The Fraud of Evolution

[emiljoe]

The Fraud of Evolution

thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=3218

How science cheats at proving its pet theory

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.” Evolution has been neither, as shall be proven herein…

…Most biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite “proofs” commonly included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man. This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s. Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor.

The problem is, the pictures were not accurate; in fact, they were faked. Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, “When Haeckel’s embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.”

This fraud was known and published as early as 1894 by Professor Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge University, who wrote that the similarities reported by Haeckel are “not in accordance with the facts of development.”

Scientists continue to find fault with the “evolutionary evidence” created by Haeckel. In 1977, “Erich Blechschmidt noted: ‘The early stages of human embryonic development are distinct from the early development of other species.’ And in 1987, Richard Elinson reported that frogs, chicks, and mice ‘are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size, fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and [gastrulation] movements’” (Wells, op. cit.).

The curator of the fossil collection at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote about the Haeckel fraud: “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases—in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent—simply copied the same figure over and over again” (Natural History, March 2000). Gould further commented on the deleterious effect of such “inaccuracy” when it is reproduced in a textbook and not corrected: “The smallest compromise in dumbing down by inaccuracy destroys integrity and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.”

Evolutionists suggest that many different genetic changes occurred, but only the changes that caused an advantage of some sort remained. In other words, the animals with the weakest changes died out and the stronger, more beneficially changed animals lived on and continued to change…

Here is where the links are missing. If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none. …

Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., in his book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!, states, “Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate [fossil] has ever been discovered.”…

Jesus Christ made it clear that we can be set free from the lies of this world. Seeking real truth is the only way to obtain freedom from ignorance. As Christ said in John 8:32, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

 

[Pacbox]

Having read the following in their About Us section, I’m not inclined to be concerned or give a banana. People who rely on prophecy to predict the Second Coming don’t take Jesus’ words seriously that only God knows when the end will come. I don’t give a banana about people who are trying to predict something that they cannot predict. Too much like the JWs. Granted, there are people who lie to push their agenda but I don’t use that to judge all of a group as liars.

“Trumpet uses a single overarching criterion that sets it apart from other news sources and keeps it focused like a laser beam on what truly is—even in an absolute sense—important. That criterion is prophetic significance. The Trumpet seeks to show how current events are fulfilling the biblically prophesied description of the prevailing state of affairs just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Trumpet has a long history of accurate forecasting of major global events based on this predictive model, tracing back to the beginnings of the Plain Truth magazine in 1934 under the direction of Herbert W. Armstrong.”

 

[Mirdath]

Where to begin?

Haeckel’s drawings have been thoroughly discredited, and did not appear in Darwin’s work. Why they would appear in a modern science textbook, save perhaps as an example of how not to do things, is beyond me – and I have never seen them in one.

Reptiles did not magically change into mammals; we’re completely different creatures with a common ancestor way back up there with the creepy-crawlies. Birds did evolve from reptiles, and there are intermediate fossils like Archaeopteryx to show that.

Also, yeah, these guys are just a little bit loony.

 

[PhilVaz]

From that article…

<< Educator Herbert W. Armstrong wrote, “The most difficult thing for any human seems to be to admit being wrong – to confess error of belief and conviction – to unlearn false knowledge as well as to learn true knowledge” (Mystery of the Ages)…Mr. Armstrong once wrote, "Evolution is Satan’s most powerful modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy – (“Putting the Evolution Concept Into Your Child’s Mind,” 1950). >>

Perhaps that article and magazine site should make themselves clear: “we are a spin off of a spin off of a spin off of Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, so we are as wrong in our theology as we are in our science. We are the Philadelphia Church of God which is an Armstrongism pseudo-Christian cult and that’s why you should listen to us.”

Phil P

 

[DylanO]

Where to begin?

Haeckel’s drawings have been thoroughly discredited, and did not appear in Darwin’s work. Why they would appear in a modern science textbook, save perhaps as an example of how not to do things, is beyond me – and I have never seen them in one.

Reptiles did not magically change into mammals; we’re completely different creatures with a common ancestor way back up there with the creepy-crawlies. Birds did evolve from reptiles, and there are intermediate fossils like Archaeopteryx to show that.

