Whistler's Tune:

Email Whistler

"and he's not just whistling dixie either!"


Darwinism – “The Devil’s Gospel”

Hey, don’t get upset with me about the title! I didn’t come up with the idea for it all on my own – I had some great help. And that help didn’t originate from a source that you might have expected. Any guesses as to its origin? 

Nope, this referral to Darwin’s theory of evolution as the devil’s gospel didn’t come from any Christian or creationist literature, nor from the mouth of some podium-pounding, foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist preacher. 

Give up?

Hold on to your hats! You may find this hard to believe, but this term came from the very creator of the evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin himself! It appears in a letter to his evolutionary literary friend Aldous Huxley, dated August 8, 1860. In this letter Darwin refers to Huxley, who was helping popularize Darwin’s new evolutionary theory through his writings, as “my good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel – i.e., the devil’s gospel” (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, p. 124). 

Darwin haunted by doubt and guilt until death

What an admission! Even if Darwin by chance made this comment half in jest, it is apparent that he was very much aware that his theory was not only taking on conventional thought, but God himself. And the amazing thing is that Darwin was not an atheist! But he did harbor a deep-seated desire to keep God and all that he stood for at arms length. But subconsciously, he knew better. Darwin himself expressed serious doubts about the idea of evolution. He attempted to rationalize these doubts, but they were so powerful that they haunted him until his death.

In the sixth chapter of Origin, “Difficulties on Theory,” Darwin remarked, “Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered…” In his chapter on instinct, for example, he conceded such “simple” instincts as bees making a beehive could be “sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” 

In a similar vein, Darwin states that “nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organisms and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations…” Darwin admits that thinking the eye could evolve “by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” (Charles Darwin, J.W. Burrow {ed.}, The Origin of Species, Penguin Books, p. 435).

Darwin could neither live with God, nor could he escape him. He knew, in the very depths of his soul, that evolution didn’t, and never could explain the existence of life in all its forms. This internal battle raged throughout his life and it not only cost him his physical health, but to some degree, his mental health. Darwin was dealing with a much deeper and fundamental feeling – guilt. In essence, his inability to either accept divine creation or to escape it caused his own reasoning processes to become strained. As Dr. Clark and Dr. Bales observed, “Reason led Darwin to God, so Darwin killed reason. He trusted his mind when reasoning about evolution, but not about God.” 

What explains Darwin’s doubts? Darwin’s own reason informed him that the evidence for intelligent design was overwhelming. Although he was “determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs,” he never really could. Thus, he confessed to the “impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, was a result of blind chance or necessity.” (Clark, Darwin: Before and After.)

Darwin had good reason to feel those frequent stabs of guilt regarding his theory. Anyone who doubts the validity of Darwin’s own assessment of his theory as being of dark origins doesn’t have to look very far for confirmation. For example, Karl Marx found Darwinism very effective in the propagation of the Communist ideology. Marx “felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s” and he was so grateful that he wanted to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined the honor (Darwin, Marx and Wagner, p. 8). 

In 1861 Marx wrote to Engels that “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history…” Thus was born the concept that all men are not created equal…in fact, they’re not even created. The concept of love for ones fellow man could now be rejected as being of no validity, to be replaced by the concept that hate and revenge were the new “laws and privileges” of the day. “Superior” races could now pit themselves against “inferior” races with a clear conscience, knowing that they were but enforcing the natural law of “survival of the fittest.” 

This is exactly what Marxist ideology has spawned in the last 100-plus years, leading to the deaths of some 150 million people. Hitler and others over the years have murdered millions of victims, not with the misguided intentions of saving their souls or punishing their sins, but because they were competitors for food and obstacles to “evolutionary progress.”

Many have understood the relationship between Nietzsches’s ideas and Hitler’s mass murder teams and crematories. Few have traced the linkage back one step further to Darwin, the “scientist” who directly inspired Nietzsches’s superman theory and the Nazi corollary that some people were subhuman. The evidence was all there – the term neo-Darwinism was openly used to describe Nazi racial theories. 

Because Hitler understood the implications of evolution, evolutionary precepts were pounded into the German people, and it swayed them. The schools were profoundly influenced as biology was purposely infused with an evolutionary bias. Who should be surprised that the German Youth Movement sided with the German states’ view of not supporting the struggles of the weak? “Inferior” individuals were to be sacrificed for the health of both the state and the “purity” of the human stock itself.

