Why Belief in
EVOLUTION IS SUPERSTITION NOT
SCIENCE
By
Gary Ray Branscome
“O
fools, and
slow of heart to believe everything the prophets have said. // Hasn’t
God made
the wisdom of this world foolish?” (Luke 24:25; 1Corinthians
Just as the ancient world was deceived by a superstitious belief in idols our modern world has been deceived by a superstitious belief in evolution. And, evolution is superstition because it is founded on two assumptions which science has shown to be false!
The two assumptions that I am talking about are: 1- the
belief that nonliving matter can turn into living organisms, and 2- the
belief
that small changes in living organisms have no limit but can, over a
long
period of time, change one organism into an entirely different
organism, even
to the point of eventually changing a worm into a professor. Although
those two
assumptions were believed by
Let us start with the assumption that nonliving matter can
turn into living organisms. Before the scientific method was in use,
many
people believed that it was possible for nonliving matter to come to
life. In
fact, at one time it was assumed that maggots just spontaneously
generate in
meat. However, in order to test that belief Francesco Redi (in 1660)
devised an
experiment, consisting of two jars which both contained meat. One jar
was open,
the other jar had a piece of cheesecloth stretched across the top. Not
only did
maggots only appear in the open jar, but flies were actually observed
laying
maggots on the cheesecloth.
In spite of that evidence, at
the time Charles Darwin wrote his book there were evolutionists who
believed
that bacteria would spontaneously generate in beef broth. In order to
test that
hypothesis, Louis Pasteur (in 1859) devised an experiment that utilized
several
long-necked flasks containing beef broth. After the broth was boiled,
the necks
on some of the flasks were heated and bent in an s-curve. As predicted,
bacteria only infested the broth that was in flasks with straight
necks. When
the flasks had curved necks, the bacteria stuck to the side of the
neck, and
could not get to the broth. Those experiments, coupled with the
invention of a
dust-free box at the end of the nineteenth-century, convinced the
scientific
community that life does not come from non-life. In fact, the principle
that
life comes only from preexisting life is so well established
scientifically
that it is known as the “law of Biogenesis”. Nevertheless, those who
have made
evolution their religion, ignore the scientific evidence while
continuing to
insist that once upon a time, long long ago, a teeny weeny bit of
matter did
come to life, and that all other living things have evolved from it.
The Complexity of Life
Because
very little was known about living cells at the time
Of
course, there are always some people who imagine that it might happen
given
enough time. However, they always assume that whenever two or more of
the parts
come together that they just stay together and wait for the other parts
to come
along, and that is totally unrealistic. Using their own reasoning, we
could
claim that if all the pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle were put in a
tumbler and
turned over and over for millions of years some of the pieces might
eventually
come together in the right way. However, in real life, even if a few
did come
together, the same forces that brought them together would tear them
apart. And,
the same holds true for the parts of a living cell. Not only would
natural
forces tear them apart, but in time the pieces would be broken and
destroyed by
wear. That is one reason a living cell could never form on its own.
However,
since there are always people who prefer superstition to reality, let
us assume
that all of the parts necessary to form a living cell did come together
as they
claim. It still would not be alive! So all they would have would be a
dead
cell. Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this. And, since it
had been
discovered that an electric shock would cause frog legs to jerk, they
glibly
jumped to the conclusion that a bolt of lightning might have given life
to the
first cell. But like their other claims, that claim is superstition,
not
science. Electricity has been used to kill things, but it has never
made
non-living things live.
Nevertheless,
in order to humor those who prefer superstition to fact, let us assume
that
this one-celled creature did come to life. First of all it would have
nothing
to eat. And, even if it could survive how would it reproduce. Oh, to be
sure,
it was easy for those who knew only the steamboat era science of
Charles Darwin
to believe that the first cell could reproduce. After all,
Another question that we
need to ask is. Once a single celled organism does divide why do the
two halves
not exhibit the aging characteristics of original cell? After all, they
are
both just parts of the original cell. But they do not age. In fact, the
amoebas
living today are the same amoebas that were living thousands of years
ago. How
did splitting in half keep them from aging? And, why do some die while
others
do not? Moreover, if they have not changed into something else in all
that
time, why should we believe that they have ever, or will ever, change
into
anything else.
