1. Modern Society and Evolutionism
Modern society is based on science.
Before the rise of modern science, religion played a leading role in Western society. Church leaders exercised great social and political power, and society was organised in such a way as to maintain this dominance by the church. The mass of people accepted the values and assumptions of the prevalent religious teachings more or less without question, and lived their lives accordingly.
Since the development of modern science and technology, beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, science has gradually replaced religion as the basis for understanding the fundamental principles of life. Scientific thinkers such as Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin and Einstein have revolutionized our way of thinking, and the structure of society has changed accordingly. Nowadays, the mass of people accept the current scientific doctrines more or less without question, just as people previously accepted religious doctrines. Science and technology determine the values, assumptions and goals of modern society. One might almost say that science has become the official religion of the day.
Material science dictates the materialistic values and assumptions of modern society.
Material science is the study of the properties and qualities of matter. Naturally, then, material science assumes that the qualities of matter are all-important. Hence, a society based on the teachings of material science is a society preoccupied with the qualities of matter.
The aim of the materialistic society based on material science is to gain material perfection.
The materialistic society trains its members to manipulate the material environment through science and technology. The goal is to produce a perfectly enjoyable material situation.
Unfortunately, whether we evaluate this materially orientated society from the point of view of psychology, sociology, politics, aesthetics or ecology, we must admit that the programme of aiming for dominance or control over the laws of nature has often resulted in disaster for the human race and the whole planet.
One of the most essential and fundamental doctrines of modern science is the theory of biological evolution.
“Charles Darwin has influenced Western thought more profoundly than any other individual. Even Karl Marx did not probe so deeply into human conceit. The revelations of Albert Einstein do not encroach on human life and belief as does the vision of Charles Darwin”
Modern evolution theory is far more complex than Darwin’s original conception, but the basic idea remains the same. Evolutionists believe that biological form and function change progressively, by some mechanism they still do not understand, and that more “adapted” forms, which are better suited for survival under existing conditions, are preserved. Charles Darwin believed that natural selection preserves the fittest forms of life, but he was unable to prove his theory. Modern evolutionists are still unable to specify the role of natural selection in the appearance of new forms of life (Lewontin, 1974). Many try to explain the appearance of new species in terms of statistics and genetics, while others search for some mechanism which is still unknown. In any case, evolutionists believe that favourable new forms accumulate to give completely new biological species.
In essence, then, modern evolution theory proclaims:
“Human beings evolved from lower life forms, and lower life forms evolved from matter. Therefore human beings are nothing more than chemicals. Life comes from matter and matter is all in all”
Does modern society have a real foundation?
The doctrines of material science provide the basis for the materialistic modern society, and the theory of evolution of species is one of the most important of these doctrines. While there is much debate over the mechanism of evolution, practically the whole scientific community accepts that evolution must have taken place by some mechanism or another.
We shall show, however, that there is no scientific theory of evolution at present. Inasmuch as this is so, the scientific community is exhibiting a serious inability to distinguish between science and non-science. We should make a critical examination of the scientific beliefs that form the basis of society. If they are seriously flawed, then the whole of modern society would have no real foundation.
Is there a scientific theory of evolution of species?
Material scientists say that the evolution of species is a scientific fact. That presupposes that there is a scientific theory of evolution of species. But we dare to ask: “Is the evolution of species even a scientific concept?”
What would be required for evolution of species to be a scientific concept? Science deals with experience. Therefore, in order to explain something scientifically, we must first describe it in terms of experience. If evolution of species is to be a scientific concept, evolutionists must meet the following conditions:
1. Evolutionists must give examples of evolutionary transitions in which one species changes into another.
2. Evolutionists must specify the mechanism by which one species could change into another.
3. Evolutionists must specify the actual course of evolution in the past. Which specific forms gave rise to which specific new forms?
Now we shall show that evolutionists cannot meet any of these three requirements. They cannot explain their concept of evolution in terms of actual experience.
2. Science of Science Fiction?
Many writers, particularly creationists, have tried to argue that, because evolutionists cannot specify the how? What? When? And where? Of evolution, evolution did not take place. We do not wish to make this mistake. We prefer to point out that one simply cannot discuss evolution in a scientific context. While evolutionists claim that evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact (Huxley, 1960, 41), others have noticed that since evolutionists cannot actually say what the fact is, their case is very weak (Thompson, 1981, 183). Scientists are supposed to know what they are talking about. If no one actually knows exactly what “evolution” is, we cannot have a scientific discussion as to whether it actually took place.
Evolutionists must give clear, direct evidence that one species does change into another, BUT…
SPECIES ARE STABLE, PERMANENT FORMS.
No one has seen one species change into another. The fossil record also fails to give direct evidence for the gradual change of one species into another.
The fact that biological species are extremely stable and resistant to change is “the single most important factor” in any discussion on the mechanism of evolution (Science, 1980, 883)
Breeding produces new variations but not new species (e.g. dogs)
Genetic mutation produces variations but not new species (e.g. fruit flies)
There are no evolutionary transitions in which one species changes into another
Selective breeding and mutation produce populations and individuals which are different from the original parent stock. All experiments show, however, that these differences are variations about a mean, and do not accumulate to produce new species. The examples that evolutionists hopefully put forward, such as the appearance of new strains of bacteria which are more resistant to anti-biotics, or of DDT-resistant mosquitoes, are not evidence that new species might appear in time.
Evolutionists sometimes claim to have observed or caused the appearance of new species (Ridley, 1982, 6) but their claim depends on the confusion between two different kinds of species, which we may call “breeding-species” and “evolutionary species”. Biologists generally consider that two organisms belong to different species if they cannot breed with each other to produce fertile offspring. Now, a population of organisms will often give rise to a sub-group which does not breed with the original population. According to the above definition, this would mean that a new species has appeared from an existing species. We must note, however, that these new “species”, which we might call “breeding-species”, are always very similar in bodily form to the parent species, and the two breeding species are often physically indistinguishable. Hence, this example of “new species” appearing has nothing to do with evolution, because “evolution-species” must necessarily have quite distinct bodily forms (Newell, 1982, 137).
