scholars who openly grind their axes and state their preconceived belief that no miracles are true or reliable are reliable. Something is wrong with this picture. Eyewitnesses are unreliable because they lived 2,000 years ago, but men who live 2,000 years later and saw nothing are reliable?
What evidence is ever presented that gives credibility to the early church altering scriptures because they have an axe to grind? Only the testimonies of men in the 21st century who do have an axe to grind. It is the enemies of scripture that establish themselves as the authority that supposedly disproves the Bible. It is not a coincidence that almost every essay or argument presented to disprove creation focuses on attacking scripture and highlighting the failure of men who claim to be Christians and seldom addresses any of the real evidence that supports scripture. This is a favorite tactic against creation. If you discredit the Bible then the Genesis account by default becomes unreliable. Since they cannot find evidence, they establish themselves as authoritative and their speculation is counted as evidence.
Discredit creation
When pitted fact against fact, evolution can’t stand up against creation. Therefore, the facts are bypassed for an easier target. A straw man is built and then pulverized. The easiest way to attack creation is to define it in terms that you can attack. Instead of rebutting the facts creation science presents, it is easier to just call it religion and put it into an ‘unscientific’ category and then ignore it. Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:
Anthony J. M. Garret:
"This debate is too often conducted as a scientific debate, which it is not. It is a theological debate".
George H. Smith
Faith is intellectually dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity.
By faith, Smith means faith in the Bible. Faith in evolution is acceptable. Instead of answering the objections, evolutionists will just label it as a theological debate and then sweep it under the rug by attacking their concept of faith instead of the facts. There is a clear attempt at making creation believers feel intimidated by classifying their faith as unscientific or intellectual dishonesty. We should be aware of this strategy. The purpose behind it is to eliminate critical thinking by putting Christians on the defensive. When statements like these are issued, the focus is shifted away from the issue of the facts and put on theology which can be used to create smokescreens. It is important not to allow your mind to be sidetracked into the box they are shaping. Instead, we should cut through the red tape and put our focus on the actual argument for evolution or against creation. If we are sidetracked, we are less likely to point out the flaws in the evolution logic.
Discredit anyone who believes in either.
When the facts are obscured by the way evolutionists define the creation foundation, then they can attack the straw man they have created. If the Bible is a lie and creation is based on that lie, then the next logical step is to label anyone who believes in either as backwoods or archaic. William Edelen is a good example of this type of set-up and knock-down logic:
“I have often asked — When are Jews and Christians going to grow up, evolve spiritually, and let go of the archaic and primitive biblical concepts of ‘God’?”
“Anyone who believes today in the year 2000 that the bible is ‘reliable’ and ‘infallible,’ without error or contradiction, is approaching insanity.”
“They live in the 21st Century, parroting back a third century biblical mentality as though nothing had been learned, thought, or discovered in the last 1800 years.”
We as Christians should not be bothered by such statements. The psychology behind this is to put us on our heels. If we are busy defending ourselves, we can’t be critically thinking about the real issue at hand. If we are intimidated, we won’t speak out. A cowering Christian is the goal of this intimidation. Critical thinking is an enemy of evolution.
Often a debater will use reverse psychology. He will put himself on the defense to make criticism of evolution seem irrational. Here is an example from Mark I. Vuletic. He says that Christians say:
“Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist. These charges, even if they were true, have nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution. Such accusations reveal the true religious motivations of the creationists, and their eagerness to confuse scientific issues by the inappropriate discussion of metaphysics when a religious audience is around.”
Mark nobly defends evolution from the attacks of a straw man. In his hypothetical defense, he has manipulated the listener into thinking that Christians are trying to force theology into science. Do Christians really say creation is true because evolution teaches we don’t have souls, the Bible is false and all the other accusations of Vuletic? This is not even part of the debate. In reality, evolutionists are usually the ones who enter the Bible into the argument. It is true that Christians believe that all things point to our Creator, but that does not pit Christianity against science. In fact, the whole argument is that creation should be attributed to our God and not the god of evolution. As we will see later, evolution does have a god and it is clearly defined by the leading evolutionist. We as Christians do believe we are created by special design and we are created for a purpose. It is true that the teachings of evolution, if followed to their logical conclusions do teach that we have no purpose other than what we can do for ourselves. However, this is not what is at the heart of the debate. The debate is over truth. Does true science point to evolution and away from creation? Regardless of the worldview behind the debate, the ultimate purpose is truth. If evolution is true, then let it be proven. Defending evolution by shielding it from criticism is not evidence and is not truth.
