We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
Julie Haberle, 55, of Minnetonka, Minnesota, used to believe in evolution. Nine years ago she dismissed creationism as being “nuts.” After studying the issue, she has come to the conclusion that “evolution is just silly.” It’s no wonder after reading how the highly controlled evolutionary model is defended. Consider the following:
A study of the history of science will show that at times science itself has been an impediment to scientific advancement. For example, after Italian biologist Francesco Redi (1626–1697) successfully challenged the dogmatism of spontaneous generation which had been for so long based on Greek “science,” some scientists still clung to elements of the outmoded theory. Even when additional experiments by Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) showed that “microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves,” skepticism remained. Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), a chief proponent of Darwinism, stated in 1876, 25 years after Pasteur’s famous experiment, “If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation.” Haeckel chose spontaneous generation even though there was no empirical evidence to support it because he did not like the alternative—belief in God. Don’t be surprised by Haeckel’s irrationalism. Despite the evidence to the contrary, a number of high profile modern-day evolutionists have constructed their theory of origins on the rejected premise that life as we know it today developed (evolved) from non-life. Consider this startling admission by Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997):
There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
If a theologian had argued this way, he would be accused of letting his religious assumptions interpret the facts. But when a scientist follows a similar methodology in defense of evolution, hardly anyone blinks a questioning eye because the declaration is made in the name of science.
In addition to not being able to account for biological life within the confines of accepted scientific theory and experimentation, evolutionists are unable to account for the needed information that gives instructions on how an organism functions. It’s one thing to postulate that eyes, ears, tongues, and hearts evolved, an impossible task given the inherent problems in partially evolved organisms, it’s another thing to explain where the information (programming) came from so these organics mechanisms can function. And how does an organism know what’s pertinent to the propagation of its existence, and why would it care? In addition, evolutionists who are strict materialists (only matter matters) cannot account for the source of the needed operating information since information does not have the properties of matter. Dr. Werner Gitt, an information specialist, outlines the problem for the evolutionist:
The question “How did life originate?” which interests all of us, is inseparably linked to the question “Where did the information come from?” Since the findings of James D. Watson . . . and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.
Consider the computer. Not only must all the physical parts work flawlessly—parts which were designed and manufactured—the programming necessary to run the parts also must function without error. No one would ever propose that the computer evolved spontaneously or that the programming appeared out of thin air and found its way into the computer’s internal parts without some form of outside design and directive to operate in a specific way.