Tag Archives: creation

Anti-Science: An Analysis

Posted on by
7

There’s nothing like peer pressure and shame culture to stifle what is loosely called “free thinking”. As people have always done, they vigorously defend “the prevailing scientific view” as what “thinking” people accept rather than clinging to outdated or backward views held in the past. By elitist mockery they force conformity of thought and call it “free” just because it doesn’t involve a supernatural entity or deity. They deem anyone not conforming as fearful or stupid, whether directly or by inference.

I mentioned in my previous blog post that the sciences of geometry and physics are showing signs of cracking in their foundations regarding the supernatural. They are reaching the point where they can no longer observe without changing the thing they’re trying to observe, or measure without altering the thing they’re trying to measure. When observation or measurement reach a certain point the accepted scientific methods can no longer be used… as if they were not to be seen with naturalistic eyes. And without direct observation or repeatable experimentation, it is, by definition, not science.

Now when we discuss the matter of origins, whether living or nonliving, we are outside the realm of the scientific method. In fact, the past cannot be scientifically observed or measured at all, even for something that happened yesterday. Everything science can do is limited to the present; it can only measure or observe what exists right now. Knowledge can be accumulated and stored of course, but the experiments were observed at the time and verified by repetition. So when science theorizes about something that happened only once in the past and was not observed, it is no longer science; likewise, when it projects the future, it is not acting according to science but to faith in its present calculations or theories.1 A theory may be derived by observations/measurements, but unless it is testable (falsifiable)2 by scientific methods, it is just a guess or belief.

By “science philosophy”‘s3 own definition, then, any view that purports to define YEC4 as an unscientific or anti-science theory is itself unscientific/anti-science. If evolutionism itself refuses to discuss or include origins5, then any claim that YEC is anti-science or unscientific is disingenous or ill-informed at best. Yet I see many, many people, with a wide range of educational levels, all insisting that YEC is a laughable, backward, ignorant, fearful, and above all anti-science belief. So it is they who do not understand the definition and limitations of the scientific method, and who do not admit the faith they have in it as being every bit as “religious”, fanatical, and anti-science as YEC.

This blog post was prompted by the discussion of an Answers article.6 Keep the things I just discussed in mind as you read it, and look for misconceptions about both theories as well as logical fallacies. One important point to keep in mind is that scientists on both sides observe and measure the same things; the data is identical. The debate is thus not over raw data but interpretation, which in spite of the claims of the anti-design side is not science but philosophy. Each side insists that the raw data “prove” this or that, when in fact data can do nothing of the sort; people interpret the data. And when the true scientific method is employed, meaning sticking to the strict definition, all scientists agree on what is observed or measured.

Clearly, then, there can never be a conflict between the YEC and science, but only between one philosophical interpretation and another. That is, the question, “Can evolution and creation coexist?” is strictly and only a philosophical debate, NOT a science vs. religion debate. Whether the topic of discussion is origins or how the world and what it contains has changed over time, it will never be a scientific debate at all. I can hope/dream that someday both sides will admit this, but that’s all I can do.

    1. theory, fact, law
    2. def. of falsifiable: “‘Falsifiable’ does not mean ‘false’”
    3. philosophy of science
    4. Young Earth Creationism: the earth and all it contains was created in six literal 24-hour solar days
    5. evo has nothing to do/say about origins
    6. Notes on the referenced article in particular: OECs (old earth creationists) will of course insist that “evolution” is an observed, tested, and measured scientific fact, but I find the basis for that claim groundless and circular. Measuring devices must first be calibrated; that is, one must first of all have some idea of the scale of the anticipated results. For example, an oven thermometer does not have the same scale as a body temperature thermometer, though both use the same unit of measure (degrees). In the same way, one cannot measure the age of a rock without first having some preconceived idea of the scale. Thus, if the scientist presupposes a scale on the order of millions of years, that’s how the device to measure it will be calibrated. Conversely, if the scientist presupposes NOTHING (truly the scientific approach), they will try a variety of scales. This principle of scale and calibration can be extended into other scientific disciplines as well. (Of course biology is much more complex, but here again we can only observe what exists in the present; all theories about the past are outside the realm of science. There are many other obstacles to biological evolution as well; see this blunt article for example.)

Escher Theology

Posted on by

The artist M. C Escher was best known for his optical illusions involving images of ordinary things that can’t be possible in the real world. The images themselves make sense in their own self-contained way, but simply cannot exist physically. They delight the eye because of that very quality of impossibility and the great gift it took to imagine them, let alone draw them.

This is a good illustration of what can happen theologically; people can invent intriguing, mind-bending systems that seem to be complete in themselves, but when held up to the light of scripture and logic we see them for the illusions they are. At this blog a series of comments was made on the topic of Genesis and evolutionary theory which serves as a prime example:

I don’t see how any meaningful type of fall makes sense in light of the evolutionary origin of our species. A fall implies some better state, either in actuality or in potential, from which one “fell” from. The problem is, the evolutionary picture of our emergence as a species gives us every reason to doubt that a better state ever existed. And as far as some potential better state (the idea of God holding our a path for us which we rejected), our evolutionary beginnings would incline one to think that, as a species, we would have been ill-equipped indeed to pursue such a path.

…

My own view is that the authors’ views in Genesis reflects bronze-age thinking on questions of why there appears to be a gulf between the creation and the creator, and it attempts to explain this gulf through a story depicting a rebellion and resulting corruption of a perfect state of harmony. I don’t know that the story was meant to be taken literally, but the idea that there was some such event(s) I think is implied in the text. Of course, Paul just comes out and says it – so that part is much firmer.

So, is the “fall” a view expressed in the Bible? I think so. Is it wrong? I think so. Is it wrong because God’s revelation accommodates human erroneous viewpoints and perspectives? That’s up for each interpreter of the Bible to decide.

Later, another commenter asks this very critical question:

How is it different to say “Science doesn’t support the creation account of Genesis 2-3, so we have to re-evaluate what it really means” and “Science doesn’t support that 5 loaves and 2 fish can feed 5,000 people so we have to re-evaluate what that text means” or worse, “Science doesn’t support that people can come back to life after they’re dead, so all Biblical instances of resurrection have to be re-evaluated?”

