Harvest House Publishers
Science and scientists should always seek out the truth no matter where it may lead. Scientifi c theories should always be open to intense scrutiny, repeated criticisms, and valid revisions, regardless of the source. Scientifi c thought should never assume the eff ect before proving the cause—or be a consequence of political correctness, religious fervor, or personal agendas. Students of science should always be ready to ask how, where, when, why, and sometimes who. And so it should be with every study on the origin of life.
Contrary to common belief, laboratory experiments have never scientifi cally proven Darwin’s theory of evolution; nor have they proven Intelligent Design. It’s very unlikely they ever will. Demands on supporters of Intelligent Design, however, to “scientifi cally” prove their position far exceed any demands placed on supporters of Darwin’s theories. In fact, evolution scientists have been ignoring the tenets of their own scientifi c method:
Step 1. Observation
Step 2. Hypothesis formulation
Step 3. Prediction
Step 4. Testing of predictions
Most of academia insists that all experimental work follow these time-tested, time-honored, internationally-agreed-upon deductive rules to lessen mistakes and eliminate bias on the part of the experimenter. Many feel these rules should be the foundation of modern science. There are exceptions, of course—such as splitting a group of good-natured volunteers into sky jumpers with parachutes and sky jumpers without, to see which group sustains the worst injuries. Most exceptions, like this, are either too idiotic, too dangerous, or too obvious.
Darwin’s theories should also be subject to the scientific method, yet there are no published experiments that clearly show one species naturally evolving into another species. Darwin essentially admits this in forgotten passages in many of his writings.
This is not about the faster rabbits escaping predators more easily or the breeding of different dogs into another shape, size, trait, quality, or look. Genetically speaking, a rabbit is still a rabbit, and the dog is still a dog. Survival of the fittest, on a short time line, is universally accepted. This is more about major transitions. No scientist has ever observed a natural collection of organic chemicals spontaneously linking up to form a protein, or thousands of different proteins, fats, sugars, and minerals combining to create a functional cell, or millions of different living cells fusing into a jellyfish, or a clam escaping its shell to become an octopus, or a fish evolving into anything remotely similar to an amphibian, or a frog transitioning into a lizard, or a bear developing a blowhole on the top of its head and an anus along its belly as it went for a millennium-long swim, or a monkey giving birth to anything humanoid. If Darwinian research cannot get past Step 1, then Step 4 can never be fulfilled. Even if fossils can be counted as Step 1, there are no proven transitional species—and therefore still no Step 4.
Beyond this, science often assumes our senses are truly reliable, our thought processes are completely trustworthy, our scientific measurements are entirely accurate, and most, if not all, physical constants have remained unchanged for millions, even billions, of years. Yet no one can truly know this.
There is little argument over the principles of natural selection, the premise of survival of the fittest (loosely defined), the categorizing of fossils, or the occurrences of mutations. These rules belong to both the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design, as do simple experiments—such as discovering how the barnacle’s glue works underwater, how a kiwi bird makes an olfactory map, that a giraffe is born with protective hoof coverings, how an arctic tern can fly from the North Pole to the South Pole (and back again), that a breed of pink dolphins exists near Hong Kong, and how the Pompeii worm can survive scalding water.
The scientific method requires the vigorous testing of any hypothesis. Since time machines have yet to be invented, scientists are left to their own imaginations and false realities. The infamous Urey– Miller experiment was one of these. A mixture of organic chemicals, presumably mimicking a primordial sea no one has ever seen, was subjected to electrical shocks. These “lightning strikes” produced a reddish, gooey tar that could not feed itself, defend itself, belch, hide, perspire—or mate with any other, heretofore-known gooey tar of the opposite sex. I would guess it was also hard to clean up.
One cannot prove Design, either. If you were to come upon an oil rig standing high above the water in the Gulf of Mexico, however, would you assume it happened by accident or by Intelligent Design? Design, of course—hands down. And so it goes with living beings, who are exponentially more complicated than all of the oil rigs in the world put together.
