http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2299
Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I]
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff scientists. Dr. Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Dr. Houts has received numerous awards, including a NASACertificate of Appreciation for Exceptional Leadership. His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Dr. Houts was employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for 11 years, serving in various positions including Deputy Group Leader. He presently serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Part II will follow next month.]
One of the greatest deceptions perpetrated by atheists and humanists is that the theory of evolution is somehow “science.” The reality is that “evolution” has nothing to do with science, but is merely a tenet of certain false religions opposed to God. It is important for Christians to realize that evolution is simply another erroneous belief, and that they need not be intimidated into believing that the theory is supported by true science. It is also important that Christians not become suspicious of science just because evolutionists and atheists falsely claim it supports their worldview.
The science that put men on the moon and has yielded tremendous advances in computers, medicine, and other fields, is observable, testable, and repeatable. When a theory is developed, experiments can be devised to determine if it is false. This true science is referred to as “operational science.” In recent years, the term “science” has been broadened to include many areas that typically do not meet the criteria for operational science. These include social science, political science, and others.
Even further removed from operational science is so-called “origins science.” Origins science is not observable, testable, or repeatable. Theories related to origins science typically are constructed so that no matter what the evidence, its adherents can claim it supports their worldview. In origins science, evidence related to the origin of the Universe (and everything therein) is interpreted within a given framework. To the atheist or humanist, everything must be explained without God. To the Christian, the Genesis creation account is the basis for our understanding. The evidence Christians see is interpreted within the framework of the Bible.
Webster defines “religion” as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” (Webster’s Ninth..., 1988, p. 995). Christianity falls into this category. So do the hundreds of false religions that have plagued mankind for millennia. Matthew 7:13-14 indicates that the majority of people will be deceived. Despite the overwhelming evidence God has given, they will choose to create their own religion, or adhere to a false religion promoted by their society.
A famous event occurred nearly 3,000 years ago, when Elijah found himself confronting 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Ashera. Those false prophets ate at the queen’s table (1 Kings 18:19), indicating that they were among the most respected and trusted people in society. Although they obviously were wrong, their position and power had so influenced the people that when Elijah stated “If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him,” “the people answered him not” (1 Kings 18:21). Many (if not most) of the people undoubtedly knew that Baal had come from the imagination of men. However, the fact that so many “important” individuals in their society promoted Baal either caused them to doubt God, or intimidated them to the point that they were unwilling to stand firm for God.
A similar situation exists today. Concerted efforts to indoctrinate people into believing evolution have been ongoing for decades. However, polls continually show that the majority of Americans believe in God, and believe that He created the Universe and life (see
Miller, 2007, [10]:37, 40-R). While that is good news, the promotion of evolution by many “important” people in our society likely has caused many of those polled either to doubt God, or be intimidated to the point that they are unwilling to stand firm for God. This is the main reason it is important to realize that evolution is simply another false religion, and that the temptation people face when confronted with that religion is nothing new.
Interpreting the Evidence
In origins science, the interpretation of evidence strongly depends on a person’s religious beliefs. For example, consider the changes that we see in life. Antibiotic-resistant populations of bacteria seem to develop in days, new “kinds” of cats and dogs are bred routinely, and wild animals adapt to changing environments. To both the evolutionist and the creationist, these small changes represent “microevolution.” But to an evolutionist, over a very long period of time, large amounts of microevolution lead to macroevolution, capable of turning dinosaurs into birds or an ape’s ancestor into man. Evolutionists believe there is no need for God, because in their mind the diversity of life on Earth can be explained by macroevolution, starting with a “simple” life form. In their religious framework, the genetic information needed to produce all of the life that we see today developed via macroevolution (Campbell, 1996, p. 454).
To a Bible-believing Christian, biological changes are the result of natural selection, mutations, or selective breeding acting on God’s original created kinds. The genetic information needed to produce the variety of the life we see today was present in the original created kinds, put there by God in the original, perfect Creation.
A century ago it would have been difficult to take the discussion further. However, advances in science and technology now confirm that physical and analytical evidence strongly favors the Christian framework. For example, every observable instance of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics has been traced to one of the following three mechanisms (Campbell, p. 340):
- Some bacteria in the population are already resistant to the antibiotic, and become the dominant strain via natural selection (information neutral);
- The genetic information needed for resisting the antibiotic is obtained via plasmid transfer from another bacteria (information neutral); or
- Resistance to the antibiotic results from an information-neutral or information-losing mutation (information neutral or information negative).
- In all cases, genetic information is either conserved or lost. In no case do we observe new information being generated—which is required for macroevolution to be even theoretically possible.
Our scientific knowledge of bacteria is totally consistent with the Genesis account (genetic information provided by God during the creation week). In no way does that scientific knowledge support evolutionists seeking to explain how vast amounts of new genetic information could be generated through random mutations. Information-increasing mutations have not been observed. None of the examples provided in the most popular biology textbooks support the premise that evolution of life occurs by information increase. On the contrary, many of the examples actually show the opposite of evolution—information decrease (Patterson, 2006, pp. 59-61).
“New” Breeds
When new breeds of cats and dogs are developed, genetic information is almost always lost, or is at best conserved. For example, a pair of wild dogs typically can be used to develop a breed of very large dogs or a breed of very small dogs (or both) in just a few decades, through selective breeding. However, in developing those new breeds, genetic information is lost. While the original pair of wild dogs had the genetic information to produce large dogs and small dogs, the new breeds of dogs have much less genetic information or variability. Great Danes cannot be bred from Chihuahuas, and Chihuahuas cannot be bred from Great Danes—the required genetic information has been lost. In less extreme cases much genetic information can be conserved, but in no case is information added. The evidence observed from selective breeding is once again consistent with the Christian framework, and inconsistent with the evolutionary/atheistic framework.
Changes in Wild Populations
Changes in wild populations also can be examined in greater detail. Two favorites of biology textbooks (e.g., Johnson, 1998) are Darwin’s finches and peppered moths. In both of those cases, genetic information merely is conserved and no new genetic information is developed. For example, the peppered moth story typically states that two types of peppered moths exist: speckled and dark. The moths live among birch trees. In a clean environment, the speckled moths blend in much better with the birch bark than the dark moths. The dark moths are more readily eaten by birds, resulting in a population consisting of 95% speckled moths and 5% dark moths. However, during the industrial revolution, the birch trees became covered with soot, and then the dark moths were camouflaged better than the speckled moths. The population distribution reversed, with 95% of the moths being dark and 5% being speckled.
It has been noted that the peppered moth story recorded in many biology textbooks may be largely fabricated (Wieland, 1999, 21[3]:56). However, even if true, the story has nothing to do with demonstrating macroevolution. At all times, the genetic information for producing both speckled and dark moths was present in the population. At no time was new genetic information (as needed for macroevolution) generated. The evidence again is consistent with the Christian framework, and does nothing to support the evolutionary framework.
Homologous and Analogous Structures
Another topic where the interpretation of evidence is influenced strongly by one’s religious beliefs is homologous and analogous structures. Homologous and analogous structures are structures in different species that are similar. A typical example is similarities in the structure of a bird wing, a dolphin fin, and a human arm.
From a biblical viewpoint, similar structures are exactly what one would expect. God created all life, and it would be surprising if there were no physical similarities between species. Wings, fins, and arms all bear stress, and similarities in design would be expected for performing that function. Bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels. Although those wheels are different, they have obvious similarities and similar functions. Bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels because they have a common designer (humans). Humans choose to use wheels to perform certain functions.
To the Christian, homologous structures are structures in different species that are similar because God created all life. To the evolutionist, however, homologous structures are structures in different species that are similar because of common ancestry (Johnson, 1998, p. 178). To the evolutionist, wings, fins, and arms are not similar because God designed all three, but because they share a common fish ancestor (Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 405). Expanding on the previous analogy, to the evolutionist, bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels not because of a common designer, but because they all started out as tricycles.
