Science image-question5-large

Published on July 23rd, 2013 | by Gary DeMar

36

Journalist Admits She’s a Creationist and Drives Evolutionists Insane

In the midst of the George Zimmerman “not guilty” verdict, rioting, beatings, threats of violence, calls for “checking your white privilege,” and demands that we “give money to the Dream Defenders, to the Urban League, to the Southern Poverty Law Center… because racism is a natural disaster just like hurricanes and bombings and shootings are,” there’s a story going around about a journalist who admits that she’s a creationist.

The liberal disdain for her is thicker than quick-drying cement. Here’s just one example, written by Laura Helmuth at Slate:

“This is all just to say that I am trying to sympathize, I really am, with Virginia Heffernan. Heffernan is a writer for Yahoo News, formerly of the New York Times and formerly-formerly a TV critic for Slate. Last week she published an essay in which she revealed that she is a creationist. I’m not exaggerating. The essay is titled ‘Why I’m a Creationist,’ and she wrote: ‘Also, at heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it.’”

image-question5-largeThe article drips with disdain but does not offer a single verifiable scientific fact supporting how nothing became something.

Evolutionists can ridicule all they want (it’s all they have left), but they can’t prove that inorganic matter evolved into organic matter that evolved into the complex life forms we are and see around us. Evolutionists can’t get from atoms to people. It’s even worse for them since they can’t account for the original matter or the organized information necessary to organize the matter.

To believe in evolution is to believe in magic — literally. At least stage and street magicians start with a deck of cards, a coin, or a rabbit. Magicians (illusionists who get away with the illusion because they have information that you and I don’t) can’t really make something appear out of thin air. But that’s exactly what evolutionists claim for evolution. When I say exactly, I mean exactly. Here’s an example found in the prestigious Scientific American:

“It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”(1)

It’s impossible to imagine because it’s impossible, but that’s what evolutionists believe. One of the first scientific laws biology students learn is that spontaneous generation is not science, and yet in order to be an evolutionist, you must believe in it even though it’s contrary to logic, experience, and experimentation.

Did you notice that the authors describe cells as “machines”? When has a machine ever spontaneously come into existence? Never! “But there was this time 3.7 billion years ago. . . .”

Helmuth writes, “Whatever levels of analysis you care to use, from molecular to planetary, they all mutually reinforce the discovery that all living things evolve through a process of natural selection. Absolutely nothing in the 154 years since Origin was published has undermined the theory.” “Absolutely nothing”? Do I detect a hint of desperation and fear in the absolutism of the claim?

Ms. Helmuth needs to take a look at the “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” that has nearly a thousand signatures of scientists who “are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

Edward Peltzer, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), writes:

“As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and ‘tweaks’ the reactions conditions ‘just right’ do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.”

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, offers similar commentary on the complexity of life that cannot be explained by Darwinism:

“As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution — is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.”

A lot has been published, even by self-admitted evolutionists who know there are problems with the theory. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge were so bummed about not finding evidence for the gradual approach to evolutionary development that they created a new theory called “punctuated equilibrium,” “punk eek” for short.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology,” Gould wrote. “[T]o preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”(2)

Eldredge, the co-developer along with Gould of “punctuated equilibrium,” writes, “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen.”(3)

OK, Laura, like you, I started with the molecular. Using observation (no one was around 3.7 billion years ago and no one has seen nothing become something) and experimentation (no one has been able to produce life in the lab), demonstrate to us how evolution took place. Don’t theorize. Don’t assert. Don’t propagandize. Show us. You can’t and neither can Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionist living or dead.

 Endnotes:

  1. Alonso Ricardo and Jack Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American (September 2009), 54.()
  2. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s erratic pace,” Natural History (1977), 86:14()
  3. Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1995), 95. Quoted in Philip J. Sampson, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 59.()
Print Friendly


About the Author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).