Establishing
Authority
If you listen closely you will notice that evolution debaters claim their authority based on their belief in evolution. They use circular reasoning to establish this claim to authority. Those who reason inside the box are intellectually elite and those outside the box are intellectually dishonest. They boldly assert that they are the only freethinkers while at the same time refusing to allow thinking that does not fall into the standard of the day. Anyone or any idea that falls outside of evolution is belittled.
Once an evolutionist establishes that they are within the box, they use that box as a stage to proclaim their own authority. It is ironic that Christians are scorned for standing on the foundation of scripture while critics stand on the foundationless box of evolution. What an evolutionist or atheist lacks in their foundation is more than made up for by bold assertions. Consider this quote from George H. Smith:
“And just in case there are a few religionists in the audience, I invite you to stay around and experience for an afternoon what it feels like to be part of an intellectual elite.”
Take note of the psychology behind this statement. It is clearly meant to intimidate by labeling non-atheist as falling short of their self-proclaimed standard of elite thinking. There is no quicker way to silence critics than to make them feel inferior. You see this strategy in every area of life – religion, science, politics, business, etc. With intimidation, you don’t have to prove your case. You only have to make your opponent feel threatened and ashamed to stand on their position.
Just because someone boldly asserts something does not make it true. By nature, we tend to believe those who speak with an air of authority. David Koresh led dozens of people to their death by convincing them of his authority. Hitler manipulated an entire country to kill on his behalf by establishing his authority in their minds. Countless false religions and groups of people have been led astray by people who have no foundation but used psychology to manipulate people into following their ideas. Evolution and atheism use this same technique. They have established an intimidation zone with education and government that prevents critics from speaking out and research from presenting contradictory evidence. Any research that undermines evolution is labeled as religion and can then be attacked as the government supporting religion.
A good example of this was the research of Robert Gentry. His discovery of polonium haloes in granite stone landed him outside of the box of evolution. Because his findings left only one conclusion – the evolution model was wrong – he was rejected by the scientific community. His work did not mention God, religion or creation, but the only logical conclusion was creation, therefore he was labeled as promoting religion and his grant was revoked. When evolution can’t explain contradictory evidence, intimidation is the only solution.
Once they convince the listener that they are authoritative and that the evolutionary position is the only position of authority, they then present evolution as truth. It is true, not based on the facts, but based on the authority that they have established in the minds of others. When you surrender to them the authority they demand, they can then guide you through the facts they want you to see and away from the facts they don’t want you to see. This is the only way they can keep critics from unraveling the flawed evolution model and also allows them to make broad sweeping statements without being challenged. They want to persuade each person to believe what they present based solely on their authority with no questions asked. That is why evolutionist like Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, can make bold claims like:
“I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists”
The psychology behind this statement is to lead people to believe that science has always been dominated by evolutionist and that anyone who is a creationist is not a credible scientist. This statement is very effective because it intimidates and most people will never challenge this claim. People are fed these lines without ever questioning. However, if we actually look at the truth you find that almost every area of scientific study was founded by creationists. This list shows the absurdity of Schafersman’s claim.
Prominent Creation Scientists
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Creation is not attacked at the scientific level, but at the emotional level. Critics argue emotional pleas to manipulate hostility against views that don’t support evolution. Creation believing scientists have laid the foundation for our modern sciences. It is not the creationists that are departing from scientific method, but the evolutionist. There is a reason why creationists have been able to make such contributions to science: they are allowed to think outside the box. They can follow an idea wherever it may lead. They don’t have to fit the model, but are free to explore creation. After all, if God is the creator of all things, all things should ultimately lead to Him. Creation is always the logical conclusion unless there is something to restrict our exploration. If we are told to only abide within the parameters of evolution then we will never find where science will lead.
How much has yet to be discovered and will never be discovered because science does not allow its researchers to leave the evolution model? The most well funded research is not beneficial sciences and cure research, it is spent on trying to prove that a cell could spawn its own life without outside help. All of our forefathers of science advanced because they followed the trail wherever it led. Today we can only follow it to the evolutionary boundary imposed by the evolutionists themselves.