Suppose we are discussing the species intermediate between a mammal and its supposed ancestor among the fishes. Evolution theory would require a regular progression of bodily form between the fish and the mammal. Therefore, when talking about the evolution of species, we are not concerned with mating preferences, but with bodily form. If two breeding-species are physically indistinguishable, they still belong to the same evolution-species. Therefore the appearance of new breeding-species provides no evidence for the evolution of species.
Many species of animals and plants that we find today also appear as fossils in very old rock layers. This is clear evidence that species may remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years (see Grasse, 1977, 76-79).
There are very many examples of animals and plants which have, according to the fossil record, survived unchanged for tens and hundreds of millions of years. Perhaps the most striking examples are the finely preserved fossils of insects in amber. These date from as much as 130 million years ago, and show how little the organisms have changed during that time (Larson, 1978). William Thorpe, a British biologist, comments:
“What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me to be the problem now – the problem of constancy; rather than that of change. And here one must remember that the genetic systems… are constantly changing. Thus the control system is continually changing but the system controlled is constant, and constant over millions of years. This problem seems to me to stick out like a sore thumb in modern evolutionary theory” (1968, 77)
Evolutionists must specify the mechanism by which one species could change into another, BUT…
NO ONE KNOWS A MECHANISM BY WHICH ONE SPECIES COULD CHANGE INTO ANOTHER
Geneticists and molecular biologists are unable to say what produces biological form.
Hence, they are also unable to say what could produce new biological forms.
Evolutionists generally assume, and thus the lay public also accepts, that all biological form is governed by genes. There is no evidence that this is so.
Molecular biologists have discovered how genetic DNA controls the process of protein synthesis. This produces specific proteins.
GENES AND FORM
Geneticists have studied the distributions of inherited characteristics in animals and plants, and have concluded that the patterns of inheritance are due to entities which they call “genes”. These studies tell us about variations in biological structures which already exist, but do not tell us what caused the structures to come into being in the first place. We may find that genes determine the colour of eyes, but that does not tell us about the origin of the eyes themselves (Elsasser, 1975, 120).
So much for what genes do. But what are genes? Molecular biologists tell us that genes are units in the chemical structure of DNA and RNA, and that the “genetic code” governs the synthesis in the cell of specific proteins. These proteins (enzymes) are vital for the maintainance of biological function and structure. This tells us something about how the ingredients for biological form appear, but it tells us nothing about the appearance of biological form itself. That still remains a mystery.
“In conclusion, there is neither logical nor factual support for the supposition that organization of biological systems can be explained in reference to gene interactions alone… As far as I can discover, this claim rests on sheer assertion, based on blind faith and unqualified reductionistic preconceptions”.
Paul Weiss of Rockerfeller University,
New York (1968, 36)
Genes control the production of specific proteins in the living cell…
But WHAT organizing principle arranges the proteins to make working cells?…
And WHAT organizing principle arranges cells to produce living organisms?
No one knows!
“The polypeptide chains and the proteins into which they fold up are undoubtedly necessary for morphogenesis; but what actually determines the patterns and structures into which the proteins, cells and tissues combine?… At this crucial stage, mechanistic biology effectively abdicates”.
Rupert Sheldrake, British biologist (1981, 41)
Modern biologists cannot show that the natural, physical laws alone are responsible for biological form.
A vast gap separates the evolutionist from his goal of explaining the origin of biological form. Molecular biology can to some extent explain the synthesis of specific proteins within the cell, but cannot explain what it is that organizes these proteins to give functional biological structures. Evolutionists assume that it all takes place through the action of natural physical laws, but they do not have sufficient evidence to show this. In fact, it is doubtful that they will ever be able to demonstrate conclusively that biological form could be due to the action of natural physical laws alone. This would require the calculation of the physical and chemical properties of proteins from a knowledge of the physical chemistry of atoms and chemical bonds. Unfortunately, protein molecules are so large and complex that one could not perform the necessary computations in many lifetimes, even with the aid of modern computers (Anfinsen and Scheraga, 1975).
Since evolutionists do not know what governs biological form, they cannot possibly explain the appearance of new biological forms. If they cannot explain the appearance of new biological form, then the theory of biological evolution cannot be a scientific theory.
Genes certainly affect biological structure but there is no proof at all that genetic information alone completely determines biological form.
GENETIC MUTATION – THE MYTH
The “genetic code” is a sequence of molecules in DNA and RNA which governs the synthesis of proteins in the cell. Genetic “mutation” is a change in that sequence, which results in the production of different proteins. Since genes only control details in biological form, a genetic mutation, or change in the genetic code, only produces variations within the species.
Evolutionists hope to discover how genetic mutation could produce the whole range of biological form. This, however, is not a rational hope, for there is no evidence at all that the information in the genes governs all aspects of biological form. It would be illogical, then, to suppose that a change in the genetic information could give rise to all possible variations in biological form.
“We had an international conference in Rom in 1981 on the mechanics of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, palaeontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely no idea what happens genetically during speciation. That’s a damning statement, but it’s the truth”.
Ernst Mayr, Evolutionist at Harvard University (1983, 78 )
Genes control details in biological form. A change in the genetic code only produces variations within the species.
No one knows a mechanism by which one biological species could change into another.
Evolutionists must know exactly which forms evolved into which new forms in the past, BUT…
WHERE ARE THE INTERMEDIATE FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD?
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils”.
Stephen Gould, Evolutionist at Harvard University (1980, 181)
If evolution were a fact, one would expect one fossil species to change gradually into others over geological time.
The fossil record gives little, if any, direct evidence for gradual modification of species. New species appear suddenly in the fossil record without apparent links to existing species. They then remain unchanged for some time. The fossil record does not give direct evidence for evolution between species.