The expression “natural selection,” as applied to human beings, turns up at the Wannsee Conference in the prime document of the Holocaust. Hopefully lessons have been learned about how the evolutionary theory has led historically to such horrendous behavior. History doesn’t need another one hundred million deaths to prove that scientific atheism is a form of mental illness.

But from whence did this damaging theory arise? In essence, one could expect that materialistic scientists would intentionally devise conceptual frameworks that would interpret nature without God or put God at a distance, no matter how speculative and far-fetched those theories might be. This was exactly what Darwin purposely did. 

Scripture clearly declares God’s displeasure at men who suppress the truth about God, even after God has made this truth plain to them: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:18-21).

Scripture also informs us that Satan has “blinded the minds of unbelievers…” (2 Corinth 4:4). How does he do this? One way is through anti-Christian philosophies and religions. In their own way they each insulate their advocates against the Gospel.

Did God use evolution as His tool?

But “Whoa!” many readers may be saying right about now. “Who says that evolution never occurred? Maybe God used it as his tool. Modern day science is very cutting-edge and sophisticated. Surely evolution has some scientific basis in fact, otherwise it would have been discredited by now, right?” 

Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel, Research Associate in Developmental Genetics, Ultrech, Netherlands, with the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, points out in his article “The Scientific Character of the Evolution Doctrine,” what is now obvious to more and more scientists: “It is becoming increasingly apparent that evolutionism is not even a good scientific theory.” He argues that evolution should not be considered a scientific fact, theory, hypothesis, or even a postulate. 

He points out, for example, that evolutionary theory is not, strictly, a scientific postulate because to be so: 
(a) it must be in accordance with the principal laws of mathematics and natural science; 
(b) it must not be more complicated than necessary for the explanation of observed phenomena; 
(c) it must give rise to conclusions which can be controlled by further experimental observations and testing; 
(d) it must conform to the general data of science; 
(e) alternate hypotheses must be shown to be wrong or less acceptable; and 
(f) the reliability of a scientific conception is inversely proportional to the number of unproven postulates on which it is founded.

Evolution fails all six criteria for categorization as a scientific postulate. This is why Dr. Ouweneel properly concludes that evolution is actually a materialistic postulate rather than a credible scientific theory. As philosopher and non-creationist Dr. David Berlinski pointed out in the September 1996 issue of Commentary: “…As our knowledge increases, the crude Darwinian scheme seems progressively remote from the evidence…Still, the real infirmities of Darwin’s theory are conceptual and not empirical. Darwin’s theory of evolution remains little more than a collection of anecdotal remarks.”

But one would never know this from reading the scientific literature; literature which constantly assures the world that evolution is a scientific fact. Evolutionists often belittle creationists as “non-scientists” and ask, “If creationist theories are really scientific, why are they never published in reputable scientific journals?” As the McLean trial pointed out, “There is…not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory…” Well, the reason is because scientific journals refuse to publish such articles because they don’t like creationism. It is a well-known fact that most scientific journals refuse to accept legitimate creationist scientific papers merely because they do not like their implications.

Many contemporary examples show that most scientists have biases against creation science. When one of the greatest thinkers and scholars of modern times, Mortimer J. Adler of the University of Chicago, referred to evolution as a “popular myth,” the well known materialist and critic Martin Gardner actually included him in his study of quacks and frauds in Fad and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Philosopher and historian Dr. Rousas Rushdoony was entirely correct when he observed of evolution, “To question the myth or to request proof is to be pilloried as a modern heretic and fool.”

The principal reason evolution “must” be a scientific fact is because of the naturalistic bias that pervades the scientific world – a bias which, in the end, is unnecessary and in many ways even harmful to the cause of science. Scientists who declare that evolution is a fact should recognize the damage they do to the credibility of science – and not just evolutionary science but all of science. As more and more people gradually learn the truth that, deliberately or innocently, science has misled them on an extremely crucial issue, their trust in the authority of science will be over. The implications are hardly small.

The public trusts the scientific world to know the difference between fact and speculation, between the proper interpretation of observable data that can be proven valid and unwarranted conclusions derived from faulty premises. When scientists everywhere assert that a highly suspect, indeed incredible, theory is “an established fact of science,” why should anyone trust scientists to tell them the truth in other areas? If the scientific world won’t tell the truth in so critical an area as our own origins, with vast implications for each of us, why should it tell the truth in matters of lesser import?

