Why They Don't Believe in Evolution

[Low-Mao 0]

Chance is the engine most evolutionists believe drives the evolutionary process. Naturalism essentially teaches that over time and out of sheer chaos, matter evolved into everything we see today by pure chance. And this all happened without any particular design. Given enough time and enough random events, the evolutionist says, anything is possible. And the evolution of our world with all its intricate ecosystems and complex organisms is therefore simply the in–advertent result of a very large number of indiscriminate but extremely fortuitous accidents of nature. Everything is the way it is simply by the luck of the draw. And thus chance itself has been elevated to the role of creator.

John Ankerberg and John Weldon point out that matter, time, and chance constitute the evolutionists’ holy trinity. Indeed, these three things are all that is eternal and omnipotent in the evolutionary scheme: matter, time, and chance. Ankerberg and Weldon quote Jacques Monod, 1965 Nobel Prize–winner for his work in biochemistry. In his book Chance and Necessity, Monod wrote, “Man is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged by chance… Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.”

But a moment’s reflection will reveal that chance simply cannot be the cause of anything (much less the cause of everything). Chance is not a force. The only legitimate sense of the word chance has to do with mathematical probability. If you flip a coin again and again, quotients of mathematical probability suggest that it will land tails up about fifty times out of a hundred. Thus we say that when you flip a coin, there’s a fifty–fifty “chance” it will come up tails.

But “chance” is not a force that can actually flip the coin. Chance is not an intellect that designs the pattern of mathematical probabilities. Chance determines nothing. Mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen.

Yet in naturalistic and evolutionary parlance, “chance” becomes something that determines what happens in the absence of any other cause or design. Consider Jacques Monod’s remark again: “Chance …s at the source of every innovation, of all creation.” In effect, naturalists have imputed to chance the ability to cause and determine what occurs. And that is an irrational concept.

There are no uncaused events. Every effect is determined by some cause. Even the flip of a coin simply cannot occur without a definite cause. And common sense tells us that whether the coin comes up heads or tails is also determined by something. A number of factors (including the precise amount of force with which the coin is flipped and the distance it must fall before hitting the ground) determine the number of revolutions and bounces it makes before landing on one side or the other. Although the forces that determine the flip of a coin may be impossible for us to control precisely, those forces, not “chance,” determine whether we get heads or tails. What may appear totally random and undetermined to us is nonetheless definitively determined by something. It is not caused by mere chance, because chance simply does not exist as a force or a cause. Chance is nothing.

Fortune was a goddess in the Greek pantheon. Evolutionists have enshrined chance in a similar way. They have taken the myth of chance and made it responsible for all that happens. Chance has been transformed into a force of causal power, so that nothing is the cause of everything. What could be more irrational than that? It turns all of reality into sheer chaos. It therefore makes everything irrational and incoherent.

The entire concept is so fraught with problems from a rational and philosophical viewpoint that one hardly knows where to begin. But let’s begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place? The naturalist would have to say either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.

But suppose the naturalist opts to believe that matter is eternal. An obvious question arises: What caused the first event that originally set the evolutionary process in motion? The only answer available to the naturalist is that chance made it happen. It literally came out of nowhere. No one and nothing made it happen. That, too, is clearly irrational and unscientific.

So in order to avoid that dilemma, some naturalists assume an eternal chain of random events that operate on the material universe. They end up with an eternal but constantly changing material universe governed by an endless chain of purely random events—all culminating in magnificent design without a designer, and everything happening without any ultimate cause. At the end of the day, it is still irrational. It eliminates purpose, destiny, and meaning from everything in the universe. And therefore it leaves no ground for anything rational.

In other words, nihilism—a belief that everything is entirely without meaning, without logic, and without reason—is the only philosophy that works with naturalism. The universe itself is incoherent and irrational. Reason has been deposed by pure chance.