Professor William Dembski, nationally acclaimed author of The Design Inference, defines Intelligent Design as natural systems that cannot be explained in terms of undirected natural forces, yet exhibit features which, in any other circumstance, we would attribute to intelligence. He points to the carved faces of four United States presidents—Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt—at Mount Rushmore. Given the natural forces of erosion, wind, and rain plus a rare push from a tectonic plate, it remains highly improbable, if not impossible, that Nature could have carved such likenesses.
One should apply similar logic to everything we see in Nature. This book will help explain why. When a species of animal or plant is too complicated to come about by chance, it must be caused by, created by, or guided by Intelligent Design (ID). One can argue, alternatively, that Design has occurred every moment since the “Beginning,” or that the Designer merely made, and maybe revised, the rules.
In any case, modern scientists, despite public statements supporting newer Darwinian theories, are steadily disproving the theory of evolution. As they delve deeper into the chemical and biological sciences, the more complex and perplexing it is becoming. Ask any medical researcher how DNA, or more specifically our genes, came about, and you will more than likely get a shrug.
The term missing links is often used rather loosely, but in order to scientifically judge Darwin’s famous theory there needs to be further clarification of what qualifies as a link. These are mandatory, intermediate steps. They can be as small as an S-ring in a bacterial flagellum (tail) or one step in a long cascade of events to clot off a wound. Often, millions of steps—links—are needed to complete a process or move a species to a more complex level.
The Great Pyramid in Egypt is a good example of one step building onto another. Everyone agrees that this 450-meter-tall structure, the only surviving wonder of the ancient world, did not happen by accident. Two million limestone blocks ranging from 2.5 to 60 tons were mined and hauled from the Nile Valley. Construction could not have begun at the top and progressed downward or at the middle and outward. It followed a very elaborate architectural design. The newest level depended on the design, solidity, and security of the level or levels below. To be called a pyramid and function like a pyramid, construction needed to reach the peak. Notably, one cell of the human body is more complicated than this structure.
If, on the other hand, one expects written proof that a Designer did the designing, they will never see a Signature on the Job Order. If one wants to attend a lecture on “How I Did It,” with the fanciest PowerPoint presentation ever, it isn’t going to happen. If one wants an Invitation to observe the Watchmaker making his watches, it will never occur. Proof such as this will never happen.
How complex is too complex for the theory of evolution to explain? The adult blue whale has 100 quadrillion cells, and each cell has up to one billion chemical compounds. How fast is too fast to be an accident? Enzymes work within cells at a millionth of a second. The impact of light on the retina to create vision takes 200 femtoseconds. A femtosecond is a millionth of a billionth of a second. When does a complicated life cycle speak against chance occurrence or a lucky series of mutations? There are known parasites that require at least two unrelated and distant hosts to complete one life cycle. There are insects that depend on protozoa in their stomach to survive, which in turn depend on even smaller microorganisms attached to them for survival. How impossible should a body part be? The lens of the human eye has 1000 layers of transparent, living cells.
Or, how unusual should a living species be before it defies the tenets of evolution? There are six-foot-tall gutless worms that live at the bottom of the ocean, plants that maintain internal temperatures higher than most mammals, carnivorous sponges, warm-blooded moths, frogs, and turtles that can survive being frozen, microorganisms that live on sulfur (not oxygen), fish that hibernate on land, a family of salamanders that can survive in a refrigerated jar of water for at least six years, fleas that jump 150 times their length 200 times a day, a breed of near-blind river dolphins who never sleep and whose eyes migrate upward after birth, a cuttlefish whose tentacles can shoot out at an acceleration of 25G after hypnotizing its prey, a tsetse fly that has only one offspring, and an illuminated deep-sea fish whose anus migrates from its left side to the rear.
Might each one of these be a collection of improbable coincidences?