WHY EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC
A STUDY BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
that which is committed
to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
falsely so called:"
While Metaphysical Naturalism is at the root of the social decay that
plagues both Europe and America, because it has been disguised as
science, most people fail to realize that it is actually a false
religion, or that "evolution" is a doctrine of that religion.
As to the social
decay it produces: Because people base their decisions of right and
wrong on their concept of reality, once a person believes that human
life is nothing more than evolved matter, they see little difference
between killing a person and killing an ant. In fact, that is why so
many doctors are willing to butcher babies for money. They see babies
as nothing more than evolved chemicals. However, from a Christian point
of view, their mentality is the same as that of serial killer, Jeffrey
Dahmer. A few years ago the nation was shocked to learn that Dahmer (a
homosexual) had killed several people, and eaten them. Nevertheless, he
not only saw nothing wrong with what he did, but appealed to evolution
in defense of his actions. Like the abortion doctors, he saw nothing
wrong with killing people, because evolution was his religion. And, if
evolution were true, he would be right.
In order to demonstrate why the "theory of evolution" is unscientific,
let me give a brief review of the scientific method, and what it
consists primarily of observation and experimentation. The first step
in the scientific method is to make careful observations, recording
what was observed. The second step is to formulate a hypothesis
designed to explain what was observed. And the third step is to use
that hypothesis to predict the outcome of an experiment.
Galieo dropped two
balls from the tower of Pisa, because he had predicted that both balls
they would fall at the same speed. Since they did fall at the same
speed, the experiment supported the accuracy of his hypothesis. And a
hypothesis that is consistently supported when tested experimentally is
regarded as a theory. However, not only has the
gradual evolution of one species into an entirely different species
never been observed, but there is strong evidence that it could never
happen. In short, because it is not based on observation it is not even
a valid hypothesis, and, because it has never been used to predict the
outcome of an experiment it is not a scientific theory.
There are some in
the scientific community who are aware that what I am saying is true,
yet, instead of rejecting evolution as unscientific, they try to change
the rules, and redefine what a theory is. All that tells us is that
they have made up their minds before looking at the evidence, and only
an anti-intellectual would call that science.
LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Before the scientific method was in use, many people believed that it
was possible for nonliving matter to come to life. However,
experimental evidence has consistently shown that this is not the case.
For example: At one time it was believed that maggots spontaneously
generate in meat. In order to test that "hypothesis," Francesco Redi
(in 1660) devised an experiment, consisting of two jars that 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
later, there were still a number of "scientists" (evolutionists
included) who believed that bacteria would spontaneously generate in
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. 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.
At the time Darwin wrote his book, people imagined that one-celled life
forms were very simple in their makeup, mere blobs of matter that could
easily slosh together by chance. However, we now know that that is not
the case at all. In fact, we now know that a single cell is as complex
as the entire human body was thought to be in Darwin's time. There are
one-celled plants that have a little tail which they use to swim
around, and an eye-spot that lets them know which direction the light
is in. Such creatures could hardly slosh together by chance.
Therefore, in order
to test the claim that such life forms can come together by chance, I
would like to propose the following experiment. We will take a single
cell, break it down into its component parts, and then wait and see if
the parts come together again. Since a common chicken egg consists of
only one cell (an egg cell), it would be convenient to start with an
egg. We can then divide that egg into its component parts by placing it
into a blender. Once that has been done, we will have all of the
ingredients needed to form a single cell. Now, if evolution is true
those ingredients should come back together to form an egg. However, if
evolution is not true, instead of coming back together, time and chance
should cause those ingredients to break down and decay even further.
How long do you
think it will take for the parts of that egg to come back together? One
hour? One year? How long? If those ingredients will never recombine to
form an egg, isn't it absurd to believe that nonliving ingredients
could come together to form a single cell?
[NOTE: Ripley's "Believe It Or not"
lists the Ostrich egg as the largest single cell.]
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The reason the parts of an egg will never reorganize themselves into an
egg has to do with a law of science known as the "Second Law of
Thermodynamics." Simply stated, that law says that the natural
direction of things is from order to disorder. In other words an egg
may break apart and decay, but it is not going to put itself together.
A car may rust until it is nothing but rust, yet that rust will never
form itself into a car. A house may become dirty or fall to pieces, but
it will never build itself or become clean on its own. Animals may
degenerate, or become extinct, but they do not change into higher and
more complex species.
In fact, true
science reveals that what is really happening in the world is the
opposite of what evolutionists claim. For example: Rather than becoming
grander and more glorious the universe is in a state of decay. Science
knows of many animals that have become extinct, but there is no record
of any new animal ever coming into existence. Mutations result from
damage to the genetic code and, for that reason, are always harmful,
never beneficial, and the number of species in existence is becoming
fewer, not greater. In short, left to itself the universe will
eventually become dark, cold and motionless.
When confronted with the biological evidence against evolution, those
who have made that doctrine their religion often justify their refusal
to accept the evidence by claiming that the fossil record proves
evolution. However, just as with so many other of their claims, that is
simply not true. About forty percent of all fossilized life forms are
not extinct. In the rocks we find fossilized dragon flies, frogs,
turtles, lobsters, oysters, clams, figs, walnuts, willows, and so
forth. Yet none of those fossilized life forms are significantly
different from their modern-day counterparts. In short, they have not
evolved one bit since the rocks were formed. And if they have not
evolved in all that time, then there is no evidence that any of the
others evolved either.
contain a chart that gives the impression that the entire surface of
the earth consists of rock layers that are neatly lain out with the
simplest life forms in the lowest layers, and increasingly complex life
forms in the higher layers. However, that chart, commonly referred to
as the geologic column, is a fraud, for the rock layers are not found
in that order anywhere on earth. In fact, in many cases they are found
in the opposite order. Furthermore, Cambrian rocks are the type of
rocks found on the surface in Wales. Devonian rocks are the type or
rocks found on the surface in Devonshire. And Jurassic rocks are the
type of rocks found on the surface in the Jura Mountains. The geologic
column exists only in textbooks, and only an anti-intellectual would
call such an irresponsible representation of the facts, science.
