Why Belief in
EVOLUTION IS SUPERSTITION NOT SCIENCE
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
that small changes in living organisms have no limit but can, over a
period of time, change one organism into an entirely different
to the point of eventually changing a worm into a professor. Although
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
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.
in order to humor those who prefer superstition to fact, let us assume
this one-celled creature did come to life. First of all it would have
to eat. And, even if it could survive how would it reproduce. Oh, to be
it was easy for those who knew only the steamboat era science of
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.
this point some reader might be thinking, “Wait a minute, I seem to
one of my professors claiming that science has proven evolution. What
proof he offered? Oh yes, he claimed that the fact that certain
become immune to antibiotics has proven that life evolves. And, the
Consider the claim that dinosaurs changed into birds! Not only is their 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
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.)
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.
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).