What follows are just a few quotes from the late Carl Sagan’s book. I do not expect to carry this series much further as what he has written has long since been addressed, refuted by better people than I. Unless there is something important to highlight.
#1. The Secrets of Evolution are death and time (pg. 26)
The problem with these secrets is that for the former there is no source for ‘death’ in the evolutionary model. It just takes place and evolutionists have no credible explanation for its existence. Under evolution, everyone and everything should live forever and there should be no fossil record. For the latter, there is not enough time to produce something out of nothing nor is their enough time for life to develop randomly. Then there is no historical evidence showing that anything has ever developed randomly.
#2. We find that throughout the universe Kepler’s laws are obeyed. (pg. 62)
Just a technicality. They aren’t Kepler’s laws but God’s. Kepler just discovered what God had set in place to guide the bodies of space.
#3. Newton was the first person ever to figure out that these two phenomena were due to the same force. (pg. 72)
This is a standard conclusion many people will come to if they do not believe the Bible. Solomon told us that nothing is new under the sun so it is highly likely that Newton was not the first man ever to figure these phenomenons out. Gravity is not a new phenomenon and ancient scientists or other curious ancient people could have easily figured this out. They would see the moon and question why it stays in place while fruit or other objects fell to the ground.
The only reason Newton would be credited with the discovery is because the investigative work of ancient people did not survive the elements of time.
#4. Astronomers do not object to the idea of major collisions, only to major recent collisions. (pg. 93)
Of course, the first question that comes to mind but Mr. Sagan does not provide any further explanation for this attitude. The most likely answer is because the models of the unbelieving astronomers would be ruined and they would have to construct new theories about the universe.
#5. But science is a self-correcting enterprise. (pg. 94)
I am very, very tired of hearing these words. Science is no more self-correcting than any other enterprise. In fact, science rarely self-corrects for a variety of reasons. Peer review is merely proofreading and constructive criticism, if it gets to that and if the reviewer has time to replicate the experiments that led the reviewee to his or her conclusions.
Now you may think I am over-simplifying the process but I am merely reacting to the reverence scientists place upon their supposed self-created corrective processes. Those processes are not as infallible as scientists make them out to be.. They are very easy to manipulate and corrupt.
Because scientists are always repeating each other’s experiments, it is hard for a fictitious result to hang on for very long. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201008/why-science-is-self-correcting)
This is the ideal but we know from experiencing that this is not so. This image remains in evolutionary thinking even though evolutionists have declared that it is invalid and does not reflect true evolutionary ascent of man.
There are other examples out there as well and even though many scientists disagree with a theory or conclusion that does not mean that the reviewed scientist gives up his theory or conclusion.
#6. With insufficient data, it is easy to go wrong (pg. 99)
Yet this reality doesn’t stop scientists from continuing to promote bad theories, like evolution or the big bang. The lack of data for either of those theories is so great that it is a wonder they get any attention at all. All the information the scientists say they have for those theories is only pure speculating and they have yet to verify one claim they have made.
Scientists go wrong all the time even when they have lots of data to support their ideas. I am reminded of the egg fiasco of some years ago and other forays into the food industry which make scientists look foolish when they make their claims.
#7. To look for life on Mars, we must look for microbes (pg. 127)
This assumes that evolution is true and takes place on other planets. There is no data even suggesting that evolutionary processes are apparent on this or any other planet so with this lack of information scientists most likely have gone wrong. Then who is to say that microbes will be the first sign of life on another planet? Who is to say that a supposed evolutionary process would conduct life development in the same manner as it supposedly did on earth? Wouldn’t the original conditions be different from earth’s original conditions thus requiring a different type of life form to initiate the development of life?
#8. It took nature hundreds of millions of years to evolve a bacterium, and billions to make a grasshopper. (pg. 127)
Then with a different original life form wouldn’t a different time-table come into play? Why would the supposed evolutionary process on another planet use the same format as the one on earth? To think it would is a giant leap to a faulty conclusion. The questions about the process of evolution would rise immediately, for example, how could the same theory divide itself and plant itself on a different planet? How did it get there? Where did it come from? And who created it?
Since scientists cannot put their proposed evolutionary process in a test tube and examine its personal properties, they surely would not be able to examine a process from another planet and answer those questions. There would also be no way for them to make any determination about that extra-terrestrial process. They do not understand the one they claim exists now. They do not understand it because it never existed and they are trying to fill in the gaps with nonsensical data.
#9. We know in detail only about life here. (pg. 131)
Of course they do, life is real evolution is not. They do not know about evolution or their version of origins for those two items are figments of their collective imaginations.
As you can see, science is not as thorough or self-correcting as it is advertised. It wants its own way and it does not take kindly to interference.