In fact, the public’s trust in science has already eroded significantly because of consequences stemming from its adherence to naturalism, and because of sloppy science generally, as the recent book Junk Science illustrates. This trust is not likely to improve, unless and until scientists are willing to let “facts be facts” and stop trying to force data to prove their own pet theories.

One frequently reads in evolutionary literature such declarations as “evolution is a fact” and “the weight of the evidence for it is beyond persuasive.” On the other hand, one reads just as commonly in antievolutionary literature that “evolution is a myth” and “the amount of faith it takes to believe in evolution is beyond belief.”

How is it that we can get such extremely divergent views from the same set of data when all these statements come from scientists? The reason is simple: it has to do with how one interprets the data. Evolutionary theory does not depend on the credibility of the data used but rather upon the subjective interpretation given the data within metaphysical assumptions held by scientists.

Data do not speak for themselves: they must be interpreted. They often say what the individual wants them to say. Thus, if one is a scientific naturalist, then one can only conclude the data must fit the evolutionary scenario. Indeed, all sorts of technical scientific experimentation, argumentation, and philosophizing are pressed to support the idea of evolution, and to be sure, the weight of tens of thousands of technical scientific papers in support of evolution certainly seems impressive. When scientists read this literature, especially outside of their own field, it convinces them evolution is true.

The difficulty is that the interpretation is highly strained and that most scientists rarely consider the evidence against evolution or the evidence for creation. In other words, they never fairly look at the other side because based on “the authority of science” they assume that evolution must be true. Any supernatural or non-physical explanation for reality is entirely unacceptable and considered unreasonable in the field of science. In essence, what Darwin hoped to achieve with On the Origin of Species – the eviction of God from the realm of scientific investigation – has been achieved. Religious explanations are deemed not credible as being scientific because religious explanations are preconceived as not credible as being scientific.

Many are convinced that, were the case for creation presented adequately, almost any jury in the United States would logically conclude that not only is creation scientific and at least an equally credible option to evolution, but that creation actually offers a far better choice scientifically. If the creationist camp were allowed to present its case with its best legal, philosophical, and scientific proponents including leading non-creationist antievolutionary scientists, many think there would be little doubt as the outcome of a jury’s decision.

Consider the comments of the late Canadian scholar, Arthur C. Custance (Ph.D. anthropology), author of the seminal ten-volume The Doorway Papers. He was a member of the Canadian Physiological Society, a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute, and a member of the New York Academy of Sciences. 

In “Evolution: An Irrational Faith,” Custance observes “…virtually all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary faith have shown themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply contrary to fact…So basic are these erroneous (evolutionary) assumptions that the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite of rather than because of the evidence…Information or concepts which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair hearing…Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one might say almost a mental prison rather than a scientific attitude……To equate one particular interpretation of the data with the data itself is evidence of mental confusion…The theory of evolution…is detrimental to ordinary intelligence and warps judgment.”

He concludes, “In short, the premises of evolutionary theory are about as invalid as they could possibly be…If evolutionary theory was strictly scientific, it should have been abandoned long ago. But because it is more philosophy than science, it is not susceptible to the self-correcting mechanisms that govern all other branches of scientific enquiry.”

In fact, the scientific evidence is so conclusive against evolution and for creation one is finally amazed that the idea of evolution so thoroughly dominates modern science. As noted, the reasons are not scientific. Were they scientific, virtually all scientists would be creationists – as they were in preceding centuries. Even such eminent scientists as Sir Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, his research partner, in discussing the “theory that life was assembled by an (higher) intelligence” state, “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”

One can wade through hundreds of evolutionary textbooks and notice that although almost all are certain as to the fact of evolution, all are equally uncertain when it comes to the details of a mechanism like evolution. One is reminded of physicist Ernest Mach’s quip, often repeated by Einstein, which asserts: ‘When the observed facts come into conflict with a cherished theory, then it is so much worse for the facts.”

Evolutionists consistently lose their scientific debates to creationists

In spite of evidence to the contrary, the evolutionist shouts back, “But creationism is really only a religion.” If indeed creationism is really only a form of religion, why do evolutionists consistently lose their scientific debates to creationists? Such debates have been held since 1970. In 1979, The Wall Street Journal for June 15 reported, “The creationists tend to win” the debates. Six months later a report in Bioscience for January 30, 1980 agreed: “Why do creationists seem to be the consistent winners in public debates with evolutionists?” 

