It took me longer than I would have liked but I finally finished refuting Windmill Ministries' article on the Theory of Evolution, found
here. I have changed nothing in what I quote from them and before they decide to try file some sort of copyright claim on this, I am not making any money so this falls under fair use and I am giving them all of the credit for all that they wrote.
One final note before I begin at some point in time I may make a video addressing this article but since my free time is limited as is right now don't expect it any time soon.
Alright let us begin:
In 2009 we "celebrate" the 150 year anniversary of the birth of the theory of
evolution through the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life by Charles Darwin in 1859. Coincidentally this is also the 200 year
anniversary of the birth of Darwin (1809-1882) himself. Darwin’s theory became
the basis for a belief system - a new 'religion' called evolution
- allowing for an explanation for our existence independent from God.
Well so you can tell what they feel right from the first paragraph they feel Evolution is a religion which it is not since it relies on evidence and fact and not faith which is the definition of a religion. Then that whole independent from God, Evolution and science, as I have said before, make no statement on God, science is at its heart agnostic.
It has been said that Darwin has done more harm to the Christian faith than any
persecution in history. Darwin's theory of evolution, largely due to its posture
as the 'scientific' explanation for the origins of life, caused many believers
to doubt the creation by God and the truthfulness of the Bible. It planted a
serious seed of doubt as to the credibility of the Bible: “If the first chapter
of the Bible is not true, then likely the rest of the Bible is questionable as
well!”
And yet the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution could it be that the Bible is merely a collection of stories written to help teach us how to live a good life and that it isn’t 100% correct? Since I know that sarcasm doesn’t come through written text very well let me just say that was a very sarcastic statement. I also tend to believe that most of the harm done to most religions in the history of the planet has been done by their own followers, e.g. the crusades, the inquisition, 9/11, the Catholic rape scandal all done by the followers of their religion. And finally evolution is not the scientific explanation for the origins of life, which is abiogenesis, it is the scientific explanation for how life got to where it is once it got started.
But it does not end there, the rise and general acceptance of the theory of
evolution has also fed the ideas of atheism and evolutionary racism. If the
theory of evolution explains our existence we do not need God any longer -hence
why believe in God at all? This thinking obviously leads to atheism. But there
is more. If the theory of evolution is true, mankind is no more than the most
sophisticated animal in existence today. And we can become 'better' by helping
the 'natural' evolution by controlled breeding, no different that Hitler's
attempt during the 1940ies to create a blue-eyed, blond-hair, tall super-race
(he called this the 'Übermensch', or 'superman' in English).
I will not deny that the study of evolution tends to lead to Atheism but it doesn’t have to just look at Dr. Ken Miller. Now this social Darwinism thing that they bring up here is actually totally and completely wrong. You will notice how they have natural in quotes. Well the funny thing is that evolution by natural selection requires that the selection be natural so us killing other humans is not natural in any way, shape, or form.
Is the theory of evolution a fact?
I'd like to emphasize upfront that –
despite many claims – evolution (Darwin's theory of evolution) is NOT a fact.
Neither evolution (or creation) is a natural law or a scientific fact,
each is merely a model. What does this mean? The process of evolution
(just as the act of creation) cannot be observed or repeated, so both models
remain unproved by science. Therefore neither can be called a natural law (such
as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, which describe well proved
and observed behavior subject to laws of nature) nor a scientific theory (which
requires the possibility and evidence of repeated observations). So
evolution – just as creation – is only a model used to explain the observations
in the world as we know it. It is not a fact, not a natural law, not even a
scientific theory, but just a model!
Ok so when I was reading through this paragraph while I was refuting this it actually made me angry and I realized why it is because we have all heard these things multiple times before and at this point in time the people writing these articles should know how wrong they are but they seem not to and it is actually sickening. They are right evolution is not a natural law but unlike creation it has evidence backing it up. It has 150 years of study to support it and just like every other scientific theory we can use it to make predictions that happen to be right. We can make zero predictions using creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory because it has evidence that supports it but it can still be falsified, unlike creationism, and it will only take one piece of evidence to do that.
What are the claims of the
theory of evolution?