Both the Christian interpretation of homologous structures and the evolutionist interpretation of homologous structures end with a statement of faith. Neither statement (e.g., “similar because God created all life” or “similar because of common ancestry”) has a scientific basis—they are beliefs based on one’s worldview. However, only the atheistic interpretation is given in the five biology textbooks that were reviewed (Campbell, 1996; Johnson, 1998; Kaskel, et al., 1999; Miller and Levine, 1998; Starr and Taggart, 1984). [NOTE: For a discussion of biblical faith being based on knowledge and evidence, see
Miller, 2002;
Sztanyo, 1996;
Thompson, 1994.]
There are many well-known cases where homologous structures could not have shared a common ancestor (within an evolutionary framework). For example, at a superficial level frog digits appear similar to human digits. However, it is now known that they develop in a completely different way, and could not share a common ancestor (Sadler, 1995, pp.154-157). Even most biology textbooks admit numerous cases of apparent similarities with no plausible way for the two species to be “related.” A typical example is similarities between sharks and dolphins (Johnson, p. 320).
To accommodate these cases, evolutionists coined another term: “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is defined as “the independent development of similarity between species as a result of their having similar ecological roles and selection pressures” (Campbell, p. G-6). Evolutionists often refer to these similarities as “analogous structures” (Starr and Taggart, p. 497).
This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of “convergent evolution.” No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.
One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.
Although the discussion is non-scientific, articles promoting evolution often use similarities between organisms in their attempt to convince readers that the theory is true. One recent example is National Geographic’s article, “Was Darwin Wrong?” (Quammen, 2004, 206[5]:31). Examples also abound in most biology textbooks.
Origin of Life
Another area where the religious nature of the theory of evolution can be seen is the discussion of the origin of life. From a Christian perspective, the Bible tells us how life was created during the week of Creation. Life is evidence of God’s handiwork. In contrast, humanistic and atheistic religions require that the existence of life somehow be explained without God. In the 21st century, most humanists and atheists have chosen to put their faith in the theory of evolution.
When the theory of evolution was being popularized in the late 1800s, it was easy to speculate about “simple” life forms originating in warm ponds laden with chemicals or in similar locales (Darwin, 1887, p. 202). Leading evolutionists freely speculated or even fabricated “evidence” in support of their religion (Grigg, 1996, 18[2]:33-36). However, advances in science have shown that these speculations and fabrications are nonsense.
For example, we now know that the simplest life form is far more complex than anything humans have ever made. It is far more reasonable to claim that a space shuttle can randomly assemble and launch itself than to claim that a simple life form can arise spontaneously from random chemical interactions.
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on biotechnology. Biotechnology employs some of our brightest Ph.D.s, working in incredibly sophisticated laboratories. However, despite this tremendous investment of money, talent, and equipment, no one ever has come close to making life from non-life. Relatively simple techniques such as cloning (which essentially involves transferring pre-existing DNAfrom one organism to another) make national headlines when achieved, but to an objective observer do nothing more than show how amazing and complex life truly is (see Butt and Lyons, 2005 for numerous other examples).
In response, many evolutionists (and the textbooks they write) point to experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment to show that what they call the “building blocks” of life could potentially form spontaneously. However, these so-called “building blocks” are no closer to being a living organism than the atoms they comprise.
A typical textbook discussion (e.g., Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 405) of the Miller-Urey experiment may be summarized as follows.
- Stanley Miller and Harold Urey re-created the early atmosphere by mixing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water together.
- By passing an electric spark through the mixture, they showed that organic compounds could form spontaneously.
- The results of this experiment were spectacular and exceeded Miller and Urey’s wildest dreams.
By invoking emotion (“wildest dreams”) and selectively presenting only a very small subset of the relevant information, the student is effectively misled. What most textbooks fail to mention is far more telling. Consider a few examples:
- Even most evolutionists now agree that the atmosphere simulated by Miller and Urey could not have existed. Ammonia and methane would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. Hydrogen could have been present in small amounts only, as it is able to escape earth’s gravity. In the current opinion of evolutionists, carbon dioxide and nitrogen always have been present. Despite this evidence, the textbook boldly asserts, “Stanley Miller and Harold Urey re-created the early atmosphere.”