By 1993, creationists were still leading, even according to the evolutionists. Evolutionists had 20 years to improve their debating record and yet did not. Today, these debates are “almost always won by creationists, according to evolutionists…” and Dr. Morris says of Duane Gish who has had over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” 

In all these debates that have been conducted throughout the U.S. and in other countries during the past 20 years, creationists have carefully avoided all references to religious concepts and literature (the Bible, etc.) and have based their arguments strictly on scientific evidence, such as the fossil record, the laws of thermodynamics, the complexity of living organisms and probability relationships, etc. The fact that evolutionists themselves admit that creationists have won most of the debates does seem to be saying something important.

Another interesting fact: the higher one’s level of education, the less likely one is to accept evolution. This in spite of the fact that the student is continually barraged with evolutionary teachings throughout high school and college. It appears that increased education does indeed bring increased discernment. And do you know which profession is one of the hardest for evolutionists to penetrate? The medical profession. Most doctors and nurses have seen enough of the mind-boggling marvels of the human body to put much truck in the theory that it “just happened.”

But why would most scientists accept evolution in this day and age of supposed enlightenment? A common argument they give for endorsing evolution is that it’s the only possible explanation for our existence. Since we exist, and evolution is the only way we could have gotten here, evolution must be true. But this is a logical fallacy, known as faulty dilemma – limiting the options when other legitimate explanations exist.

The reasons scientists accept evolution can be boiled down to four main reasons:

1) many scientists wrongly think that there are no other scientific alternatives
2) they misinterpret the data
3) everyone else believes it
4) they prefer its philosophical implications

Secular scientists today face the same quandary as Darwin and they respond in a similar fashion. They cannot imagine the universe occurring by blind chance, and yet, as materialists, they are not at all comfortable with the idea of divine creation.

The use of extremely complex instruments, laboratories, and billions of man hours only shows that there is no chance of life evolving on its own spontaneously from dead matter. If intelligence is necessary to generate the results of these experiments, it must also be necessary to generate something far greater – life itself. 

Consider that the most brilliant engineers, other scientists, and technologists, who have used the most up-to-date equipment, are unable to create a computer as complex as even a simple amoeba – a single celled animal. So how believable is it for scientists to almost universally claim that chance – the complete opposite of intelligence – could not only create an amoeba but endless things infinitely more complex – all the varied life forms we see about us, including humanity?

Indeed, a fertilized human egg itself, merely the size of a pinhole, has enough information to fill a thousand books, each 500 pages thick, having print so small you would need a microscope to read it. And if we were able to print in books all the DNA information in the entire human body, it has been estimated that they would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times over! And what about the marvels of the human brain with its 12 billion brain cells and 120 trillion connections? Does that really sound like blind chance at work? 

Or consider the molecule. Molecules are so small that ¼ teaspoon of water has 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in it (10 to the 24th power). Molecules vary from the simple to the complex. A simple molecule may consist of only a few bonded atoms, as in water. A complex molecule may have hundreds of amino acids. Noted astronomer Fred Hoyle uses the Rubik cube to illustrate the odds of getting a single molecule, in this case a biopolymer. Biopolymers are biological polymers, i.e., large molecules such as nucleic acids or proteins. In the fascinating illustration below, he calls the idea that chance could originate a biopolymer “nonsense of a high order”:

“At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubic cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic surfaces at random. Now imagine 10 to the 50th power (the number 10 followed by 50 zeros) blind persons each with a scrambled Rubic cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

Dr. George Wald, the Nobel Prize winning biologist at Harvard, states: “The reasonable past view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position…Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, but yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.”

But how wise is it to be “left with nothing”? The eminent space scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun is, quite correctly, convinced that science and belief in a Creator go hand in hand: 

“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the same relevance in our modern world that He held before we began probing His creation with telescope, cyclotron, and space vehicles.”

It was not a study of nature itself that led men to search for some hypothesis of natural evolution, but rather the desire to escape the supernatural. Thus, even today, many frank scientists have confessed that the reasons behind their belief in evolution are primarily philosophical, not scientific.

The modern theory of evolution has only replaced one religious faith (supernatural creation) with another religious faith (materialistic evolution). Few can logically deny that both theories require faith in the miraculous. But, as we will see, evolutionists have embarrassingly discarded one miracle of divine creation for thousands or millions of miracles of evolution, and they must accept them endlessly. But there is no scientific evidence for evolution that is not at least as well explained by creation, and there are now thousands of modern scientists who have abandoned evolution and become creationists.