How do we know ‘Theistic
Evolution’ is wrong?
Many books and sermons have been written in an attempt to marry evolution with the Bible. ‘The Gap Theory’, ‘The World That Was’, and many, many other works have been produced. The Bible repeatedly warns us that in the latter times we will see wolves in the church masquerading as sheep. The Bible tells us that they will be deceptive with crafty arguments causing many to depart from the faith. Along with this warning, we are given measurements as to how to know the false teachers from the true teachers that God has ordained. We are told that we are to measure every doctrine against the revealed Word of God (1 John 4, Acts 17:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, Galatians 1, etc). God will not change, nor will His word. Therefore we can confidently use the Word as our guide.
We are given a second strong measurement for truth in Matthew 7:15-16a
15 " Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 "You will know them by their fruits."
Fruit is what is produced by a person’s works. The fruits of the Spirit is what God produces in our lives as evidence that He is in control. The fruit of our labors is what God is producing through our lives. What fruit does the doctrine of evolution produce? You don't see flocks of evolutionists turning to the church as some claim will happen. Instead you see a watered down gospel that is founded upon error and the result of this is flocks of people leaving the church and a culture that is now denying God's existence. I can't count the number of times I have been told that evolution explains how we got here; there is no need for the outdated view of God. The ‘wolves’ in the church attempt to deceive others into believing that Christianity can be supported with evolution. However, even the evolutionists themselves understand the undermining consequences evolution has against the church. Consider this quote:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
G. Richard Bozarth, 'The Meaning of Evolution', American Atheist 20 September, 1979, p. 30.
It is unfortunate that atheist understand this foundational issue better than many churches. Does God reveal His handiwork in such a way that allows people to deny His handiwork? God said, “My glory I will not give to another (Isaiah 42)”, but educator and astronomer Harrow Shapely says, “some piously record 'In the beginning God', but I say in the beginning hydrogen.” Shapely’s claim to fame is his protégé, Carl Sagan. In his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated, “the world was not made by the gods, but instead was the work of material forces interacting in nature”. Evolution does not support the idea that God works behind the scenes. Evolution states that material matter is the creative power along with natural laws. Why then do people claiming to be followers of Christ insist on integrating this godless world-view into the church?
The Bible says those who reject the truth, “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1)”. Worshipping creation is the natural result of evolution. Carl Sagan said that evolution’s natural conclusion is atheism, but in his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated:
“Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? “
God said that men would worship what is created instead of giving glory to the Creator; Sagan said that it is not foolish to worship the sun and stars, and yet the church wants to bring this pagan religion into its doctrine. Colossians 2 clearly warns us against allowing this kind of world philosophy into the church:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Instead of fearing God, many people are more intimidated by critics, more afraid of being called a fool, or afraid of being rejected by the world. Even in Jesus’ day, many who believed in Him were afraid of public ridicule. The turned their back on true faith because “they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God”. Jesus said, woe when all men speak well of you, for they did so to the false prophets. Jesus also said in John 15,
18 " If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
There is a reason why proclaimers of Theistic Evolution are praised by anti-Christian groups, their message is of the world and therefore is loved by the world. As Christians, we should not allow intimidation to drive us into silence or altering our beliefs. Many Christians take the ‘evidence’ for evolution at face value. They feel like they are stupid for taking the Bible literally, so they struggle to believe. Faith is not believing what is not true, but trusting God. That trust is founded upon evidence. There is nothing wrong with proving what is true, in fact, we are commanded to do so. We are told to test all things and hold to truth and keep ourselves from every form of evil (Thessalonians 5:21-24).
I have had Christians tell me that we can’t have faith and knowledge. If you have to know the facts, then you lose faith. This is a complete misconception of faith. Faith is trusting God, not denying facts. When God called for Israel’s faith, He reminded them that they had seen His mighty works. They saw how He delivered them from the bondage of Egypt; they saw how He fed them with manna; they saw how their shoes did not wear out in the desert for 40 years; they saw the cloud by day and fire by night; they saw God supply water from the rocks. Based on what they saw, God called them to have faith and trust Him as He sent them into a land to conquer a people stronger than they. Faith is based on knowledge. I know what God has done, I see His mighty works, therefore I have a rational foundation to choose to trust Him or not. I can have all the knowledge in the world, but that means little if I can’t trust God with my life. Faith is not founded on ignorance, but the fact that we have a God in control.