DIVISION OF PLANTS AND
ANIMALS
Another
big problem for the evolutionists has to do with the very convenient
fact that
we have both plants and animals. If the first living cells were animals
they
would have quickly used up all the oxygen and died off. On the other
hand, if
the first living organisms were plants, they would have quickly used up
the
carbon dioxide and died off. Furthermore, the claim that one-celled
animals
changed into plants, or vice versa, is absurd. Plants and animals have
a
totally different structure and makeup which make it impossible for one
to
change into the other. Of course, the typical atheist response to these
facts
is, again, to say, “It must have happened, so why don’t you stop asking
for
proof and just believe?”
THE ORIGIN OF MULTI-CELLED
ORGANISMS
Finally,
the claim that one-celled organisms could just change into multi-celled
organisms is equally absurd. It is easy for the superstitious minded to
imagine
one-celled organisms that begin to live in colonies and then gradually
evolve
into multi-celled creatures. But, it will not work! First of all, if
one-celled
organisms are packed too closely together, no food or light will be
able to
reach the ones on the inside. And, if they do get enough food they will
drown
in their own waste. Furthermore, they would still be one-celled
organisms. In
order to have a multi-celled organism, the entire colony would have to
grow
from one cell. Furthermore, that one cell would have to contain in its
DNA the
entire plan for systems that would provide food (digestive system,
circulatory
system), air (respiratory system), and waste removal. But, none of
those
systems could evolve in slow steps! They would have to be complete from
the
beginning, or they would be useless. A mouth without a stomach would be
useless! A stomach without digestive juices would be useless! A
digestive tract
without an anus would be useless! Lungs without a circulatory system
would be
useless! A heart and veins without blood cells would be useless! All of
the
parts would have to be there from the beginning! And, they would have
to work
or the organism would be extinct. In addition, this organism would have
to have
the ability to reproduce. Without having a complete and functional
reproductive
system from the start, it would be extinct. Of course, the typical
atheist response
to these facts is, again, to say, “It must have happened, so why don’t
you stop
asking for proof and just believe?”
Evolutionists
seem to blithely assume that random chance could just miraculously
place the
entire blueprint for an organ or organism into the DNA without any
design being
involved. But, that is superstition, not science. Furthermore, I have
not even
touched on the fact that all of the parts must be connected in the
proper
order. For example: What good would a stomach be if it was not
connected to the
mouth? What good would a circulatory system be if there was no way for
the
blood cells to reach the veins? What good would a brain be if there
were not
nerves connecting it to the muscles? All of the parts not only need to
exist,
they need to be connected in just the right way, or they will not work.
To
illustrate what I am saying, imagine that you have all of the parts of
a car
spread out on a concrete floor. In order for them to work together as a
complete unit, they must all be put together and all be in the right
place.
And, the same holds true for any living organism! In order to work the
parts
must be put together in the right way, and random chance can never
accomplish
that. It takes intelligence to design the parts and even more
intelligence to
design a system that will automatically assemble them as they grow from
a
single cell.
Not
only is the idea that random chance can bring the parts of something as
complex
as the human body together without any plan or design absurd, but it is
just as
absurd to believe that random chance can produce the parts to begin
with. For
example: After a human egg cell is fertilized it begins to grow and
divide. One
cell becomes two, two become four, and so on. However, soon these cells
begin
to specialize. Some become liver cells, some become brain cells, and
some
become bone cells etc.. However, why does that happen? If the first
cell just
began splitting in half, then all of the “daughter cells” ought to have
the
same chemistry as the first cell. After all, they are just parts of the
first
cell. Why should they be different? But, they are not only different
they are
organized in just the right way! And, that is something that cannot be
accounted for by time and chance. Consider bone cells for example. If
time and
chance caused some of the cells to become bone cells, instead of being
organized together as bones they would be scattered through the body in
a
random fashion like salt on a pork chop. The very fact that they are
organized
in just the right way screams intelligent design. However, again the
typical
atheist response is to close their mind to the facts and say, “It must
have
happened, so why don’t you stop asking for proof and just believe that
it
happened?”
“Throughout
150 years of
the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of
bacteria
has changed into another.… Since there is no evidence for species
changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there
is no evidence for evolution.… throughout the whole array of
multicellular
organisms.” (Bacteriologist Alan H.
Linton,
2001. Quoted in, “THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO DARWINISM AND
INTELLIGENT
DESIGN,” page 57.)
ASSUMPTION NUMBER TWO
Up to
this point I have not even mentioned the complex system needed for a
multi-celled organism to reproduce. Not only would a multi-celled
organism
somehow have to form on its own, but that multi-celled organism would
have to
come into existence with the ability to reproduce, or it would be
extinct. And,
that would have to be true for plants as well as for animals. Moreover,
I have
not yet even mentioned the need for both male and female. Isn’t it
obvious that
believing that such things just happen, or that a random reshuffling of
organic
chemicals could cause them to happen, is superstition, not science?