The first commenter attempts a response, and this is where the Escher theology comes to light, especially the emphasized paragraphs:

(1) The reason to question a literal-historical reading of Genesis 1-3 does not start with science but with the text itself. It starts with the nature of the text, its relationship to other ANE literature, and the inherent contradictions in a literal-historical reading.

(2) The text is of a time and a genre that the only way it could be literal-historical is if God dictated it to the writer. This is not the normal form of inspiration and the text gives no indication of such. Prophets had a word from God, but nothing directly within scripture suggests Genesis 1-3 as dictation.

(3) The evidence from science in geology, paleontology, cosmology, and biology – which is evidence from God’s creation – is consistent with the idea that text isn’t literal-historical.

Genesis 1-3 is inspired and from God – but truth in scripture comes in many forms, and it is not always literal-historical.

None of this impacts the resurrection or the feeding of the 5000 as related in the NT. These are historical reports by contemporaries written down within a relatively short period of time after the events occurred. The evidence for them is historical, not scientific. The evidence is also seen in the rise of the church after the resurrection – the power of the Spirit.

Science cannot address these directly – there is no physical evidence to investigate – except to say that these are not normal or natural. But none of us actually think that they were normal or natural.

I see no problem holding to the NT as trustworthy reports, and Genesis 1-3 as inspired, but other than literal history.

We follow the first commenter’s argument around (I’ll dissect it in detail at the end) until we realize we’re back where we started, yet we couldn’t possibly have arrived there! Somewhere along the line the “laws of physics” were broken, and when we understand why Escher’s drawings can’t exist in reality we can solve this theological “Escher” as well. When we see that the key to solving Escher’s riddles is how our brain manufactures a 3D world from a 2-D image, we can then know to look for the kind of “twist” required to make people believe a self-contradicting hermeneutic. And the emphasized section is the spot where that twist occurred.

The twisted theology is actually just a non-sequitur (“it doesn’t follow”), much the way that a rising staircase cannot end up at the same level where it started. If the beginning arguments of the attempted response are true then the conclusion is not; it’s like saying “We know that the moon is made of rock, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t made of green cheese.” And the reason it doesn’t follow is because of the fallacy of equivocation; the response stared out on the basis of evolutionary theory and dismissing God’s inspiration of scripture, but ended with an appeal to historical evidence and “the power of the Spirit”.

So in fact the response did not answer or refute the critical question by the other commenter. The hermeneutic being used was indeed that whatever “science” doesn’t support has to be allegorized or written off as uninspired mythology. But when shown where that path leads, the responder tried to engage in “special pleading” by using different criteria, a different hermeneutic. This is exactly the reason evolutionary theory cannot be falsified, and it is no more useful or legitimate for theology than for science.

Now let me try and quickly summarize problems with the failed argument on a scriptural/logical basis:

  1. The Fall is not to be judged by the theory of evolution (ToE). If one invalidates the other, then Genesis has as much right to constitute disproof of ToE as the reverse.
  2. A fall does NOT imply “some better state” unless one first presumes that evolution is going “up”. So here again we have hopeless conflict between Genesis and ToE.
  3. If upward evolution is true, then saying “some potential better state” is something “we would have been ill-equipped indeed to pursue” contradicts it directly. Which way is evo trying to go, and what is directing it?
  4. As a result of presuming the ToE one is forced to conclude that Moses was just spinning “bronze-age” tales to try and make sense of the world and God.
  5. To say that it might be true after all (in some capacity) after all the preceding claims, is an admission that such claims are contradicted by no less than the apostle Paul. Yet then it is claimed that Paul is probably wrong!
  6. Since the ToE angle failed so obviously, the tactic switches to “the text itself.” But once again scripture is judged by secular literature, mythical though it is admitted to be. The alleged superiority of such literature is never explained or supported. Neither is “the nature of the text” shown to require a non-historical interpretation, in spite of the earlier admission that Paul took it as literal history (as also Jesus and the other NT writers did). The “inherent contradictions” are not in the text itself but with the ToE, so the only contradiction is in the argument itself. I love irony.
  7. Ignoring all scriptural data supporting a literal, historical view of Genesis, it is claimed that only direct dictation from God could make it so. But because this straw man is not “normal” and there is no “thus saith the Lord” stated, then Moses is dismissed as uninspired. Yet somehow all the NT writers, not to mention all the Jews of Jesus’ day, all held Moses in a little higher esteem than that.
  8. Back to the comfort zone of scientific terms (all the while equating them with ToE): it is claimed that ToE is the evidence of creation, when it fact ToE is only an interpretation of the evidence; creationists have the same evidence as evolutionists. So it is not science vs. Genesis but ToE vs. Genesis. This is simply a repeat of the initial presumption of ToE as the highest judge of scripture.
  9. Incredibly, this is followed by the statment “Genesis 1-3 is inspired and from God”. Somehow the argument made two points ago has quickly been forgotten. It is actually now being argued (hopefully in ignorance) that God inspires either fiction or deception. Now the door is wide open to treating “the inspired words of God” as bedtime stories that teach whatever lesson a person wishes to see in them.
  10. By this time it should be obvious that “the resurrection or the feeding of the 5000″ have not only been “impacted” but rendered completely false. Yet in direct contradiction of all the arguments made before, we can magically pull a rabbit out of a hat; we can appeal to standard legal and historical evidence because, apparently, 2000 years ago the people were much more reliable and intellectual than back in Moses’ day. Yet Jesus and the NT writers, as well as Jesus’ enemies, appealed often to Moses as an authority. And of what, children’s stories?
  11. Then “science” is set aside in order to justify some sentimental attachment to at least a smidgen of the supernatural: the evidence of “the rise of the church after the resurrection- the power of the Spirit.” Isn’t this the same Spirit that told Moses to copy and paste bronze-age stories from the heathen? How can this statement be justified in the slightest after all the preceding arguments made against Genesis? If heathen myths judge Genesis, then why can’t heathen myths judge the NT, as many do today? They say the “savior myth” is quite common and probably borrowed from other cultures. Why doesn’t that sort of “evidence” apply here?
  12. If it is admitted that science cannot address that which is not “normal or natural”, then why can’t a six-day creation be as much about the power of the Spirit as Jesus’ resurrection, especially when science says people can’t rise from the dead?
  13. It seems evident that “holding to the NT as trustworthy reports, and Genesis 1-3 as inspired, but other than literal history” is hoplessly self-contradictory and nonsensical.