After discussing aspects of design in nature Darwin himself stated, “To admit all this, is as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle and to leave those of science.” 

A look at the components of evolution: a study of pseudo-science in action

Of course, no discussion of evolution would be complete without delving into the supposed mechanisms of evolution: mutation and natural selection. Also of interest are other alleged evidences of evolution: the second law of thermodynamics, the age of the earth, and the geological column.

Evolution claims to operate through beneficial mutations and natural selection. According to Darwin, evolution occurs when an organism is confronted by a changing environment. Some organisms in a population become better adapted for survival than others, partly because of beneficial mutation – incredibly rare events that alter an organism and allow it to improve. Natural selection involves the survival of those organisms best adapted to their environment; those less adapted die out. The best adapted then transmit their improved genetic characteristics and populations evolve upward.

On the surface, it seems to make sense – that billions of years could produce sufficient mutations to allow things to slowly change and improve so that all life evolves upward. But as we will see, it actually doesn’t make sense at all.

Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution was unsatisfactory unless its mechanism could be explained. For evolution to occur, obviously, there must be some mechanism of change. But whether we are considering the three major postulated mechanisms of evolution – mutation, natural selection, and genetic recombination – or other factors such as migration and isolation and genetic drift, none of these is adequate to explain how evolution could occur. Mutations cannot account for the kinds of changes necessary, since the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful. 

Regarding mutation, the evolutionist Mayr wrote, “It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work on.” H. J. Muller won the Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, and he observed that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the organism, in fact, a good mutation would be so rare as to be considered to not exist. 

Again, the difficulty is that mutations cannot account for evolutionary change. The world-famous French evolutionist Grasse was correct when he wrote that no matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Adaptive mutations, such as the resistance of insects to pesticides, changes in a moth’s wing color, or adaptation of soil bacteria to new nutrients also offer no evidence for evolution. These changes are intraspecies events. They originate from already existing genes and constitute an innate capacity to respond to the environment. They are not random evolutionary mutations, nor do they add new information or capacity to the gene pool. 

The problem with genetic recombination is that it merely redistributes existing genetic material among different individuals but makes no change in it. The evolutionist Savage declares that it “cannot be regarded as an evolutionary force, since it never changes gene frequencies.” 

What do evolutionists do with this difficulty? Basically, they ignore it. Evolutionist George Wald concluded that even though the spontaneous generation of a living organism was impossible, he still believed that we are here as a result of spontaneous generation. Dobzhansky, after discussing the harmful effects of mutations writes in a similar vein, “This is not consistent with the recognition that useful mutations did occur in the evolutionary line which produce man, for otherwise, obviously, mankind would not be here.”

In other words, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations could be responsible for evolutionary changes, beneficial changes must have occurred because mankind exists!

Natural selection faces similar difficulty. Sir Julian Huxley argues, “So far as we know, not only is natural selection inevitable, not only is it an effective agency of evolution, it is the only effective agency of evolution.” Yet there are so many problems facing natural selection, even evolutionists aren’t sure what to do with the theory. 

Darwin himself was troubled by it. In his various sections critiquing natural selection, Bird cites dozens of evolutionists who have serious doubts about the relevance and/or validity of the theory. This is so in spite of the fact that there is no evolution possible without it. Natural selection is described by evolutionists as: “extremely improbable”; “impossible”; “may be an illusion”, etc. (Bird, “Origin….revisited”).

Evolutionists still accept natural selection because they have little choice. As Norman MacBeth points out in Darwin retried, evolutionists will concede they cannot measure it, observe it, or define it…but “will nevertheless defend it with their heart’s blood.”

Of course, there is no doubt that minor limited changes do occur in the natural world. This may be termed natural selection at the microevolutionary level. But to extrapolate such change to macroevolution is a logical impossibility, since there is simply no evidence for it. No one has ever produced a new species by means of natural selection, no one has even gotten near it.

Creationist Jerry Berman, Ph.D. writes that there is more here than meets the eye:

“Natural selection would not evolve upward – for example, bacteria into humans – but at best would evolve simple bacteria into better adapted bacteria, or flies into better adapted flies. The fossil record shows no evidence of anything beyond this. No clear example has ever been found of a lower, clearly less adapted animal in the fossil record which can be shown to be evolutionarily related to a similar, or advance type of an animal living today…

“The easy-to-grasp and compelling natural selection argument is used to help explain all biological data, but it may actually explain very little. Human life consists of many activities which are mentally pleasurable. Walking in forests, listening to music, creating poems, doing scientific research, aesthetic enjoyment of nature, and myriads of other activities are often not related in the least to survival or adaptation in the Darwinian sense….