We are commanded to be ready to give an answer to the world for the reason for our faith. Look at 1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Be ready to give a defense? Where do Christians get the idea that our faith must be blind? We may not have all the answers, but every Christian should know enough to give a defense for their faith and have the meekness to answer in love. The ultimate purpose is to share our hope with those who are hopelessly lost in the deception of the world. When Christians are trying to believe when they feel like they are in error, they can’t walk by faith. We should have confidence in our faith and know what we believe and why we believe it. We should not be intimidated by the critics of the Bible. We know what is true and it is ok if someone lost in the darkness accuses me of living in the dark ages. The apostles were called ignorant, madmen, outlaws and pagans. Because they were confident in the truth, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer. If we are ready to give a defense, we can also be confident in the face of insults as well. It is ok to be called ignorant but not ok to live in ignorance. It is a sin to deny the word of God and then try to be ‘enlightened’ by incorporating the words of men (i.e. Darwin and evolution prophets) into Christianity. The prophet Elijah confronted the people of his day. They were trying to keep enough of the scriptures to feel justified but then following the pagan god, Baal. Elijah said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people answered him not a word. 1 Kings 18:21
We stand in the same place. How long will we stand between two opinions? The Bible says it is impossible to serve two masters. If evolution is god, follow evolution, but if God is the Lord, follow Him. You can’t mix the two. Once you mix truth with error, it all becomes error. Jesus said that to worship God we must come to Him in spirit and truth. We try to marry falsehood and spirit and God will not accept our worship. To choose evolution is a rejection of God whether we want to admit it or not. The god of Theistic Evolution is just as much a pagan god as Baal. Each of us must choose who we are to serve.
The first step in critical thinking is to avoid succumbing to the atmosphere of intimidation created by those who promote evolution. Those who successfully defend their Christian beliefs, know what they believe, and are confident in their beliefs. They know upfront that they will be ridiculed for standing outside of the box. It is a lost cause to expect to persuade those who do not wish to be persuaded. Only those who seek truth will listen to a well-reasoned argument. Those who are hostile to the gospel will not. Those who are afraid of making a stand will not. In both cases, it is personal motivation that takes precedence over the facts.
One important point to always keep in mind is that the facts are not in dispute. There is nothing observed by science that creationists disagree with. It isn’t the facts that are in dispute. It is whether the conclusion drawn from the facts that are in dispute. Also in dispute is whether facts that disprove evolution are allowed acknowledgment in the popular scientific community. In evolution, the conclusion has already been drawn and the conclusion takes precedence over the facts. To illustrate this, let’s take a critical look at the Cambrian Explosion.
If you are not familiar with this term, the Cambrian Explosion is a term for the so-called Cambrian layer of strata. The Cambrian period is estimated by evolutionists to be around 530 million years ago. The reason it is called the Cambrian Explosion is because this is where life suddenly appears in the fossil record. Evolutionists openly admit that there is no evolution found at any stage, yet they continue to preach the ‘fact’ of evolution found in the fossil record. Consider these quotes from several evolution resources:
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
p. 229
“ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
Richard Dawkins is probably the most popular propagator of evolution and openly mocks Christianity and creation. He calls evolution a fact and not a theory. This is in spite, by his own admission that there is no evidence of evolutionary history. Even though he admits that there is no supporting history, he says in a review of the book ‘Blueprints’:
“…We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”
Look at what Stephen Jay Gould has to say about the fossil records:
Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Interpretation of Diagrams: Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?” Natural History, vol. 85 (August/September 1976), pp. 18-28.
p. 18
“ the Precambrian fossil record is little more than 2.5 billion years of bacteria and blue-green algae. Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian.”
Gould, Stephen Jay, “A Short Way to Big Ends,”
“Where, then, are all the Precambrian ancestors—or, if they didn’t exist in recognizable form, how did modern complexity get off to such a fast start?”
We should stop and ask this question as well – how did life get off to such a fast start? Evolution claims that it takes millions of years and in some eras, billions of years. Yet two of the leading preachers of evolution are asking why the evidence doesn’t fit the evolutionary model? At the same time, they refuse to abandon the model. Is it really creationists that are guilty of intellectual dishonesty?
