<p>Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/">BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)</a> license.</p>

Amazing Facts

How Evolution Flunked Science

Joe Crews

01 How Evolution Flunked Science

The first heartbeat, how did it originate?

Where did life begin and why are there so many varieties of animals and people?

I'll return in a moment with the amazing facts.

Hello, This is Joe Cruz and the Amazing Facts Broadcast, facts which affect you.

You know, recently I talked to a man with a fantastic amount of faith.

Not 1 shade of doubt crept into his animated description of man's origin and destiny.

He was an evolutionist I met on an airplane.

With incredible confidence, he bridged the eons of prehistoric time to explain the existence of modern plant and animal life.

His detailed description of human ascent from a tiny one-celled monad was so vivid and convincing that 1 could almost believe he had seen the microscope, the microscopic amoeba turn into a man.

Now what is this evolution doctrine which inspires so much faith in its followers, friends?

How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other viewpoint.

Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views.

Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatic support which would silence all opposing ideas?

When religious people take such a position, they're called bigots.

But scientists seem to escape that charge.

In February 1977, almost 200 of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards across the United States urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted in the classroom except evolution.

Now this indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising revolt against these stereotype contradictory versions of their theory.

Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life.

For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution are having to go on the defensive.

But let's take a look at what they have to defend.

Then you'll understand why these evolutionary scientists are people of such extraordinary faith and why they're so fearful of facing competition at the school level.

How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all other life forms supposedly evolved?

For many years, the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation.

According to Webster, spontaneous generation is, quote, "...the generation of living from nonliving matter.

It's taken from a belief now abandoned that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.

Simply stated then, this simply means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, and so forth, decaying matter simply turned into organic life.

Now this simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until about 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments.

He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness.

Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying non-living matter.

Reluctantly, it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue.

Today, no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis.

That's why Webster said it was now abandoned.

It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube.

And no present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation.

Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now.

But wait a minute, this won't work either because a whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionist in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever form the first cell was?

If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which forms the foundation of the entire theory.

Yet without believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionists would have to acknowledge other than natural forces at work, in other words, God.

Now, how did they get around this dilemma?

George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can.

In his article in Scientific American of August 1954, he said this, 1 has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.

Yet here we are as a result, I believe, a spontaneous generation.

Wall demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster.

Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it couldn't have happened, it was impossible.

Now what can we say to that kind of faith?

At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence.

His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.

So here we are face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with the basic law of science.

In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded unscientific theory of spontaneous generation.

And the big question is this, why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible?

A miracle of creation is required in either case.

Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wahl's impossible act.

Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment.

Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life easier than infinite intelligence could produce it?

Wall say it was impossible for life to result from spontaneous generation?

And by the way, that was not an easy concession for a confirmed evolutionist to make.

His exhaustive research for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it.

But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it, even though it was a scientific impossibility.

A Christian who confessed to such a faith would be labeled as naive and gullible.

What a difference the cloak of higher education makes on our easily impressed minds.

How much simpler and sweeter the faith which simply accepts the inspired account, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now what would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell, friends?

The fact is that the most elementary form of life is much more complicated than any man-made thing on earth.

The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.

It's more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production.

Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate.

The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids and then into proteins for the properties of life is entirely unrealistic.

The American Scientist magazine made this admission in January 1955, quote, "...from the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable and all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.

A Swiss mathematician, Charles-Eugène Goullier, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only 1 chance in 10 to 16 times.

That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate.

Another scientist expressed it this way, quote, the amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe.

For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless billions of years.

And that's taken from the book The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, page 23.

So how can we explain, then, the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background?

And how can we harmonize the normal, broad-minded tolerance of the educated with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing viewpoints.

The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth.

To acknowledge a superior wisdom would shatter the egocentric image that has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community.

They have repeated their assumptions for so long and supported their theories that they started accepting them as facts.

Now nobody objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, But to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.

Now let's look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law.

1 of the most necessary parts of evolution which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man is mutation.

Now this refers to abnormal changes in the organism which is assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves.

The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species.

The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences which cause them to produce an unusual change in 1 of the offspring.

Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it's assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turns into an invertebrate, which becomes an amphibian, and then a reptile, and a quadruped, and then an ape form, and finally a man.

In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionist.

Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses.

This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries.

Everything should be in the process of changing into something else, with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or man.

02 How Evolution Flunked Science

The fossil record reveals little change through the ages.

Hello, this is Joe Cruz from the Amazing Facts broadcast, facts which affect you.

Again today we'll be dealing with the subject of creation and evolution.

