Is the intelligent reader of this essay the result of random processes and blind chance?
Evolution is the theory that everything made itself, and that no creator was necessary. But this requires that non-intelligent processes could produce vast quantities of functional complex information. Even the simplest free-living organism carries the equivalent information of a 500-page book; humans have as much information as a thousand 500-page volumes. NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT EVOLUTION
Can natural selection possibly add all the extra information required to change a frog into a prince? No, natural selection alone can’t do it. Selection -- natural or artificial — involves redistribution and getting rid of information already present in the organism. The peppered moth is the classical example of natural selection. Yet it provides no evidence for evolution. Last century there were dark and light varieties of the peppered moth, species Biston Betularia. After 100 years of natural selection, what did we end up with? Dark and light varieties of the peppered moth, species Biston betularia. That is not evolution. There was no increase in genetic information. NOT BY CHANCE! Back in 1980 the world’s leading evolutionists met in Chicago for a conference to discuss whether the mechanism underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution. Selection and mutations produce variations within kind (eg. different varieties of dogs, known as ‘microevolution’), but can these processes be logically extended to explain true evolution - a change from the simpler to more complex organisms? Roger Lewin answers: At the risk of doing violence to the position of some of the people in the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. No matter what the biology textbook says, evolutionists know and admit that mutation-selection cannot account for evolution. Sir Fred Hoyle, Nobel-prize winner and English astronomer stated that: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. THE FOSSILS SAY ‘NO!’
Do you believe that evolution is well supported by fossil evidence? The evolutionist Dr. David Raup writes: “Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” David B. Kitts, another evolutionist, explains why: “Despite the bright promise that paleontology (the study of fossils) provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” BIASED AGAINST GOD If there are so many serious problems with evolution, why is it that most (though not all) scientists believe it? The famous evolutionist, Professor D. Watson made a remarkable observation that the theory of evolution is universally accepted, “not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative - special creation - is clearly incredible.” In other words, since they do not believe in God the Creator, the only other option is evolution! Evolution is nothing but atheism in disguise. If you would like to know more about the subject of origins, please check this site:
|
