We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
Conservative columnist George Will has written that evolution is a “‘fact,’ and anyone who does not recognize this elementary truth endangers the ‘conservative coalition.’” Charles Krauthammer has accused advocates of Intelligent Design as “perpetuating scientific ‘fraud.’” In the many years I have been studying the creation-evolution debate, I’ve noticed that those who have bought into the system, like Will and Krauthammer, have not applied their usual investigative skills to the topic. Generally the debate over origins revolves around what “is” rather than what “was” that brought us to what “is.” Richard Dawkins has described evolution as “Climbing Mount Improbable.” In reality, it’s “Climbing Mount Impossible.” There are a number of impossibilities that are rarely if ever explained. Here are some of them:
Complex organisms arose spontaneously from a primordial soup of chemicals that randomly came together in the beginning of what we now define as “life.”
These basic life forms supposedly replicated (duplicated) themselves and mutated into more complex forms over great stretches of time.
No one saw these processes take place, and no scientist or group of scientists has ever replicated the primordial beginning of life from pure chemistry to biology.
Given these assumptions, we can be nothing more than a bag of meat and bones with electrical energy coursing through it.
Evolutionists claim that the stuff of the universe was originally a super-heated, super-concentrated mass of inert material. (Of course, this is speculation since no one was present at the beginning to record the beginning.)
The extraordinary heat alone of this original primordial “stuff” would have made the potential for life to spontaneously generate impossible to evolve.
There is no way to get life from non-life. Something from nothing is mathematically, scientifically, and logically impossible.
The impossibility of spontaneous generation is one of the first fundamental tenets of science that a child learns, and yet it is a basic tenet of the evolutionary scientist whether he cares to admit it or not.
Evolutionists believe that life came into being in a sterile environment. The intense heat of the primordial world would have killed any potential life form. (This is a testable hypothesis today.)
In addition to being unable to account for life from non-life, there are the intangibles that are equally impossible to account for given evolutionary and materialist assumptions—the non-physical mind, the non-physical “laws” of logic, non-physical reason, the immateriality of morality, and the impossibility of the evolution of INFORMATION to make everything work.
We need to keep reminding evolutionists that they have not explained or demonstrated through empirical evidence how even the most simple organism got its start in a hostile chemical soup billions of years ago let alone evolve into what we are today.
Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research faces the following problem: “Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted. . . . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”
In a book he wrote in 1992, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm: “Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.…”
Of course, the evolutionist must explain the source of the information that makes up what we know as DNA.
Was information part of the original primordial world?
Did information arise spontaneously?
How did information organize itself to bring about our designed world?
The computer analogy.
The components of a computer did not arise randomly.
Computers didn’t just put themselves together.
The non-material information needed to run a computer was designed.
Without the program, a computer is worthless.
There is no program without a programmer.
What’s true in the lesser case (a machine) is true in the greater case (a human being and all living things).
To begin with chemicals and end with humans (let alone everything in between) requires changes that increase the genetic information up the evolutionary ladder. This would be like claiming 2 plus 2 equals 5000.
“ONE of the mysteries of the universe is why it should speak the language of mathematics. Numbers and the relationships between them are, after all, just abstract reasoning. Yet mathematics has shown itself to be particularly adept at describing both the contents of the universe and the forces that act on them. Now comes a paper which argues that one branch of the subject—geometry—could form the basis of all the laws of physics.” So where did the math come from?