“Music in its many variations is loved the world over, and yet certain music preferences have not been shown to increase reproduction rates or to facilitate survival. Many, if not almost all of our most rewarding activities, ‘peak experience producers,’ are not only unexplainable by this theory, but contradict it.”

The bottom line is that there is simply no way that mutations and natural selection could have produced the entire world of life, even with endless periods of time. Darwin was right – if we can’t explain how evolution occurs, even 140 years later, then the theory should be considered unsatisfactory.

There has been much discussion between creationists and evolutionists concerning the applicability of the second law of thermodynamics as it relates to the issue of origins. Does it make evolution impossible, as the creationists maintain, or are there ways around the problem, as evolutionists maintain? A proper understanding of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution as it relates to the origin of the universe and the origin of life reveals that cosmically and biologically evolution is not just improbable, it is basically impossible.

In laymen’s terms, the second law of thermodynamics teaches that everything in the universe is running down. It tells us what we already know from experience; that, sooner or later, everything deteriorates and falls apart. All things are running down. Everything finally wears out – objects, plants, animals, man. 

The second law is perhaps the most pertinent for evolution/creation considerations. The difficulty is that almost everything having to do with evolution – whether the origin of the universe or the evolution of life – contradicts the second law. If we start with the supposed Big Bang creation of the universe, we have an initial violent explosion shot out in all directions. As anyone knows, anytime you have an explosion, there is increasing disorder until the force of the explosion is dissipated and everything stops. 

Explosions do not produce incredible systems of complexity, order, and design, but the Big Bang theory teaches that as this explosion moved out, things became infinitely ordered. Planets formed of vastly different size, composition and appearance, all kinds of moons came to orbit, galaxies formed, etc. In other words, this violent explosion supposedly produced our incredibly beautiful and complex planet earth, with its perfectly synchronized oceans, atmosphere, plant and animal life, etc. How this could all happen by accident is impossible to fathom.

Any scientist who fairly applies the second law of thermodynamics to the possibility of evolution must logically conclude the evolution has not occurred. Evolutionists, of course, have responses to creationists’ arguments. They try to reason that snow flakes, ice crystals, batteries, etc, are exceptions, therefore the law doesn’t always hold true (if it didn’t, could it still be a law?). But their examples are not really exceptions at all. Evolutionists reason that, since evolution is true, and the second law is true, somehow they must be reconcilable. And so rather than accepting a disproof of their theory, they go to great lengths to try to reconcile it with the second law. Hence science is forced to try to shoe-horn in a bad theory because of bad assumptions. Hampered by their own philosophical premises, scientists really have little choice except to end up doing bad science, to the detriment of us all.

Determining the age of the universe: more questionable science

Another area of contention between creationists and evolutionists is the age of the universe. In The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, scientist Henry Morris lists 68 different global processes, most of which indicate a relatively recent creation. About 20 of these processes give ages of less than 100,000 years, obviously a vastly insufficient time for evolution to occur. The wide variety found – from 1,750 years to 500,000,000 years – is suggestive of the tentative nature of dating methods in general.

The fact that young ages are thrown out by evolutionists as necessarily inaccurate, based on evolutionary presuppositions of needed old ages, is hardly proof that the old dates are valid or that the young dates are invalid. In fact, there are dozens of different indicators of an earth no older than 20,000 years. No one can declare that it is a scientific fact that the earth is billions of years old. Even one of the world’s leading solar astronomers, evolutionist John Eddy, actually stated that there isn’t much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with a very young age for the sun and earth – less than 7,000 years. 

Part of his reasoning came from 25 years of experiments on solar neutrinos whose results have led to a crisis for evolutionary time spans, and a possible confirmation of a recent creation. Not surprisingly, most evolutionists won’t even talk about this research because of its implications.

But haven’t evolutionists been able to pretty much establish the age of the earth through age dating techniques such as radiocarbon, uranium thorium lead, rubidium strontium, etc.? These methods have been proven to be very unreliable. As Dr. Wilder-Smith points out, “One is forced to admit that our dating methods by means of radioactivity provide us with little really reliable data as to the enormous time spans required for evolution according to Darwin. It is relatively easy for any biological or inorganic material to simulate a great age – or not age at all!