In the evolution model, the entire universe is
considered to have evolved by natural processes and random selection into its
present state of high organization and complexity. In this model the universe
began in a state of pure randomness. Gradually it has – by “survival of
the fittest” – become more ordered and complex. In order for the complex
structure of the universe to have been produced by present natural processes, a
vast amount of time was required.
Well seeing as how evolution doesn’t even make a statement on how life began I can assure you that it says nothing about the earlier Universe. That is Physics which I was never very good at so I will leave that to better minds to explain, but no it did not begin in a state of pure randomness I can assure you of that much.
These concepts have been applied to many scientific disciplines, and the theory
has been revised along the way. More recently its tenets have been
upgraded with more recent scientific discoveries especially in the areas of
genetics/DNA (usually called Neo-Darwinism).
That is what makes Evolution scientific it changes as more information is collected!!! You could even say it evolves.
The basic elements of the model behind the theory of evolution remain:
This should be good.
Change over long periods of time: entities/organisms change over time. These
changes are random and are only based on pure chance.
The mutation itself is random but the whole fact that trait x is favored over trait y is not random.
Natural Selection: positive changes strengthen the organism and increase its
chances for survival. Therefore (random) positive changes will be preserved and
even favored over the original organism.
Well seeing as how the organism itself doesn’t change it is just the population over time. But yes mutations that better help the organism survive in the wild will be passed on and therefore selected for.
- The only forces at work are random change (chance) and (long periods
of) time: evolution is completely controlled by natural processes and
the natural environment. There is no controlling power or other influence.
No you forgot natural selection!
Simplified, evolution’s equation for mankind becomes this:
Change +
Time à Mankind
Not completely, no. If the planet had it to do all over again would we still have evolved? That is questionable at best in all likelihood no. All it takes is the dinosaurs going extinct at a different time to completely reform the process of evolution.
Is Darwin's theory of evolution proven through science?
This all sounds
logical and as over the last 150 years more and more bright minds have endorsed
it, taught it and further developed it, a majority of people now seems to
believe that evolution is true and that the alternative - that God created us
and our world - is false and only still believed by the 'uneducated' and
'gullible'.
Why do creationists always make it seem like those are our only 2 options? Even if evolution is disproven, which they are a long way from doing, they still have to prove their “hypothesis” which is something they can’t do right now, and eventually some new natural explanation for how life came to be the way it is will come around.
However the 'case' for the theory of evolution is far from watertight. It seems
actually to be more like a boat full of holes which - despite desperate efforts
by evolutionists to keep on pumping - is slowly but surely sinking! Modern day
science reveals massive problems, like (just to name a few):
If it is like a boat full of holes us “evolutionists” seem to keep finding patches for these holes every day.
The beginning needed a
Creator. If there ever was a Big Bang - who or what caused it to happen? How
can something (a lot, actually everything) come from nothing? Wild theories like
the completely unproven evolutionary string theory require a lot more
'faith' than accepting a Creator God.“In this century (twentieth century),
science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen
billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the
church’s ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning.” (Steven
Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission
during the 1997 PBS program, Universe.)
None of this is evolution but I guess I should clear up one thing string theory is not a scientific theory even proponents of it will admit that it is more of a hypothesis than anything else. And as for the Hawking’s quote he is clearly saying that the big bang being an instant is very similar to an instant of creation he does not mean the literal 7 day creation from the bible.
The natural laws that govern
the universe and our world are perfectly fine tuned. Even minor changes in the
constants of these laws and/or the natural or chemical properties of the
elements critical to life would have destroyed life before it existed. How can
these natural laws be so perfectly balanced and designed without a Designer?“It
is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe,
apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather
carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical
values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.”(Paul Davies
, God and the New Physics (1983), p.189)
As far as this is concerned yes life as we currently know it only exists within these certain parameters but how do we know that life of some other type wouldn’t form if you changed a couple of variables? Would it be life that we would recognize? NO! But the fact is that life of some type would still appear.
