A STUDY BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
"Keep that which is committed to
thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called:" (1Timothy
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
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
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
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
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, "
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
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
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
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.