Also, yeah, these guys are just a little bit loony.

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil, that’s been known for a long time, It’s fully bird. Fossils of birds have been found older than Archaeopteryx in mythical evolutionism years.

 

[puzzleannie]

interesting article but fails in proving its thesis. The various myths it shoots down are not, in fact, accepted by any serious scientist as proof for the theory of evolution, so if the author wishes to do that, he will have to use other tactics. The illustration of the moths is about adaptation within a species, not about evolution. The so called embryo drawings have been discredited for decades and appear in no current mainstream work supporting evolution. the idea of the missing link has also been discredited for decades. The author would do much better to survey the current state of teaching the theory and attact those premises, rather than using this approach.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil, that’s been known for a long time, It’s fully bird. Fossils of birds have been found older than Archaeopteryx in mythical evolutionism years. >>

Archaeopteryx might be more bird-like than reptile-like, but both bird and reptile features are found which is why its considered “transitional.” And there’s many more…

Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others.

From the book Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002) :

“One of the wonderful coincidences of science is that immediately after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, his famous explication of the mechanism behind evolution, dramatic support for his hypothesis appeared in Bavaria. In 1860, a feather and, in 1861, the skeleton of a Mesozoic vertebrate obviously intermediate in form between modern birds and their reptilian ancestors were uncovered in lithographic slate quarries. This vertebrate was, of course, the urvogel (original bird) Archaeopteryx. As our knowledge of fossil birds has expanded in the subsequent fourteen decades, the question of how birds arose has become ever more fascinating. Most paleontologists now agree that birds – always popular with the public – happily happen to be the direct descendents of the best-liked group of extinct creatures, the dinosaurs. Of course, public opinion has no relevance to scientific debate, but the broad appeal of a dinosaur-bird link vexes the shrinking minority of researchers who dispute the link…That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies…From China has come the feathered dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, and Microraptor as well as many hundreds of specimens of the bird Confuciusornis…the fossils are coming so fast that it was hard to keep up with the new data during preparation of this book…” (Gregory Paul, Dinosaurs of the Air, page 1, 11, 15)

So…back on topic: Herbert W. Armstrong is the fraud, not evolution.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Armstrong Cult << Here is where the links are missing. If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none… >>

Sorry to disappoint the evolution haters out there but here they are…ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops

Give or take a couple dozen more or less.

Phil P

 

[DylanO]

Fine Feathered Friends and Dinosaurs
Author: Bruce Malone

From magazines to newspapers…from museums to textbooks…the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed “facts” of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone’s excellent book, Search for the Truth. Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.
The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird’s lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but “the devil is in the details”. And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren’t even the same-they are made from different types of protein!

Many recent dinosaur to bird “links” are “dated” between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is “dated” at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, “Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: “You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.”

Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated.

Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever “come alive”. An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator.

 

[cpayne]

The question whether lifeless chemicals could have come alive is different from the question whether or not reptiles could develop into birds.

Speaking of “honest scientists”:

Let’s suppose we did not have any sort of biblical account of creation, nor any recent history of misinterpretation of this account. Would an “honest scientist”—just looking at the data available, without biblical preconceptions—decide that all species on earth were created pretty much “as is,” a few thousand years ago?

Be honest, now.

 

[abu_kamoon]

The purpose of Darwinism was to explain creation without a Creator. Evolution is NOT based on science. Evolution is NOT a product of the Scientific Method. It is a fraud, and many scientists know that it is a fraud.

All of the missing links, Java Man, Peking Man, Lucy & c have been shown to be either cased of misidentificatioin, or outright frauds. There is no way that simple goes to complex in nature. Mutations are harmful, not beneficial to an organism.

What is being called “micro evolution” is really just the survival of the fittest among variations. Were evolution true, we would have evolved immunities to various maladies that plague us.

My personal opinion is that Catholics who believe in evolution have lost their faith, and this applies to Church leaders. Evolution contradicts many points in the Bible. If evolution were true, why would the Bible say that death came after sin, rather than death existed for millions of years prior to the first man? Why is the Bible specific when it says that each kind reproduced its own kind? Isn’t that obvious? It’s obvious to all, except those who think that one animal could reproduce an evolved offspring.