Smith, Peter J., “Evolution’s Most Worrisome Questions,” review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge (Fact on File, 1987, 246 pp.), New Scientist (November 19, 1987), p. 59.
“Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species.”
Smith confirms yet again that the appearance of life is instant and then goes on to admit that it does not change. A critical thinker should ask how this evidence points to evolution as these men claim? If life appears suddenly and life remains unchanged, where is evolution? Evolution demands a changing organism to ‘carry the genes’ to the next evolutionary step. What does the evidence of ‘unchanged’ life point to? Creation or evolution?
The lack of change is also confirmed in the Science News:
“Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet,” Science News, vol. 108 (September 20, 1975), p. 181.
“Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from S. Africa.”
“Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.”
Let’s put our critical thinking to use here. Algae and bacteria are supposed to evolve into more complex life leading eventually to plants and animals. If the earliest fossils are unchanged and genetically equal to today’s algae and bacteria, where do the facts lead us? If we go outside the box, we are supposedly into theology. That leaves critical thinking out in the cold. Are we to accept the evolutionary model on blind faith, or follow the evidence out of the evolution model and be labeled as ignorant, stupid and religious?
George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,”
“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”
Let’s now take a critical look at Neville’s argument. He first establishes that special creation is not an option. He then acknowledges that there is not a single member of the Pre-Cambrian fossils that provide any links between primitive life and the Cambrian explosion of life that supposedly arises from it. He then concludes that there is no explanation.
Why is there no explanation?
Why is special creation ruled out before the evidence is examined?
Evolution draws the facts from the conclusion instead of drawing the conclusion from the facts. Is this true science? Does eliminating conclusions before looking at the evidence discourage critical thinking? Is it a rational argument to exclude any conclusion you don’t want to find? Finally, why do many evolutionists claim that the Bible is false because you can’t prove that God is real, yet they then claim that evolution is true because you can’t prove it didn’t happen?
If we don’t stop and examine the argument closely, we are going to believe the last person that gave a passionate argument. This is why it is vital to learn to analyze the facts and examine the argument. Instead of allowing someone to feed us their opinion, we should learn to examine what is actually being said. Evolutionists take us by the hand to lead us where they want us to be and lead us away from what they don’t want to acknowledge. Instead of accepting the starting point, we should ask ‘How did you get to this point?’ Instead of accepting conclusions, we should demand truth and evaluate the validity of the conclusion. We have purposefully been dumbed down. Education in modern schools does not encourage critical thinking. We are told what to think, not how to think. It is our responsibility to overcome this challenge and apply ourselves to reason. Just because evolution and atheism calls itself ‘reasoned thinking’ does not make it so. When examined closely, the definition of reason is to accept, not to think. In truth, the definition of reason is “to think and draw conclusions”(Websters New World Dictionary). To be considered intellectual and reasonable by evolution standards, we are not allowed to draw our own conclusions. It is demanded that we accept the conclusion given – the box of evolution.
In the next section, we will look at how we are fed conclusions and facts are dodged by crafty arguments. When we turn our critical thinking off as we are encouraged to do, the arguments make perfect sense. Those who have been dumbed down to accept the standard evolutionary belief system accept the conclusions while ignorantly believing that facts are supporting evolution. It is our responsibility to sift through the web of deceit, analyze, think critically and draw our own conclusion.
In Richard Dawkins’ article, ‘Where’d You get those Peepers’, he attempts to explain how the eye could have evolved 40 – 60 times independently of each previous evolution. In the evolution model, the chains of life branch off making it impossible for species to share information. Therefore, if evolution is true, by Dawkins admission, the eye had to be re-invented a minimum of 40 times and could be as many as 60 times. Gradual evolution does not allow for enough time for a complex eye to develop in a 3 billion year time span. Therefore, evolution needed a new explanation that simplifies the evolution of the eye. Dawkins praises two scientists named Nilsson and Pelger for solving this problem. They created a computer model that showed the evolution of the eye in a relatively short time span that would fit the evolution model.
