The ‘Law’ Of Evolution

As I said in an earlier post, the book Genetic Twist of Fate was quite good for two reasons. One, it did not litter the early chapters with a bunch of evolutionary ideology and two, it provided a lot of real information about genes, DNA and genetics in general.

Now e come to the chapter on evolution and it is called The Law of Evolution. You should notice that I put the word ‘la’ in quotes because in reality there is no such thing as the ‘law of evolution.’  This does not mean I put evolution back into the theory column where it resides right now.

Instead, I place the idea of evolution into the false teaching category for that is exactly what it is. It doesn’t matter how much ‘science’ evolutionists throw out there in supposed support of their idea because their science is inferred and their scientists ignore the fact that other sources produce the results they claim came about by some invisible evolutionary process.

In this 16th chapter the authors of the book try to make a case for changing evolution from a ‘theory’ into a ‘law’ like the supposed ‘law’ of gravity. They tell the story of  Alfred Wallace, the number 2 man in the race to construct an evolutionary story for the development of the variety of life forms. This article is not going to look at too many quotes to demonstrate how the authors have failed in their quest and show how weak the argument for evolution is really.

#1. He could see the species were related and he came to realize they were changing. They were not immutable. It became increasingly clear to him that he was viewing these creatures not as they were millions of years ago, he was seeing what they had become as the result of millions of years of evolution. (pg. 186)

The key words are ‘he could see’- What could he see? All he saw were different species in different sizes. He had no ability to see how they were related nor did he observe one transition. He just collected bugs and declared that they were a product of a million years or so of ‘change’.

Darin did the same thing with the different beaks of the birds he observed on his sea voyage. He simply looked, saw some differences then immediately leapt to a conclusion without any real facts to support such a leap. Their evolutionary ideas were read into the evidence, not drawn from it.

#2. But unlike the others, he brought the scientific method to bear on the question: he marshaled the ‘facts’ he had been gathering in the tropics during the previous seven years to support his conclusion. (pg. 186)

The question is, what facts?  If you will notice, neither Wallace or Darwin brought the fact that all species, except water animals, had to live and survive in the same environment into their theory. They, like all evolutionists, assumed that any similarity meant that the species they were studying were related and developed from each other.

Wallace and Darwin had no evidence of transition or development yet that is the conclusion they went with. Evolutionists today still have no evidence for transition or common development of species. It is all read into their experiments supported by the pseudo-science of prediction.

The fossil record was basically stolen from its proper place in history and applied to the evolutionary theory simply because they could do it. Most people would not be aware of the difficulties scientists then and now had/have with that incomplete record. The mere fact that fossils do not record transition in action is the least of their worries.

#3. Also known as ‘natural selection’ it is a simple statement of the fact that in dangerous circumstances, only those animals most adapted to their environment survive…(pg. 188)

Natural selection is the evolutionists explanation for something that already existed but had to be explained in evolutionary terminology. In the theory of evolution itself, there is no source for diseases, predators or death. There is no explanation how those things came into being thus the evolutionists had to find some ay to explain their existence.

Natural selection, like the evolutionary process, doesn’t exist except in the minds of evolutionists. There is no ‘survival of the fittest’ because if that were true, dinosaurs would still be alive today or survived until more recently given the human penchant for elimination of animals via hunting and other activities.

All animals die no matter how fit they are thus there is no foundation for natural selection. Wallace’s and Darin’s broad definition of what natural selection was supposed to be ensured that any death could be attributed to an evolutionary process BUT again the pair came up with this idea not because it was there and it left real evidence. They had to give a non-biblical explanation of why animals and humans died.

Their one error was their failure to provide a real and provable source for death, disease and why there are predators.

#4. Take the case of a gene in vertebrates called BMP4. It encodes a protein involved in building bones. Changes in that protein can have profound effects on components of the jaws of mammals and the beaks of birds. (pg. 192)

The evolutionist says this but they cannot pinpoint the source of the problem. Why does it exist? In the theory of evolution there is no reason for mutations, imperfection, or even  death to exist. How did they come to be and how were they able to infect life forms? Evolutionists have no answer for these questions.

Ideally, if life developed as evolutionists claim no one should be sick, no one should die but again, since sickness and death existed both Wallace and Darwin had to insert it into their theory.

All evolutionary scientists are doing when they discover these mutations and imperfections is prove Genesis 3 and Romans 5 and 6 correct. The evidence doesn’t fall in place under the evolutionary theory but resides squarely in the camp of God and the Bible.

#5. About half our genes are obviously similar to its genes, meaning e can line up the sequence of base-pairs in the human and fly versions of many genes and find lots of positions where the base-pairs are identical. In fact, they’re so similar that many of our genes will work in the fly. (pg. 193)

This doesn’t prove that the human and fly have a common ancestor, it merely provides the evidence for a common creator preparing his creation to exist in the same environment and survive in a similar manner.

By similar manner, I mean that the different species have to breathe, drink fluids, eat food and process it all in order to continue to living. Of course genes may be interchangeable, they are doing the same job in each species.

#6. In light of the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory, evolution by natural selection is right up there with the law of gravity, the law of conservation of energy, and the law of supply and demand. We think it is time to ditch the word ‘theory’ and call it the ‘law of evolution.’ (pg. 195)

Unfortunately for the authors of that book there is no ‘overwhelming evidence’ for evolution. All the evidence proves the Bible right not the false teaching of evolution. Yes there are hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments which all conclude that there is evidence for evolution but if one takes a close look at those ‘experiments’ not one is evolutionary and not one proves conclusively that the process of evolution as responsible for the results.

The conclusions are all subjective ideas constructed by unbelieving scientists who use assumption, conjecture, leaps to conclusions and wishful thinking, supported by pseudo-science and other irrational and illogical ideas.

#7. it is a theory because no scientific principle can ever be proved: we can only disprove alternatives…(pg. 195)

Since they say that a theory/principle can never be proven then what good is the evolutionary theory? What good, then, is science? If science cannot provide the truth then it is just a waste of time and we should not be teaching it to our children.

The evolutionary theory provides no answers and it does not resolve the question ‘where do we come from?’ because it does not deal with the origin of life. Even if it did, the evolutionist has told us we can never be sure because their ideas cannot be proven true.

The authors say they can disprove alternatives but in reality they can’t because how can you disprove something if you can’t prove anything? The two go hand in hand. If you can’t prove something then you can’t disprove it either.

You need a standard to make the determination and no human can construct that standard. A human construct is no better than another alternative human construct and neither can be shown to be right or wrong without an ultimate superior standard setting the rules and evolution is not that superior standard.

There is no ‘law’ of evolution because the process itself did not reveal itself to humans. It did not reveal where it came from, what it did nor did it leave any ancient manuscripts recording its deeds nor did it preserve those documents for all to see and read.

It is all a human idea based upon the rejection of the truth of God and the truth God wrote in the Bible. Evolution only exists in the minds of those who reject God and do not believe his words.

If evolution were true the world would be vastly different from what it is today.


One thought on “The ‘Law’ Of Evolution

Comments are closed.