Earth is a truly privileged
planet. Chances of
finding a similar habitable planet like Earth suited for life in our Milky Way
galaxy or even in the entire universe are practically zero.“To us, the signal is
so strong that even at this time, it appears that earth indeed may be
extraordinarily rare.”(Evolutionary astronomers Peter D. Ward and Donald
Brownlee , Rare Earth (2000), chapter 12)
It is a good thing then that there are so many other stars out there that almost assuredly have planets around them. Even if the chance is “practically zero” which it is not, heck there are multiple possibilities in our own solar system, when you do the math and calculate in all of the stars and planets and what not you end up with there still being a considerable number that are able to support life, maybe not intelligent life yet but life none the less.
First Life. Modern
science has reached the unanimous conclusion that life on a planet like earth
could not have started by mere chance. The complex building blocks of the
simplest living cell – proteins, DNA and molecular machines – do not allow
for random assembly even through long periods of time. Despite decades of
intense research, origin-of-life scientists have found no evolutionary
explanation to explain how life could have started by natural processes
alone.“Everything about evolution before the bacteria-like life forms is sheer
conjecture,” because “evidence is completely lacking about what preceded this
early cellular ancestor.”(Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The
Plausibility of Life (2005), p.46-50)
Let me state this again, how life got started is not a statement made by evolution it is an entirely separate field of study, but let’s say for arguments sake that it is. This complexity we see currently is in no way shape or form how scientists believe life began, and I am not going to go into it here because well there is no need to I can assure you if you look hard enough it is out there. Now as far as the quote it concerned based on the description of the book that they take the quote from (found here http://www.amazon.com/Plausibility-Life-Resolving-Darwins-Dilemma/dp/0300108656) I would say that they strongly support evolution and this is probably a quote mine.
No mechanism for species
to evolve. Natural selection is just variation within a species. Genetic
mutations are required to evolve from one species into the next, however
mutations are not common and mostly neutral. If they happen, they are almost
always harmful not beneficial. The occurrence of many small, beneficial
steps of mutations is against all odds and has never been observed.“Mutations
are almost universally harmful. In human beings, they are classified as ‘birth
defects.’ They result in death and sterility. People today suffer from more than
4,000 disorders caused by gene mutations. Down’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis and
sickle cell anemia are familiar examples.”(James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard,
1999, p.25)
Even to those who do not support evolution will probably see a problem with the first sentence. Mutation is was causes variation within a species and the thing is I thought most creationists realized that. Natural selection “selects” for the traits that are best suited for the survival of the species and for the organisms to pass on their genes to the next generation. They are right that mutations are mostly neutral but they are wrong in that they are not common. Look around you, you are probably similar to both your parents but at the same time have some traits that neither has, that would be a mutation. Even a mutation that may seem harmful may aid a species in survival in the future. As far as the quote is concerned it is from a creationist writing a pro-creationism book so take it as a grain of salt.
The fossil record. There are no
intermediate species in the fossil record. According to Darwin's theory of
evolution, species would evolve to more complex new species by a series of
gradual mutations. However, despite of over 100+ years of extensive studies of
the fossil record, no intermediate species have been discovered. On the
contrary, the Cambrian Explosion shows the almost “overnight” appearance
of the body plans of all modern day life forms at about the same moment in
time.“I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of
animal life through time, and come down at the base to a single kind of
animal….Animals may have originated more than once, in different places at
different times.”(Paleontologist Harry Whittington, The Biological Explosion at
the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary, as published in Evolutionary Biology, volume
25 (1991), p.294)
I have already addressed this in this blog but let me point you first toward my post entitled Evolution 101 from 14 May 2009 (linked here) also try here. The Cambrian Explosion shows no “almost ‘overnight’ appearance” on the other hand it spans a time period that consists of millions of years, with the body plans of all modern life forms nowhere near complete nor showing up at the same time. As far as the quote is concerned it seems that Harry Whittington is being quote mined here (if someone knows anymore about this quote please let me know) it also doesn’t hurt their cause that they are citing an article from 1991 you would think science stopped.