- In a watery environment, amino acids do not bind together in long chains, but break apart. In a watery environment, only one in 10200 (one followed by 200 zeroes) of the amino acids can exist in a chain of 100 amino acids, roughly the length of the smallest protein. Biology texts tend to avoid completely this fatal flaw in “primordial soup”-type scenarios. However, evolutionists recognize the problem and have made numerous attempts to address it. These include postulating the presence of condensing agents (inadequate even with optimistic chemical conditions that are impossible given other evolutionary assumptions), postulating a heat source to drive off water (which destroys some vital amino acids and results in highly randomized polymers), and others. All attempts have failed to show a realistic way for spontaneously assembling the long chains of amino acids needed to form even a simple useful protein. [NOTE: An excellent summary of (failed) attempts by evolutionists to address this issue is given in Sarfati, 1998a, 12[3]:281-284.]
- Amino acids exist in left- and right-handed forms, and life uses only those that are left-handed. Miller-Urey type experiments result in an even (racemic) mix of left-and right-handed amino acids, incapable of forming proteins. In the incredibly unlikely event that a chain of 100 amino acids could form (see the previous paragraph), the odds that all of those amino acids would be left handed are ~ one in 1030. For more typical protein sizes (400 amino acids), the odds are ~ one in 10120. This fatal flaw is also ignored in biology textbooks, although the authors obviously are aware it exists. For example, Campbell discussed racemization (the slow conversion of the pure L-amino acids in proteins into a mixture of L- and D-amino acids) as a means for determining how long an organism has been dead (1996, p. 457). However, during the book’s extensive discussion on the theory of evolution, the issue is not even mentioned. As with the polymerization issue, desperate attempts have been made to address the chirality (molecular handedness) issue. These include polarization by ultraviolet or other light sources, optically active quartz, the weak force, clay, and numerous other scenarios that, when analyzed or tested, prove far too inefficient to improve significantly the odds of spontaneously forming a left-handed amino acid. [NOTE: An excellent summary of these failed attempts is given in Sarfati, 1998b, 12[3]:263-266.]
- Less than two percent of the products formed in the Miller-Urey experiment were amino acids. The major products were carboxylic acids and tar, both of which are toxic to life and also far more likely to bond to amino acids (thus breaking any developing chain) than amino acids themselves.
- To form a chain of amino acids, bifunctional monomers are required. If a unifunctional monomer bonds with the chain, the chain is terminated. Miller-Urey type experiments produce at least three times as many unifunctional monomers as bifunctional monomers. This fact also makes the odds of randomly assembling a long chain of amino acids impossibly low.
- Many famous evolutionists have calculated the odds of a cell or even just the proteins in a cell randomly assembling. These odds (again calculated by evolutionists themselves) so discredit the theory that they typically are not mentioned in discussions of the topic. The famous atheistic astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the odds of even just the proteins of an amoeba arising by chance at one in 1040,000, i.e., one followed by 40,000 zeroes (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 130). Harold Morowitz, former professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, calculated the odds that a simple, single-celled organism might randomly assemble itself from pre-existing building blocks as one in 10100,000,000,000, i.e., one followed by 100 billion zeroes (Morowitz, 1968, p. 98). Carl Sagan and other famous evolutionists (including Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA) have come to similar conclusions (Sagan, et al., 1973, pp. 45-46). Calculations such as these were the basis of Sir Fred Hoyle’s famous quote that the probability of spontaneous generation “is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein” (Hoyle, 1981, 294[5837]:105). Hoyle went on to say that he was at a loss to understand “biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious” (294[5837]:105).
The suppression of evidence against the theory of evolution is not limited to discussions of Miller-Urey type experiments, but those discussions are revealing. An objective scientist obtains and considers allavailable evidence. The demonstrated desire of evolutionists to suppress or ignore evidence that contradicts an atheistic worldview provides yet another example of how evolution is religion, not science. This suppression is not isolated, and is obvious in most high school and college level biology textbooks.