The Punctuated Equilibrium Model of Evolution
Despite the lack of intermediates between fossil species, evolutionists do not doubt that evolution has taken place. Rather, they have tried to devise a mechanism for evolution which accommodates the admission that the intermediates are missing. In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould put forward the “punctuated equilibrium” model. This theory suggests that evolution does not take place gradually, but in fits and starts (1972, 1977).
Let us consider the supposed evolution of Species B from Species A. The new idea is that a small population of Species A becomes isolated. This small group then evolved very rapidly into Species B in a hidden locality, without leaving any trace in the fossil record. The new Species B now invades the territory frequented by the original Species A and consequently replaces Species A in the fossil record.
The fossil record will show the persistence of Species A and the sudden appearance of Species B. The hidden and undocumented evolution events are supposed to take a geological instant; that means that they are too fast to show up as gradual transitions in the fossil record, and too slow to be visible amongst species existing around us today.
The new model is certainly ingenious, but it is not scientific, because one cannot state it in terms of direct experience. Evolutionists can neither give examples of one species actually changing into another, nor explain the mechanism by which new species could arise. In an attempt to explain why there is no direct evidence for the theory of biological evolution, evolutionists have devised another theory for which there is no direct evidence. This is not science.
Evolutionists believe that human beings have evolved from single-celled animals, but this belief lacks direct evidence from the fossil record. At no point on this supposed evolutionary pathway can evolutionists give scientific evidence that a specific member of any group of animals evolved into a specific member of any other group. It is all supposition based on indirect evidence from other sources.
Evolutionists cannot explain the origins of single-celled living creatures. (see Gould, 1980, 217-226).
Fossils of many-celled animals appear before remains of single celled animals in the fossil record (Moore, 1964). This indicates that many-celled animals did not evolve from single-celled animals.
“Hence one is left with the sense of the ‘spontaneous generation’ of the vertebrates some four to five hundred million years ago” (Sillman, 1960).
The appearance of the earliest fishes is “one of the most perplexing problems in the study of vertebrate evolution” (Stahl, 1947, 30)
“Paleontologists… have not discovered the animals intermediate between the finned and limbed forms” (Stahl, 1974, 195).
“Unfortunately, not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptile transition unanswered” (Carroll, 1969, 393).
“We do not have a fossil record actually documenting the origin of any of these major groups (of modern mammals)” (Gingerich, 1977, 472)
Most authors assume that primates evolved from insectivores, but “there appears to be almost no fossil material that convincingly documents any aspect of this transition. The lengthy discussion on primate origins has its roots in the hypothetical considerations”. (Simons, 1972, 105).
“At this point, I confess, I cringe, knowing full well what all the creationists who deluge me with letters after each column must be thinking. ‘So Gould admits we can find no evolutionary ladder among early African hominids; species appear and later disappear, looking no different from their grandfathers. Sounds like special creation to me’” (Gould, 1977, 30).
“I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation”. (Corner, 1961, 97).
Evolutionist: “Evolution is a scientific fact. Science is not a matter of faith, science just deals with experience so it must be true”
Sceptic: “Science just deals with experience? Then how do you experience evolution?”
E: “I don’t. You can’t actually see evolution take place, it’s a scientific deduction from known facts”
S: “Do you know how evolution takes place?”
E: “Not exactly. Evolutionists are still trying to discover the mechanisms of evolution”
S: “So you’ve never seen evolution take place and you don’t know the mechanisms of evolution. I hope you can give examples of what evolved from what in the past”
E: “I can’t. The fossil record seems to be incomplete in the most awkward places”
S: “So you’ve never seen evolution, you don’t know what evolution is and you don’t know how it could take place. So what has this idea of evolution got to do with science? It seems as though you are just a high priest and evolution is your dogmatic faith”
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF SPECIES
1. There is no direct evidence that one species does change into another.
2. No one knows a mechanism by which one species could change into another.
3. Evolutionists cannot say which forms evolved into which in the past.
The theory that one species can change into another has no direct contact with actual experience.
This does not necessarily mean that evolution did not take place. It simply shows that evolutionists do not know what they mean when they talk about “evolution”. They may hope that in the future they will be able to state their theory in scientific terms. In the meantime, it remains myth or science fiction, rather than a scientific theory.
Now we shall show…
THERE WILL NEVER BE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Expected fossil sequence
According to evolution theory, species should appear in the fossil record roughly in the order in which they evolved. The oldest forms should appear in the lowest rock strata and the most recent forms should appear in the highest layers.
We have already mentioned the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record. This shows that there is insufficient evidence for a scientific theory of evolution, without incontrovertibly disproving the theory. The lack of evidence that evolution did take place does not prove that evolution did not occur; perhaps evolutionists may find a plausible explanation for the lack of fossil intermediates.
Now we shall give fossil evidence which directly contradicts the theory of evolution of species. Wrong-order fossil sequences and fossil sequences missing without a trace are common geological features which are common all over the world, and cannot be accommodated within any theory of evolution of species.
FOSSILS IN THE WRONG ORDER
“Wrong order” fossil sequences completely contradict the theory of biological evolution.
Actual Fossil Sequences
There are hundreds of examples all over the world of fossils appearing in the wrong order. Supposed “ancestors” appear in rocks which are higher up than their supposed “descendants”.
Generally, geologists date rocks by the fossils they contain. They accept rocks containing fossils of “more evolved” organisms as more recent than those containing fossils of “less evolved” organisms.
Now, one expects to find younger rocks of recent formation on top of older rocks. Therefore, the evolutionist is baffled when formations with fossils of “recently evolved” organisms lie below strata containing fossils of “more ancient” organisms. According to evolution theory, they are in the wrong order, and unless a good explanation can be found, they show that the fossil sequence is due, not to evolutionary development, but to some other cause.
Evolutionists’ Attempted Explanation:
“The oldest layers slid over the newer layers”.