The existence of so called irreducible complex
molecular machines cannot be explained by gradual, 'evolutionary' evolvement
of the components of these machines, as these systems can only perform if all
components are present. Therefore, gradual “evolution” is not possible.“The
bacterial flagellum uses a paddling mechanism, and it must meet the same
requirements as other such swimming systems. And it is necessarily comprised of
at least three parts – a paddle, a rotor, and a motor – it is irreducibly
complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum faces mammoth hurdles.”(Dr. Michael
Behe, Darwin ’s Black Box (1996), p.70-71)
There are enough other sources dealing with this you don’t need me, see Only a Theory by Dr. Miller. Also, the quote is by Dr. Behe who has been proven wrong time and time again as far as IC is concerned so I am not too worried about it.
There are a plentitude of embarrassing statements by professed evolutionists who
admit to the failure of the theory of evolution. Following are some more
statements by evolutionary scientists about the - lack of real - evidence for
the evolution 'theory':
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of
agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus,
which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Simon Conway Morris, from
Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold, Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7,
2000, p.11)
Take what you will from Dr. Morris the article the quote is taken from is here and his Wikipedia page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Conway_Morris
"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of
healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as
it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less
agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade
ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in
1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species."(Niles Eldredge,
Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated
Equilibrium, 1985, p.14)
This quote was taken from a book on Punctuated Equilibrium and shows that science is always changing the debate that scientists were having at this time, 1985, was how fast does speciation happen and with current studies we are finding that the potential is there for them to happen quite rapidly.
"The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in
evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one
true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is
not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying
assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else."(Jeffrey H.
Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh,
February 9, 2007)
Interestingly enough I have not been able to find this quote anywhere but on creationist websites and cannot say to what directly he is referring but my guess is that we will never have all of the evidence so we will never be able to say with complete certainty that this is the way in which evolution created life as we know it.
Many evolutionists will claim that above statements are pulled out of context to
discredit Darwin's theory of evolution, however looking at the above mentioned 7
major challenges to the theory of evolution and the numerous frustrated
statements (by evolutionist) provided in this article illustrate the severity of
the crisis of the evolutionary theory.
I won’t say it I won’t say it. Alright I guess I will! All of your statements have been refuted before me and they will be refuted again after me so I seriously suggest you guys go and change your game plan.
Would Darwin himself still be an evolutionist?
Charles Darwin himself - if he
would be still alive today - would likely seriously be challenged to still
believe in his own theory of evolution. Some of his own concerns about his
theory have turned out to be 'killers', like (in his own words):
He also might be all sorts of confused as to what are these genes and this DNA that we are talking about? But let me ask is this really important? Do you think Newton would recognize his theory today? I would put money on modern physicists being so far ahead of where Einstein was that even he wouldn’t recognize modern physics!
he made the suggestion that what he call 'simple' life may have begun in a "warm
little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat,
electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed
ready to undergo still more complex changes." We now know that is impossible and
origin-of-life scientists are at a dead end trying to explain how the most
simplest life form (a bacteria) ever came about. How can the theory of evolution
be a viable theory if it cannot explain the origin of life?
Because evolution does not try to explain how life got started! But let’s pretend for a moment that it does. Yes they haven’t completely figured it out yet but the more modern hypothesis are not the same as what Darwin thought we now know how complex simple life is and we know it will take a lot of evolution to get to the first modern cell but that does not in any means mean it is impossible.
and about the fossil record he wrote: "“Why is not every geological formation
and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and
serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” Now, after 150 years
of zealous searching for this 'graduated organic chain', we know that is just
does not exist. The fossil record does not give us any confirmation for gradual
development of species and - as underlined in the above quotation - this is a
serious argument against the theory of evolution.
Again the theory has changed in 150 years and as for there not being any transitional fossils see above.
In The Origin of Species, Darwin also writes: “If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down
(emphasis added).” According to Darwin himself, the existence of these
irreducible, complex systems is a devastating blow to the thieory of evolution!
And it would but there hasn’t been one found yet, again I have already covered this point.
Was Charles Darwin a Christian, an agnostic or an atheist?
All though raised
as a Christian Charles Darwin likely abandoned Christianity as a student when he
refused to become a minister. Charles Darwin wrote in his autobiography about
the diminishment of his religious faith and he stated that he was an agnostic
(claiming to 'neither believe nor disbelieve' in the existence of God). However,
later Darwin stated in his private notebooks that he was a materialist (a type
of atheist). Likely the best characterization of Darwin would be to call him a
'weak atheist'. A weak atheist acknowledges a lack of belief in God but does not
claim to have the proof that God does not exist.
