"Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"
(1 Timothy 6:20)

    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 entails.
    Empirical science 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.


    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 cheesecloth.
    Two centuries 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.]


    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.

    Many textbooks 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.


    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.
    Many Christians 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.

    Furthermore, even 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 age.


    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 it.


This page hosted by  Get your own Free Home Page