Evolutionary Evidence? ~ Part 4

To come up with better evidence than nature offers, scientists have tried producing mutations in the laboratory, typically using fruit flies. These tiny insects reproduce in a matter of only days, which means researchers can expose them to radiation or toxic chemicals and then observe the resulting mutations over several generations What kinds of mutations have they produced? Larger wings. Smaller wings. Shriveled wings. No wings. They even get oddities like a fly with legs growing out of its head instead of antennae.

So what does it all add up to? To be frank, dysfunctional fruit flies. After half a century of bombarding fruit flies with radiation, scientists have not coaxed them into becoming a new kind of insect--or even a new and improved fruit fly. None of the mutated forms fly as well as the original form, and probably would not survive in the wild.

There's only one mutation that could even appear to be an improvement: The PBS "Evolution" series featured a mutation that produces four wings instead of two. Now that might seem to be an evolutionary advance. But if you were watching the program, and looked closely at the television screen, you would have seen that the extra wings don't actually move. That's because they don't have any muscles; they just hang motionless, weighing down the fly like a suit of armor. If mutations are the engine that drives evolution, as Darwinism claims, they certainly don't seem to be taking evolution anywhere.

...An enormous amount of research has been carried on within the Darwinian paradigm over the past century and a half, yet success has been limited to changes within those "fixed limitations," like mutations in fruit flies. Research has cast virtually no light on the really important questions, like how there came to be fruit flies in the first place. As one wag put it, Darwinism might explain the survival of the fittest, but it fails to explain the arrival of the fittest.1

In conclusion, don't believe everything you see on TV. I hope you are beginning to see that Evolutionary science is not really based on evidence. It is not a neutral, objective understanding of the world and its origin. It may resort to objective data, but the data won't support it.

To many people, this does not matter. They don't need data. Richard Dawkins writes, "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory...we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Similarly, a Kansas State University professor stated, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Evolution is in fact a religion that worships the creation rather than the creator, an age old sin.

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exhanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:22-25




1Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.

Evolutionary Evidence? ~ Part 3

Have you ever seen this picture in your science books?
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/images/Finches.jpg
Did you learn that Darwin's Finches proves evolution is true? Were you taught that Darwin's Finches is an example of birds on their evolutionary way to becoming a new species? You may want to consider the following.

One of the most widely cited pieces of evidence or evolution is the variation among finches on the Galapagos islands off the coast of South America. The finches are small, rather dull-looking birds, whose main claim on our interest is that their beak size differs according to the haitats where they live--suggesting that they have adapted to differing conditions. Virtually every biology textbook repeats the story of Darin's voyage to the Galapagos as a young naturalist, and contemporary biologist have gone back there to confirm his theory.

Sure enough, one study found that during a period of drought, the average beak size among the finches actually increased slightly. Apparently the only food available in the dry period were larger, tougher seeds, so that the birds with slighly larger beaks survived better. Now, we're talking about a changed measured in tenths of a millimeter--about the thickness of a thumbnail. Yet it was hailed enthusiastically as confirmation of Darwin's theory. As one science writer exulted, this is evolution happening "before [our] very eyes."

But that was not the end of the story. Eventually the rains returned, restoring the original range of seeds. And what happened then? The average beak size returned to normal. In other words, the change that Darwinists were so excited about turned out to be nothing more than a cyclical fluctuation. It did no put the finches on the road to evolving into a new kind of bird; it was simply a minor adaptation that allowed the speies to survive in dry weather.

Which is to say, the change was a minor adjustment that allowed the finches to stay finches under adverse conditions. It did not demonstrate that they originally evolved from another kind of organism, nor that they are evolving into anything new.

...Another frequent example is the development of resistance to antibiotics. A highlight of the PBS "Evolution" series was a section explaining how the HIV virus becomes resistant to the drug used in treatment, due apparently to a mututation. Once again, this was hailed as evolution in action. But once again, as soon as the drug was removed, the change was reversed, and the virus returned to normal. (It became drug sensitive again.) Such limited, reversible change is hardly evidence for a theory that requires unlimited, directional change.1

"So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21




1Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.

Evolutionary Evidence? ~ Part 2

So I ask again, why is debating from the Bible on cultural/political issues (abortion, gay-marriage, education, etc) like spitting in the wind?

The heart of the problem exists in the widely accepted idea that modern, evolutionary science is impartial, unbiased, evidence-based investigation of the world. And that religion is merely a personal, subjective understanding of the world's purpose and relative values, but never an objective truth about reality. The two are separated. Science is truth. Religion, Christianity for example, is myth. The two are not allowed to mix. In this view, Christianity has no place in public life. If science is a neutral observer of truth, then only science can dictate was is true for purposes of politics and public life.

The problem with this idea is that evolutionary science is not unbiased or neutral. Evolution is the religion that drives most of modern science. Evolution and Christianity are both religions. Both describe the origin of all things (Big Bang/Creator God), the problem with all things (molecular defects/sin), and the necessary redemption of all things (natural selection/Jesus), etc. The deepest fundamental difference between the religion of Evolution and Christianity is the difference between these two statements: "In the beginning, matter created the heavens and the earth..." and "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."

Once this is realized, Christianity is set on level ground with Evolutionary Science. The two cannot be distinguished from each other in the fact/myth fashion. The challenge then is to discover which gives the better testimony of the nature of the universe and all that is contained within it. Which one is comprehensive? If the Bible speaks truly about the world, then the world will verify its claims. If Evolution speaks truly about the world, then the world will verify its claims.

My aim in the rest of these posts is to show that Christianity's biblical understanding of the world is verified by the world. And secondly, that Evolution's (Darwinian materialism) understanding of the world is falsified by the world. What I write is nothing new, but I think it is widely unknown and very enlightening. For a much more comprehensive and eloquent version you can read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.


"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:16-17

Evolutionary Evidence? ~ Part 1

Why is it that today, debating from the Bible on cultural/political issues (abortion, gay-marriage, education, etc) is like spitting in the wind? It seems to be pointless, powerless, and even embarrassing. I've been asking this question, and I'm determined to find out why it is so and how to reverse this problem. How can an arguement based on the Bible pack the punch that God intends it to?

A few days ago I picked up a book from LifeWay Christian Resources titled Total Truth, written by Nancy Pearcey. This book has done wonders in helping me formulate a response to my questions. Most of what I write in the following series of posts will be what I'm learing from this book. I am posting on this issue because it helps to solidify my thoughts but mainly for the sake of anyone else who has been dealt the lies of evolution, the foundational problem.

"...the truth will set you free" -John 8:32