In many cases, the junctions between layers show no signs that the layers have moved.
In instances where there genuinely has been movement of one layer over another, the junction between the two strata consists of a layer of fractured and ground rock. In many of the cases where strata are, according to evolutionists, in the “wrong order”, the junction between the layers shows no sign at all of movement or disturbance. For example, a professional geologist has observed that most of the formations of this sort in the Alps are identified only by fossils and lack actual physical signs of movement (Billings, 1954, 151). This is so even when the upper, more recent, layer is several kilometres thick. How could such a huge mass of rock slide into place without causing any physical disturbance? Evidently, the evolutionists’ attempted explanation for “wrong-order” fossils is false.
There are thousands of square miles of formations all over the world in which the order of the layers contradicts the theory of evolution.
The map (map, left) shows some of the formations in America. There are also many such formations in Europe: two in Scotland, many in the Alps and three long formations in Sweden. There are many more in North Africa, Asia Minor and the Himalayas. To say that these “wrong-order” formations are due to the movement of ancient layers of rock on top of younger strata is an act of desperate faith, for the rock layers involved may be several kilometres thick and many square miles wide in area. There is generally no physical evidence to support such a hypothesis, and no explanation for the gigantic forces which would be necessary to move such vast expanses of rock.
“Wrong-order” fossil sequences are real and extensive geological features that evolutionists cannot explain. It is to their discredit that they ignore them.
“Wrong-order” fossil sequences clearly contradict the theory of evolution of species. It is quite illogical to maintain a belief in evolution in the face of this directly contradictory evidence from the fossil record”
The inexplicable absence of rock strata representing millions of years of “evolutionary time” further proves the invalidity of the evolutionary world-view. For example, in the Heart Mountains, U.S.A., strata containing fossils supposedly 50 million years old rest directly on strata which are about 500 million years old according to evolutionary reckoning. What happened to the intervening layers? If they had been eroded away, the junction between the remaining layers would be very uneven. Actually, the evenness of the junction is clearly visible for several miles. W. Pierce, the geologist describing the feature, affirms that erosion cannot be responsible. Furthermore, the only alternative explanation, namely that gigantic layers of rock slid down a three degree slope into their present place is “fantastic, if not impossible” (1957, 603).
A standard geology textbook informs us that layers “missing without trace” are common geological features, and that it is the fossils in the strata which provide “the only indicators of time value”. In other words, it is evolutionary preconceptions, rather than the physical evidence, that convinces geologists that any layers are missing at all. The “missing strata” may represent 600-1,000 million years of “evolutionary time”, or only a few million years. In any case, the physical appearance is the same (Twevenhofel, 1950, 562).
FOSSIL SEQUENCES MISSING WITHOUT TRACE
The insoluble problem of the missing layers only appears when geologists use evolutionistic doctrine as the basis for dating fossils. The geological formations prove that, although evolutionists suppose the fossil fauna in the adjacent layers to be separated by millions of years of “evolutionary time”, factually there was no separation in real time. Therefore, the evolutionary time scale is completely false.
The doctrine of biological evolution has never been proven, or even stated scientifically. To accept it means that one must reject the physical evidence of geological features all over the world. For a scientist, however, physical evidence is primary, and doctrinal conviction secondary. A serious scientist must therefore reject the concept of biological evolution and accept that the fossil sequence is due to some other cause.
Fossil sequences missing without trace show that the theory of evolution of species is fundamentally illogical and that the fossil sequence was formed by some other process.
EVOLUTION – A NEW DIMENSION IN IMPROBABILITY
Suppose you blindfolded yourself, fired a laser completely at random and hit the tip of a particular hair from 1,000,000 kilometres with one shot. The odds against this happening are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. It is a fantastically improbable event, yet evolution theory requires us to accept events which are far more improbable as part of a so-called scientific explanation.
Inconceivably Improbable Protein Structures
All proteins are made up of different combinations of the same 20 amino acids. If one combines three amino acids, the number of different chains is 20(to the power of)3 = 8000. If one combines five amino acids, the number of different chains is 20(to the power of)5 = 3, 200, 000 and so on. With even a relatively short chain of amino acids, the number of possible combinations is literally countless (Salisbury, 1971, 335).
There are countless possible protein structures, mostly biologically useless, for proteins must have very specific structures to be biologically effective. The probability that particular proteins with such highly specific structures would appear by chance in any “soup” of randomly formed molecules is extremely small. For example, the odds against the spontaneous appearance of a particular protein molecule with a particular essential sequence of 200 amino acids are: 1,000 ,000, 000, 000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000 ,000,000 ,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0, 000 ,000,0 00,000,000,0 00,000,000,0 00,000,000,0 00,000,000 ,000,000,000 ,000,000 ,00 0,0 00,000,000,00 0,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000 ,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.
That is as improbable as a blindfolded marksman hitting the tip of a hair 9 or 10 times in succession from 1,000,000 kilometres.
Even more inconceivably improbable enzyme systems
The spontaneous appearance of a single specific protein is inconceivably improbable, yet every living organism requires an integrated system of at least 200 different proteins in order to survive.
The odds against the spontaneous appearance of an enzyme system capable of sustaining even the simplest form of life are 1 with 40,000 zeros to 1 (Hoyle, 1983).
This is as improbable as a blindfolded marksman hitting the tip of a particular hair 1,500 times with successive random shots from 1,000,000 kilometres.
Evolutionists say, “It might still happen”. Nevertheless, such inconceivably improbable events cannot be part of a scientific explanation.
“These arguments based on probability are false. We don’t believe that complex systems of enzymes appeared suddenly. They evolved gradually from simpler systems”.
But Commonsense Tells Us:
Of all the countless possible molecules, somehow or other exactly the right ones must appear together in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time, if a working cell is to come together.
This cannot happen suddenly, and it is equally unlikely to happen by a series of more gradual stages.
