Article – January 13, 2004
Posted/Updated: 2008-04-16 12:43:48
EVOLUTION: Fact or Fiction?
Part 2
Nearly universal in its teaching, evolution stands upon many assumptions. We will discuss the facts—the truth—about this “science.”
BY BRADFORD G. SCHLEIFER
In the previous issue, we looked into the illogic of evolution—and the fallacies it employs. We also explored the assumption that evolution is a scientific fact, and showed that it is not even a scientific theory. But there is much more to learn about this “theory.”
Two primary aspects of evolution form its foundation. The first one attempts to explain the origin of the universe itself. The second is an explanation of the supposed mechanism that caused non-living matter to turn into plants, which then turned into fish, on to animals and then to human beings.
Article Tools
Text Size:
A A A
Printer-Friendly
Email Article-
Share
Email Updates
Contact Us
The more you understand about evolution, the less you will understand why it is taught to millions of schoolchildren.
Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law
There is a great law that governs the entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing. Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in industry or in everyday life. It is the law of cause and effect.
If you drop a ball, it falls to the ground. The effect is that the ball falls and hits the ground; the cause is gravity. If you get wet after jumping into a pool, the effect is getting wet—the cause is jumping into the pool. As you can see, “cause and effect” is simply common sense.
You may wish to read:
This understanding is so universal that it has been granted the status of a scientific law. As discussed in the last issue, for something to be established as a scientific law, it must come under rigorous scientific scrutiny. This further shows the fundamental nature of cause and effect. Part of this law's definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than its cause.
This aspect of cause and effect agrees with another law of science—thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the dynamics of thermals (heat). It is made up of three basic laws, on which ALL disciplines of science are based. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect. It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. Consider these examples:
If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If you spin a top, it will, over time, stop spinning. The energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable to unusable during the process. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.
This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws cannot be broken, nor will they contradict each other. Scientifically speaking, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, every cause will create a lesser effect!
How does a more advanced life form—the effect—stem from a simpler life form—the cause? This breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With these concepts in mind, you may already be seeing contradictions in the theory of evolution.
Survivors Survive
One of the most basic concepts in the theory of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature selects the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.
Sounding logical, this theory is taught throughout schools worldwide. By reading this series, you are beginning to see that we must always prove what is assumed to be true.
Notice: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, 1978).
In other words, the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! Evolutionists have assumed that just because something survived, it is the fittest of the species. You may now begin to understand why properly understanding logical fallacies becomes so important. Evolution is rampant with them!
The theory of “survival of the fittest” is what is called a “tautology,” a way of saying something redundant. For instance, “survivors survive”; “water is wet”; “matter is material” ; and so on. Such a statement does not prove anything, because it is nothing more than a truism.
Yet, even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder... simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring.”
“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (G.A. Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection, 1982).
But some scientists may argue, “We have seen natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. This theory is provable!” But is it? These scientists point to natural selection removing the unfit. But this does not create new attributes in a species or, for that matter, create a new species! For evolution to be valid, better, more advanced creatures would have to survive, lending to the creation of new species.
A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, emphasis ours.).
Since all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. Therefore, natural selection is very effective for removing the unfit from a species. This can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed.
Interestingly, the idea of natural selection did not form in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection was documented 20 years earlier, by creationist zoologist/chemist Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the concept from the “natural process of selection” to the “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!
Like all such truisms, the concept of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this aspect of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement.
An Eternal Universe
No matter how science tries to simplify the theory of evolution, there is always the problem of explaining where the universe began. What is its origin?
There are only two possibilities: (1) It appeared at a certain point in time, or (2) it has always existed.
Both of these ideas require some investigation. Is the universe eternal? Did it form? And is this possible to prove either way?
Since we are unable to travel back in time, you may quickly think that it is impossible to know if the universe had a beginning. Matter has an amazing property. It decays! In fact, everything is moving into a further state of decay. You see this principle at work all around you. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if you are not living there, dust will form and its general state will decay. Your body also evidences this concept. Keeping yourself in shape is work. If you stop exercising or eating properly, you will quickly get out of shape.
These are just everyday examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But how does this prove that the universe is not eternal?
With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie's discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has an atomic weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until the end product eventually becomes the inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time.
But, what does this mean? It means that there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It always breaks down. This also means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, none of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have existed forever.
This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work! As Henry Moore stated, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (Scientific Creationism, 1974). And it represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence or, in other words, that the universe is not eternal! That leaves only one possibility. At one point in time, something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence.
This brings us back to the concept of cause and effect. In this case, the universe is the effect—but what is the cause? We have seen that every effect must be less than the cause. So as vast as our universe is, there must be something greater which caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws we have already discussed.
Of course, scientists have also come to similar conclusions—the universe is not eternal and there needs to be a “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, they attempt to explain the universe in many other ways. The most common is often referred to as the “Big Bang Theory.”
Big Bang—or Big Hoax?
At its very core, the Big Bang Theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial event. After the big bang, another theory takes over. The “inflationary model” was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.
However, both concepts break laws of science. As we saw with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state—with less usable energy—not into a larger, more complex universe. How ridiculous that this FACT is ignored!
But an even bigger problem is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is memorized by high school students, and is a basic fundamental law of science. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change its form.
This too flies in the face of the big bang theory! If energy cannot be created, then something certainly cannot appear from nothing. Evolutionary scientists also understand this problem. Often, attention is taken away from the lack of explanation of the creation of matter by asserting explanations on how the universe “grew.” By lumping the initial creation of matter with the expansion of the universe, scientists have created a series of “smoke and mirrors,” which, as we have seen before, is often the only way to explain various aspects of evolution.
Many scientists, such as Alan Guth, have also raised this point: “First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God, 1995). Such deceit is taught as fact in schools!
One of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world closed the door on the inflationary model: “The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have not heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988).
Like so many aspects of evolution, even when it has been proven to be inaccurate, it is still taught as fact. The smoke and mirrors continue!
Changing the Rules?
Since we have seen that the universe could not have come from “nothing,” is it possible to explain its existence? Must the creation of the universe follow the rules of science?
Any parent is responsible for creating the rules for their household. At any time, they can change those rules. It is in their power to modify, adjust or even discard these rules. The child in that house must continue to live within the confines of those rules, no matter how they are changed.
So it is with the universe. As the Creator of the universe, God established its rules and has the power to modify them. When He created the universe and matter, He then established the laws of science.
Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God's existence, while at the same time disproving evolution!
Nobel Prize winning physicist Louis Neel stated, “The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.” And I would also add, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people. Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, deceit and suppositions. But now you can see through two more of these evolutionary illusions, to the Being that did create you—the God of the universe!
In our brochure Evolution – Facts, Fallacies and Implications, we further disprove the theory of evolution by showing more of the weak arguments used to explain how man and animals today exist on earth. Also, many of the common misconceptions about creationism will be explained. Finally, some proofs showing the REAL Creator of the plants, animals, mankind and the universe.
You will have been supplied with the facts—the truth—of your existence. What will you do with those facts?