I don’t know about you, but the phrase “methinks he protesteth too loudly” seems to sum it up as well as anything.

Science Fiction

Posted on by

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

I think Hawking has sacrificed science on the altar of God-hate. What makes a brilliant mind spew such utter nonsense, such laughable anti-science?

Science is all about observation and experimentation and falsifiablilty, but there has been a resolute march away from the concrete to the purely mathematical, because if you can cook the formulas with enough imaginary ingredients, not only will people think you’re smart but you also get to invent whatever you want. Formulas can’t account for the mass of the universe? Invent “dark matter”. Run into the brick wall of abiogenesis? Say it started a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away where we can’t observe it– and so our pet theory can’t be falsified.

But what of Hawking’s statements then? Doesn’t “The Grand DESIGN” mean there was a Grand Designer? Design cannot be denied; just a surface-skimming of the natural world tells us that the only alternative to explaining how bees and flowers exist because God designed them as interdependent from the start, is to make-believe that they just happened to evolve at precisely the same rate— for millions of years. Yeah, that’s the ticket— time is the magic wand we need so we can pretend there’s no God. Multiply that by the number of inter- and multi-dependent biological systems and you get a glimpse of the absurdity of design without a Designer.

Then there’s the even more ridiculous claim that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Pul-eeze! Paint this picture for me, Steve: there’s nuthin’. For a bazillion years (whatever that means when there’s no way to measure time). No matter, no laws, no forces, nuthin’. Now tell me how ANYTHING HAPPENED. To nuthin’. Explain that, Steve. I know I’m a peasant and a fool for my psychological crutch and all, but do try. I need something more than BLIND FAITH here, Steve.

If this is the depth to which eminent physicists have sunk, we have only the bleakest future ahead of us, as science is transmorgrified into a bizarre religion of Lord Dark Matter the Magical. It lives in a rainbow and lollipop universe where the observable laws of physics are discarded in favor of beliving things can cause themselves to exist, and we are told to blindly swallow the dogma of our betters when they say We now know the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.* (That’s a REAL science site, by the way, so be sure to look at their other articles.)

And these atheists have the gall to mock OUR faith. Whatever.

* ADDED: see also this article

Desperate Scientists

Posted on by

No, desperation is not just for housewives anymore; “science” is desperate too. Just read today’s news report (source):

The revelation last week that tiny eight-legged animals survived exposure to the harsh environment of space on an Earth-orbiting mission is further support for the idea that simple life forms could travel between planets.

This idea, called panspermia, is not new. It holds that the seeds of life are everywhere, and that microbial life on Earth could have traveled here from Mars or even from another star system, and then evolved into the plethora of species seen today. In essence, we may all be Martians.

In various forms, the panspermia concept was discussed among scientists in the 1700s, again in the 1800s, and then notably when Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe popularized it about 30 years ago. Mainstream scientists have often dismissed the hypothesis, however, even into the 1990s. But new life has been breathed into the idea in the past decade.

Right. Now who’s wearing the “tinfoil hat”?

And why do they think this answers any questions at all about origins? Somewhere, sometime in the distant past, life had to originate. Saying life here just came from someplace else only pushes the inevitable to a place science cannot currently investigate, so the unspoken message is that the laws of physics as we know them here must not apply elsewhere, thereby giving hope (aka blind faith in miracles) that things really can just pop out of nowhere and without a cause. In another part of the universe… a magical place where miracles occur. And this is all pronounced with a straight face by respectable scientists.

But of course the “elephant in the living room” is that this amounts to an embarrassing admission: that all our scientific observation and knowledge about what we can investigate here, in our world, proves that life simply could never have arisen here by accident. The laws of physics and biology and even philosophy are constrained to conclude that things can’t create themselves, that effects require causes, and that the mind-boggling complexities and inter-dependencies of life require intelligent design from Someone outside the laws of physics.

Faced with such ugly facts, the faithful atheist must imagine a magical place devoid of laws and order and observability, and find a way to call that “science”. You just have to admire a faith like that.

My Donation Dollars At Work

Posted on by

I am a charter-member of the AIG Creation Museum. I’ve been there before and after it officially opened, get their magazine, and wholeheartedly support YEC (young earth creationism). The museum is world-class and makes an extremely important public statement against the evolutionary religious dogma we’re all forced to learn. I highly recommend it and commend everyone who made it possible.

However…

In their Answers magazine, another quality product, they step outside the creationist box in two areas that greatly irritate me: Calvinism and Misogyny.

Of course they can put whatever they want in their magazine and I don’t have to like it. But neither do I have to support it with my donations. If they ever ask me why I stopped, this is it.

The Calvinism, though personally I find it reprehensible, isn’t heavily promoted beyond their gushing praise of books by Calvinist authors. I can tolerate that. But not the misogyny.

Example: In vol. 3 no. 2, page 40, we see it boldly stated that “Family government was introduced at the moment of Eve’s creation. Adam was to be the jurisdictional head of the family and Eve was to be a helper suitable for him“. Now nobody doubts that last part, but she was his equal, his “flesh and bones”, his rescuer so to speak– not his “assistant”. Check the Hebrew and even the LXX (noted in my Christian Egalitarian wiki and other documents here). But that nonsense about “jurisdictional head” is a big fat lie. There is no such jurisdiction before the Fall. There was no “family government”. Both were charged with “subduing the earth” and not one word is uttered or even implied about hierarchy of any kind. Like the Calvinist myth of “the death of man’s spirit”, pre-Fall hierarchy is imposed upon scripture without any shred of evidence.