Why does the Bible say that man was made from the dust of the Earth, rather than man evolved from a lower form? Is the Bible wrong? For thousands of years, Jews and Christians (and Muslims) believed that man was created by God. And then Charles Darwin showed us our error.

Darwinism is just one more novelty for the gullible.

ابو كمون

 

[DylanO]

The purpose of Darwinism was to explain creation without a Creator. Evolution is NOT based on science. Evolution is NOT a product of the Scientific Method. It is a fraud, and many scientists know that it is a fraud.

All of the missing links, Java Man, Peking Man, Lucy & c have been shown to be either cased of misidentificatioin, or outright frauds. There is no way that simple goes to complex in nature. Mutations are harmful, not beneficial to an organism.

What is being called “micro evolution” is really just the survival of the fittest among variations. Were evolution true, we would have evolved immunities to various maladies that plague us.

My personal opinion is that Catholics who believe in evolution have lost their faith, and this applies to Church leaders. Evolution contradicts many points in the Bible. If evolution were true, why would the Bible say that death came after sin, rather than death existed for millions of years prior to the first man? Why is the Bible specific when it says that each kind reproduced its own kind? Isn’t that obvious? It’s obvious to all, except those who think that one animal could reproduce an evolved offspring.

Why does the Bible say that man was made from the dust of the Earth, rather than man evolved from a lower form? Is the Bible wrong? For thousands of years, Jews and Christians (and Muslims) believed that man was created by God. And then Charles Darwin showed us our error.

Darwinism is just one more novelty for the gullible.

ابو كمون

Very well spoken! I agree with you, I’ve been saying that for a long time. I’ve been trying to find a priest that actually still believes in creation. For a Catholic (or non-Catholic Christian) to except evolutionism (Yes, evolutionism is a religion; it requires faith) they are undermining the sacrifice Christ made for us, throwing away the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. From what I have seen a lot of Catholics have called the first eleven chapters of Genesis as “myths”.

Ancient man was not dumb, here’s a good website about the technologies of Ancient man: OOPARTS (out of place artifacts) & ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY–Evidence of Noah’s Flood?, so God would not have just made of a story for ancient man “because he wouldn’t understand the complexities of evolution”, because God cannot lie. All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit so, calling Genesis “myths” is calling God a lair.

Good Post, abu kamoon!

God Bless.

 

[Greg27]

I must say in contrast to the above posts, there is massive and abundant evidence for biological evolution, both at the micro and macro levels. Not only that, but vast areas of geology, astronomy, and cosmology contradict many creationist claims. Talk.origins is a good site which explains this and pretty much destroys every creationist objection to the theory. As a scientific theory, creationism has been falsified by the evidence, many times, while evolution has been strongly confirmed repeatedly. Therefore it is as foolish in my view to argue evolution is nonsense as to say the Sun orbits the Earth or that Jupiter does not have Moons.

Also, calling scientists who accept and use evolution as ‘frauds’ is a fallacious line of argument and is likely to only make many scientists look with even greater hostility on religion than they already do; in fact people like Richard Dawkins use the obstinate belief in things greatly at variance with scientific fact as weapons in their atheist crusades, which are making many people ‘de-convert’ when they find how absurdly creationist nonsense is at odds with science.

Religion that throws science out the window is not worthy of any intellectual respect in my view.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

I think the problem isn’t with evolution; but the way the debate is established. We have evidence of evolution with transitional species and micro-adaptations. What is argued is the why for such a system. Too often it seems that those of us who are God-fearing are allowing smart ladies and gentleman like Dr.Dawkins to establish the ground rules of the debate.

What Dr. Dawkins does is try to fit “natural selection” into evolution. He is saying, yes there is evolution so it must because this random “natural selection.” He proceeds to explain his own philosophical naturalism by using telelogical language. The opposite tends to occur with those who propose an “intelligent designer.” It is one of the main problems with these sorts of debates; because we are still fighting each other over the language, so we have trouble getting to any sensible conclusions.
In general, it seems impossible to discuss because those who side with philosophical naturalism want to limit God to the gaps- as if every second is self-sustaining without God. The motto would be, “If it is explainable, it isn’t Godly.” And I think this stems from the mechanical turn knowledge took during the Age of Enlightenment. We want systems to fully explain themselves.