True science is the enemy of the atheist and evolutionist. In recent years, many evolutionists have attempted to shift the origin of life debate into areas where it is more difficult to apply operational science. One example is the theory that life somehow arose elsewhere in the Universe, and was then transported to Earth. Although postulating events “elsewhere in the Universe” does nothing to change the fundamental reasons why evolution cannot occur, the postulate fogs the issue enough to comfort those committed to finding an atheistic explanation for life’s origin.
The significance of “discoveries” in space also is frequently overstated or distorted to mislead the reader. For example, in the article, “Are we Martians? Maybe, Study Says” (2000), several professors and researchers discuss organic molecules that have been found in space. Throughout the article, terms like “primitive life forms,” “ancestral cells,” and “microbes” are tossed about. Only at the end of the article is the reader given some clue as to what has actually been found. A sentence states: “Among the chemicals detected was acetylene, a building block for benzene and other aromatic molecules that, in turn, can form complex hydrocarbons, the chemical stuff of life.” In other words, because we have detected C2H2 in space (readily predicted from a freshman-level chemistry course), we are supposed to have increased confidence that we might be Martians. In reality, C2H2 is not noticeably closer to being a living organism than carbon or hydrogen alone.
An article in Sky & Telescope concerning the Galileo probe to Jupiter, gives a more honest representation. In addition to giving measured, quantitative results from the probe, one paragraph in the article notes the following:
Another blow to scientists’ expectations was the paucity of complex organic molecules, which laboratory studies had suggested should be present. Some researchers have even postulated that pre-biotic compounds or even life itself might exist in the Jovian atmosphere. Yet the mass spectrometer found nothing fancier than simple carbon-based species like ethane (C2H6). “There aren’t any little critters floating around in the clouds,” concludes Niemann (Beatty, 1996, 91[4]:21). [NOTE: “Niemann” refers to Hasso B. Niemann, of NASA/Goddard, who led one of the teams analyzing results from the probe.]
Vestigial Structures
A typical definition of “vestigial structure” is a “structure that is remnant of an organism’s evolutionary past and has no function; from the Latin vestigium, meaning footprint” (Johnson, 1998, p. 868). In talking about vestigial structures, Charles Darwin stated “far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated in accordance with the views [evolution—MH] here explained” (Darwin, 1859, p. 350).
The idea of vestigial structures was further promoted in 1895 by German anatomist Robert Wiedersheim (Wiedershiem, 1895), who claimed to have identified 186 vestigial structures in the human body. Like Darwin, Wiedersheim also claimed religious significance for vestigial structures, stating that vestigial organs “which remain inexplicable by the doctrine of special creation or upon any teleological hypothesis, can be satisfactorily explained by the theory of selection” (p. 3).
Once again, true science has proven to be the enemy of the evolutionist. As scientific knowledge increased, structures were removed from Weidersheim’s list. Today, functions have been found for all of Wiedershiem’s 186 “vestigial” structures. Rather than providing support for evolution, the vestigial structures argument is merely an example of scientific ignorance (and atheistic arrogance) being used to promote a false religion.
Perhaps the most well-known “vestigial” structure was the vermiform appendix. Until late in the 20thcentury, there were no clearly identified functions for the appendix. In addition, it was established long ago that rupture of the appendix can result in a life-threatening infection. The combination of ignorance regarding function and the severity of acute appendicitis led many to regard the appendix as worse than useless. Evolutionists seized on that opinion to declare the appendix a vestigial organ, evidence (in their eyes) that their theory was true.
Recent advances in biology, however, have identified numerous functions for the vermiform appendix, especially in early childhood. For example, researchers quoted in New Scientist note the following:
Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult.... The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you. By the time you are an adult, it seems your immune system has already learned to cope with the foreign substances in the gastrointestinal tract, so your appendix is no longer important. But defects in the appendix and other immune sampling areas may be involved in autoimmune diseases and intestine inflammation (“The Last Word,” 2003, 177[2381]:65).