Another spot is on page 86: “Yet in the functioning of the home, there is a chain of command: the husband is accountable to God, the wife is submissive to her husband“. They can’t state it any more clearly: woman does not directly report to God, but to a man! She can only get there through him, a sinner just like her. God “bosses” Jesus, who “bosses” man, who “bosses” woman. Somehow the submission to God that Jesus modeled only applies to women, but his rule over the church only applies to men. Nice.

I won’t repeat all I’ve written here that exposes and refutes such despicable pride and worse hermeneutics, except to say again that only the most brazen conceit can put half the human race under the other half. And the people at AIG go to such great lengths against “mere” racism! Such irony. They see the sinfulness of anyone thinking an ethnic group is beneath them, but turn around and so view the half of humanity with the “mitochondrial DNA”* (one of the articles in that issue).

I only wish they’d put half as much effort into defending the truths of scripture on this topic as they do on the six days of creation week.

*Added April 08: It turns out that mit. DNA being only from the mother was a myth. The scientific methods used to determine this were flawed. But I kept the expression here because it ties into the issue of the magazine I’m referring to. What I mean by it is just to refer to the female half of the human race.

Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution– by Evolutionists

Posted on by

This is a response to an article at This Link. Please read that article first.

15. Evolution is NOT a theory about the origin of life

Truth: Evo is all about finding a way to account for life without God, i.e. the religious philosophy of Naturalism. Pure science only observes; philosophy interprets. Philosophy is religion when it holds to its views in absolute blind faith, as evo does:

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: “I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.” (Source)

14. Organisms are NOT always getting better

Truth: Evo proposes an increase in complexity, which nobody on either side always claims is “better”. Evo, by definition, is supposed to explain the alleged “progression of life” in the fossil record, holding up Man as the most highly evolved by virtue of his complexity and intelligence, which is supposed to have evolved from “lower” or “simpler” organisms over time. So this claim is really a straw man.

13. Evolution does NOT mean that life changed ‘by chance’

Truth: Evo is ALL about “chance”, which is the opposite of “design”. Here they attempt to equivocate on the word “chance” by contrasting it with natural selection.

12. Natural selection does NOT involve organisms ‘trying’ to adapt

Truth: Again, natural selection is held up as a cause of adaptation– and thus a cause of evolution. As I’ve stated many times before, to select is to take out a subset of a larger existing set; it does not, cannot, and has never been observed, to create new information or complexity. Adaptation, far from being the result of mere undirected chemical processes as evo has always proposed, is programmed into the DNA of every organism– and there is a Programmer.

11. Natural selection does NOT give organisms what they ‘need.’

Truth: Finally they get the definition of natural selection right– but in doing so, they prove that it can’t explain evolution!

10. Evolution is NOT ‘just’ a theory

Truth: In spite of the boast from the quote in #15, I have shown a document that proves evolution to be neither a fact nor even a decent theory. (see This Link)

9. Evolution is NOT a Theory in Crisis

Truth: Yes, there is in fact a major debate about whether evo occurred, or evos wouldn’t be trying to keep ugly scientific facts that disprove it out of science classrooms. They wouldn’t fear scrutiny if there was no debate. No, the lame theory is not “sound science” or any kind of science at all, except science fiction. (This title they chose for #9 is a slam on the book by agnostic microbiologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, which I have read in its entirety.)

8. Gaps in the Fossil Record do NOT Disprove Evolution

Truth: Yes, they do. Their claim of “fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors” is laughable even among themselves (see This article from Berkeley). The discovery of an undisputed transitional form would have gotten someone a Nobel Prize.

7. Evolutionary Theory is NOT Incomplete

Truth: They can’t seem to make up their minds. They say it’s complete but then say “Evolutionary science is a work in progress.” Which is it? (And of course, “evolutionary science” is an oxymoron.) Those new discoveries they speak so glowingly about have done more to disprove evo than anything. Evolutionists like to say that there is no controversy over the fact of evolution; it is only the “how” about which they disagree. Not true; they can’t even agree on the “where” or “when” or “how long”. The facts have disproved evo over and over, yet they keep the faith. So it isn’t that they have a complete theory, but that they have a dogmatic religion.

6. The Theory is NOT Flawed

Truth: Yes, it certainly is; it’s full of holes. The alleged self-correcting nature of “science” is thwarted by the naturalistic agenda and efforts by zealots like Gould to make sure nobody who doubts evo is allowed to speak. Brushing off creationists’ objections with claiming they are “based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence” is a flat-out lie.

5. Evolution is not science because it is not observable– it IS observable

Truth: No, it isn’t, nor is it testable or falsifiable; their faith in the “fact” of evo in spite of those facts continually disputing it makes it so. Here again they presume to equate evo with science, and they are completely separate. Science must observe and test; evo can only interpret from its framework of naturalism. The fact is that nobody has actually observed new complexity arising, or any evidence of it.

4. Most Biologists have NOT rejected Darwinism

Truth: Nobody knows the numbers because many stay “in the closet” for fear of losing their funding, status, or position, as has happened to their colleagues. Biology has only proved the amazing complexity of even the “simplest” life forms, showing purposeless, undirected evo to be impossible. Those who say they still believe in evo do so out of religious devotion to their cause– and to protect their jobs.

3. Evolution does NOT lead to Immoral Behavior

Truth: Yes, it does. Nobody claims it causes it, but that a belief in “nature red in tooth and claw” will inevitably lead to more animalistic behavior, no law but survival, “looking out for number one”. There is no motivation to be civilized or altruistic if one believes he or she is just evolved pond scum (whose existence evo refuses to admit cannot have arisen by naturalistic processes).

2. Evolution does NOT support “Might Makes Right”

Truth: Yes, it does. “Social Darwinism” certainly didn’t come from Christianity. And it can’t be “a misappropriation of science” because evo is not science.