Nilsson and Pelger followed the same pattern that all evolution science follows. Dawkins did not use direct quotes so we can’t examine the psychology of their argument here. One of the primary tactics of arguing for evolution is to hide the astronomical odds against it by leading people to believe time and chance is a simple process. We are to believe that it happens all the time and is a small miracle at best. Richard Dawkins is the master of simplistic reasoning. In Dawkins argument, he subtly guides the reader into believing the evolution of the eye is simple. If we see the enormous complexity that challenges this test, we will be alarmed at the evasion used to prove this experiment. However, Dawkins does admit “Nilsson and Pelger made no attempts to simulate the inner workings of cells.” He also says, “They started their story after the invention of a single light-sensitive cell” and “They worked at the level of tissues…rather than the level of individual cells”
From the onset, we can see that the experiment is being staged like tinker toys. To prove the eye evolved, we are not going to answer ‘how’, we are just going to assemble the pieces. Before any reader will accept this, we must first be convinced that the ‘how’ question is not important. Dawkins says, “we have to start somewhere”, so we started after the ‘invention’ of the light-sensitive cell. The impression is that we don’t want to be bored with details, so the scientists skipped the boring inner workings of the cell. As we can see, the key to this and most evolution arguments is dependent on conveying simplicity to the reader or listener. Once we are satisfied with their starting point, they can argue their point without objection. Nothing had to be proven because they have evaded the hardest questions that they cannot answer and still support evolution.
Dawkins continues, “The transparent layer was allowed to undergo localized random mutations of its refractive index. They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before.”
Take a moment to critically think about what has just been presented as ‘evidence’. There are three major flaws with this ‘experiment’ that has been revealed in this one paragraph. 1. They have allowed the layer of transparent skin to undergo changes. They determine what is happening – not nature and not observed science. 2. They let the model take over the process and set the course of ‘mutations’. 3. Probably the most important observation we can make here is that they (Nilsson and Pilger) set the constraints that evolutionary mutations must abide by. They created a model that was not allowed to fail. Change had to be gradual because that is what the evolutionary model requires. Change was not allowed to harm evolution because a defective mutation is a failure of the species and would put evolution back to ground zero. A mutation does not have a second chance. Either mutation helps or harms. Evolutionists James Valentine, and Cathryn A. Campbell, wrote in their work, “Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record,”
“Most mutations to structural genes are deleterious, and presumably most regulatory gene mutations are deleterious as well, but occasionally a mutation may enhance regulatory activity.”
Mutations are observed by science to be harmful. This book argues that they may on occasion be helpful, however, that is not the observation we see. Don’t overlook the wording. They are speculating that mutation may occasionally enhance, but it is not observed. Harmful mutations are frequently observed; helpful ones are not. If mutations are ‘usually deleterious (or harmful)’, then why was this possibility eliminated from the eye evolution experiment? I believe the answer is found in Richard Dawkins’ admission early in his article that, “Unlike human designers, natural selection can't go downhill not even if there is a tempting higher hill on the other side of the valley”. Some will argue that only creationists accuse mutations of always being harmful, but consider this quote from Atomic Scientists:
"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 -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)
Mutations are frequently observed in science. Mutations are almost always harmful because it is a loss of or damaged information and not increased traits. Yet in this experiment that supposedly proves the eye evolves quickly to match the required 40-60 times it would have had to develop independently, evolutionists remove this primary enemy that evolution can’t get around. In essence, to prove evolution occurs without intelligent design, they provide an intelligently designed model to guide its behavior.
Dawkins continues, “The results were swift and decisive. And then, almost like a conjuring trick, a portion of this transparent filling condensed into a local, spherical subregion of higher refractive index.”
It is ironic that he would say that this appears like a conjuring trick. That is exactly what happens. The computer model is conjuring the evidence it was designed to show. It is not revealing any true evidence. The computer program is outputting only what it was written to project. Dawkins goes on to herald the fact that the evolved eye on the computer screen achieved the Mattiessen’s ratio perfectly. The Mattiessen’s ratio is the optimum value for ratio between the length of the lens and the radius. Once again, we should ask what has been proven? Is it by chance that an optimum lens was formed? Or could Nilsson and Pilger have constructed their computer program with knowledge of the Mattiessen ratio that they wanted to ‘prove’. Dawkins said, “Nilsson and Pelger's computer model homed in unerringly on Mattiessen's ratio.” Did the computer home in on this, or is the program written to produce this ratio?