If we were to break all of science into the physical (non-personable) and biological (personable), we can see that biology starting in the 19th century (in particular) began to take on the characteristics of our views on the physical (Newtonian properties, the clock-like universe.) It was only natural to do so, because we were trying to relate us to the objects around us. So we came up with insights like evolution and psychology and so on and so forth. However, if anything, 20th century physics has shown us how non-mechanical, in a conventional sense, things actually are. It is my opinion the biological fields have yet to catch up with this. Those of us who see God’s hand in creation should be putting forth questions like:

Whether or not reality is exhausted by the empirical world.
If things are non-mechanical or beyond systematic comprehension; should we believe in anything? (Followed up by) If we shouldn’t believe in anything, why believe in empiricism?
Why is science a reliable “proof” of those things outside of us?

I am not a scientist or philosopher, maybe I just don’t grasp “the whole thing” and I am sure there are interesting answers out there.

It just is that I don’t see evolution as fraudalent or the thing one should be concerned with; the fraud begins in the need for those like Mr.Dawkins to make one readily accept his philosophical points of view with his science. There is the scandal.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I think the problem isn’t with evolution; but the way the debate is established.
What Dr. Dawkins does is try to fit “natural selection” into evolution. He is saying, yes there is evolution so it must because this random “natural selection.”

Those of us who see God’s hand in creation should be putting forth questions like:

Whether or not reality is exhausted by the empirical world.
If things are non-mechanical or beyond systematic comprehension; should we believe in anything? (Followed up by) If we shouldn’t believe in anything, why believe in empiricism?
Why is science a reliable “proof” of those things outside of us?

My next book is going to be on evolution. So if there is anything people would like to see in it, message me.

“Evolution” was an established theory before Darwin. People had discovered that there were fossils of extinct animals, that the fossils changed over time, and that fossils in upper strata were more similar to present-day animals than fossils in lower strata.

What Darwin did was to expalin how this evolution had come about. By “natural selection”, a process similar to breeding of fancy pigeons or farm animals, but without a deliberate intention, merely selection on fitness to reproduce.

Our present science has no explanation of consciousness, language, or free will. However we do have quite a powerful explanation of psychology - that which is in our adaptive interests feels good, or if it isn’t good, like a burger laden with saturated fats, it’s normally easy to see why the system has gone wrong.

However that doesn’t really help with the ultimate questions.

 

[rossum]

Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:
At least seldom reported by creationists:

                    Feathers   Flight   Bony Tail   Teeth
                    --------   ------   ---------   -----
Dinosaurs            No         No       Yes         Yes
Feathered Dinos      Yes        No       Yes         Yes
Archaeopteryx        Yes        Yes      Yes         Yes
Early Birds          Yes        Yes      No          Yes
Modern Birds         Yes        Yes      No          No

Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles.

 

[rossum]

The purpose of Darwinism was to explain creation without a Creator. Evolution is NOT based on science. Evolution is NOT a product of the Scientific Method. It is a fraud, and many scientists know that it is a fraud.

This is false, you have been misinformed. The vast majority of scientists support evolution.

All of the missing links, Java Man, Peking Man, Lucy & c have been shown to be either cased of misidentificatioin, or outright frauds.

Again you have been badly misinformed. Piltdown Man was a forgery and Nebraska Man was a misidentification. The three that you mention are all perfectly good fossils. Peking Man and Java Man are both now classified as Homo erectus while Lucy is an example of Australopithecus afarensis. None of these are either misidentified or fraudulent. It is your source which is fraudulent.

There is no way that simple goes to complex in nature.

Utter rubbish. You and I both started as a single cell after fertilization, we are now both much more complex with billions of cells in our bodies. You really need to check your source a lot more carefully - it is feeding you false information.

Mutations are harmful, not beneficial to an organism.