The same article notes that during fetal development, endocrine (hormone-producing) cells appear in the appendix. These cells produce peptide hormones that control various biological mechanisms (177[2381]:65).
Other structures previously considered “vestigial” include the plica semilunaris, human hair, tonsils, the coccyx, the thymus gland, the pineal gland, and others. Important functions have been identified for each of these structures as well. Although now abandoned by many evolutionists, the argument that vestigial structures provide evidence for evolution is still mentioned in many textbooks and the popular media (e.g., Selim, 2004, 25[6]:42-46). An analogous argument flared up in the late 1990s, when evolutionists claimed that significant portions of human DNA are “junk” left over from our evolutionary past. As our knowledge of DNA increased, that argument quickly faded. Although we still have much to unravel about how DNA functions, we now know that sections of DNA called “junk” just a few years ago have many important functions.
Ironically, even if they had been real, vestigial structures would have been consistent with the creation account. There have been over 6,000 years of natural selection and genetic degradation since Adam sinned. It is expected that many of our organs do not function as well as they did at the original perfect Creation. It is also possible that some functions may have been lost completely. [NOTE: An excellent summary of the “Vestigial Structures” argument is given in Bergman and Howe, 1990, pp. 1ff.]
Evolution as a State Religion
The concerted effort to promote evolution goes far beyond the use of biased or misleading technical discussions. A quote from The Humanist provides a great deal of insight.
I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, day care, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all of its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism (Dunphy, 1983, 43[1]:26).
Many parents would rebel against a public school system that overtly stated a goal of indoctrinating their children with humanism. But in schools where the humanist agenda is being pushed, more subtle means are used. Since evolution is taught under the guise of science, it has become a very useful tool for promoting humanism and other forms of atheism.
Many public school textbooks contain telling quotes. For example, Campbell states: “Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than supernatural creation” (1996, p. 413). The author makes clear that in his view, science is incompatible with the Bible. He also fails to note that the two fundamental assertions of Darwin have been shown false. There is no such thing as a “simple cell” that could randomly arise in a “warm little pond,” and there is no evidence that mutations add genetic information to life that already exists. A more accurate statement is: “Darwin attempted to give biology an atheistic basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than supernatural creation.”
Miller and Levine attempt to support evolution by setting up an incorrect creationist straw man and then tearing it down. They assert:
The vast majority of Europeans in Darwin’s day believed that the Earth and all forms of life were divine creations, produced a few thousand years ago over a span of one week. Since that original creation, both the Earth and its living species were thought to have remained fixed and unchanged. By the time Darwin set sail on the Beagle, there were numerous discoveries of evidence—fossils of extinct animals, for example—that this traditional view could not explain (1998, p. 223).
The statement provides two important pieces of misinformation. First, the types of changes Darwin observed (variation within a kind) were documented over 3,000 years before Darwin in Genesis 30:32-42. However, by attributing an erroneous belief to the Bible (although no evidence is provided that the “vast majority of Europeans” actually held the belief as stated), the attempt is made to discredit the Bible. Second, the Genesis Flood (and the climate changes it likely produced) provides an excellent explanation for the fossil record, the ice age, and the extinction of animals. Rather than being inexplicable by the “traditional view,” the fossil record and other observations we make in the present are best explained by the Bible.
Other examples abound. For instance, the teacher’s editions of many textbooks encourage teachers to mislead students by equating changes that result from the application of intelligence to the random changes that supposedly produce evolution. Examples include comparing improvements in athletic shoes (Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 216) and changes in auto design (Kaskel, et al., 1999, p. 616) to evolution. If a student can be persuaded to link the theory of evolution to something they know to be true, they are more likely to accept the theory—even if the link is completely illogical. In the Teacher’s Edition of Biology: Visualizing Life, teachers are urged to “emphasize that evolution is considered a scientific fact” (Johnson, 1998, p. 175).