1. Teachers Should NOT Teach Both Sides

Truth: Yes, they should. What does evo have to hide? What are they afraid of? We’re not asking for “all views” to be presented, but two WIDELY HELD views that both claim to have solid science behind them. The only thing I agree with them about is that religion has no place in the science classroom. So why is the religion of Naturalism allowed? Why evo dogma and no other religion?

And that’s what I think of their little list. Perhaps it will “evolve” someday.

DNA or Don’t kNow Anything?

Posted on by

If you never read another article on the creation/evolution debate, read this one:

Creation vs. Evolution: What our Children Need to Know

It isn’t highly technical, but exactly where this debate has always belonged: it’s about world views.

ADDED LATER: There are two other articles along the same lines, and well worth your time:

Darwin Meltdown Reaches England

Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper

Let's Make A Deal

Posted on by

Some Christians just don’t quite trust the Bible, yet they turn around and blindly swallow the world’s philosophy. In a cowardly attempt to justify their faith anyway, they invent theories that allow them to keep half their faith in God and the other half in man.

One of the compromise theories some Christians use to try and accommodate evolutionary philosophy is to claim that God is still “resting” from his work; therefore the 7th day must be at least many thousands of years in length. Needless to say (but yet needful, for people don’t see this), there are a number of problems with that line of reasoning.

One: This theory ignores the language of the Hebrew textual pattern “evening and morning, the nth day”. Over and over it is repeated, making clear indication of solar days. As detailed in many other fine articles, whenever there is an ordinal along with “day”, it means a literal solar day. No translation I’m aware of uses terms like “evenings and mornings, the nth day” to give any leeway to there being more than one solar cycle per day.

Two: If the seventh day is thousands of years in length, then there were long ages in which there were plants without sunlight for example, and Adam had to be much older than the age given in the Bible (under one thousand). If people have trouble believing that anyone could live even a few hundred years, what will they do with this theory’s requirement on the lifespan of Adam? Thus, the day/age view is reduced to absurdity.

Three: The Bible clearly states that God is NOT still resting!

John 5:16-17
So the Jews began persecuting Jesus because he kept doing such things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I, too, am working.”

As also the Decalogue states point blank, God rested on the seventh day, not the seventh age or epoch. Of course God is no longer doing the work of original creation, but that in no way requires that God is doing nothing at all.

Four: The “Sabbath rest” of God is not a time but a place:

Hebrews 3:18ff
And to whom did he swear that they would never enter his rest, if not to those who disobeyed him? So we see that they were unable to enter because of their unbelief…

So to use this scripture as somehow related to the length of creation days is completely without warrant by the context.

So the day/age approach simply doesn’t work, either scripturally or scientifically. Not only do we have plants without sunlight for long ages, but the order of creation is not the same as the order of evolutionary theory. There are other compromise theories, but for now I wanted to just look at this one. Suffice it to say that they all suffer from similar fatal flaws and poor exegesis and science.

Your view of the Bible has everything to do with what you believe. To view it as fables, allegories, nice moral tales, etc. is to make it a mere lump of clay that will take any shape you want. One cannot hold to inerrancy and contradictory theories at the same time, but that’s exactly what theories do that try to meld evolutionary philosophy with Genesis.

Science scientific creation evolution starlight

Posted on by

This material is based largely on Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris but includes other material as well.

Gen 1:1-31, 2:1-25 Job 26:7 Ps 104:2, 136:6
Isa 40:12,22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13 Jer 4:3, 10:12, 32:17, 51:15 Zec 12:1
Acts 17:24-30 Ro 5:12, 14 1Cor 15:38-39

While it is true that the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook, the scientific statements it contains must not conflict with proven scientific fact; otherwise, the Bible would contain errors and thus be unreliable. This matter is of vital importance to the Christian, because evolution is the foundation of all non-Christian philosophy. In the following pages, we will compare the Theory of Evolution with that of Scientific Creationism.

The Importance of Origins

  • Science is based on cause-and-effect reasoning
  • Leads to the question of First Cause (what started everything without itself being ‘started’?)

The Impossibility of Scientific Proof of Origins

  • Scientific method is experimental observation & repeatability, but origins cannot be observed or repeated
  • Creation is not happening now
  • Evolution is too slow to observe
  • Duplication of either theory in the laboratory would not prove that it actually happened in the past

The Two Scientific Models of Origins

EVOLUTION MODEL CREATION MODEL

naturalistic

supernatural

self-contained

externally directed

non-purposive

purposive

directional (upward)

directional (downward)

irreversible

irreversible

universal

universal

continuing

completed (conserved)

Advantages of the Creation Model

  • awareness of a Creator to whom one must give account stimulates responsible behavior, earnest effort, honesty and consideration of others
  • it fits our own experience of reality (a house is built by something other than itself)

Origin of Matter, Energy and Natural Law

  • Evolution predicts matter, energy laws are still evolving
  • Fact: matter can be changed in state, but cannot be created or destroyed
  • Creation predicts matter, energy, laws are not changing (finished in the past, conserved in the present)
  • Fact: basic laws of nature are stable and unchanging

The law of cause-and-effect: no effect is greater than its cause; therefore:

The First Cause Of Must Be
limitless space infinite
endless time eternal
boundless energy omnipotent
universal interrelationships omnipresent
infinite complexity omniscient
moral values moral
spiritual values spiritual
human responsibility volitional
human integrity truthful
human love loving
life living

So the universe could not be its own cause.

Universal Laws

The law of relativity: All frames of reference as to size, position, time and motion are relative, not absolute. Therefore the universe cannot be an absolute in itself and must be in existence due to an external Creator.

The law of motion: The universe is in constant motion due to omnipresent energy. Therefore, there must be an omnipotent Cause of such energies and motion, and this Cause must have completed the creation in the past.

Classification and order: If all entities were in a constant state of evolution, classification would be impossible (such as knowing where ‘cats’ leave off and ‘dogs’ begin). Therefore, similarities in structure do not necessarily imply evolutionary descent from a common ancestor; a better explanation is that a Designer created similar structures for similar functions.

The Beginning of the Universe

The Laws of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics (LAW OF ENERGY CONSERVATION) states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. Therefore, the universe did not create itself.