A heavy weight is no more likely to jump up a flight of steps one by one than it is to jump spontaneously from the bottom to the top in one inexplicable movement. Similarly, inconceivably improbable systems are no more likely to appear in stages than they are in one inexplicable process.
Evolutionists Also Object:
“Admittedly it is inconceivably improbable that specific enzyme systems could appear by chance, but there must have been special conditions that made this possible”.
But Commonsense Tells Us:
Suppose that a particular set of conditions will produce a specific protein molecule. Since there is an inconceivable number of different protein molecules, there must be an inconceivable number of different sets of conditions to produce the respective protein molecules.
The probability that of all possible conditions, the particular conditions will occur to produce a specific protein in any particular time and place is inconceivably small, and can play no part in a scientific explanation of the appearance of biological compounds.
The probability that complex systems of specific enzymes will appear spontaneously is infinitesimal. One may have faith in such infinitesimal probabilities, but they cannot form part of a scientific explanation.
Laws of Matter, Laws of Life
We have briefly presented some evidence indicating that evolutionists will never succeed in explaining how the laws of physics and chemistry alone can produce living organisms. The real reason that they will never do so is that the concept of biological evolution is fundamentally illogical. Other laws operate in living organisms, besides the laws of physics and chemistry. Hence, the laws of physics and chemistry alone cannot cause a transition between two types of living organism.
Material scientists often compare organisms to machines. It is an interesting comparison, for the natural, physical laws alone cannot produce machines. We shall put forward four main lines of argument showing that the natural, physical laws alone cannot produce organisms. Hence, they cannot cause evolutionary transitions between organisms. Let us compare machines and organisms with respect to:
4. Energy Supply
Machines are generally made of materials such as steel and plastic, which are manufactured artificially. Materials such as rock and clay, which are formed by the natural physical laws alone, are rarely suitable for use in machines.
The action of the unaided physical laws on naturally occurring substances will not produce artificial materials such as steel and plastic. That is why we have to manufacture these artificial materials instead of collecting them from the environment. Their manufacture requires very carefully controlled conditions, and ingredients which would not normally be found next to each other. Therefore these substances must be manufactured by living organisms. Wood is suitable for certain machines, but wood is also manufactured by living organisms.
“Life is a revolt against the statistical laws of physics. Death means that the revolt subsided and statistical laws resumed their sway.”
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Biochemist and Nobel Laureate (1972, 2)
Almost all vegetable and animal matter decays when it is separated from the living organism of which it is a part. This means that the chemicals in living tissue are actually unstable, but that special effects or forces preserve organic matter while it is part of a living organism.
This explains why wood, coal and oil are effective as fuels. Living organisms produce these high-energy, relatively unstable substances which, under the right conditions, revert to more stable products such as oxides of carbon and hydrogen. As they change to compounds containing less chemical energy, they release the stored energy as heat and light.
It is illogical to say that natural physical laws are responsible for the appearance of living tissue when everyday experience clearly shows that the opposite is true.
“An adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws – physical, physico-chemical and biological”.
Murray Eden, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A. (1967)
Natural physical laws alone cannot produce systems of enzymes, for they have inconceivably improbable structures. Other laws must also be responsible.
Physics and chemistry alone cannot explain the composition of the materials in organisms.
Just as natural, physical laws alone cannot be responsible for the composition of machines, so they cannot be responsible for the composition of organisms either.
Machines have artificial forms which do not occur naturally. That is why they have to be manufactured. Components such as gears, screws, transistors and so on do not correspond to any forms that occur naturally. Even if we make a collection of components, it takes deliberate activity to assemble them into a working machine.
Imagine what would be involved for even the simplest machine – a wheel barrow, for example – to come together by chance in a world without life. The form of a machine depends on the desire of an intelligent, conscious being, and not just on the natural, physical laws.
Charles Darwin admitted:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, slight successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”
There is good reason for Darwin’s misgivings.
Let us consider the supposed evolution of a complex organ which consists of an intricate arrangement of components, none of which could function without all the others. Such an arrangement could not appear by gradual stages because the intermediate forms would be biologically non-functional. The process of natural selection would eliminate any animal equipped with such non-functional intermediate structures.
Conversely, there is no rational explanation for the sudden appearance of a functional, complex organ. It would simply be too improbable. Therefore the existence of such complex organs disproves the theory of biological evolution.
Biological forms that refute evolution
THE JOINTS IN A VERTEBRATE’S SKELETON
An animal with a jointed skeleton will survive only if the joints work properly. There are no useful intermediate stages between a skeleton with no joint and skeleton with functional joints. Gradual evolution is not possible in this case. Here we have an example of a biological form which could not possibly have evolved by “numerous successive slight modifications”. Therefore, as Darwin feared, the theory of gradual evolution absolutely breaks down.
THE HUMAN EYE
“To this day the eye makes me shudder”
Charles Darwin (1860)
“We fully appreciate Darwin’s fears… We know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the eye of the vertebrate”.
Pierre Grasse, French evolutionist (1977)
STINGING CELL OF A JELLYFISH
Jellyfish and corals have elaborate stinging cells, each of which contains a long coiled tube with poisoned barbs on its inner surface. The pressure within the cell is greater than that outside. When the prey touches the cell, the tube flies out under pressure, turning inside out to expose the poisoned barbs. Since this elaborate mechanism incorporates many interdependent components, it cannot have evolved gradually.
There are many biological forms that could not possibly have evolved by “numerous successive slight modifications” because the intermediate forms would not be functional.
In 1944, an eminent geneticist named Richard Goldschmidt challenged conventional evolutionists by putting forward a list of biological features which could not evolved through gradual stages. The list included the venom apparatus of snakes; the stinging cells of jellyfish; the joints in the skeleton of animals with backbones; the joints in the outer skeleton of insects and crabs; fur in mammals; feathers in birds, and several others (1944). To this day, no one has satisfactorily explained the appearance of these features. There are many more examples of elaborate arrangements in the world of life which could not have appeared by gradual evolution.