When I took programming, one of the first things we learned was the acronym ‘GIGO’, which stands for, ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’. In other words, the computer does not produce anything that was not designed into the program. If a computer outputs garbage, it isn’t the computer at fault, but the programmer. The reverse is also true. If a computer outputs the ‘Mattiessen’s ratio’, it was the programmer that instructed the computer. The computer is not capable of drawing any conclusions on its own. A computer can only follow sets of instructions given by the programmer.
At first glance, Richard Dawkins’ defense of the evolution of the eye may seem plausible. But when you look closely, it is all smoke and mirrors. He does not point to anything that is supported by evidence. He uses basic psychology in his argument. He begins by ridiculing those who hold religious beliefs to put critics on the defensive. He follows up by establishing the authority of evolution and then directs us to those who are working within that box of authority. We then must believe the results – not based on the facts, but based on the ‘reliable’ experiments of evolutionists. Everything points away from critical thinking. We are being taught to depend on evolutionists to do the thinking and we just take the results at face value. In reality, we should be asking:
Why did they avoid the inner workings of the cells?
Why did they begin after the most complex, light sensitive cell was ‘invented’?
What does it prove to put all the ingredients into a pot and tell the computer how to assemble them?
What would have happened if the model had not been ‘constrained’ to prevent failure?
It is a fact that Richard Dawkins can present a well articulated argument for evolution. However, if we use critical thinking, we see the psychology behind his argument. He uses psychology to prepare us to be guided blindly as he carefully weaves us through the evidence he wants us to see while we bypass objections without even noticing. Most critical thinkers are those who don’t agree with evolution. Critical questions are seldom answered with facts. Intimidation is a more effective response. Labeling a question as ‘religious in nature’ is much easier than trying to explain why all the holes are being ignored by evolution.
In his article, ‘Universal Parasitism and the Co-evolution of Extended Phenotypes’, Richard Dawkins once again tries to overcome the problem of evolution by carefully weaving around objections by convincing the reader of the simplicity of evolution. Critical thinking is avoided by presenting the idea that genes themselves are working as a team and even work with the gene ‘teams’ of other species. Instead of explaining genetic development, he classifies them into to cooperative categories: genome types and phenotypes. Genomes are working for the survival of the body of the species and phenotypes are working toward the evolutionary jump even between two or more species.
Co-evolution has always been a difficulty for evolution. When one species is completely dependent upon another, evolution grapples to convince us that co-evolution is possible. For example, the fig plant has blossoms that prevent insects from entering, yet it can’t survive if the inside of the fig isn’t pollinated. The fig wasp is designed to enter and needs the fig for its survival and the fig needs the wasp for its survival. Another example is the dodo bird. The dodo was dependent on the Calvarias tree and the Calvarias tree was dependent on the newly extinct dodo. The thick husk surrounding the seed cannot germinate naturally, but the dodo’s digestive system removes the husk and allows it to germinate once it passes through the bird. Why does evolution that supposedly strives for survival make itself 100% dependent on the survival of another species? Dawkins does not provide any real answers to this, but he does give a unique perspective by using phenotypes.
Dawkins explains that the orthodox view is that a body is the vehicle for transporting a set of genes from one generation to another. In this article he states that animal behavior is not necessarily controlled by the genes in the animals body, but genes are selected by proxy. Two gene teams may work together toward a common goal and go against the normal behavior expected. Behind the scenes the phenotype is the driving force that works to pass along genes ‘it’ deems most beneficial to the next generation.
The Beetle and the Nosema
The beetle has its physical behavior changed by an infecting protozoa called ‘Nosema’. The genes of this parasite cross interests with the genes of the beetle. They work together where their interest is mutual. They allow the beetle to mate, lay eggs and survive because their ultimate interest is passing their genes to the next generation. New eggs are infected and the new beetles will carry genes of the protozoa for another generation.
The mutual interest conflicts with the normal development of the beetle. When its larvae are ready to pupate, the Nosema genes take over. This protozoa has the ability to synthesize juvenile hormones that prevent the beetle from transforming into an adult. If a beetle larvae is injected with juvenile hormones, it will stop metamorphosing. The hormones force the larvae to continue growing through six new molts. The beetle grows into a giant larvae up to twice its normal size. This growth benefits the protozoa and when the lifecycle is complete, the beetle goes into adulthood and lays infected eggs.