Nevertheless,
without reproduction the idea that one species could gradually morph
into
another species, genus, phylum etc. would not even make a good fairy
tale. And,
it is a fairy tale because there is no scientific evidence that it ever
happened.
At
this point some reader might be thinking, “Wait a minute, I seem to
remember
one of my professors claiming that science has proven evolution. What
was the
proof he offered? Oh yes, he claimed that the fact that certain
bacteria have
become immune to antibiotics has proven that life evolves. And, the
fact that
Consider
the claim that dinosaurs changed into birds! Not only is there no
scientific
evidence to support that claim, but “modern birds”, birds that are just
like
some living today, have been found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
And, many
evolutionists know it.
They also know that the
evolution of one species into another has never been observed. In fact,
the claim
that evolution happens very slowly (too slowly to be observed) is just
their
way of trying to get around that fact. What the public fails to see is
that if
evolution takes place gradually, in steps too small to be observed,
then each
of the steps would be too small to give the organism a survival
advantage. And,
that knocks the props out from under the whole idea of survival of the
fittest,
for survival of the fittest requires changes large enough to give a
survival
advantage.
Furthermore, the whole idea
that one species can morph into another flies in the face of modern
genetics.
It was easy for
Perhaps you remember that
Gregor Mendel crossed various kinds of peas. He crossed green peas with
yellow
peas, smooth peas with wrinkled peas, etc. Through careful
experimentation he
discovered that some traits are dominant and others recessive, and
certain
traits will reappear every third generation, giving the appearance of
change. However,
such changes are not something new coming into existence, but are in
the
genetic makeup of the organism from the start. And, the extent of such
changes
is limited by what is in the genes. In actuality, there is no solid
scientific
evidence that one species has ever, or could ever; evolve into an
entirely
different species, genus, order etc. The evolutionists simply assert
that it
happened and then try to twist the evidence in the same way that cult
leaders
twist Scripture.
Perhaps you remember seeing
drawings of horses or men in a row, with the ones on the left appearing
smaller
or, in the case of men, more apelike. However, that is something
dreamed up by
an artist, not a representation of actual evidence. Furthermore:
“To
take a line of fossils and claim that they
represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an
assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing,
perhaps
even instructive, but not scientific.” (Evolutionary
biologist Henry Gee, 1999. Quoted in, “THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE
TO
DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN,” page 20.)
AN EXPERIMENT
On the first page of his book The
Blind watchmaker Atheist professor Richard Dawkins says,
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having
been designed for a purpose”. When you realize that he wrote that book
for the
express purpose of convincing his readers that the exact opposite is
true, his
statement is astounding. It is astounding because it assumes that the
evidence
for intelligent design is so ubiquitous that it is self-evident to his
readers.
Another evolutionist, Francis
Crick, has been quoted as saying: “Scientists have to continually
remind
themselves that what they are studying was not designed but rather
evolved.”
Does that sound to you like he has an open mind?
The only reason that science
as a whole has not totally rejected the myth of evolution, along with
many
other scientific myths of the past [such as the claim that space is
filled with
ether, or the claim that it is impossible for rocks (meteors) to fall
from the
sky] is because atheists have made it into their religion and defend it
dogmatically.
Therefore, let me propose an
experiment. Since a common hen’s
egg
consists of only one cell (an egg cell), if we place an egg into a
blender and
puree it we will have all the ingredients necessary to form a single
cell. I
will then make this prediction. If evolution is true time and chance
should
cause the parts of the egg to come back together and reform into a
living cell.
However, if evolution is false then time and chance should cause the
ingredients to break down and decay even further. Try the experiment in
your
own kitchen.
CONCLUSION
Why
do so many people in our society prefer superstition to reality? Are
they
stupid? I don’t think so. Are they simply ignorant of the facts? Some
are, but
it would be hard for them to be ignorant about topics they claim to be
expert
in. Are they under a satanic delusion? It seems obvious that some are.
Especially when we consider the cruelty and violence that they have
used
evolution to justify, including the murder of over fifty million babies
by
abortion. Therefore, although we need to deal with them in love, we
need to
remember that the Bible calls all who reject the truth in
unrighteousness,
fools (Psalm 14:1, Luke 24:25; 1Corinthians 1:20).