Why evolution is not true

Millions of people believe that evolution is true. TV programs, newspapers, technical research
No investigation of evolutionjournals, schools and universities declare that it is science. Thus many people and even theologians agree.

 

What is strange, is that there is a massive campaign to prohibit critical discussion of evolution. This is happening in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and many other European nations. They make laws to ‘protect’ evolution from criticism.

 

If evolution is proven science, why is nobody allowed to critically discuss it? Why are no laws made to prohibit discussion of the relativity theory of Einstein, gravity, magnetism and many other facts of biology, like the production of energy in the mitochondria? It is because laws of nature are normally proven (unless falsified) by many repeated experiments. So real or operational science does not need protection through laws. By operational science we mean physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology, unfettered by all the imaginary evolution scenarios.

 

An established law of nature seldom comes under attack. Scientists do experiments and show the results if they think it is wrong. If there are questions about some aspect of a law of nature, a scientist can answer the questions, normally without excitement, since it is based on repeated experiments. Why would somebody query, for example, the law of gravity? Even the mechanisms of meiosis and mitosis have been established through pain staking laboratory experiments. Nobody ever questions them. They are ‘solid’ facts which were verified by repeated experiments.

 

So why does evolution need protection? What is sacred about evolution? Why is it so precious? How can many scientists do their work without ever calling on Darwin for help? Today, in our modern age, we have another Inquisition. There are a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to censor any criticism of evolution. It has become dangerous to attempt to discuss Darwinism negatively. Why? Why are the jobs of teachers and lecturers in danger when they question evolution? Those people never criticise the Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, or metamorphosis, because they are established facts.

 

The ‘protection’ of Darwinism, or evolutionism by law, is highly suspicious. The only conclusion is: if they have to use the courts to protect the teaching of evolution, they tacitly admit that it is not science, but a faith.  A faith in what Darwin proposed, namely that molecules can change to men, over millennia, by chance and luck. Because it has never been proven that evolution is a scientific fact, it needs protection.

 

It needs protection, as evolution is not about teaching science, but about teaching atheism. There is no God. Accept it, and don’t question it (it is because if evolution is true, then it follows logically that there can be no Creator God). Evolution is the foundation stone of atheism. In the drive to convert society to atheism, schools are a good place to enforce it.

 

If evolution is not true (which atheists cannot allow), creation is a fact. Then God is real, and that is not what they want people to know.

 

Nobody has yet proven that evolution is true (we exclude the usual beak of the finch, and other normal adaptations). It must be protected, otherwise atheists will have to concede that their faith is without evidence. Rational people don’t want that, so use the courts of law.

 

Question: Do you think protecting evolution by law is good evidence that it is true?

 

The Baffling battle about beginnings

The baffling battle about beginnings.
The baffling battle about beginnings.

Why does a modern, scientific society fight against an ancient book? Anybody who looks carefully at society, can see there is a propaganda war against the Bible. Why is it singled out? It is because of the first sentence, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.1

This must be the most profound sentence ever written, if you judge by its effects. There are hundreds of scientists who do research to prove that God is not the Creator, because nature created itself through evolution. These able scientists work in laboratories or in the field, in subjects like biology, palaeontology, geology, astronomy, zoology, botany and biochemistry to try to prove evolution is true. Precious intelligence and resources are used on the idea of evolution, instead of on doing real science.

What is evolution? Evolution is the ‘molecules to man’ idea. It means, in the beginning there was nothing and after millions of years, the universe, the earth and all life on it was there without the help of God.

What are the benefits of a universe that created itself? We are told that a self-created planet is scientific and therefore it is the basis of electricity, communication, modern transport, et cetera. Is that true? Does evolution lead to new scientific findings? Have evolutionary principles improved technology? Did anyone ever receive a Nobel prize for evolutionary discoveries? Has evolution improved new strains of grain or given higher milk production in cows? No! The study of nature has given society television, cellphones and computers, not evolution.

Did Darwin prove evolution (Charles Darwin is regarded as the father of evolution, although the Greeks around 600-500 BC already proposed it)?2 In his book, On the Origin of Species (published in 1859) Darwin did not prove evolution.3 Yet the idea that he did, has led to the most extensive indoctrination campaign of all time.

Darwin proposed that natural selection caused evolution. Natural selection happens all over the earth and it is easy to see. Nobody denies natural selection. It means that organisms that survive are best suited for their environment and will have the most offspring. For example,

  • A thick furred wolf will thrive in a cold region and breed well, so there will be many wolves. A small, smooth-haired Chihuahua will suffer and die under naturally cold conditions, so there will be very few or no Chihuahua’s there.
  • The finches in the Galapagos also show natural selection. After a severe drought many of the birds died. Most of the finches that survived had longer, stronger beaks to crack open the harder seeds. When normal rains returned, the birds with shorter, smaller beaks increased again.

These are not examples of evolution. They show that natural conditions affect the survival of life forms. There was merely a shuffling of genes to adapt to environmental factors. The idea that Darwin proved that new species can come about through natural selection must be one of the best hoaxes of all time.

Why is there such an effort to disprove that God created the heavens and the earth? It is because the creator of something is the owner. It is as simple as that. There is somebody who does not want people to know that God is the Creator of the Universe, and therefore the Owner who can do as He plans and pleases (He is going to establish an eternal Kingdom of peace and happiness, and people will be part of it only through His Son, Jesus).

The Bible must also be discredited because it tells us that God has an enemy who will never share that new, coming Kingdom. That somebody is the created angel, the devil, Satan, the rebel who attempted to usurp God’s authority and depose the Creator.

The brilliant plan of God is vehemently opposed by the devil. He uses evolution and other strategies to teach people that they are just glorified apes and they cannot trust the Bible or God’s plan.  He can do it because he is the ruler of this sinful world, ‘…the whole world is under the control of the evil one.’4

This explains the baffling battle about beginnings in the Bible. The devil has grasped the importance of creation, and he opposes it.

References

  1. Genesis 1:1
  2. C H Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, p ix, cited by H Morris, The Long War against God, Master Books, 2000, p 216.
  3. J Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc, 2006, p 49-59.
  4. 1 John 5:19b

 

%d bloggers like this: