Why Consider the Question

Modern Science has generally adopted the viewpoint that stories which speak of a God or Gods are myths. It would seem that the majority of scientists have either become atheistic or evolutionists. A much smaller number, (but still well qualified) have concluded that the scientific evidence available points to a creator or God (a mighty one)

In the 1950′s I changed from being a believer in God to an evolutionist, largely because of ignorance of the Bible and how it was produced. Someone who was studying with  Jehovah’s witnesses asked me to explain how evolution could account for the formation of the eye and this caused me to make a deeper investigation of both the Bible and scientific facts.

Scientists, who believe in God, do not receive much publicity and so the majority of people are unacquainted with their findings and conclusions. I do not agree with all their religious views, for the reason that the churches that they are members of, have molded these, and so these only reflect the contradictions and confusion that exists within the churches. Nevertheless, their scientific work is outstanding and certainly far more reasonable than the evolutionary or atheistic viewpoints that the world in general has been exposed to.

Myth 1

People all over the earth come in various sizes, big and small. These persons have large and small heads respectively. Would anyone venture to say that small persons with smaller heads are less intelligent and therefore more primitive than persons with larger heads? When one considers how bright persons of Japanese lineage, who are a small people have proved to be, we can see that this is not so. So we may logically ask the question; Why do evolutions measure the size of the skulls that they find and conclude from these measurements that a skull is more primitive or higher in the evolutions scale?

This is myth and it does not agree with the facts

Myth 2

Why do evolutionist conclude, that because they see great variations within the different kinds of animals and humans, that these variations can reach over from one kind of animal to another and even to humans? This does not agree with the facts, As an example never do we find dogs, although in all shapes and sizes, ever become cats or any other kind of animal. Even Darwin when examining the finches on Galapagos Island only found minor changes. The finches were still finches.

This is myth and does not agree with the facts

Myth 3

Why do atheists and evolutionists reason that religious persons who believe in God are unscientific and out of touch with reality when they themselves, believe in a Goddess? Have you ever noticed how their publications say; “nature has designed some creature or other in this way or that”? Nature is often portrayed as a woman, “mother nature” or spoken of as, “she.” I recall a “Time Life Book” on evolution that stated that nature had equipped chameleons with the ability to camouflage themselves by changing their color. Certain stick insects have been given the ability to disguise themselves as twigs for their protection. “Nature” had even designed certain flowers to produce odors like rotten meat so they could attract certain insects that the flowers would devour. “Nature” must be pretty smart, to be able to overcome the problems involved in making changes that even scientists today do not fully understand. What I also found interesting, was that Inventors have to study aerodynamics, mathematics and engineering principles and it took them nearly two hundred years to develop the know-how needed to produce modern aircraft. Recently I discovered that scientists were still studying how some birds perform intricate maneuvers and copying the principles from the birds. What school did nature attend? How did “nature” figure out all these engineering aerodynamic problems? Evolutionists tell me that she used a trial and error method, random modifications, and the law of natural selection. Natural selection is apparently smart enough to know which changes to keep and which changes to discard, and without even knowing where this was leading to.

So I feel that these scientist have exchanged The God of the Bible for a Goddess and given all the attributes of the true God to this nonentity.

Surely this is religious and myth and not fact.

The myths of science are subtle and appear at first sight to be plausible. It is only when one remembers that the men who made them are only men with prejudices like any other man and begins to apply common sense and reason in examining the arguments they produce that the arguments can be seen for what they are. “Myths”
This reminds me of the games we use to play. Some one would say: “I can prove to you that I have eleven fingers” The person would count backwards from his left hand; “Ten, nine, eight, seven, six” and hold up his right hand and say; “and five, that makes eleven.

Myth 4

Evolutionary scientists claim evolution proceeds by means of a process called “natural selection” to the “arrival of the fittest.” By this process tiny changes to a creature are added to bit by bit until gradually over millions of years, the creature has changed into something else. In this way we are supposed to have evolved from a one-celled creature upward until we are what we are today. Is this theory supported by facts? No! Not In human experience because add-on extensions can only be maintained to a limited degree.
In computer programming for example, upgrades can proceed for a limited time, then it becomes necessary to completely rewrite the program from scratch. And a new version is created.

Lets put this into a simpler form:-

Say we build a house and then later start extending it by adding rooms. Eventually we find that our original plot of ground is too small so we have to increase the size of the plot. The bigger plot gives us better opportunities for a more efficient design, add-ons won’t work, so we need to redesign a new structure that would be more practical for the bigger plot. Later we decide to go higher and to put two extra floors onto the structure, but suddenly realize that our original foundation will not be able to support the extra weight. Why? because it was only designed to support one floor. However as we are getting wiser and in looking into the future we realize that the new plot can take a skyscraper. To do this we had better redesign the whole structure to take the weight of 20 floors. We cannot now rely on concrete alone to do the job but require steel girders. We give up and go to an experienced architect, who earns his living designing skyscrapers because our building might collapse if improperly designed.

