At the age of 16 I started questioning the Bible's story of creation. I have always been interested in science (chemistry and biology [and Latin] have been my best subjects in school) and I knew that if God really created the universe and the earth with all its different creatures and plants then there had to be scientific arguments for it. I am not someone who blindly believes what I am told; I want to base my beliefs on logic and actual observable evidence. So I started studying the theory of evolution (in more detail than we learned about it in school) and read a lot of scientific arguments of atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking) to see whether their statements are logical.
The result of the past 6 years of studying is quite interesting. There is no contradiction between "science" and "God". There is only a contradiction between "materialism" and "God". But materialism is an assumption of science, not a scientific fact. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove God, because if God exists then he is outside the universe, while science is limited to time and space. Or, as Professor Richard Lewontin said, a leading evolutionary geneticist who claimed to speak for many when he confessed: „Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.“ In other words: "Science is not forced to accept the assumption of materialism, but because we don't WANT God we come up with absurdities and call them "scientifically proven", although our claims contradicts natural laws and common sense".
And that is indeed what the Big-Bang theory and the theory of evolution are: illogical just-so stories which contradict natural laws and common sense. They contradict all 4 laws of thermodynamics (which are the fundamental laws of physics), the law of biogenesis and logical thinking.
Just to name a few aspects of the missing logic:
- it has never been observed that life evolves from non-life. All existing life comes from previous life of the same species.
- large-scale amoeba-to-man evolution requires massive increases in genetic information over time. Evolution is said to proceed by the processes of natural selection (the survival of the fittest) and/or mutations. However, the key question for both of these processes is: Where does the new information come from? For a reptile to become a bird, it must have the extra information necessary for wings and feathers, etc. Natural selection is easily observable, but it cannot of itself create the new information, since there is no upward development in the genetic complexity of the organism. Another alleged source of new information is mutations. For large-scale evolution, mutations must on average add information. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner shows in his book Not by chance with detailed probabilistic analysis that this is completely precluded. He examines the classic textbook cases of mutations cited in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution and shows conclusively that, without exception, they are all losses of information. As a former fellow of Johns Hopkins University Spetner is a specialist in communications and information theory.
- Evolution claims that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells. The difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are striking, to say the least. But if the latter evolved from the former, why are there no intermediate stages between the two? Why, for example, are there no cells with loose DNA and organelles? If the evolutionary line really went from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and we have many living samples of each, why did none of the intermediate stages survive?
- The DNA can only be decoded with the products of the code. In other words, you can read the code only if you already know what the code is saying. There is no way this mechanism was built up step by step or "wrote itself", the whole DNA had to work as a whole from the very beginning already.
- Scientists calculated that for the thousands of mutations from ape to "modern man" you need some 150,000,000,000 "forerunners", often represented as cave-dwelling hunters. Not only are there not enough fossils, tools, or whatever, found to believe in such a vast amount of pre-humans, the General Population Conference also kills all hope of the evolutionists. Data of the development and extrapolation into the past make clear that the assumption of thousands of millions of pre-humans is both physically and archaeologically unrealistic.
- One of evolution’s leading advocates in the world today, Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, wrote: „The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection, many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form, and disappear, leaving no descendents. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution".
- Steven J. Gould, late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University, and President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record „persists as the trade secret of palaeontology“. Niles Eldredge agrees, claiming a deception has been taking place: „We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change]… all the while knowing that it does not".
- Dr Colin Patterson, the British Museum’s senior palaeontologist, said: „Nine-tenth of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not a partical of evidence for the transmutation of species.“ Speaking in New York City, at the American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, Patterson said:
„Last year I had a sudden realization that for over 20 years I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long… so for the last few weeks I’ve been putting a simple question to various people… Can you tell me anything you know about evolution… any one thing that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: „I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.““
Later Patterson noticed that his statements hurt his reputation, so he revoked them and said people would misinterpret his words. Nevertheless it does not change that the whole group of respected evolutionists at the University of Chicago had nothing to say besides "Please don't teach evolutionism in school".
