Biological Evolution (life from non-life to human beings) Runs Contrary to Reason, Science and History

By Brannon S. Howse

Biological evolution (life from non-life to human beings) runs contrary to reason, science and history. True.    

God used the process of biological evolution to create the world as we know it today. False. 

To believe in naturalistic causes for the universe and life as we know it, the evolutionist has to reject known laws of science. The laws of thermodynamics—the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences—confirm that the universe had a beginning. Let me explain.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant. Although energy can change form, it cannot be created or destroyed. This being the case, we know that natural processes—of which energy conservation is one—cannot create energy, and therefore something outside of and independent of the universe had to create energy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also referred to as the Law of Energy Decay or the Law of Entropy. It states that the amount of energy available for what scientists term “useful work” (simply speaking, it means “existence”) is running down or being depleted. In other words, like a watch you wind up, the world is running down, and if it is known to be running down, that means there had to be a point at which it was wound up. Therefore the universe has not always been here, as some have tried to argue (although most recognize the impossibility of such a position these days). If the cosmos were infinitely old, like the watch, it would have already unwound—long, long ago. It had to have a beginning.

Another fact of the Second Law is that the universe, since its beginning, has been going from a state of orderliness to a state of disorder. Evolution contradicts this law by stating that the world has gone from disorder to more complex order. The fact that evolutionists believe a primordial soup fostered life that became more and more organized to the point of developing the human eye, ears, brain, and DNA is not consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Further, the evolutionist has to believe that order and precision came out of an explosion. 

In the 1960s, when facing the challenge of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang theory was born. This is a positive, in many ways, for those who believe in an Intelligent Designer because the theory acknowledges a beginning. It caused evolutionists to change their strategy away from saying the earth has always existed. 

The Big Bang also opens another large can of worms for the evolutionist, because once the idea of a beginning is in place, the natural question to ask is: What or who caused it? And this isn’t an unreasonable, metaphysical question. As with the Laws of Thermodynamics, cause and effect is an established scientific fact. Other questions also follow naturally from the first. If a “who” caused it, who is the “who”? If a “who” did not cause the Big Bang, then what did? 

Most humanists, of course, try to answer the “what” question, ignoring (without any logical reason) the “who” possibility. Yet in the “what” direction, dead ends abound. Matter does not come from non-matter. The gases needed to create the Big Bang could not just magically appear by themselves. The law of cause and effect assures that matter does not come from non-matter. The order required for life to “emerge” has been shown to be mathematically impossible.

Another reasonable question to ask someone who believes in the Big Bang is: When has an explosion ever been shown to result in precision and order?

One good reason to probe the “who” side of the Big Bang Theory is explained by Walter Brown in his book In the Beginning: 

[quote] The big bang had to have exploded with just the right degree of vigor for our present universe to have formed. If it had occurred with too little velocity, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang because of gravitational forces; if it had occurred with too much velocity, the matter would have streaked away so fast that it would have been impossible for galaxies and solar systems to subsequently form. To state it another way, the force of gravity must be fine-tuned to allow the universe to expand at precisely the right rate (accurate to within 1 part in 1060). [end quote] 

In his book God and the Astronomers, Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, summarizes the most current evidence that the universe had a beginning:

"Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion: all indicated that the Universe had a beginning."

Norman Geisler makes a similar observation in When Skeptics Ask:

"Now if we are speaking of a beginning of the universe—a movement from no matter to matter—then we are clearly in the realm of unrepeatable events covered by origin science."

Christians have been mocked for believing in a God that created the world, yet now naturalistic evolutionists stumble all over, changing their positions, fearful of what other scientific discoveries will cause them to zig and zag to miss another fatal blow. The question really is how many fatal blows will it take? Like the cat that has nine lives, evolution is quickly coming to a point of total demise. Intellectual honesty is on the side of the theistic worldview.

Already few premier scientists believe strictly in Darwin’s evolution. Henry Margenau noted, “If you take the top notch scientists, you find very few atheists among them.”

Only an evolutionist attempting to justify an atheistic worldview would be desperate enough to believe that mutations are a positive thing. When have you ever heard of a good mutation? Nancy Pearcey points out the natural answer:

[quote] Since breeding does nothing more than shuffle existing genes, the only way to drive evolution to the new levels of complexity is to introduce new genetic material. And the only natural source of new genetic materials in nature is mutations. In today’s new neo-Darwinism, the central mechanism for evolution is random mutation and natural selection. [end quote]

The odds are spectacularly against the possibility that enough good mutations would outweigh the bad mutations to allow a species to transition from one into another. Not only are mutations not usually a good thing, they are often fatal.

Scientists have spent years in laboratories subjecting fruit flies and the like to mutations in an attempt to change one species into another. But after killing thousands of fruit flies and successfully changing eye color, wing size, and other characteristics, scientists find that the fruit flies always remain fruit flies. Consider this incredible statement by former chief science advisor with BBC Television:

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme"

Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information and communication at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in his book Not by Chance:

[quote] In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution], particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased….But in all reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.  All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has built up by evolution. The essential biological differences between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time. [end quote] 

But remember, according to Darwin himself, mutations are absolutely necessary for the evolutionary process to work. Further expert testimony reveals even more about the absolute lack of any possibility that mutations would do what Darwin claimed. While professor of genetics at the University of Wisconsin, James F. Crow noted:

[quote] Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. [end quote]

And geneticist Richard B. Goldschmidt summarizes: “If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.”

Copyright 2006 ©Brannon Howse. This content is for Situation Room members and is not to be duplicated in any form or uploaded to other websites without the express written permission of Brannon Howse or his legally authorized representative.