36 Responses to Journalist Admits She’s a Creationist and Drives Evolutionists Insane

  1. Julie Benge says:

    We need a little levity injected here. Besides this is a favorite of mine.
    Use your imagination to picture a scientist and God in a discussion.
    The scientist is sure he has made biology, out of chemistry. Life in a test tube.
    God says “OK show me.”
    The scientist reaches for what looks like a test tube of dirt.
    Immediately God says “Oh, no no! Get your own dirt! “

  2. GQ4U says:

    God is with us.

  3. TIA says:

    Tony, we understand that abiogenesis and evolution are not synonyms. However, they are most definitely related, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

    Since life exists, there are only two options. Either (1) Life arose from non-living matter (abiogenesis) or (2) Life has always existed.

    Please clarify which option you believe to be correct, and substantiate your claim with evidence.

    We’re waiting…

  4. compugor says:

    It appears that there’s a fine line between apologetics and troll feeding.

  5. harmon says:

    Antichus “Tony” should check the _Oxford English Dictionary_:

    Abiogenesis:
    “The term was introduced by T. H. Huxley in an address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Liverpool in September 1870.
    …  2. The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances; archebiosis…”

    Evolution: 
    “8. b. theory of evolution n. (in general) the proposition that all living organisms have undergone a process of alteration and diversification from simple primordial forms during the earth’s history; (in particular) a scientific theory proposing a mechanism for this process, now esp. that based on Darwin’s theory of the natural selection of genetically inherited and adaptive variation.”

    Either the OED is ‘confused’ in attaching the word “evolution” to “abiogenesis,” or (like all evolvoids) “Tony” is driven insane by that miraculous instant when evolution injected itself into the informational vacuity of lifeless matter.

    The belief that dead, primordial elements were empowered to transform themselves into the ‘undesigned’ complexity of a human being is not “science.” It’s the magical, time-worshipping religion of atheist fools.

    • Tony says:

      Again this shows your ignorance of evolution,you have literally no idea of what you speak, your beliefs are the only magic here! You want a dinosaur poof! A platypus poof! A rhino? Poof all outta nowhere

  6. Darrell Russell says:

    If there was or is no God and man did evolve from apes. Where is the proof. At least the creationist have the Bible.
    Simple question. If there is infinity (without end) how can you ever have a beginning?

  7. Michael Earl Riemer says:

    Antichus “Tony” you didn’t take my advice, you should have. First of all, you need a spelling lesson. “abogensis” is not the correct spelling, abiogenesis is. On most computers (and when you post something here) when you misspell a word there is a red line underneath. You should give heed to that red line. For the word cant, you used should have used can’t, for you did mean can not, didn’t you?

    You also need a lesson in math.” In my quote from the good professor Jerry Coyne he states:
    “ it took billions of years, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life has been here for at least 3.5 billion” Since that is part of “the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory” as the professor states, that would mean that for 1.1 billion years there was no life on this planet. That 1.1 billion years is part of the “theory” of evolution. Over a billion years of no life on a barren rock is part of the “theory” of evolution. Please take the time to really learn what evolution really teaches. And then you will sound a lot less like a fool when you post comments here. Of course if you take the time to study this issue, we pray you will become a believer in the God who made all things.

    Antichus “Tony” you state:
    “also saying that evolutionists believe something came out of nothing is also showing that you dont even understand the big bang theory”

    On the website “All About Science”-Big Bang Theory-An Overview
    “The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.”

    According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of “black holes.” Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called “singularities.” Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something – a singularity. Where did it come from? We don’t know. Why did it appear? We don’t know…Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.”

    So, it does seem that evolutionists believe that everything came from nothing.

    “at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.”

    “Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe.”

    So, please heed my advice, know what the “theory” of evolution teaches before you post anything else.

    • Antichus "Tony" says:

      again NO, evolution is about the diversification of life you are still mixing abogensis with evolution!