What is the point?

Adding changes do not work in the real world. To build any structure we need to draw up a plan that shows exactly what the finished product will look like. If we intend the actual building to be progressively built we need to design the building so it can be built that way. If not then disaster will ensue. It is possible to perhaps build a very primitive house without making a plan, but the more complex the structure is, the more a sound plan is needed. Not any plan, but a well designed plan based on sound engineering principles.

“Natural Selection” is not intelligent. It cannot forsee the finished structure. It cannot plan. It works randomly. Building a structure like a skyscraper would be child’s play compared to designing and building a completed human. Natural Selection could not possible design anything. so the evolutionist’s Goddess has failed the evolutionist. If you took a ball of clay and stuck pieces at random in various places on the clay ball would you ever end up with a work of art? No! You need an intelligent artistic sculptor to decide what he intends building and then proceeds to work in that direction. Then every piece of clay moulded and stuck on to his original ball will have meaning and be going in the right direction.

A master designer has to construct the plan and then have the power and resources to put it into operation. To end up with any plant and living creature only a super almighty Creator can accomplish this work. Not a meaningless word like “nature” but a God. This is how God has actually done it. What scientific proof do we have for this statement? The DNA in the nucleus of the cell has the complete plan and the instructions of how to sequentially build the person. The living cell carries out the instructions and we have a fully developed baby in 9 months which later becomes a fully developed person in about 20 years. Who wrote the program onto the DNA molecule and who programmed the cell to follow the instructions in the DNA.? Evolution requires the changes to be passed on through inheritance. Natural Selection cannot operate while the cell is being formed as its information can not be passed on at this level. There has to be a complete cell to have reproduction.

Evolution is again shown to be nothing more than a religious myth, based on ignorance of the scientific facts.

Myth 5

Probability theory

The theory of probability in its application with regard to evolution, is a myth.

It works like this:- A scientist that  believes that God created,  when examining the complexity of some creatures, will estimate its probability, and arrive at astronomically large figures like 1-1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for example. The evolutionist, will reply that given enough time this must occur.  This is a complete misuse of the probability theory. It is a play on words. By comparing probabilities of 1-2 with 1-1,000,0000, for example, the  probability theory only shows how likely or unlikely the example will occur.  It was never intended to prove the certainty of something happening. The evolutionist is being dishonest in his application of probability.  It is the old propaganda ploy of giving an answer to an question whether the answer is relevant or not.

To illustrate:- If you had a 10 tennis balls stored above your ceiling and the ceiling collapsed and when you came into the room you found  10 balls lying in a straight line  on the floor would you honestly believe that that had happened by accident? Do you honestly think that if you performed the operation a billion times that one day they would be found in a straight line? Time has nothing to do with it.

In practical terms. Say a bit of sensitive tissue began to form as the beginning of an eye. Consider the odds for it being formed where it is at present located. These odds would be 1-(total surface area of the body divided by the area of the sensitive tissue). Can you see how large the figure would be? This is only with respect to its location   At the moment the eye is just in the right place. High enough, close to the brain and at the right place for stereoscopic vision.

According to  evolution’s law of natural selection, the first location  could start forming on your bum. How would natural selection determine that this was the wrong place? As an unintelligent force it would probably have to spend millions of years developing the eye only to discover that it could only see the inside of your pants. Then what? After discarding the organ as useless, the whole process could start at another place, for example in you armpit or under your foot. Remember these locations are selected at random without any intelligent choice. Evolution would now have to form an eye again by accidental modifications before discarding this new location as useless. How did evolution make all these decisions?  It had no intelligence.  After millions of years of forming eyes all over the body and discarding most of them because they could not work where they were situated, how did it finally select the right place to put them?  It would still have to make a decision as to where the best place for the eye would be. This single instance would already be an impossible task no matter how much time was allowed and yet in our example we have discounted all the negative and positive accidental modifications because we are only looking at the location of the eye. The evolutionary law of natural selection only sounds practical when used in a very limited application, like rabbits running faster than other rabbits and so survive whereas the slower ones  get caught and therefore die out. These simplified examples are used to establish a law that may operate in a simple situation but never in a complex situation. It is just like our tennis ball application. Maybe two or three balls at the most may at some time or other form a straight line but the more complex the situation, the impossibility of ten balls falling to the floor and forming a straight line is the reality and no amount of time will change that.

Consider these facts.

The theory is based on the application of a mathematical formula for measuring the likelihood of something happening. 1-3 is more likely to be more probable than 1-1000. In fact 1-(very large numbers are generally regarded as impossibilities.) The evolutionist misuses the tool because he maintains that 1-(large numbers) must happen if given enough time. Here is one example that shows that this theory does not work no matter how much time is given, because other factors are involved.