All these dating methods are based on certain assumptions, and all the assumptions are incapable of proof, and cannot be tested. In fact, in most cases the assumptions would seem to be unreasonable. Some of the assumptions made when using these dating methods are: (1) it was a closed system, i.e., that no material was added or subtracted, (2) it contained no already aged material, and (3) the decay rate must have always been the same.

To illustrate the problem here, let’s say we have an ice tray with water and we want to find the original size of the ice cube and the time it took to melt. In order to do this, we have to assume certain things and know certain things. We must know the rate of melting and assume the rate of melting was constant. We must assume that no water was added at any point and that no evaporation occurred and that no water was in the tray originally. If we know all this, then we can calculate the size of the cube and the time it took to melt. But if any of our assumptions are faulty, our result will also be faulty. So it is with the various dating methods.

For example, when we find such anomalies as new wood from growing trees dated by the carbon 14 method at 10,000 years old, or living snail shells dated at 2,300 years, or 200-year-old lava flows dated by potassium-argon at 3 billion years, it’s obvious that these methods are not necessarily that reliable. Even if we argue that the snails had eaten old material or that the lava brought up aged substances, such explanations do not solve the problems with these methods.

Thus evolutionary scientists generally have blinders on when they examine the radiometric dating results. These results must produce large ages and that is that. The fact that these methods can be made to produce vast ages does not mean those ages are legitimate. For example, A. Hayatsu admitted, “In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium argon) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such a the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”

On a different front, evolutionary texts present the geological column as a fact of geology and proof of evolution. The geological timetable spreads life out over some two billion years, placing the simplest and smallest organism at the beginning of life – making them the oldest – and moves progressively upwards to the most complex organisms, as the youngest and most recent. Unfortunately, the only evidence for this scheme is found in the mind of the evolutionist and the paper on which the chart is drawn. The complete succession of fossils as portrayed by the geologic timetable exists nowhere. 

How then do geologists arrive at the geological timetable when the record of the earth does not show it? By the means we have so often seen – assuming that evolution is true and applying circular reasoning: the strata are dated by the fossils they contain. The problems are that fossils are not always found in proper evolutionary, geologic succession. The assumption of evolution alone is used to arrange the sequence of fossils – which is circular reasoning, not proof of evolution. No consideration is given to the possibility of a worldwide, cataclysmic flood, for which there is ample evidence. Thus the modern-day scientist becomes the slave of his own myopia.

Scientists could discover the truth about creation, if…

Nevertheless, the current crisis in evolution and the lack of alternate theories other than divine creation are, thankfully, encouraging even materialistic scientists to consider God and religious ideas concerning the origin of the universe. Remarkably, many of these men are professed atheists who have been forced by the weight of 20th-century discoveries in astronomy and physics to concede the existence of an intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe.

For example, Paul Davies was once a leader for the atheistic, materialistic worldview. He now asserts of the universe, “(There) is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming.” Further, the laws of physics themselves seem “to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.”

Actually, science has been so touched with religion in the last few years that even many prominent scientists are talking about “knowing “ the mind of God through scientific discovery. The theoretical physicist who is frequently held out as the successor to Einstein, Stephen Hawking, noted in his A Brief History of Time that our goal should be to “know the mind of God.” Einstein himself once stated, “I want to know how God created this world…I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

What scientists will discover, if they wish, is that if they brought the same degree of objectivity and effort they do in their scientific investigations to the study of Christian evidences, they could literally read God’s mind – in the Bible. Science at best only gives us hints. To really know the one true God, one must read His revelation to mankind in Scripture.

Many fair-minded scientists readily confess today the practical necessity for belief in a Creator. But materialistic scientists find themselves increasingly troubled over this turn of events.
Because the hard data of science continues to mount a stronger and stronger case for creation, they are, embarrassingly, finding themselves in the theologian’s hair by default. And they can’t be happy about this.

As Dr. Robert Jastrow observed in his God and the Astronomers, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” 

This explains why committed evolutionists will only continue to skew the data to even more absurd lengths in order to maintain their faith in materialism. They really have no other choice.


Till next time, here’s whistlin’ at ya! ;o)

[The bulk of the above article was garnered from the book “Darwin’s Leap of Faith,” by John Ankenberg, Ph.D., & John Weldon, Ph.D. (392 pages, copyright 1998, Harvest House Books)]

Click Here!