Scientism 8: “Evolution and Christian Faith,” Part 2

When people are told over and over that they are backward and ignorant, it is natural for them to make an effort to counteract such aspersions, and the easiest way to do this is to fall into the trap which their adversaries have baited with the aspersions. In other words, in this case they are likely to endeavor to show that they really are broadminded and intelligent by professing an interest and even a belief in evolution.

Repeating something ad nauseum doesn’t make it true. This is a fallacy of repetition, and it often works.

The American Scientific Affiliation originally had a statement of faith in God and the inerrancy of the Bible that all members were required to sign as part of their initiation.

It was charged that the statement of faith caused some prospective members to refuse to join. This is a strange reason to give, for the purpose of such a statement is to screen out persons who are not in accord with it.

Again, evolution is a faith-based system and not a serious scientific endeavor, though it masquerades as such.

Much of what constitutes evidence for evolution is not repeatable and cannot be investigated by the scientific method. Therefore it is believed by some that the theory of evolution should be considered under the heading of philosophy instead of science. However, it is generally taught as science, and students and the public are constantly being told that all reputable scientists accept it as fact.

Repetition does not constitute truth.

I even take issue with calling it a theory, even though it is treated as practically an untouchable law. A theory is something that is backed by evidence and repeatable experiments. Once those experiments have been performed and are in accord with the original hypothesis, it may advance to the status of theory. Once the theory is backed by much evidence and investigation, it may perhaps advance to a law, if it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Not only has evolution never been proven, it cannot be proven because it is not repeatable and there is no evidence for it. Therefore, it is merely a hypothesis.

[B]ut the evolutionary scientists have already ruled God out and will not consider the possibility that He did create.

Now that’s not good science at all.

There follows an excellent treatment of teleology, namely, the end, purpose, or goal of history. Evolution has no purpose. It’s random. There are many specific examples of nature in this section, including the honeycombs of bees, the design of which turned Darwin, in his own words, “sick with panic.” This is not the only thing that did so, the eye being another. Fortunately for Darwin, he just filed these facts away under “facts that cease to exist when they are ignored” and brushed it off by the time he wrote Origin, saying that it cannot otherwise be so (obviously).

Then there’s a section on faith, and it’s presuppositional, so don’t get your panties in a wad.

Since evolutionists and Christian anti-evolutionists both have facts and depend on faith, the final question is: Upon what will you place your faith?

There is no such thing as objectivity, ever or anywhere.

Opinions about some of these things may change, but the point is that when it comes to evolution, scientists are not all objective or even honest in their approach to the problems.

The embyonic development drawings so famous in textbooks were not based on evidence, and were in fact merely falsified sketches to support a deeply flawed theory. Ernst Haeckel was a far better artist than scientist, and everyone familiar with the issue knows that they’re falsified evidence. But that’s one of those things that cease to exist when they are ignored. Don’t address your problems and they will go away.

Ah, theistic evolution. What a joke. What an oxymoron.

However, what is important is what the Bible says, and not what men may think is grander.

If you cede the Bible, you have nothing left. Nothing at all. Don’t tell me it’s ok because you “still love Jesus.” You just called him a liar and spat upon his word. Say that the Bible is wrong, and you become an apostate.

In the section on the mechanism of evolution, he goes into many of the things that most anti-evolutionists use as apologetical material. And a lot of it is good, of course. Just because we rely primarily on the Scripture as our authority doesn’t mean we can’t show the glory of God in nature.

An important difficulty in the theory [hypothesis] of natural selection is the fact that many useful characteristics would be liabilities instead of assets while still in an incompleted state of development.

Darwin said that natural selection could never produce anything for the sole benefit of another species.

This is false. It happens all the time.

After reading what he [Darwin] said about the eye, it is understandable why he was able to say this [, that it’s no difficulty for his hypothesis]. As he himself said, he “got over it.” He did not solve the problem. He just hardened himself so that the fact that he could not solve the problem did not bother him any more.

How’s that for open-minded, eh? That’s why I laugh when unbelievers call us things like illogical, naïve, hard-headed, simple, etc. Yet they are the ones most guilty. Ah well. Nobody’s perfect, I suppose.

Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley, another outstanding geneticist, commented on this explanation of the production of new genes [through chromosome duplication]: “I have always felt that this idea is very crude and, in addition, contrary to all that we know about the action of the gene…”

Well that’s ok, Professor. We’ll just ignore that fact.

What’s he’s commenting primarily on here is the fact that when genes mutate, they produce an effect merely alternative to the effect they would have produced otherwise. When the gene for brown eyes mutates, it produces blue eyes. It does not produce a third nostril. Yet evolution and natural selection depend upon methods like this for the introduction of new genetic material. It’s been said over and over that Satan cannot create, he can only twist what God has made. This is an example. Mutations can be thought of as evil (most are deletrious, and those that aren’t are largely inactive and unhelpful). Without an act of special creation, they cannot make something new. They can only rearrange the information that they already have.

It is, of course, this mechanism of gene mutation that is the reason that the human race is not all one height, one skin color, one hair color, one eye color…you get the point. Gene mutation happens. And when it doesn’t kill you, it merely changes an attribute – and only the attribute that it controls. So in order for one species to turn into another, not only would most genes have to mutate simultaneously, there would have to be of necessity an introduction somehow of new genetic material – something that is impossible.

“Well, we haven’t found it yet, but we will.” Oh…so you’re taking it on faith. I knew that.

It takes faith to believe that mutations and natural selection have brought about the world of living things.

Another less commonly purported mechanism is that of polyploidy, an increase in the number of chromosomes.

The classic example of a new species produced by polyploidy is Rapshanobrassica, a combination of radish and cabbage. It has a root like a cabbage and a top like a radish, so it is of no value except to prove that this sort of thing can happen.

It is highly questionable whether real evolution – the evolution of all animals and plants and human beings from simple beginnings – could have come about through small inheritable changes.

Then of course, there’s the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states in part that order will always decrease in a system. Things cannot get more orderly when left to themselves. They degrade. Evolution states the opposite – things left to themselves become more complex.

Arthur Eddington, the renowned British astronomer, has expressed the belief that this law holds the supreme position among the laws of the nature. After saying that hardly any difficulty need be fatal to a theory, he adds, “But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

They retort by saying that the addition of energy into a system can increase the order. It can…

Such things as intelligence, skill, instinct, and genetic constitution were also required.

In other words, the only way order can increase is through God, or his agents in nature.

Anyone could make a fortune at the horse races if permitted to do what the evolutionists do with atavistic structures – choose the horses he wishes and reject the others on the basis of the outcome of the race after the race is over. In the case of the evolutionists, moreover, the choice is made not only after the alleged event and in accordance with its believed outcome, but it is used as evidence that the event really occurred.

This is just…puerile, to be honest.

More to come. I’m much enjoying this book. Get you a copy. Get two.


  1. Mark

    I like your comment about repeating something does not make it true. But the new school of thought that is even more alarming is Postmodernism, they will simple give everything a new definition and make it fact that way.
    The thorns in an evolutionist side that I like to hit on is Miller’s toxic brew and polystrata fossils. Miller’s brew even with amino acids still would have killed anything if it would have spontaneously generated and they try to ignore polystrata fossils because any reasonable explanation just hurts to much.

    • MadDawg Scientist

      Thanks for the read and the comment!

      Agreed. Postmodernism says truth is relative…which in itself is an absolute objective statement, so the whole thing is ridiculous from the get-go.

      Those are good approaches. I like to attack the fact that they aren’t doing good science (ignoring the obvious) and their presuppositions do not provide the necessary conditions for human experience – how can you trust your own sense? How can you trust reason/evidence?

      Michael Butler likes to refer to the Humpty Dumpty view of language. This is from Lewis Carrol. Humpty says to Alice, “Thats glory for you.” She says, “What do you mean by glory?” and he replies, “I haven’t told you yet.” In other words, words don’t mean what they mean, words mean what I say they mean. *I* am the standard by which all things are judged. Now, often atheists will say, no, society is the standard. But what is society but a collection of individuals? And thus, at worst, it becomes a society where no one listens to anyone else, and at best, a society where you allow others to control your life. Both are offensive to any kind of Christian sensibility, and atheist as well. This is because we all have the knowledge of God imprinted on our hearts, and some choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

      Wow. That comment was much longer than I anticipated. Anyway, thanks for stopping by!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s