The second law of thermodynamics (LAW OF ENERGY DECAY) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder. Therefore, the universe is ‘running down’ not ‘evolving up’. The fact that the universe is not yet dead is clear evidence that it is not infinitely old. The evolution model would predict increasing organization of systems toward higher and higher levels of complexity, but the creation model would predict the opposite. Therefore, the creation model fits the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law requires that the universe had to have a beginning; the first law precludes it having begun itself (The first cause must be free from the known laws of physics. Since the universe is not free from those laws it cannot be the first cause). Therefore, the universe was created by a Cause transcendent to itself.

Even though these facts do not prove the existence of a personal Creator, they do show that the creation model predicts the items listed in ‘the uncaused first cause’, all of which pose serious problems to the evolution model.

Origin of the Solar System

  • None of the planets (except earth, of course) has any measurable amount of liquid water or an oxygen atmosphere, both of which are essential for life as we know it.
  • Mars and the moon clearly show signs of past deterioration and catastrophe, but no evidence of any building process.
  • The earth and its moon are proven to have vastly different structures and chemical makeup. This implies that they formed under different conditions; therefore, they have different origins. (Very important! Since earth’s own satellite didn’t evolve with or from the earth, it is foolish to think that other planets could have had the same evolutionary origin.)

The Origin of Life

The evolution model would predict that life evolved from non-life and that the process is still happening. However, evidence shows that it is not happening, which is what the creation model would predict.

Variation and Selection

Darwin’s theory of natural selection stated that continual small variations in species would gradually result in completely new and higher types of organisms. However, modern molecular biology has confirmed that normal variations are restricted by an organism’s DNA, so that no novel characteristics producing higher degrees of order or complexity can appear. Therefore, variation is horizontal and not vertical! As the creation model would predict, these variations are merely a way of assuring an organism’s survival and genetic integrity.

Genetic Mutations

Since ordinary variations cannot account for ‘upward’ evolution, the evolution model must rely on mutations. (A mutation is a real structural change in a gene, such that something novel is produced.) It predicts that mutations are beneficial to the environment if they are to be preserved by natural selection. But the facts are, as the creation model would predict, the mutations are random, rare and harmful.

The complexity of Living Systems

The probability of a complex system arising instantly by chance

An organism having 100 parts can only work if the parts are combined in a certain way, and the 100 units can be combined in a possible 10158 ways, so that the chance of hitting the right combination is 1 in 10158. If, say, 109 (a billion) ‘trials’ can be made each second (and there are 1018 seconds in 30 billion years), then only 10105 ‘trials’ can be made. Finally, the chance that 1 of the 10105 is correct is 10158 / 10105 = 1 in 1053 (=1 with 53 zeros) . So for all practical purposes there is no chance at all! Yet, according to scientific research, the simplest ‘living’ molecule has at least 400 units.

By similar calculations, a system as complex as a DNA molecule could never arise by chance, no matter how big the universe is or how much time there is. This is a major obstacle to the evolution model, which states that life (the beginning of which had to be the DNA molecule) evolved from non-life. Higher organisms are extremely more complex than a molecule, so for one kind of organism to evolve into another one would require a tremendous number of ‘good’ mutations, which are highly improbable. For the evolutionist to reject the creation model in spite of these odds requires a great deal of blind faith.

Similarities and differences

The evolution model relies on similarities in structure and biochemistry to prove common ancestry, but ignores their differences. For example, cats and dogs have similar structures but are distinct from each other. If they have a common ancestor, how did they ever get to be different? (Remember the high improbability of ‘good’ mutations and the limitations of an organism’s DNA)

To explain the ‘gaps’ in the fossil record between two organisms and their supposed ‘common ancestor’, evolutionists used to say that they existed but simply were not yet discovered. But that explanation can no longer be used in the light of the wealth of fossils now available. Now they say that those ‘in-between’ organisms did not fossilize, because evolution happened too fast in the past. And yet they say we cannot see evolution happening now because it is too slow!

Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism?

Uniformitarianism: fossils formed slowly over eons of time
Catastrophism: fossils formed quickly in a relatively short time (sudden death)

The Message of the Fossils

  • Uniformitarianism contradicts the actual data; cannot explain many types of geological strata.
  • Catastrophism explains any and all types of geological strata.
  • Fossils are the means by which rocks are assigned a geologic age, but the concept of geological ages is an assumption of the evolution model! Evolution must be assumed to be true before the fossil record can be used to ‘prove’ that it was formed slowly.
  • Scientific fact says that a fossil can only be produced and preserved by rapid formation, which requires catastrophism. All the presently living organisms are also found in the fossil world, proving that fossilization does not require long eons of time.
  • Fossilization is not happening now, implying that the formation of fossils was a single past event.
  • Fossil-bearing strata are found all over the world, proving that the catastrophe was worldwide, not just in scattered local instances.
  • If the fossil record proves that one-celled organisms were replaced by fish and fish were replaced by amphibians, etc., then why are they still living today, all at the same time? Couldn’t they have all lived at the same time in the past? Couldn’t man and the dinosaurs and the one-celled organisms all live at the same time?

Rapid Formation of Geological Deposits

  • All of the types of rocks in which most fossils are found were formed rapidly.
  • Many fossils extend vertically through several strata of rock. That is, a single fossil extends through several ‘ages’!
  • Many strata of rocks assigned to an ‘older’ age are found resting on top of those assigned to a ‘younger’ age.
  • Residual Catastrophism (current catastrophes such as storms, floods and volcanoes) is attributable to the ‘post-Flood’ period

To appreciate this aspect of the cataclysmic model, consider first the nature and cause of the ‘major catastrophe’ itself. Rocks from all ‘ages’ indicate a worldwide warm climate. Before the Flood, the earth’s strong magnetic field and high levels of carbon dioxide created a ‘greenhouse effect’, along with heated water deep within the earth. The explosive release of those waters would remove the ‘greenhouse effect’, causing uneven heating of the earth, and would explain the rapid formation of both fossils and geologic strata. The after-effects of such a catastrophe would continue for centuries (mountain-building, glaciation, rainfall, volcanism, etc.)