  8. bow says:

    If you want a run down as to why the concept of evolution does not work, go to http://www.creation.com. One can disprove evolution without even discussing spontaneous generation. 1. Natural Selection (something that indeed exists and that can actually be observed by men) and “evolution” as presented by Darwin, Hawking and others are two different things. 2. All genetic mutations known to man have resulted from a LOSS of genetic information from the original “kind” of lifeform. All the variations we see in people and kinds of animals have resulted from a loss of genetic information and/or reintroduction of lost information by mating with others from the same species. Where did this information originally come from? Darwin was not aware of DNA. Had he and others of his day been familiar with it, his theory would never have seen the light of day. How could something as complex as DNA or the human eye just “Develop” on its own (regardless of how much time)? And that ignores the tons of evidence that there is no such thing as the earth being around 100,000 yrs, much less billions. Talk about blind faith! Christians such as those speaking up on this website are perfectly reasonable and rationale in their faith with solid information backing up their conclusions (and this aside from their own spiritual relationship with the God of the Bible which further validates the positions). Evolution is junk science; in fact it is incestuous science. Evolutionists ignore any information that does not support their own predetermined conclusions. That is not science. This Christian Faith is not an irrational faith, but rational, reasonable faith. Evolutionists speaking up (if they are intellectually honest and not avoiding the facts, would have to admit to what George Wald said, and much more). I challenge any atheist or evolutionist to check out the website noted and attempt to refute any assertions you find there. Debate the scientists (many of them former athiests) there, if you dare.

    • Antichus "Tony" says:

      “Evolutionists ignore any information that does not support their own predetermined conclusions”

      this is really ironic-when creationists are most famous for doing this, no evolution is not a premise it is a concusion from science, i ve talked to people from CMI, they are total jokes

      • Len says:

        Once again you make an intelligent, well reasoned, factual argument well backed up by documented references – not to mention your eloquence in presenting your case in your replies.

  9. Dan Talbot says:

    Chuck, your tongue in cheek statement that Christians are backward-thinking is good irony. I too am a Christian and for me, Godless evolution is “backwards” and ridiculous. To think that everything evolved from nothing is to think SMALL. A clock doesn’t build itself, and neither did the precision entity we call the Universe. The Bible says it very well: (Isaiah 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the
    foundations of the earth?
    Isaiah40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,…. that stretcheth out
    the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

    Chuck, the Bible also says that all wisdom of man is foolishness to God. It warns, as you know, “intellectuals” against being “wise in their own eyes”. No mortal has understood creation, man, and infinity. Someday we will, but it will be when we stop seeing “darkly” and become citizens of heaven.

  10. Lonestarwife says:

    All I can say is “coelacanth”. Evolutionist had their preconceived notions: See the fins – see how they’re shaped – that’s probably the shape they took as it was evolving in order to walk on land. Yes, folks saw that on a PBS documentary. BUT, when one of these little “fishes” was found; OH how wrong they were! Makes me wonder how many other things they’re wrong about – just everything else. HA! This would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t so utterly sad.

    • Antichus "Tony" says:

      again you have no idea of what you are talking about- you have no understanding just like Gary of biology and evolution and just science in general

  11. Dave T. says:

    To Antichus Tony,
    All you can argue is semantics! There is no defense for the theory of evolution! The universe did not just happen (evolve), chemicals and electricity did not generate life (or we would be able to replicate the “experiment” today using just naturally formed chemicals (not processed…that takes intelligence) and lightening (no batteries or power supplies). Life can adapt to surroundings but not become a new “species” (or kind in Biblical terms) or monkeys would be developing into humans and we would have retained the strength that our prior species had as it would have aided our survival! And, if you truely believe in evolution, why do you liberal God deniers allow abortion? Forget the whales and owls, every new generation of man should be protected because they would be the ones to carry the more evolved genes! You may have already killed the baby that contained the genes to make future generations cancer proof!