Say we have a lock with 3 wheels each with 0-9 numbers.

With a 3 wheeled lock as an illustration, the wheels can be spun from now to eternity even though the maths says that 10x10x10 give odds to 1-1000 of getting what? Evolution does not know what it is looking for and so we say it is looking for what? Natural Selection can not give the answer to the what, because it does not know where it is going. It needs to know where it is going. Any changes that it selects because they are supposedly beneficial initially, may need to be discarded and redesigned just like our plan for the construction of the skyscraper as it moves to complexity. We may ask “how does natural selection know what is beneficial”? It is unintelligent. In our lock, there is a number that we (intelligent persons) are trying to obtain to open the lock. We have one chance in a 1000 of obtaining it says the math. We can however have a million tries but if we are not intelligent enough to recognize the number when it appears, we could  go on forever. Even if we get the number right a thousand times, if we are not intelligent enough to recognize it and say stop, then the process goes on forever.

It takes intelligence and the ability to stop the endless changes and arrive at the answer, A mindless system will just go on and on in its random way and ultimately destroy anything that the 1-1000 produced. This ability natural selection does not have, therefore it has an impossible task. Once again the Goddess has failed to provide the scientific information to support its claim to be true science

Myth 6

Evolution says that there is a law of nature called natural selection that ensures that the fittest of any species will survive and that preserves the best of any species.  Any slight mutations that occur in a species that are advantageous are therefore carried over to the next generation and so this is how evolution evolves life upwards. Is this true? No! Why not? because the survival of the fittest is based on what the fittest is in a particular environment and furthermore how does natural selection know what the fittest is?

The environment can vary in different parts of the earth at any time, so what is fit for survival in this place may not be fit for survival in another environment. To illustrate:- If you are a farmer that breeds cattle for meat or milk, the fittest will be  that which fits the environment that you have created, whereas stock that is useless for good meat or milk production may be the fittest in another environment. Therefore when comparing the cattle from different environments with each other, which group is natural selection going to choose as the fittest and so the best? Another factor is that the environment can change. to illustrate:-If the nation you belong to goes to war, all your cattle may be wiped out and so they are not the fittest to survive because none have survived. Similarly a natural catastrophe cane wipe out all the other groups leaving only your cattle with are good meat and milk producers. So which group is the fittest to survive? Therefore this so-called law called natural selection is a fallacy. It is only a tendency observed in any particular locality at any one time.

Myth 7

Evolution teaches us that according to the survival of the fittest, even humans must compete perpetually and only the fittest will survive. Yet the human race is supposed to evolve to a higher degree by this method.

Let us consider the practical application of this teaching . During the 20th century both hitler and Stalin believed whole heartedly in the evolutionary law of the survival of the fittest. That is why the two systems that they produced were absolutely ruthless. The iron fist of hitler clubbed his way through Europe and only the cooperative system formed by the Allies succeeded in destroying Hitler and his Nazi machine. What was it that destroyed  Hilter? Not the survival of the fittest, but the cooperation that existed among the nations. That is not the survival of the fittest. Stalin was another believer in the survival of the fittest. This system brought misery to the millions that it crushed underfoot.

Since then have we seen humanity rising to new heights as we continuied to evolve to perfection? I am afraid not. Instead, mankind has plunged into greater depths of degradation than ever before. Intead, we find inceases in crime, immorality, and violence, behavior that is characteristic of “the survival of the fittest in action.” As humans compete with one another for wealth and success, inflation has soared to new heights increasing the number of poor which is adding problems to the governments as they try to maintain law and order and peace in the face of more strikes, protests and even rebellious movements. competition is regarded as healthy and yet when occasionally disaster strikes we see that it is the cooperation of nations and peoples that has succesful results. The evolutionary law has proved to be detremental to mankind’s progress. Humanness is distinquished by love compassion, kindness, willingness to share, cooperation and helpfulness. These are qualities that animals only manifest to a very limited degree, but we see that more and more humans are beginning to manifest the behavior of predators and so becoming more animilistic.

Does this not all show that the evolutionary idea that we are evolving to perfection is another myth. Does not the depths of degradation that increasing numbers of humans are sinking to, as shown  by the increasing crime statistics, violent crime and  greedy exploitation in business, expose  the failure of evolution to live up to its claims.

On the other hand the Bible forsaw to what depths of degradation humans would fall to and showed that this was the sign of the lst days.

(2 Timothy 3:1-5) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. ² For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, ³ having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self(-control, fierce, without love of goodness, ⁴⁵ having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,

The bible hs been proven to be correct when it speaks of science falsely so-called.

(NW) (1 Timothy 6:20-21) 20 O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith.. . .

(KJV) ( 1Timothy 6:20) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

For more information on the evolution theory consult :“Evolutionary Assumptions”

Posted in Categories :- Science, all