The unaided laws of physics and chemistry cannot cause the appearance of biological form. Other laws must be effective. Since the form of a machine is due to the activity of an intelligent manufacturer, the appearance of physically inexplicable biological form could also be due to some superior intelligence.
Natural physical laws alone cannot produce biological form. Other laws must be responsible. These laws may depend on conscious intelligence.
Machines perform functions which would not occur under the influence of the natural, physical laws alone.
The physically unexpected tasks that machines perform include…
Lifting heavy weights into the air (e.g. crane)
Producing stores of energy for future use (e.g. windmill)
Producing other artificial forms (e.g. car assembly machines)
According to the laws of thermodynamics, which govern all physical events, one does not expect heavy weights to rise into the air by themselves; nor does one expect energy to become concentrated in one place, rather than becoming more widely distributed; nor does not expect to see physical systems spontaneously producing physically inexplicable forms.
Yet machines perform all of these things, and many other functions which one does not expect of systems governed by the natural, physical laws alone. We take it for granted that machines and mechanical devices do all sorts of extraordinary things that one does not expect to happen spontaneously. Obviously, some other laws are in operation besides the natural physical laws.
Like machines, living organisms also act in a way that would not be possible for dead matter under the influence of natural, physical laws alone.
You don’t expect dead bodies to…
Lift heavy weights in the air (e.g. a weightlifter)
Produce stores of energy for future use (e.g. someone winding up a clock)
Or to produce artificial forms (e.g. a potter)
Many of the extraordinary functions that machines can perform are also possible for organisms. Therefore, as in the case of machines, the function of organisms must be due to some influence besides the natural, physical laws. This is particularly evident in the case of human beings, for human beings construct machines which perform functions that one does not expect of systems governed by the natural, physical laws alone. It is clear, then, that human beings operate to some extent outside the realm of natural physical laws.
The functions of living organisms are governed by laws, but not just the natural physical laws. Other laws must also operate.
Machines do not work unless they have access to an artificial energy source such as petrol, electricity etc. Generally, this energy is supplied by an artificial arrangement.
Although machines are subject to the natural, physical laws, they perform functions which would not occur in systems governed by the natural, physical laws alone. This is possible because the function of a machine depends on a supply of energy which the natural, physical laws alone could not provide. For example, unless there is some artificial arrangement by an intelligent being, a car will not go to a petrol pump to receive petrol, nor will an electric motor connect itself to a power supply. The person responsible may provide the energy directly, or may make an arrangement so that the supply of energy takes place “automatically”. In any case, an intelligent person must act purposefully before a machine can function.
The supply of energy to animals also does not take place spontaneously, by the unaided action of the natural physical laws.
If our feeding took place strictly according to the natural laws, we would have no choice over what we eat. It would be impossible to diet, to fast or to go on hunger strike.
To some extent material scientists can explain our activities in terms of biochemistry which follows the natural, physical laws. Nonetheless, the biochemical functions are dependent on an energy supply, and in order to get the energy we have to perform some physically inexplicable actions.
Although organisms act to some extent in accordance with physical laws, to do so they need an artificial source of energy which physical laws alone cannot provide.
LAWS OF MATTER, LAWS OF LIFE
The manufacturer of a machine arranges the components in such a way that they move together and perform functions that would not otherwise be possible. The machine-maker has introduced new causal relationships between the parts of the machine, relationships which did not previously exist. Introducing these new causal relationships is equivalent to introducing a set of new laws governing the actions and reactions within the machine.
One may object that the action of a machine involves no new laws, because the parts of a machine move exactly in accordance with the natural, physical laws. This is true, but it is not the complete truth. A machine only works, and its parts only have their functional relationship, when there is an artificial supply of energy. Without an artificial supply of energy, the machine does not work, and the relationship between the parts are therefore not effective. According to the natural, physical laws alone, the machine would not work and the functional relationships between its parts would not be effective.
It is true to say, then, that a machine is an entity in which relationships exist which do not exist elsewhere, and in which laws operate which do not operate elsewhere. The machine-maker has factually introduced new, extra-ordinary laws.
Machines cannot evolved under the influence of natural, physical laws alone because each machine represents a unique system of extra-ordinary laws.
To change on machine into another means to change one unique set of extra-ordinary relationships and laws into another unique set of extra-ordinary relationships and laws. This cannot happen under the influence of the natural, physical laws alone. How could the ordinary, physical laws change one set of extraordinary laws and relationships into another set of extraordinary laws and relationships? There is no logical reason to expect it to happen. It requires intelligence to change one type of machine into another.
One machine cannot evolve into another through the action of natural physical laws alone.
LAWS OF MATTER, LAWS OF LIFE
Just as every machine is a unique arrangement to transcend the natural, physical laws, so every organism is also a special arrangement to transcend the natural, physical laws.
We have already shown that the natural, physical laws will not cause one machine to evolve into another. The same logic shows that the natural, physical laws will also not cause one organism to evolve into another.
Every organism has four main characteristics which one does not expect in systems governed by the natural, physical laws alone, namely:
1. Physically inexplicable composition
2. Physically inexplicable form
3. Extraordinary functions
4. Like machines, organisms perform their remarkable functions by virtue of an energy supply which is also to some extent physically inexplicable.
As in a machine, the parts of an organism, such as the heart blood, nerves, muscles etc., have functional relationships with each other which only apply within the living organism, or in conditions which are set up artificially to resemble the conditions in a living organism. These relationships are effective only under conditions which one does not expect to find where the natural, physical laws alone are active.
Like a machine, then, every organism is a system in which a unique set of extra-ordinary functional relationships is effective, and in which a unique set of extra-ordinary laws operate. Every specific organism represents a specific and unique system of extra-ordinary laws and relationships.
Organisms cannot evolve under the influence of natural, physical laws alone because, each organism, like a machine, represents a unique system of extra-ordinary laws.