If evolution were a valid scientific theory, its adherents would not
have to resort to lies and deception in order to convince people that
it is true. However, ever since Darwin wrote his book, one hoax after
another has been concocted in an effort to convince the general public.
Since many of these frauds have to do with the alleged "missing links,"
let me go over some of the facts.
In 1891 a Dutch
physician named Eugene Dubois, found a human leg bone and two teeth.
Combining those bones with the skullcap of an ape that was found fifty
feet away, he then claimed to have found the missing link, which he
called "Java Man." For decades, textbooks proclaimed the existence of
"Java Man" as fact, complete with pictures of how he may have looked.
Yet, before dying, Dubois admitted that he had found a human skull near
the leg bone and teeth, and that the skullcap was from a gibbon.
At the Scopes
trial, "Nebraska Man" (who had been "scientifically" recreated from
only one tooth) was held up as proof that the theory of Evolution was
true. For decades, textbooks proclaimed the existence of "Nebraska Man"
as fact, with pictures not only of him but also of his entire family.
However, the tooth from which the entire family had been created,
turned out to be the tooth of a pig.
In 1912 a physician
named Charles Dawson, discovered the skull of a man that supposedly had
the jaw of an ape. For decades, textbooks held Dawson's discovery
before unsuspecting students as proof of evolution. However, forty-one
years later (1953), a careful examination of those bones revealed that
they had been stained in order to make them appear old, and filed in
order to make the ape's jaw bone fit a human skull.
Far from being the
exception, the incidents that I have just cited are typical. In fact,
every one of the so-called "missing links" has been shown to be a
fraud. "Lucy" was nothing more than the skeleton of a chimp combined
with a human knee joint found over a mile away. "Neanderthal Man" was
not only fully human, but also had a larger brain case than most humans
living today. Only anti-intellectuals resort to fraud in order to
convince others that their worldview is correct.
AGE OF THE EARTH
At one time, geologists held views that were in accord with the
Biblical worldview. However, Charles Lyell was a strong opponent of
that worldview, and misrepresented the facts, in order to influence
others away from it. For example: When reporting on the Niagara Falls
gorge, he disregarded the evidence and said that the gorge only erodes
at about one foot per year, when the erosion rate is actually closer to
seven feet per year. Since the gorge is seven miles long, his claim led
geologists to conclude that the gorge was almost thirty-seven thousand
years old, when the actual evidence indicates that it is much younger.
While there is no
solid evidence that the world is more than six thousand years old,
those who have made naturalism their religion are usually adamant in
claiming millions of years. However, instead of basing such claims on
objective research, they generally make assertions that go far beyond
anything that they are able to prove. For example: They often claim
that it would take millions of years for stalactites to form, yet they
disregard any evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, stalactites have
formed in the basement of the Lincoln memorial in less than one hundred
years, and I know of a local bridge and parking garage that have
stalactites though they are younger still. So the claim of millions of
years is bogus.
find radiometric dating methods intimidating to say the least. Yet such
dating methods are far from accurate, and discrepancies between the
various types of radiometric dating are so incompatible that
evolutionists are beginning to question their reliability. On that
topic, John MacKay, in an address to the Association of Geological and
Earth Sciences, pointed out that Basalt from one volcano is dated by
Potassium Argon at five hundred thousand years of age, while vegetation
buried by that Basalt is dated by Carbon 14 at less than one thousand
years. In another case Potassium Argon dates rock which was formed by
an eruption in 1801 as being 2.4 million years old while Helium dates
the same rocks at six hundred million years of age.
though there is no solid evidence to support the claim of millions of
years, there are some interesting facts that seem to disprove such
claims. For instance: Careful measurements of the earth's magnetic
field reveal that it is growing weaker. Since there is a limit as to
how strong a magnetic field can be, if the earth was really millions of
years old, its magnetic field would have disappeared ages ago. Other
studies reveal that the earth's rotation speed is slowing down, and
that the moon is moving away from the earth. In either case, that could
not have been going on for more that a few thousand years. In addition,
the absence of meteors and the presence of vertical tree trunks in the
sedimentary layers of the earth's crust show that these strata were
formed rapidly, not gradually, and careful studies of erosion show that
the existing river deltas cannot be much over five thousand years of
If you would like more information, John MacKay (a geologist who became
convinced that the facts simply do not support evolution) has produced
some excellent videos that I recommend. His office in Hartsville
Tennessee can be reached at (615) 347-3693. Another well-known
researcher, Ken Ham, has books, videos, and other resources available.
He can be reached at (606) 647-2900.
Far from being new, naturalistic explanations of the universe were
taught by pagan philosophers prior to the time of Christ. Darwin simply
read their naturalistic philosophy into the facts, while appealing to
racism. In fact, racism played a major role in the rapid spread and
acceptance of his views. For that reason, I regard everyone who
promotes evolution as a closet racist, even if they personally disavow
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page