WHY THE
“THEORY OF EVOLUTION” IS
SCIENCE
FICTION, NOT SCIENCE!
A Look at the Evidence by
Gary Ray Branscome
“The time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but according to their own lusts, will surround
themselves with teachers who tell them what their ears itch to hear; And
they will turn their ears away from the
truth, and will be turned to
fables.”
(2Timothy 4:3-4)
The advocates of evolution claim to be
following reason, they claim to have evidence for what they believe.
However,
nothing could be further from the truth! On the contrary, reason tells
us that behind
every design is a designer. That fact is so
obvious
that it is almost axiomatic.
To illustrate that fact, imagine that
you are the lone survivor of a shipwreck. Imagine that, clinging to a
bit of debris,
you make it to an island that seems to be deserted. Then, as you begin
to
explore the island you come across something as simple as a pole with a
skull
on the top of it. Would you assume that natural forces placed that pole
in the
ground, and placed the skull on top of it?
Or would you know that the skull was placed on the pole by
design?
Suppose that you then find a post with carvings on it, similar to a
totem pole.
Would you assume that natural forces placed that post in the ground,
and carved
shapes on it? Or would you know that the carvings were made by someone?
Going
further, suppose that you found a wrist watch lying on the sand. Would
you
assume that natural forces created that watch? Or would you know that
it was
designed? My point is obvious! Reason itself tells us that every design
has a
designer! And, reason itself tells us that the world is full of living
things
that appear to be designed. The design inherent in living things is
obvious,
not only in the complete organism, but in every detail of its
construction,
even down to the submicroscopic components of its cells. In fact, the
evidence
of design is so obvious that atheist professor, Richard Dawkins, began
his
book, “The Blind Watchmaker” by admitting that fact — even though the
rest of
that book is an attempt to explain it away. Here is the actual quote:
“Biology is the study of complicated things
that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (“The Blind
Watchmaker”,
paragraph 2.)
Here
is a similar quote by Francis Crick:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that
what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (“What Mad
Pursuit”,
page 138.)
If living things appear to have been
designed because they have been designed, then a dogmatic refusal to
believe that
they have been designed is a rejection of science in favor of science
fiction.
The Origin of Life
The advocates of evolution also claim
that life began all by itself, in a “warm little pond”. To them, that
idea is
perfectly reasonable. However, experimental science, as opposed to
science
fiction, has demonstrated time and again that life comes only from
preexisting
life. For example:
At one time, there were some scientists who
believed
that maggots would spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test
that
"hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660)
devised an experiment, consisting of jars that contained meat. Jars
that were
either open, closed or had a piece of cheesecloth stretched across the
top. Not
only did maggots only appear in the open jars, but flies were actually
observed
laying maggots on the cheesecloth.
Two centuries later, there were still some
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 left straight, while the necks of other flasks were
heated and
bent in an s-curve. As predicted, bacteria only infested the broth that
was in
flasks with straight necks. Any bacteria that entered the flasks with
curved
necks 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 comes only from preexisting life. In
fact the
principle (that life comes only from preexisting life) is so well
supported by
the evidence that it is known to science as the “Law of Biogenesis”.
Therefore,
it should be obvious that those who refuse to accept the evidence,
while
continuing to insist that non-living matter can come to life, are
teaching
science fiction, not science. Here are some actual quotes:
“The more we look,
the more
water we seem to find on the planet [Mars]. This is incredibly
significant
because on Earth, anywhere there’s water there’s life – from the driest
deserts
to frozen glaciers, even inside clouds.” (From the July 2017 issue of
“Astronomy” magazine, page 27.)
“Researchers propose that life originated in
geothermal ponds on land instead of in the deep sea.” (From the
September/October 2017 issue of “Popular Science” magazine, page 44.)
Because the scientific evidence consistently
points to
the fact that life comes only from preexisting life, a dogmatic
insistence that
once upon a time, long long ago, a tiny
bit of matter
did come to life, and that all other living things have evolved from
it, is a
rejection of science in favor of science fiction.
The Alleged Evolution of Fish
The sedimentary rocks in the earth’s
crust contain many fossilized fish. There are fossilized perch, bass,
sunfish, catfish,
garfish, pipefish, herring, sharks, and rays to name a few. And, the
reason we
know that these fossilized fish are perch, bass, sunfish and so forth
is
because they so closely resemble their present-day counterparts. In
fact,
whenever we discover the fossilized remains of a fish that has not
become
extinct, we find that there has not been any significant change in that
fish
species since the time that the rocks were formed. That fact is, in
itself,
scientific evidence that fish have not evolved and are not evolving.