To change one machine into another means to change one unique set of extra-ordinary laws and relationships into another unique set of extra-ordinary laws and relationships. Similarly, to change one organism into another would also mean to change one unique set of extra-ordinary laws and relationships into another unique set of extra-ordinary laws and relationships.
How could the ordinary, physical laws change one set of extraordinary laws into another set of extraordinary laws? There is no logical reason to expect this to happen. If consistent relationships appear which one cannot explain in terms of the natural, physical laws, the simplest explanation is that an intelligent agent is responsible.
One organism cannot evolve into another through the action of natural physical laws alone.
The concept of evolution of species is not only unscientific. When we understand what we mean by the word “species”, we see that the idea of one species evolving into another through the unaided physical laws is irrational.
The concept of biological evolution implies that the natural, physical laws are capable of changing one biological species into another. One can only accept this concept by an act of unquestioning faith, for different species incorporate different functions and relationships which are at least partially outside the realm of the natural, physical laws. Evolutionists cannot and will not be able to explain how the natural, physical laws could be responsible for the most vital functions of an organism or for the functional relationships of its components. Hence they cannot and will not be able to explain how the natural, physical laws alone could effect a transition between two species.
It is a tragic fact that the patterns of thought in Western society have been shaped by the “theory” of biological evolution, which is neither a scientific fact, nor even a scientific theory. It is a fundamentally absurd, nonsensical belief.
HIGHER INTELLIGENCE AND THE LAWS OF LIFE
We have already seen that the unaided natural, physical laws cannot produce machines, for the form and composition of machines depend on the actions of a conscious, intelligent manufacturer. By analogy, the special laws that govern the appearance and maintenance of body-machines may also depend on conscious intelligence.
Everything that we see is caused either by the natural, physical laws, or else by some independent conscious agent. We don’t know of anything else that can cause events. Since there is no physical explanation for many of the characteristics of living systems, it is logical to suppose that conscious intelligence may also be the basis of the laws of life.
Intelligent Observer, Intelligent Cause
Suppose we observe an event for which there is no possible physical explanation. If it is not a hallucination and it did not happen by chance, then it must have been caused by an intelligent agent. Now suppose that such an event cannot be fully described without great intelligence. Then the intelligence required to cause the event was very great; at least as great as that required to understand it.
Intelligence and the Complexity of Living Systems
There is no physical explanation for the complexity of living systems.
It requires great intelligence to understand the complexity of living systems.
Therefore it requires something that acts like intelligence to produce and maintain complex living systems.
Self-Energy, the Basis of Existence
The concept of biological evolution through natural, physical laws alone is illogical because the methodology which gave rise to it is itself inconsistent. Evolutionists have attempted to explain the origin and development of life without first defining what life actually is. More fundamentally, science fully depends on the prior existence of consciousness, and therefore of life itself. A scientist cannot perform scientific activity unless he is alive and conscious. Therefore, scientific knowledge must necessarily assume the prior existence of consciousness and of life. Consciousness, not matter, is the real basis of scientific explanation.
THE CONSCIOUS DRIVER OF THE BODY’S LIFELESS HULL
The Changing Body and the Constant Self
Is there anything in an organism resembling a driver or operator? Yes, we may regard ourselves as the drivers of our bodies. We experience ourselves as individuals and we think of others as individuals.
The body is always changing, but the conscious individual within the body always remains the same conscious individual. An individual’s outer qualities change with time, but the factual existence of the conscious individual does not change. Time changes what we are, but time does not change the fact that we are.
The Body and the Self
How can we explain the fact that, although our body is constantly changing, we have a sense of ourselves as a continually existing, individual conscious being? Nobel Laureate John Eccles discusses the problem in ‘Facing Reality’:
“You will recognise that, because of memory, each of us links his life together into some kind of continuity of inner experience, which is what we mean when we talk of a self or a person. This involves a recognition of unity and identity through all past vicissitudes” (1970, 45).
The eminent British neuro-physiologist C.S. Sherrington has written very vividly about the immediacy of the experience of the self:
“Do we not each think of our ‘I’ as a ‘cause’ within the body? ‘Within’ inasmuch as it is at the core of the spatial world, which our perception seems to look at from our body. The body seems a zone immediately about that central core. This ‘I’ belongs more immediately to our awareness than does even the spatial world about us, for it is directly experienced. It is the self” (1940)
Erwin Schrodinger received a Nobel prize for his pioneer work in quantum physics. He has also pointed out the distinction between on the one hand the self and on the other hand our world of experiences, including our own bodies:
“So, in brief, we do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it, we are outside it. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it” (1954, 94).
The Essential “I”
There is an essential difference between the body and the self. I can remember when “I” was five, “I” was ten, “I” was fifteen. The bodies that I had at those times have completely disappeared and yet “I” remain, remembering quite vividly the experiences I had previously. If I find money that I saved up years ago, I automatically assume that it is mine because “I” saved it. At different times “I” feel happy, sad, hungry, thirsty, tired, enthusiastic and so on.
My outward qualities change with time and circumstances, but “I” am not the qualities; “I” am the entity who possesses the qualities, whom the qualities qualify, and who is capable of observing the qualities in a more or less detached way. My “I-ness”, my factual existence as a conscious individual, as a unique source of manifest conscious activity, is a constant fact. The fact of my existence does not change throughout my lifetime. Our existence as conscious individuals is non-temporal, although our states of embodiment and consciousness vary with time.
If we are to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge, we must realise that we are not our material bodies; we are the conscious living entities within these material bodies, and we are fundamentally distinct from them
The External Functions of Self-Energy
Our conscious activities indicate the presence of a form of energy which is not manifest in inert systems of dead matter. We may call this energy the life force or “self energy”.
So long as self-energy is within the body, the body exhibits six phases of change which biologists cannot explain in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. These six changes are: 1) conception, 2) growth, 3) maintenance, 4) reproduction, 5) aging and 6) death.