  12. Harry Chinnis says:

    Never mind guessing about what happened enons ago. Presently, there is a vast spiritual realm which only a few have discovered. Jesus told Nicodemus: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again (John 3:3). The Apostle Paul wrote: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Notice that Paul did not say, “he will not,” he said, “he cannot understand.”
    When I invited Jesus Christ to come into my life, a spiritual realm that stretches from eternity to eternity became very evident. A man named Ray Smith wrote about this experience in a book titled “Realizing God or a form of godliness” (Amazon.com). He cites numerous personal encounters in which this spiritual God revealed Himself and touched his life in astounding ways. Spiritual insight easily resolves all creation issues.

  13. Len says:

    I recently came across a little book by Dr. R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries (www.ligonier.org) which sheds a great deal of light as to why so many embrace the atheistic concept of evolution. The book is entitled “If There is a God, Why Are There Atheists?” It discusses the psychology of atheism in light of what Paul presents in Roman’s chapter 1. All people have a knowledge of God, but repress that knowledge. When we are confronted with the fact that there is an infinately Holy God to whom we are accountable, in our fallen state, we recoil at this thought and repress it just as we tend to repress any traumatic experience in our lives. Evolution is simply one of the ways in which we repress and deal with the knowledge of God that everyone possesses. We know we stand condemned before Him, but that fact terrorizes us.

    Ligonier Ministries has also produced a audio/video teaching series with Dr. Sproul entitled “The Psychology of Atheism” which is a companion to the book. The audio of the lecture series can be listened to for no charge on the Ligonier web site.

    Both are excellent resources that shed a great deal of light on this whole topic of discussion.

    • Antichus "Tony" says:

      evolution is not an “athiestic” concept, you have no idea of what you talk of

    • Antichus "Tony" says:

      ” Evolution is simply one of the ways in which we repress and deal with the knowledge of God that everyone possesses. We know we stand condemned before Him, but that fact terrorizes us”
      ok i am sorry but how high are you? you it seems have no understanding of anything you say, and evolution is a scientific theory of how life came to be diverse,and the fact that you psycho babble about a “holy god” shows how delusional you are and how ignorent one can be

      • Len says:

        Thank you. You prove the point of the book (and Romans Chapter 1) quite well. I would also suggest that you listen to their teaching series on “The Holiness of God”, but somehow I doubt if you ever will.

        • Antichus "Tony" says:

          again you show great ignorance of what evolution is,saying that evolution is an athiest concept is a non-sequitor and shows that you dont even understand what you speak of and Romans chapeter one is just delusional rambling by a primitive ignorant

      • Dan Talbot says:

        Wise in your own eyes? Atheists contend that the universe began with a gas cloud, but they never deal with the question “who turned on the gas?”. This chicken and egg dilemma is only resolved by possession of a super-human intellect, which nobody here owns.

        Incidentally, you are hung up on a word (evolution). And you are trying to turn a process into a philosophy. Here’s a hint: “evolution” ain’t no spiritual issue, any more than your yoga exercises.

  14. Michael Earl Riemer says:

    …Here is their “scientific” tale of the creation of the universe and life, how it all came about.
    In the beginning there was nothing. No energy, no atoms, no matter, just a big empty space full of Nothingness. In time this great expanse of nothingness decided to create a somethingness, a small speck of material the size of an atom that it just “popped” into existence. Into this small particle the nothingness compressed all the matter of the entire universe. This tiny speck then exploded, or expanded like a cake in an oven and made everything. Then on a newly formed planet which we call earth, this great somethingness created life out of a rock. Yes, tis’ true, that somehow, someway, this inorganic rock magically transformed itself into an organic living pond scum. Then, over a long period of time the scum evolved into ape-like creatures who were not content to remain just simians, but one day decided to evolve just a little further, to a higher level of life, and their offspring become the parents of Albert Einstein.

    If a spark of reason or logic still resides within your brain after being mislead by so many “educated” teachers and professors during the course of your schooling, you should begin to realize that the story you have been told of our beginnings is somewhat lacking even a small smattering of science. And the more you contemplate their story, the more you will realize, you are very familiar with the genre. Aw…is the light coming on? It’s the kind your mother read to you at bedtime and it normally started with “Once upon a time” and usually ended with…“and they lived happily ever after.”