However, because the advocates of
evolution believe that all of the more advanced [i.e. more man-like]
vertebrates
have evolved from fish, they brush aside the evidence and insist that
once upon
a time, long long ago, some fish evolved
into
amphibians. Of course, it would be absurd for them to claim that fish
which are
not extinct evolved into amphibians, for we could simply hold a living
one up
and say, “It still looks like a fish to me”. No. Instead, they seize
upon some
extinct species of fish, and claim that that one species is not really
extinct,
but just evolved into amphibians. Of course there is no empirical [i.e.
scientific] evidence that such a change ever happened. However, you
would never
learn that from listening to the evolutionists.
On the contrary, they talk as if their science fiction scenarios
are
fact rather than fiction. In typical blowhard fashion they write
articles and
give speeches talking about the evolution of fish as if they saw it
happen.
But, time and again all of their big talk has been exposed as nothing
more than
hot air.
To give just one example, during the
first few decades of the twentieth century evolutionists claimed that a
fossil
fish known as the Coelacanth was the ancestor of amphibians. What sets
the Coelacanth
apart from most fish living today is that, instead of having its fins
attached
directly to its body they are attached to little lobes that stick out
from its
body. Evolutionists believed that those lobes were rudimentary legs. So
they taught,
as fact, a made-up story about Coelacanths living in swamps and
gradually evolving
legs as they walked on their fins from one pond to another. When I was
a child
I had a book saying just that. They even drew pictures of them walking
on their
fins. Yet it was all a lie! And, we know it was a lie because in 1937 a
living
Coelacanth was caught off the coast of
Did the evolutionists learn anything
from that mistake? Apparently not, for they still teach the same
science
fiction story. The only thing that has changed is the name of the
lobe-finned fish
that they claim is the ancestor of amphibians. For example, the
July/August
2017 issue of “Discover” magazine contained an article claiming that a
lobe-finned fish known as Eusthenopteron
is the
ancestor of amphibians (Page 44). And, in typical blowhard fashion,
they talk
about the evolution of that fish as if it were fact. The
article is entitled, When We Left Water”, with the subtitle, “How our tetrapod ancestors first came ashore”.
And, it
begins with the words, “More than 350 million years ago, our distant
fishy
ancestors traded in the life aquatic for land.” Yet despite all of the
big
talk, there is not one scrap of empirical evidence to support their
claim. On
the contrary, as I previously pointed out, all of the real scientific
evidence
points to the fact that fish have not changed significantly since the
rocks
were formed.
At this point, let us consider what the
evolution of a fish into an amphibian would involve. If the species
that evolutionists
have in mind numbered one million at the time it began to evolve, and
one of
those fish had a little change in the right direction, it would have to
mate
with others that did not have that change. Therefore, in a few
generations that
change would be recessive. Then, if another fish in that population had
the
next change in the right direction, the same thing would happen. And,
that
would accomplish nothing. No. In order for evolution to take place the
second
change has to happen to a descendant of the fish with the first change,
and so
on with all subsequent changes. Each change must build on the previous
change! And,
that means that even though all of the other fish are not changing – as
the
fossil record indicates – this one hypothetical family of fish
experiences
change after change until the members of that fish family have been
totally
transformed from fish into amphibians. Not only that, but then they
branch out
into all of the different kinds of amphibians that exist in the world
today.
However, evolutionists have to explain
away the fact that once that linage has branched out, and has produced
many kinds
of amphibians, those amphibians stop changing. We know that because, as
in the
case with the fish, whenever we find a fossilized amphibian that is not
extinct
there is no significant difference between the fossil and its modern
day
counterpart. Therefore, evolutionists have the same problem with
amphibians that
they have with fish. In order for amphibians to change into reptiles,
changes
have to happen time and again in many steps to one specific amphibian
linage,
while all of the amphibians that have not become extinct stay the same.
Nevertheless,
such changes have never been observed, and there is no empirical
evidence that
they ever took place. The evolutionists simply assert that they
happened
because that is what they want to believe. And, all such assertions are
science
fiction, not science.
The Alleged Evolution of Amphibians
The sedimentary rocks in the earth’s
crust contain many fossilized amphibians.
Not
as many amphibians as fish, but they are there. There are fossilized
frogs,
salamanders, mud-puppies and so forth. And, as I have pointed out,
whenever we
find the fossil of an amphibian that is not extinct we find that there
has not
been any significant change since the rocks were formed. Nevertheless,
the
July/August 2017 issue of “Discover” magazine (which I previously
mentioned)
lines up pictures (artists’ renderings) of creatures that, according to
them,
represent various steps in the evolution of fish into amphibians. One,
named Tiktaalik, is said to be a,
“transitional fishapod”. Of another, named
Acanthostega,
it says, “Researchers believe it was still fully aquatic but may
have ‘walked’ in the shallows” (emphasis mine). A third, named Pederpes, is said, “to
have been
capable of four-limbed locomotion on land”. However, there is not one
scrap of
evidence that these creatures were even related to each other, much
less that
they represent steps in evolution. The evolutionists simply assert that
it is
true while ignoring all of the fossil amphibians that have not evolved.
