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.’”
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.
- Alonso Ricardo and Jack Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American (September 2009), 54.(↩)
- Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s erratic pace,” Natural History (1977), 86:14(↩)
- 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.(↩)