Print this article
Email this article
|
|
5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is false—Conclusion
|
|
SERIES—Conclusion
In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle complained in Nature magazine:
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is [a number] big enough to bury Darwin and the whole
theory of evolution.
There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must
therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence..."
In 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem
to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question..."
Old school NASA Experts actually had it right. Robert Jastrow, founder / director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA wrote:
"According to [Evolution] every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one
parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life?
There is none."
The "religion" of Chemical Evolution?
By refusing to acknowledge God, evolutionists have unwittingly created their own religion.
The religion of Chemical Evolution.
In their eagerness to remove God and to rely on distant and suspicious circumstantial evidence—Chemical Evolutionists have created a
religion that requires far more faith than to simply accept the facts and acknowledge the Creator.
Indeed, the "Religion of Chemical Evolution" requires:
- Faith (to convince oneself the impossible happened),
- Doctrines (e.g., teachings about aliens and the like),
- Preachers (evolutionists, educators, and news media),
- Bibles (college textbooks and numerous books on evolution),
- Churches (school classrooms across the world where millions of students are required to listen to and accept evolutionary theories),
- "gods" (some believe advanced aliens are trying to communicate with us, and that alien life seeded earth with nucleotides), and finally,
- Miracles (in believing the natural laws of Thermodynamics and mathematics can be suspended).
Please recall again the words of Dr. Hoyle in New Scientist:
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of...biopolymers on
which life depends could [not] have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth...biologists having been assured [this is
possible] by others...
"The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away
in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology).
This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of
biblical miracles...
"It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of
thermodynamics."
In pursuit of the Chemical Evolution religion, some experts have ventured so far away from the scientific method (which suggests
only actual fact and hard evidence should be utilized in science) that they have essentially reverted to the days of the Greeks
and Romans, primitive scientists who embraced the notions of both Spontaneous Generation and "gods" from other realms.
Conclusion
Evolutionists learned long ago that as long as they're permitted to express their theories in broad generalities, as long as
no one questions the logic behind their speculations, then "non-experts" like the rest of us will most likely continue to believe
everything we see on TV or read in the paper.
But some scholars are apparently seeing the light.
In his 1994 book, The Physics of Immortality, Physicist Frank Tipler (who co-authored with John D. Barrow the massive
1986 volume, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) wrote the following amazing words:
"Physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God...When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I
was a convinced atheist.
I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of
Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we
now understand them.
I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Physicist George Greenstein wrote:
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be
involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a
Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
In 1992, Arno Penzias, who in 1978 shared the Nobel Prize in physics with Robert W. Wilson for their discovery of "background
radiation" residual from the Big Bang declared:
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe...with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required
to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
And Evolutionist Michael Denton shocked his peers when he admitted:
"...my initial intention was not specifically to develop an argument for [proving a Creator]; however, as I researched more deeply
into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were
fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident support for [God]...
"Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the book had become in effect an essay in natural theology...
"Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis...there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has
been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with
life and mankind as its purpose and goal."
5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is False:
Introduction
REASON #1—That "simple little organism" isn't so simple after all
REASON #2—Nature can't produce complex organic molecules
REASON #3—'Irreducible complexity' insurmountable problem
REASON #4—Thermodynamics is a deathblow to evolution
REASON #5—Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible
Additional recommended reading:
Defending Christianity
Numerous bloopers have yet to teach scientists "lessons"
How the 'Law of Disorder' disproves evolution
|
|
|
|
|
