Refuting Evolution 2 by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati
Length: 1469 words (4.2 double-spaced pages)
Creation versus evolution is a battle of different faiths. Modern evolutionist desire for ever person to think of science as a subject that is void of God. Evolutionist have discovered was to get the general public to ignore that propaganda being produced by humanist and just follow their thoughts and not search for truth. Creationists have the same facts as evolutionist but have a different origin of where everything started.
Creationist believes the biblical account of where life began, so this places God in the middle of science. Evolutionists have a religion, which is known as materialism. As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul.
Creationists do not need to shy away from having God in science but rather need to make evolutionist abide by same standards. If evolutionists do not want to be challenged in the academia world, then they should abide by same rules given to creationists. Evolutionist for years have been allowed to give out false information and the author shows how Christians have followed blindly and not had courage to stand for biblical truths.
Charles Darwin had a deeper issue than just proving that living creatures evolved. His agenda was to retaliate against God for the hurt and loss of a daughter. Darwin purposefully denied that involvement of God in science and it has influenced that Christian world view. Anger and bitterness have caused generations of people to follow blind after the thoughts of one man.
The Christian today has forgotten what it is to stand for truth. The author points out several facts that Christians have fallen away from the faith because they compromised with the world. Christian colleges have tried to accept all types of doctrine and ignore the biblical stance of truth. This has allowed secular people to show the fallacy and the inerrancy of the so called “Christians”. The world believes it has been able to disprove God’s involvement in science but it has only proven the fallacy of man.
To say evolution is a theory is wrong and the proper statement should be, “Evolution is not a proven fact and should not be presented dogmatically.” Science is going from observation, induction, hypothesis, test, hypothesis by experiment, proof/disproof, and then to knowledge. A theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. As the author points out evolution (particles turned to people over time) can not get past the stage of testing to be considered a theory.
The author gives several examples of how evolutionist uses straw-man arguments to combat creation. Evolution is not a good theory because it is widely accepted or thousand of journals supporting. The author point out that the scientific community is so closed minded and full of censorship that creationist do not get a fair say. The best way to debate a topic is to allow both parties to present facts and then to evaluate the arguments, but evolutionist are not willing.
Biblical creationist is not the belief that creatures can not change over time or with in a species but that they descended from their own kind. Just because a species adapts to its surroundings does not mean that it is because of evolution. Evolution is the gathering of new genetic information and not just loss or sorting of information.
Natural selection does not do anything to advance the general theory of evolution. Trying to use the changes in an ecosystem simply shows changes from one already existing species to another existing species. Evolutionists are trying to use information, that creationists believe, to prove the GTE but it does not increase genetic information. God could have created the ability of fight/flight in his foreknowledge and when the fall of man took place the information was switched on.
Evolution has the perfect opportunity to proven with bacteria but we see same some today as was in past generations. Scientists are using current diseases and their resistance to medicine to show us evolution at work today. This just shows a loss of information to battle bacteria and does not prove the idea of evolution because no new information was gained to change the organism to a new type of organism. Loss of information is not evolution but can be shown to prove creation because of the fall of man.
Mutations do not prove evolution because there is no new genetic information taking place. Deformities can cause in the destruction of a species rather than a growth. The creatures still develop into creatures before the functions of the genes take place. Evolutionists have not proven the fact that mutations increase information rather than changing what information is available.
To evolutionist common structures is equal to common ancestors. This is not true because of the differences of DNA and also the similarities of DNA. DNA gives us a molecular clock and this is difficult for evolutionist to explain the consistency in amino acids. For this to influence evolution there should be a constant mutation rate over time but this does not take place.
According to the author evolutionist try to give the perception of bad design or flawed design to prove evolution. They use the eye as backwards engineering but this is a false accusation. The eye is created to be millions of times better than the best photomultiplier created. In contrast the eye is created to be the perfect engineering instrument for visualization.
Evolutionist want to point to the panda’s thumb or junk DNA as proof of evolution. In the case of the thumb it is used for stripping leaves from bamboo shoots. This is just a smokescreen to feed improper propaganda of particles to people. Junk DNA could not help with evolution because, “how could it survive if 98% was bad?” This proves more to intellectual design because to splice DNA it has to be done in certain way and places. Evolutionists produce several examples of bad design but none can stand up to scrutiny.
The fossil records are a one of the easiest ways for evolutionist to alter the findings to match their ideas. If you examine the findings you will notice the absence of intelligent creatures at the bottom of their fossil records. There are only a handful of transitional pieces and these are debatable. Some of the transitional fossils produced are of certain species and do not give an accurate portrait of the connection between non-living matter to living matter, single cell to multi-cell or invertebrates to vertebrates.
Whales are the largest wild guesses of fossils today because evolutionists want you to believe that they evolved from land mammals. Most alleged transitional creatures are produced from fragmentary remains and this gives them the freedom to make statements about transitional creatures but then later if proven wrong to simply change their minds.
To believe the evolutionist you must have faith that greater than 95% of all species have become extinct. If this is factual then why do we have over a million different species but only 250,000 fossil remains, and if this was factual there should be more fossils than live species. For the evolutionist they should not worry about saving creatures because extension is part of nature.
Creationists have different interpretations of the fossil records because of the global flood. Because of man’s sin and the fall we have to battle disease and destruction and this can lead to the extension of creatures. The evolutionists examine the layers of earth as ages compared to the creationists examining the earth as a burial because of the global flood.
In conclusion, Sarfati points out that just because you can demonstrate that micro-evolution occurs, that doesn't prove macro-evolution. The fact that the fittest animals survive doesn't prove evolution, either. Before you can "prove" evolution by showing changes within species, you have to know the origins, and that's what the evolutionists can't prove. Also, he shows that although species do change, they aren't gaining any new information. Even though they may be improving, it's always through a loss of information.