Evolution is promoted at taxpayer expense in many other ways. Public natural history museums often have multi-million dollar displays about evolution, typically with the same religious, unscientific bias that permeates most textbooks. The National Academy of Sciences (whose members, according to a recent poll in Nature, are 72.2% atheistic and 20.8% agnostic [Larson and Witham, 1998, 394[6691]:313]) recently was funded to develop a guidebook for indoctrinating students into evolution, titled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Tips include encouraging religious students to believe that “God used evolution,” or that evolution is somehow compatible with the Bible (National Academy of Sciences, 1998, p. 58). Attempts to encourage students to worship multiple “gods” are reminiscent of Jeremiah 11:13.
CONCLUSION
Much can be learned from the account of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). The Israelites had been largely deceived by false religions, and their leadership was fully committed to those false religions. Queen Jezebel’s reaction when Elijah proved her religion false is equally telling. Rather than thanking Elijah and then setting her country (and herself) back on the right course, she swore to kill him. A similar situation exists today. The evidence for God is clear. However, rather than being thankful for that evidence, many people go to extremes to defend the false religions they have chosen to follow. Methods used to promote the theory of evolution are examples of this extremism.
False religions have opposed God throughout recorded history, and will continue to do so until Christ returns. Romans 1:20-22 states:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Denying God is inexcusable. Although evolutionists may profess to be wise, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a fundamental tenet of atheistic religion. It has nothing to do with true science.
REFERENCES
“Are We Martians? Maybe, Study Says” (2000), The Associated Press, [On-line], URL:http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/01/13/mars.life.ap/index.html.
Beatty, J. Kelly (1996), “Into the Giant,” Sky & Telescope, 91[4]: 20-22.
Bergman, Jerry and George F. Howe (1990), “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Kansas City, MO: Creation Research Society).
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2005), Truth Be Told: Exposing the Myth of Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Campbell, Neil A. (1996), Biology (Menloe Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing).
Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1998 reprint).
Darwin, Francis (1887), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: D. Appleton).
Dunphy, J. (1983), “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, 43[1]:26, January-February.
Grigg, Russell (1996), “Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit,” Creation, 18[2]:33–36, March.
Hoyle, Fred (1981), “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, 294[5837]:105, November 12.
Hoyle, Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Johnson, George B. (1998), Biology: Visualizing Life (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).
Kaskel, Albert, Paul J. Hummer, Jr., and Lucy Daniel (1999), Biology: An Everyday Experience(Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill).
Larson, E.J. and L. Witham (1998), “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature, 394[6691]:313, July 23.
“The Last Word” (2003), New Scientist, 177[2381]:65, February 8.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1998), Biology, the Living Science (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Morowitz, Harold (1968), Energy Flow in Biology (New York: Academic Press).
National Academy of Sciences (1998), Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press).
Patterson, Roger (2006), Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis).
Quammen, David (2004), “Was Darwin Wrong?” National Geographic, 206[5]:31, November.
Sadler, T.W. (1995), Langman’s Medical Embryology (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins), seventh edition.
Sagan, Carl, F.H.C. Crick, and L.M. Mukhin (1973), in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Sarfati, J.D. (1998a), “Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem,” Technical Journal, 12[3]:281–284, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/polymerization.asp.
Sarfati, J.D. (1998b), “Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem,” Technical Journal, 12[3]:263–266, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/chirality.asp.
Selim, Jocelyn (2004), “Useless Body Parts,” Discover Magazine, 25[6]:42-46, June 26.
Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart (1984), Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).
Wiedersheim, Robert (1895), The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History, trans. H. and M. Bernard (London: Macmillan).
Wieland, Carl (1999), “Goodbye, Peppered Moths,” Creation, 21[3]:56, June.
In Genesis 8:4, the Bible indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” This statement, like so many others in Genesis 6-9, has come under attack by critics. For example, in his two-part article on the Flood, skeptic Dennis McKinsey asked: “How could the Ark have rested upon several mountains at once?” (1983, p. 2). Three months later, McKinsey commented on the passage again, saying, “Gen. 8:4 says ‘mountains,’ plural, not ‘a mountain,’ singular.... Apologists repeatedly say one should read the Bible as one reads a newspaper, which is what I am doing. I assume the book says what it means and means what it says” (1984, p. 3). How could the ark rest on more than one mountain?