Dawkins states, “The two sets of genes, therefore, would be expected to pull together, for exactly the same reasons as all the genes of one organism pull together. It is irrelevant that some of them happen to be beetle genes while others happen to be bacterial genes. Both sets of genes are interested in the propagation of beetle eggs. Both sets of genes, therefore, are interested in making the beetle bodies successful in all departments of life, in both survival and reproduction.”
He also states, “it is more fundamental for genes to work in their own interests.” He also says that in some cases, genes may rebel against their bodies when they find away to break free and succeed in manipulating their own bodies. Bodies are nothing more than the vehicles that genes use to survive and reach their goals.
The Snail Fluke
A snail fluke is a microscopic parasite that infects the snail through ingestion. It is known as a snail fluke because it changes the snail’s behavior. When the fluke is ready for its next life cycle, it migrates into the snail’s eye, causes the snail to climb toward sunlight and then pulsates vividly to attract attention of any passing bird. The snail fluke has an interesting life cycle. It is dependent on three external hosts. It begins with a sheep, infects the snail, passes through a bird and back to the sheep. All three are necessary for each step of its development. The snail fluke, according to Dawkins, has a limited cross interest with the snail. The genes of the fluke are not interested in the snail’s reproduction or its long-term survival. It is only interested in the snail’s short-term survival.
Richard Dawkins argues that the genes of the snail and the genes of the fluke have the same ultimate goal but different methods of achieving that goal. Their gene’s goal is to get out of the snail’s body. The fluke wants the short route, but the snail will use a longer evolutionary path.
Let’s think critically
Did evolution occur?
In the end, was new genetic code added to either the host or the parasite? No. The snail is still a snail and even loses its chance to pass its genes on. The fluke is still a fluke and will produce flukes just like itself. The beetle is still a beetle. It’s offspring will not be giants by nature. They will have to be manipulated to grow just as their parents were by the hormones produced by the Nosema microbe. Left alone, they will be normal beetles with no new traits and no new genes.
Does a gene have intelligence?
Why does Richard Dawkins give designing intelligence to genes? Genes are nothing but the information stored in molecule format. Do the pages of an instruction book work as a team to control you? Or do they just provide you with the information you need to accomplish what the writer typed out? Did the genes design themselves? Or were they written by someone greater than the informational blocks they reside in?
It is no accident that evolution arguments give intelligence to genes, the cosmos, the organism or evolution itself. The driving force has to be intelligent because there is no room for error. Left to itself, a computer will never program itself, a book will never write its own pages and genes cannot design themselves. Dawkins acknowledges the need for intelligence in everything he writes. He credits the genes with thinking, working, cooperating, manipulating and designing. Carl Sagan also credited design to intelligence but he did not credit the genes. He credited the cosmos as the intelligent force that drives evolution.
Where did the knowledge to manipulate come from?
The Nosema protozoa has special knowledge. How did it ‘know’ the beetle would pupate? How did it know what hormone to produce? How did it know how to produce this hormone? How did even know there was a hormone? In order to manipulate the development of the beetle, there had to be knowledge of the beetle, how the body works, how hormones work, which beetle to use and innumerable other obstacles that would have to be overcome.
The same is true for the snail. In order for the genes to manipulate the bodies they ‘used as vehicles’, the genes would have to understand the behavior and bodies of birds, snails and sheep. If even one of these were missed, the genes bite the dust. They had to know the snail hid from the light and how to reprogram the snail to seek the light. It had to know how to generate a harder shell. It had to know where to find the bird. It had to know that birds are attracted to pulsation in the light. It had to know the bird’s digestive system. It had to know which bird’s activities would place them near the sheep’s feeding area. It had to know the sheep’s digestive system. It also had to know that the snail would eat the droppings of the sheep. How many other obstacles stand in the way that we will never think about. One mistake and the entire process would have been a wasted effort. It seems reasonable that if it were simply an issue of survival, it would have been a one-step process.
Did this show evolution or design?
Did Dawkins provide any evidence for evolution or did he show design and call it evolution? The entire plausibility of Dawkins argument is dependent on the knowledge and intelligence and special knowledge of the gene. He builds his whole argument with the assumption that this is true. If it is not true, none of this is possible by chance. His entire argument is that genes work as a team with a goal already in mind. When a parasite has a conflicting interest