And, flying
in the face of evidence, all such assertions are science fiction, not
science.
The ploy used by “Discover” magazine;
that of lining up pictures of extinct species and asserting that one
has
evolved from the other, is nothing more than an exercise in deception.
It may take
in the gullible, but there is no proof that such evolution ever took
place. If
all members of the deer family, except the Moose, were extinct; then I
could
line up pictures of a small deer, a large deer, an elk and a Moose and
claim
that one evolved into the other. But, that would not make it true. And,
anyone
who calls such assertions science, only tells me that they cannot
distinguish
between science and science fiction.
The Alleged Evolution of Reptiles
Just as with fish and amphibians, the
sedimentary rock
layers contain many fossilized reptiles that are not extinct.
Crocodiles,
alligators, lizards, tuatara and a variety of turtles are all
represented. And,
just as with the fish and amphibians, whenever we find the fossilized
remains
of a reptile that is not extinct there is no significant difference
between it
and those living today. Evolutionists try to seize on minor
differences.
However, the differences between a particular fossil and its living
representatives are often less than the differences between the various
living
varieties. Nevertheless, because evolutionists want to believe that
reptiles
evolved into birds, they insist that all of the birds living today must
have
evolved from some extinct species of reptile. And, the most popular
scenario at
the moment is that dinosaurs have evolved into birds. I found the
following
statement to that effect on the website of the “
“Not all dinosaurs died out 65 million years
ago.
Avian dinosaurs — in other words, birds — survived and flourished”.
Notice how, in typical blowhard
fashion, they talk as if they were present when it happened, even
though the
claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds is nothing more than pure
speculation. Furthermore,
as I pointed out previously, one entire species could never evolve into
another
species, and this is the reason. If a specific dinosaur species
numbered
one million at the time it began to evolve, and if one of those
dinosaurs had a
little change in the right direction, it would have to mate with others
that
did not have that change. For that reason, in a few generations the
change
would be recessive. Then, if another dinosaur in that population had
the next
change in the right direction, the same thing would happen. And, that
would
accomplish nothing. No. In order for evolution to take place the second
change
has to happen to a descendant of the dinosaur with the first change,
and so on
with all subsequent changes. This means that one particular reptile
linage had
to experience one change after another, while all of the reptiles that
did not
become extinct remained virtually the same. And, because there is not
one scrap
of evidence that dinosaurs changed into birds, the claim that they did
is
science fiction, not science. Worse yet, it is science fiction that
flies in
the face of the evidence.
Dr. Carl Werner spent years
documenting the various plant divisions and animal phyla fossilized
alongside
the dinosaurs. In his research he discovered many types of fossil birds
in the
rocks with dinosaurs including ducks, loons, flamingos, albatross,
owls,
penguins, sandpipers, parrots, cormorants, and avocets, as well as
extinct
birds such as Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis.
In fact,
alongside the dinosaurs he found examples of all of the major plant
divisions
and animal phyla groups living today. Yet, of 60 natural history
museums that
he visited, only one displayed a bird with the dinosaurs. By leaving
birds out,
museum displays mislead the public. For, the fact that birds existed
alongside
of the dinosaurs is solid scientific evidence that dinosaurs did not
evolve
into birds. [A DVD in which Dr. Werner tells about his research is
available.]
Conclusion
Even though evolutionists insist that an
extinct fish evolved into an amphibian, an extinct amphibian into a
reptile,
and a reptile into a bird; there is no evidence that it ever happened.
They
just impose their interpretations on the facts the way cults impose
their
interpretations on Scripture. At the same time they do not even deal
with the
fact that amphibians have a design (a blueprint) for legs in their DNA
that
fish do not. They just claim that it happened, and expect us to believe
it. Nevertheless,
such a claim is contrary to reason, for blueprints do not just happen.
Evolutionists also want you to believe that
all
scientists agree with them. However, that is just another one of their
lies. In
order to be a member of the Creation Research Society, a scientist must
believe
that God created the world in six days just as the Bible says. And, to
be a
voting member of that organization, a scientist must have at least a
master’s
degree in one of the creation related sciences. At present, over
six-hundred of
their members have a doctorate. To contact them go to
www.creationresearch.org.
branscome.org