I don’t see why this is important. As I have already stated science is agnostic to a God but there are many scientists who are devout in their religious beliefs (see Dr. Ken Miller), and there are plenty who are atheists (see Dr. Richard Dawkins). I don’t know of any atheist who has before ever classified themselves a “weak atheist”. Most atheists do not claim to have proof that God does not exist but they say the lack of evidence for a God is very telling for the most part, now my generalizing is bound to piss someone off.
Is Evolution just another false religion?
Nope it is a scientific theory!!!
So, WHY still believe in evolution? Why does the scientific world still want to
convince us - after 150 years of unsuccessful looking for answers - that
evolution is THE theory that explains our existence or is even a FACT?
Because that is what the evidence leads us to conclude. What evidence, outside of whatever holy book you use, do you have to prove to me that your religion is the right one?
I believe the answer is simple. Evolution has become a religion. Its adherents
have based their personal convictions, values and above all comfortable
lifestyle on this idea that we are just the product of time and chance. We are
just an 'accident' and there is no God. Therefore we can do what we want and
when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody. We are our own gods
and we should live life to achieve maximum pleasure.
On the contrary my friend I am very accountable to someone outside of myself and that is the rest of society. The rules put in place by people are much stricter than the rules that God has put down. You will also find the more you study people, is that what tends to give most people the most joy is not themselves but bringing joy to other people. We evolved a social species and most of us continue to crave that interaction and this is why we often find joy when we just hang out with other people and why the loners tend to be the most depressed. I am not my own God I am a human living in a world full of other humans trying to live the best way possible and make life enjoyable for myself and those around me.
Because evolution has become like a religion its adherents are also not really
interested to be open-minded for criticism or alternative explanations. "What do
you mean that you want to challenge the concepts of evolution? Evolution is a
fact, so we do not need to prove it anymore!"
Actually that is what scientist do every time they dig up a new fossil or every time they perform genetic testing is to try and prove evolution wrong.
In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic Joel Achenbach claimed that
human evolution is a "fact" but he also admitted that "Today the field [speaking
about paleoanthropology] has again become a rather glorious mess." In the same
National Geographic article Dan Lieberman (Harvard paleoanthropologist) makes
the amazing confession that, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest
about what we don't know..."
Another glorious quote mine the article discusses how we did not have just a single lineage our family tree looks like those of so many other species with many different branches coming off we just happen to be the only survivors. Most people don’t know this because they are not told it.
On a personal note - I was taught the theory of evolution in high school. It was
not even presented to me as a theory but as a fact. Only very limited evidence
was presented. and because of it I lost my interest in God and Christianity. Now
I know I was duped, I was deceived. Only when life presented me with an interest
and an opportunity to do my own research at a later stage of my life I
discovered that evolution is a lie. But I had to discover that myself. I had to
dig myself into science to find the gaps and faulty patches. I just wish that
during my school and college years one of my teachers would have been more
objective and at least would have told me that the theory of evolution is not a
fact and shown me the alternative view of Intelligent Design of Creation.
That way I could have made my own decision about what to believe earlier in my
life.
Unfortunately one cannot change the past, but one can make better
choices for the future....
While I am not going to claim to know the writer of this article, I don’t by the way, I will say this. Evolution should not cause anyone to lose their faith in God there must be other circumstances involved but what it can do, and should do, is make you question the things that you have always been taught as absolute truth. I do like that he did his own research, he looked in the wrong places but he did his own research, this is something I try to encourage everyone to do. Don’t just take my word for it look up the information for yourself. If you need help finding something ask. But as I have said multiple times…Question everything.
One final thing this was taking me longer than I had originally thought it would so the last few paragraphs might be a little garbled so I am sorry for that. Also, I could only do so much of this at a time because well lets just say after hearing the same creaitonist arguments over and over again you would think they would learn but they don't and it makes me sick so sorry. And finally as always please comment or feel free to message me and let me know what I need to work on.