If we want to know what are the special characteristics of self-energy that make it different from material energy, we simply have to think of the specific qualities that we have as conscious, living beings.
We interact with the world in three special ways:
1) Perception: we perceive the characteristics of the world of matter through the senses
2) Mental ability – thinking, feeling and desiring: we think about the different qualities of the world; we have feelings in relation to our perceptions and thoughts; and we desire to perform different activities.
3) Purposeful activity: we act through the hands, legs, power of speech etc. in order to achieve our desired goals.
If material scientists are to give a physical explanation for the properties of living systems, they must be able to explain how matter could develop the capacities for perception, mental ability and purposeful activity. There is no prospect of such an explanation.
The Internal Qualities of Self-Energy
Besides interacting with the world around us, we also have three inner dimensions of existence:
Non-temporal, Individual Self-Existence
Our self-existence is manifest both internally and externally. Internally, we experience our sense of “I-ness” persisting through time. Externally, every person acts as an individual, specific focus of self-energy. We think of ourselves and others as being individual selves, and we generally think it right, proper and natural to protect the self-existence of ourselves and others. Each individual person has his or her own individual mode of perception and of mental and physical activity.
We have factual information about the world around us, and we also have the experiential knowledge of, for example, standing and walking, riding a bicycle or skating; typing a letter and using a computer. Not only do we have knowledge and experience, but we like to increase them. We also like to think of ourselves as being knowledgeable and experienced.
We could not tolerate being alive without some degree of satisfaction. Satisfaction expands into happiness, bliss and ecstacy. We are always trying to increase our own happiness. On the whole, we also respect others’ happiness, and if possible we act so that they can also become happier.
These three internal qualities of self-energy are the basis of our daily existence. If we examine our activities, we find that their aim is generally to protect and improve the quality of our individual self-existence, our knowing awareness and our satisfaction. These internal qualities are evident, not only in human beings, but also in animals, although in a more covered way. It is now apparent that not only human beings, but also mammals and birds have psychological processes. A prominent biologist has pointed out that even bony fishes exhibit sense reactions: the capacity for learning, abstracting and long term retaining; and feelings and moods (for example, experimental neurosis). He concludes:
“We have no reason to deny sensations, mental images, feelings and the ability of psychic associations, although these phenomena – except the imme diate sensations – may be rather simple” (Rensch, 1967, 26)
In other words, the same self-energy seems to activate the whole of the animal kingdom, (and maybe the plant kingdom too, although its internal qualities are more difficult to detect in plants).
If material scientists are to give a physical explanation of the properties of living systems, they must explain how matter could acquire an intuitive sense of non-temporal, individual self-existence; knowing awareness; and satisfaction. It seems hardly likely that they will do so. Self-energy is a form of energy which is quite distinct from material energy.
Relationships, The Basis Of Self-Existence
Relationship is the basis of the three inner qualities of self-existence. We understand and experience our individual identity in terms of relationship with the world around us. Relationship is the basis on which we expand our knowledge and awareness, for we understand something new by examining its relationship with what we already know. Similarly, relationship is the principle underlying our satisfaction, for we find satisfaction and happiness in relationship with people, objects and ideas.
If material scientists are to give a physical explanation of the properties of living systems, they must explain how matter could develop the ability to perceive and respond to relationships.
Defining Self Energy
Self-energy is the basis of the six physically inexplicable phases of bodily change, namely conception, growth, maintainance, reproduction, aging and death.
Self-energy is also the basis of perception; thinking, feeling and desiring; and purposeful activity.
Self-energy has the internal qualities of individual self-existence, knowing awareness and satisfaction.
Actions and reactions of self-energy take place on the basis of sentient response to relationship.
Body, Mind and Self
Modern physics has shown that energy exists in minute individual packets called “quanta”. The above observations suggest that self-energy also exists in individual quanta, which we experience as the essential self that perceives; thinks, feels and desires; and operates the body. In their book The Self and Its Brain, Nobel Laureate John Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper have suggested that the self exists separately from the body, and interacts with it through the nervous system (1977).
The question of the interaction of the self with the body and mind is obviously extremely complex. We suggest the following scenario as a basis for further discussion and research:
1) Just as a manufacturer designs, produces and maintains a vehicle, so something which acts like cosmic intelligence designs, produces and maintains the gross physical body and the subtle mind and senses of the living organism. Thus, the complex laws by which the gross mind and subtle body operate depend on conscious intelligence.
2) In all species of life, the essential self is distinct from the vehicle it operates. Just as a manufacturer designs a large and powerful machine so that the operator can produce extensive results by a relatively insignificant manipulation of the controls, so by higher arrangement the essential self can control the mechanism of the body and mind by a process which is extremely subtle.
3) When organisms operate more or less automatically, in an instinctive way, this means that the essential self is taking a rather passive role. In animals with more advanced consciousness, the self can control the body and mind to produce more complex effects. In the human form of life, the self can override the instinctive programming enough to study its own mind through introspection, and even to perceive its own transcendental nature as a direct experience.
Consciousness and the Scientist
Material science cannot explain the origin and nature of consciousness because science already completely depends on consciousness.
Material scientists hope to make a complete description of all types of activities, and then explain all activity in terms of natural, physical law. This is impossible because one cannot describe the whole of human activity in terms of scientific activity. Rather, scientific activity is but a small part of the whole of human activity, and neglects a vast field of personal, interpersonal, cultural, aesthetic and spiritual experience.
Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrodinger has pointed out that science succeeds by refusing to acknowledge the existence of what is actually most essential – our personal, subjective experience:
“The scientist subconsciously, almost inadvertently, simplifies his problem of understanding Nature by disregarding or cutting out of the picture to be constructed, himself, his own personality, the subject of cognisance.
“Inadvertently the thinker steps back into the role of an external observer. This fac
Last edited by Lebowsk1 on Fri 21 Jan, 2005; edited 6 times in total