Wrong again - you really do need to find a better source as the one you are using is letting you down badly. The majority of mutations are neutral - they have no effect on us. Of the rest some are always deleterious and the remainder depend on the environment. In a malarial envoronment the sickle-cell mutation is beneficial because it protects from malaria. In a non-malarial envoronment it is deleterious because it leads to sickle-cell anaemia. Another example is the Apo A-I Milano mutation, which protects from some of the effects of the rich Western diet - very beneficial if you like burgers.

What is being called “micro evolution” is really just the survival of the fittest among variations. Were evolution true, we would have evolved immunities to various maladies that plague us.

We have, it is just that the maladies are also evolving to get round the defences that we evolve.

rossum

 

[CarlosG]

My personal opinion is that Catholics who believe in evolution have lost their faith, and this applies to Church leaders.

The only thing I have lost faith in is the credibility of young earth creationists to construct a plausible scientific argument for their “theory”. I’ve lost faith in their ability to be honest and to stop putting up strawmen and distorting every new fact thats discovered, while simultaneously ignoring huge amounts of evidence contrary to their position. I find it ironic that you mention that evolution is unscientific, as if creationism (young earth specifically) has any shred of science anywhere in their whole enterprise. They come to the table with the outcome already drawn before even looking at the evidence thus doing science in reverse, trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Evolution in some form has been around since the greeks (Anaxiamander and Aristotle). They looked at the evidence FIRST, then came to a conclusion, not the reverse.

Evolution contradicts many points in the Bible. If evolution were true, why would the Bible say that death came after sin, rather than death existed for millions of years prior to the first man? Why is the Bible specific when it says that each kind reproduced its own kind? Isn’t that obvious? It’s obvious to all, except those who think that one animal could reproduce an evolved offspring.

You need to stop:

1. Asking rhetorical questions as if they are unanswerable (hint hint, maybe you should try to resolve them instead of emoting over their implications over your exegetical folly)
2. Stop putting up strawmen

Why does the Bible say that man was made from the dust of the Earth, rather than man evolved from a lower form? Is the Bible wrong? For thousands of years, Jews and Christians (and Muslims) believed that man was created by God. And then Charles Darwin showed us our error.

More strawmen, the cows are hungry.

Darwinism is just one more novelty for the gullible.

Quite possibly, but without any evidence to support my position I could just as easily call all YEC’s dunderheads who simply ignore all evidence as if they are above it.

ابو كمون

 

[DylanO]

Evolution and Christianity Mix like Oil and Water
Author: Bruce Malone

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.

Today’s intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of ‘science’ has been altered from “acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation” (1934 edition of Webster’s New School dictionary) to “knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena”(1983 of Webster’s Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that “truth” exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God’s intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man’s interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. *". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." *(Matthew 20:27)
3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn’t we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human’s values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

 

[steveandersen]

……Today’s intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of ‘science’ has been altered from “acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation” (1934 edition of Webster’s New School dictionary) to “knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena”(1983 of Webster’s Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that “truth” exists and emphasizes natural phenomena.

Science is (and has always been) about proposing natural mechanisms for observable data.
If you want “truth” I suggest you talk to the chaplain.

By this modern definition God’s intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Science doesn’t exclude the possibility of God’s intervention. It just doesn’t have the tools to measure or discuss it. God is not a repeatable, predictable phenomenon; you can’t put Him in a Petri dish or find heaven with a telescope. Science cannot comment one way or another. It is not its place.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation.

Just as evolution will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation.

………The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind.

As does evolution. Chordates produce chordates. Primates produce primates.

………There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place.

A citation would be nice.

And that micro/macro distinction is specious at best. Either evolution happens or it doesn’t. You can’t be a little bit evolved.

but there are many observed instances of speciation

The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

In all charity I would suggest that you get yourself to a library.

As a Christian I find that evolution increases my wonder and appreciation of Creation.

You are free to believe what you wish but trying to create a conflict between science and faith is IMHO divisive and bad for the faith. How are we to do apologetics in a technically educated world if folks somehow get the idea that being Christian means denying reality?