    From my book on evolution & creation I am writing: Musings on Creation and Evolution, the Chapter entitled “Why Evolution is Tru-ly A Fairy Tale.”

    • Antichus "Tony" says:

      no again you have no idea of what evolution is, and you confuse it with abogenesis

      • Dave T. says:

        To Antichus Tony,
        All you can argue is semantics! There is no defense for the theory of evolution! The universe did not just happen (evolve), chemicals and electricity did not generate life (or we would be able to replicate the “experiment” today using just naturally formed chemicals (not processed…that takes intelligence) and lightening (no batteries or power supplies). Life can adapt to surroundings but not become a new “species” (or kind in Biblical terms) or monkeys would be developing into humans and we would have retained the strength that our prior species had as it would have aided our survival! And, if you truely believe in evolution, why do you liberal God deniers allow abortion? Forget the whales and owls, every new generation of man should be protected because they would be the ones to carry the more evolved genes! You may have already killed the baby that contained the genes to make future generations cancer proof!

        • Antichus "Tony" says:

          again you confuse abogenesis with evolution, and your response about abortion is a non-sequitor

        • Antichus "Tony" says:

          The Big Bang is often misinterpreted as a “something from nothing” proposition. In fact, the Big Bang doesn’t suggest any particular origin for the singularity, the infinitely dense and hot point of matter from which the universe was born. Some physicists, such as Victor Stenger, have developed hypotheses about how the universe could represent “something from nothing”, but such hypotheses are not yet tested. In reality, the Big Bang theory 1) is limited to the measurable universe, and makes no claims about “before” the measurable universe, and 2) is based on the uncontroversial observation that the universe appears to be expanding from a point since the beginning of time. Ultimately, it is difficult to argue that something had to exist “before” the big bang, as space and time began with the Big Bang. “Before” and “after” and “cause and effect” are notions necessarily applied within our space-time. Is there a reason to believe such notions as “something can’t come from nothing” can be applied effectively to “pre”-Big Bang?

          Abiogenesis and Evolution are also occasionally misunderstood to be “something from nothing” concepts, but they absolutely are not. Any theory that invokes natural/physical explanations and is confined to the matter of the existing universe is not a “something from nothing” proposition.

      • Michael Earl Riemer says:

        Antichus “Tony” you state:

        “no again you have no idea of what evolution is, and you confuse it with abogenesis”

        I think you are the one that needs a little bit of eduction on what the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory are.

        From Random Rationality web-site Interview: Why Evolution is True with Jerry Coyne May 21, 2013

        “Professor Jerry Coyne has stated: “…The part that everyone agrees on, let me underline in the beginning, is that evolution happened, it took billions of years, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life has been here for at least 3.5 billion; that there is common ancestry of all forms of life because there is a branching bush of life, and that, in terms of the adaptive character of life was produced by the process of natural selection. So, those are the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory, and those have not been called into question.”

        Until you understand your own view, please do not write any more posts.

        • Antichus "Tony" says:

          no its you who confuse abogensis with evolution, evolution is about the diversfication of life abogensis is totally different,you are trying to mash those together when they are two different concepts

        • Antichus "Tony" says:

          this has nothing to do with abogensis the post by Coyne that is, which shows me that you fundamentally cant differentiate between the two

        • Antichus "Tony" says:

          also saying that evolutionists believe something came out of nothing is also showing that you dont even understand the big bang theory

    • Alex Alexander says:

      Not ANOTHER book that needs editing…
      Help me! Help me!
      Alex

      (ha ha ha!)

      • Michael Earl Riemer says:

        Yes, and you will get paid just like the last one, soon very very soon…

  15. mrp says:

    “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

    (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology

Back to Top ↑

electronic-white
tail-ref