How to Date a Rock

Rocks are not dated by any physical characteristics, but by index fossils, which are remains of organisms that are assumed to have been of limited duration but found worldwide. Evolutionists are the victims of circular reasoning on this point:

  1. fossils are the only key for placing rocks in chronological order
  2. the criterion for assigning fossils to specific places in that order is the assumed evolutionary progression of life
  3. the assumed evolutionary progression of life is based on the fossil record so constructed
  4. (back to 1)

So the main evidence for evolution is evolution!

The creation model is free to consider scientific evidence on its own merits because it doesn’t require any specific time scale, but the evolution model is forced to reject all evidence requiring a short time scale.

Radiometric Dating
(uranium is gradually changed into lead and the relative proportions of the two are an index of the time passed)

When using this method of geochronometry, the following assumptions must be made:

  • the system must have been closed (not altered by any extraneous forces)
  • the system must have initially contained none of the resultant component (uranium but no lead).
  • the process rate must have always been the same.

However, none of those assumptions are valid, provable, testable or even reasonable:

  • there is no such thing in nature as a closed system; the idea of a system remaining closed for millions of years is an absurdity
  • it is impossible to ever know the initial components of a system found in prehistoric times
  • no process rate is unchangeable
  • This and other dating methods have yielded ages of billions of years to rocks that were known to be formed in modern times!

Evidence for a young earth

Certain gases migrate upward through the rocks and into the atmosphere. By measuring the quantities of these gases in the atmosphere the approximate age of it can be determined. Some scientists have cited evidence that the earth’s atmosphere is only about several thousand years old!

There is a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth’s atmosphere from space and settling on the earth’s surface. It has been calculated that even if the earth is as old as 5 million years (let alone 5 billion years as the evolutionist claim), a dust layer of over 2 inches should cover the entire world. This dust would contain distinctive materials such as nickel and iron. Nickel is very rare in the earth’s crust, but if the dust was uniformly mixed into the earth’s crust it would contain 300 times as great a nickel content as it actually has. Therefore the only way to account for the earth’s small amount of nickel is to assume it is only a few thousand years old.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field has been measured carefully for 135 years, and it has been shown that it has been decaying during that period with a half-life of 1400 years (every 1400 years it loses half its strength). Even if the earth is only 10,000 years old, its magnetic field would have started out as strong as that of a magnetic star! Thus, 10,000 years seems to be an outside limit for the age of the earth.

According to evolutionists, man has been on the earth for at least a million years, but it would only take 4,000 years to get the earth’s present population starting with only two people. There is more than enough room in the creation model to allow for various delays in the population growth, caused by such things as war or diseas

The Origin of Man

  • Evolutionists are still looking for the ‘missing link’ between apes and men (it is unlikely that such a major discovery would still elude modern archeology)
  • Discoveries such as ape-like teeth that are smaller than modern apes’ teeth do not prove that ape was becoming manlike; the teeth are probably small due to habitat and diet.
  • Fossils that are definitely human but are much smaller than modern humans are probably due to inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment. Thus it is probable that the so-called cave men were small groups isolated from the major population, not ‘ape men’ ancestors. (Neanderthal man had a stooped posture due to rickets, a disease caused by a vitamin D deficiency, or due to arthritis)
  • There is much evidence that modern man existed at the same time as all the ‘ape men’

Languages and races

  • The evolutionary concept of natural selection can also be applied to human races; the higher ‘civilized’ races will eventually eliminate the lower races!
  • The creation model recognizes the ‘kind’ as the basic created unit. (for example, mankind).
  • The existence of different groups of people is due primarily to language differences. If two groups cannot communicate, they probably won’t work together or intermarry, causing segregation.
  • The fact that there are different languages is an unanswerable question for the evolution model, but poses no problem to the creation model. (How could animal noises have evolved into true language which discusses, abstracts and symbolizes?)
  • Most ‘primitive’ tribes living today have very complex languages.

The Historicity of the Genesis Record

  • The creation chapters of Genesis give data and information beyond those that science can determine and provide a framework within which to interpret the facts which science can determine
  • It was once maintained that Moses could not have written Genesis since writing was not invented yet. But archaeologists have proven that writing was practiced long before Moses and even Abraham
  • Archaeology has confirmed that the general setting of Genesis from chapter 12 onward is very realistic
  • All new testament writers and Jesus himself accepted the early chapters of Genesis as being historically accurate and divinely inspired
  • The creation was ‘mature’ from its birth and did not have to grow or develop from simple beginnings (even Adam and Eve were full-grown when they were formed)

The World That Then Was (2 Peter 3:6)

The original created world differed from the present world in several significant ways:

  • The Edenic river system (Gen. 2:10-14) does not exist in the present earth. The source of the rivers was from deep within Eden (Gen. 2:10), and there were other ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11). These waters burst forth in the Flood.
  • There was no death in the beginning (Gen. 1:31 says everything was ‘good’); death only came into the world when sin did (Rom. 5:12). This principle of decay is what scientists now call the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Major theories that compromise scripture with evolution

No biblically derived religion can be compromised with Darwinian theory, since chance and design are mutually exclusive concepts. Nevertheless, some Christians who think evolution is scientific fact have tried to postulate ways in which the Bible can be molded to evolutionary theory.

Theistic Evolution states that evolution is factual but its processes were started by God. But scriptures such as 1 Cor. 15:38-39 contradict this theory. For instance, God created the earth before he created the ‘heavenly bodies’ (the stars and planets). To believe in the God of the Bible and evolutionary theory creates some theological contradictions:

  • An all-powerful God can create the universe in an instant, rather than having to stretch it out over eons of time.
  • If ‘man in his own image’ was the goal of creation (see Isaiah 45:18), why would God wait until the very end of geologic time to create man?
  • The history of evolution is filled with extinctions, mutations, and other ‘mistakes’, which indicates poor planning, not omniscience.
  • A loving God would not create a world of struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, disease and famine. These things are at the heart of evolutionary theory but totally contradict Scripture.

