There has been much propaganda regarding the "intelligent design" controversy. In truth, creation/design is the scientific position; evolution is unscientific. By definition, science is based upon what we observe in the physical world and logical inference from what we observe.
While microevolution --change within a species-- is observed and scientific, macroevolution, what "evolution" customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance. Such "spontaneous generation," disproven long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life --and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God. Evolution also asserts one life form can change into another, higher form --something also never observed, and thus unscientific. Instead, we always observe exactly what Genesis 1 states numerous times: life reproduces "according to its kind" (vv. 11,12,21,24,25,29) --i.e., cats beget cats, crickets beget crickets, etc. They never change into something else. With microbiology we understand why.
All life contains DNA, a genetic blueprint containing information. But purely material processes cannot create information, which originates only from a "mind."(1) Evolution proceeds via chance, the antithesis of information. The DNA in simple bacteria has several million specifications; man’s has several billion.(2) The DNA molecule, the most complex structure we know, and unquestionably the most efficient copying device, with self-correcting processes, prevents one life form from "changing" into another. We are all copies of a copy of a copy, etc., going back to the very first human parents. Genesis 3:20 says Eve was "the mother of all the living." Science proved we are descendents of one woman, whose genes are carried by all mankind. Newsweek’s 1-11-88 cover article ("Searching for Adam and Eve") states: "all modern men and women descended from this relatively recent woman whom scientists have taken to calling Eve."(3) Even evolutionists accept this finding, based on the DNA in our mitochondria, the cell’s powerhouse.(4) Mitochondrial DNA comes unmixed, only from the mother; "it preserves a family record that isn’t scrambled every generation."(5)
The fossil record disproves evolution. If the first life form changed into another, higher form by gradual gene changes, and so on down the line, accounting for all life, then, quoting Darwin, "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."(6) The whole world would be awash in the remains of "infinitely numerous connecting links."(7) It isn’t. Darwin conceded that fact, calling it "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory.(8) He attests the "sudden appearance" of species, complete and distinct, in the fossil record(9) --just as if God created all life individually.
Evolution is scientifically preposterous. Laws of probability are real scientific laws. Our DNA is "unique" because the odds of another person having our exact DNA are so remote we can dismiss that possibility altogether. Likewise with evolution. Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature’s chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power.(10) Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe(11); he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."(12) Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.(13) Sir Fred Hoyle calculated nature’s chances of producing the 2000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.(14) He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong."(15) He concludes: "Life cannot have had a random beginning(16)...but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."(17) Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconciliable with the facts."(18) Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world."(19) Einstein knew the universe didn’t happen by chance.
Atheism and evolution are dead. Science destroyed them. Those claiming evolution is "scientific" must demonstrate that life can come from non-life by purely material processes, and that one life form can turn into another, higher form. Science demands it. Put up or shut up!
Note ** As in "Einstein’s Big Idea," television show produced by NOVA, aired on PBS Oct 11, 2005. Einstein also famously stated, "God does not play dice with the universe." And Einstein further stated, "The more I study science the more I believe in God." --The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, "Science Resurrects God."
Tom Phillips of Milwaukee is director of Catholics Serving the Lord. Mr. Phillips has a B.S. in Biology and M.S. in Educational Psychology He may be contacted at <email@example.com> From the Dec. 22, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
(1) See, for example, Dr. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2003); and also Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997) ch 5: "Intelligent Design," pp 68-83. Sir Fred Hoyle similarly stated, "Just as the brain of Shakespeare was necessary to produce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a living cell." --Evolution From Space, p 148 (see footnote 14 below).
(4) For example, even Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated: "It makes us realize that all human beings, despite differences in external appearance, are really members of a single entity that’s had a very recent origin in one place. There is a kind of biological brotherhood that’s much more profound than we ever realized." Ibid., p 47.
(8) Ibid., p 287. Darwin also acknowledged a serious problem regarding design: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Ibid., p 171 (ch 6: "Difficulties of the Theory"). Darwin wrote to a botanist friend in Feb 1860, "To this day the eye makes me shudder." --Life Magazine, April 1982, p 51 (Darwin quoted in article by Francis Hitching, "Was Darwin Wrong?"--see footnote 18 below).
(12) Ibid., p 53. Crick also said, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Ibid., p 88.
(13) Nobel laureate Emile Borel, as quoted in The Milwaukee Journal, Oct 8, 1988, p 6A, stated: "If anything is [1 in] 10 to the 50th power or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe."
(14) Sir Fred Hoyle, Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationsim (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p 24. Hoyle further said that the chance that life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." --Nature, Nov 12, 1981 p 105.
(18) Ernst Chain, as quoted in article by Francis Hitching, "Was Darwin Wrong?": Life Magazine, April 1982, p 50. [This article was an excerpt from Hitching’s 1982 book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong.] Ernst Chain’s quote continues as follows: "These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." Chain won a Nobel Prize for his research into the curative properties of penicillin.
(19) As in "Einstein’s Big Idea," television show produced by NOVA, aired on PBS Oct 11, 2005. Einstein also famously stated, "God does not play dice with the universe." And Einstein further stated, "The more I study science the more I believe in God." --The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, "Science Resurrects God."
Close this window to return to current page