In spite of the exaggerated claims made for the theory of evolution, the origin of life has never been proven or demonstrated scientifically.

Some of the basic claims of evolution are found to be far from scientific.

The argument of natural selection does not account for the supposed evolutionary changes which are taught by a large segment of the scientific community.

Some of the leading spokesmen for evolution have confessed the inadequacy of natural selection and mutation also in producing the so-called new species of plants and animals.

In our last broadcast, I quoted from Sir Julian Huxley and Dr.

Ernest Mayer to the effect that mutation was raw material of all natural selection.

Simpson, 1 of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years.

And that would be assuming a hundred million individuals reproducing a new generation every day.

He concludes by saying, obviously such a process has played no part whatever in evolution.

Does it sound sort of confusing to you, though?

They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it's scientifically impossible for mutation to make the changes.

This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory.

So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.

Mutations, of course, do affect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family.

They can explain many of the varieties of both plants and animals, but they can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.

Now, since we've discovered that the fossil record gives no support to the idea of species gradually changing into other species, let's see if fossil evidence is in harmony with the Bible.

10 times in the book of Genesis we read God's decree concerning the reproduction of his creatures after its kind.

Now the word kind refers to species or families.

Each created family was to produce only after its kind.

And this forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where 1 species turns into another 1.

Now please take note that God did not say there could be no changes within the family.

He didn't create all the varieties of dogs, cats, other animals, and so forth in the very beginning.

There was only a male and female of each species, and then many changes have occurred since that time to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family.

But please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs and men are still men.

Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another new kind.

Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements, such as hornless cattle and white turkeys and seedless oranges and so forth, But all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at creation, and that is after its kind.

The common ancestor that evolution demands has never existed, friends.

Men and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry.

Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups, even They vary tremendously.

Some are smart, others are dumb, some have short tails and some long, some have no tails at all of course.

Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.

But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible differences than those between the simian types.

In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of after its kind.

The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe or ride a scooter or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals or that monkeys are retarded developing humans.

Now it's already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species change.

Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming the scales into feathers and their front feet into wings.

Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds.

Did they find those thousands of multichanging creatures?

No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within its own family, just as God decreed.

If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combinations of features of 2 or more species.

Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form.

Darwin actually confessed and wrote this, he said, there are 2 or 3000000 species on earth.

A sufficient field 1 might think for observation, but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not 1 change of the species to another is on record.

Then why insist that it had to be that way?

This is 1 of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory.

Even the most ancient fossil forms and the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts.

And it's amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionist.

His Bible told him it would be that way, and he hasn't been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.

Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata.

As 1 digs deep into the earth, 1 layer or stratum after another is revealed.

Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the sides of a mountain or a roadbed cut.

Geologists have given names to the succession of strata which pile up 1 on top of another.

Descending into the Grand Canyon, for example, you move downward past the Mississippian, Devonian, Cambrian, and so forth, as they've been tagged, of course, by the scientists.

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionist.

The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it.

All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no record of life, period.

The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today.

In other words, there's nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man.

Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures.

But the big question is, where are their ancestors?

Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils in that Cambrian layer?

According to the theory of evolution, the pre-Cambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of those Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species, quote, to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.

The case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here expressed.

Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.

Now many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration.

Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it, quote, 1 of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution, end quote.

Austin Clark of the United States National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils, quote, strange as it may seem, mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakenly as they are now, end quote.

Doctors Marshall Kay and Edward Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these words.

They said, why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding 2 billion years?

If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils and the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling." George Gaylord Simpson, the crown prince of evolution, summarized it this way.

He said, the sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record, but also its greatest apparent inadequacy.

Now, friends, in the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views?

No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments.

Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research.

The absence of pre-Cambrian fossils points to 1 great fact, unacceptable of course to the evolutionists, and that is a sudden creative act of God which brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time.

Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence.

The preponderance of physical scientific data is really on the side of creation, not evolution.

The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question as to how these layers were formed and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the billions of years.

Back to Menu

Series

How Evolution Flunked Science

01 How Evolution Flunked Science

Transcript

Parent Series

Sponsor

Recorded

How Evolution Flunked Science

02 How Evolution Flunked Science

13m

Apologetics for a Secular Culture

Apologetics for a Secular Culture Part 4

58m

Evolution

Evolution Part 1

13m

Science and the Bible

53m

Plenary

The Evolution Believing Creationist

1h

Yes, Creation!

Some scientific data that favors a recent creation

20m

Evolution

Evolution Part 3

13m

Sean Pitman ~ The Emperor Has No Clothes: Creation vs. Evolution

Darwin vs. God

48m

Evolution and Glands

14m

Sound Doctrine