Progressive Creation is similar to Theistic Evolution, but adds the idea that God would intervene in the evolutionary process from time to time. This implies that God’s original creation was defective (‘not good’), since it needed correction now and then.

The Day-Age Theory states that the six days of creation were not literal 24-hour days but were ‘periods of time’ corresponding to the evolutionary concept of geologic ‘ages’. It is almost identical to the Progressive Creation theory, but is more specific as to when God intervened in the evolutionary process (each ‘day’ began when God intervened in the process). But the phrase ‘evening and morning, the nth day’ is describing normal ‘solar’ days. And the order of creation is not the same as the order of the geologic ages: plants before sunlight, birds before land animals, etc.

The Gap Theory states that there was a vast amount of time (the geologic ages) between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2; that is, God created the earth, but ‘something’ happened that left the earth ‘formless and void’, so God had to re-create the earth. But even the evolutionists reject this theory! There is no room for any such major catastrophe in evolution, which is based on uniformiterianism. It also seems strange that God would tell us about the Flood but completely ignore a catastrophe of far greater magnitude; that he would tell us about the present world but would ignore the ‘gap’ world.

There is just no way to reconcile creationism with evolution, either scripturally or scientifically.

Starlight and Time

(Dr. Russell Humphreys ©1994, Master Books)

If the universe is only about 6 to 10 thousand years old, how can we see light from stars that are more than 10,000 light-years away?

According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR), gravity affects time. The stronger the gravity, the slower time goes. And it affects all physical processes‚Äî the earth’s rotation, aging, the speed of nerve impulses in your brain, etc. The following discussion will show how GR helps to solve the ‘astronomical problem’.

Two Models of the Universe

The Big Bang (BB) model

  • the universe has no center or outer edge (boundary)
  • 3D space expands with matter
  • the universe is like the surface of an expanding balloon, with galaxies, etc. scattered all over it
  • 3D space is on the ‘surface’ of a four-dimensional ‘sphere’ which is expanding, and each galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy

The White Hole (WH) model

  • the universe has a center and an outer edge (boundary) (therefore it has a center of mass and a net gravitational force, allowing for the time-distorting effects of gravity on a massive scale)
  • the universe has expanded (scientific observations and Isaiah 40:22, Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1)
  • the universe was once inside an ‘event horizon’ (EH), or border, known as a white hole (a one-way border which permits only outward motion through itself)
  • since matter only moves out of a WH, the WH eventually shrinks to nothing because the diameter of an event horizon is proportional to the amount of matter inside it, thus leaving an expanded universe
  • although the WH no longer exists, it was once the ‘center’ of the universe

An unbounded universe (BB) could never have been in a white or black hole because BB requires no center, and these holes would have been the center. It is important to note that the first point in both models is an assumption; it is an arbitrary starting point that cannot be scientifically determined.

Event Horizons and Time

According to GR, time stands still at the EH and is progressively faster as distance from the EH increases. As the WH EH reached earth during the creation week, distant objects in the universe could age billions of years in a single earth day, allowing ample time for their light to reach earth.

A Creation Week Scenario

DAY ONE: God creates 3D space containing a rotating ball of liquid water (2 Peter 3:5) called ‘the deep’. This ball is in a black hole of extreme gravitational force. The force compresses the ball, making it hot and dense. The heat rips apart the water molecules and atoms, starting thermonuclear fusion.

DAY TWO: God begins stretching out space, which causes the ball to expand rapidly, changing the black hole to a white hole. He divides the ball into two concentric spheres by creating an expanse between them. Normal physical processes begin the formation of the inner sphere into the ‘earth’ as we know it. The expanse becomes interstellar space (not ‘the sky’ immediately surrounding the earth), and the outer sphere cools (and probably turns to ice). [Hebrew in Gen. 1:20 reads, '... and let birds fly around over the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens...'; Ps. 148:4 says, '... the waters that are above the heavens'. It was written after the Flood, so the waters above the heavens are still there. Therefore there was no 'water vapor canopy' surrounding the pre-Flood earth; it was protected instead by the earth's strong magnetic field, which deflected harmful cosmic rays and contributed to the long lives of those who lived before the Flood.]

DAY THREE: As normal physical processes continue, the expansion of space causes the outer sphere to reach and pass through the event horizon. So the amount of matter within the EH decreases, causing it to shrink toward the earth.

DAY FOUR: During this normal, 24-hour day on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes take place in space. Stars are formed and their light reaches the earth while space continues to expand.

DAY FIVE: Physical processes continue while God creates many living creatures.

DAY SIX: God stops the expansion and creates land animals and Man.

Quotes From Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
©1985, U.S. 1986 by Adler & Adler Publishers
Author: Michael Denton: M.D., molecular biologist, non-creationist

P.66: ‘Despite the attempt by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of evolution than to any other single factor.’

P.75: ‘Darwin’s model of evolution is still very much a theory… it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science.’

P.250: ‘… no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’

P.267: ‘When the mutation rate is very high, no living system can avoid the path to auto-destruction.’

P.268 (quoting Nobel winner Francis Crick): ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle…’

P.270: ‘The problem of the origin of life is not unique; it only represents the most dramatic example of the universal principle that complex systems cannot be approached gradually through functional intermediates, because of the necessity of perfect co-adaptation of their components as a precondition of function… the divisions of nature arise out of the necessities rooted in the logic of the design of complex systems.’

P.285: ‘At a molecular level there is no trace of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.

P.291: ‘… if… ancient lungfish and ancient amphibia were as separate from each other as their present-day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses.’ … ‘The only justification for such an assumption [that ancient lungflsh were far closer biochemically to ancient amphibia] would be if evolution is true, but this is precisely the question at issue!’

P.296: ‘If evolution is true, then indeed the intermediates must be very rare. But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types! The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.’

P.327: ‘… there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.’

Quote From America: The Sorcerer’s New Apprentice
©1988, by Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR
(Authors: Dave Hunt & T. A. McMahon)

P.222-223 (quoting British biologist D.M.S. Watson): ‘Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.’