And such a view of chance is the polar opposite of reason. Common–sense logic suggests that every watch has a watchmaker. Every building has a builder. Every structure has an architect. Every arrangement has a plan. Every plan has a designer. And every design has a purpose. We see the universe, infinitely more complex than any watch and infinitely greater than any man–made structure, and it is natural to conclude that Someone infinitely powerful and infinitely intelligent made it. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (Romans 1:20).

But naturalists look at the universe, and despite all the intricate marvels it holds, they conclude no one made it. Chance brought it about. It happened by accident. That is not logical. It is absurd.

Abandon logic and you are left with pure nonsense. In many ways the naturalists’ deification of chance is worse than all the various myths of other false religions, because it obliterates all meaning and sense from everything. But it is, once again, pure religion of the most pagan variety, requiring a spiritually fatal leap of faith into an abyss of utter irrationality. It is the age–old religion of fools (Psalm 14:1)—but in modern “scientific” dress.

What could prompt anyone to embrace such a system? Why would someone opt for a world–view that eliminates all that is rational? It boils down to the sheer love of sin. People want to be comfortable in their sin, and there is no way to do that without eliminating God. Get rid of God and you erase all fear of the consequences of sin. So even though sheer irrationality is ultimately the only viable alternative to the God of Scripture, multitudes have opted for irrationality just so they could live guilt–free and shamelessly with their own sin. It is as simple as that.

Either there is a God who created the universe and sovereignly rules His creation, or everything was caused by blind chance. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. If God rules, there’s no room for chance. Make chance the cause of the universe, and you have effectively done away with God.
As a matter of fact, if chance as a determinative force or a cause exists even in the frailest form, God has been dethroned. The sovereignty of God and chance are inherently incompatible. If chance causes or determines anything, God is not truly God.

But again, chance is not a force. Chance cannot make anything happen. Chance is nothing. It simply does not exist. And therefore it has no power to do anything. It cannot be the cause of any effect. It is an imaginary hocus–pocus. It is contrary to every law of science, every principle of logic, and every intuition of sheer common sense. Even the most basic principles of thermodynamics, physics, and biology suggest that chance simply cannot be the determinative force that has brought about the order and interdependence we see in our universe—much less the diversity of life we find on our own planet. Ultimately, chance simply cannot account for the origin of life and intelligence.

One of the oldest principles of rational philosophy is ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance is nothing. Naturalism is rational suicide.

When scientists attribute instrumental power to chance they have left the realm of reason, they have left the domain of science. They have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats. They have turned to fantasy. Insert the idea of chance, and all scientific investigation ultimately becomes chaotic and absurd. That is precisely why evolution does not deserve to be deemed true science; it is nothing more than an irrational religion—the religion of those who want to sin without guilt.

It was estimated that the number of random genetic factors involved in the evolution of a tapeworm from an amoeba would be comparable to placing a monkey in a room with a typewriter and allowing him to strike the keys at random until he accidentally produced a perfectly spelled and perfectly punctuated typescript of Hamlet’s soliloquy. And the odds of getting all the mutations necessary to evolve a starfish from a one–celled creature are comparable to asking a hundred blind people to make ten random moves each with five Rubik’s Cubes, and finding all five cubes perfectly solved at the end of the process. The odds against all earth’s life forms evolving from a single cell are, in a word, impossible.

Nonetheless, the absurdity of naturalism goes largely unchallenged today in universities and colleges. Turn on the Discovery Channel or pick up an issue of National Geographic and you are likely to be exposed to the assumption that chance exists as a force—as if mere chance spontaneously generated everything in the universe.

One Nobel laureate, Harvard professor George Wald, acknowledged the utter absurdity of this. Pondering the vast array of factors both real and hypothetical that would have to arise spontaneously all at once in order for in–animate matter to evolve into even the most primitive one–celled form of life, he wrote, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” Then he added, “Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” How did Wald believe this impossibility came about? He answered: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”10 Given enough time, that which is impossible becomes “virtually certain.” That is sheer double–talk. And it perfectly illustrates the blind faith that underlies naturalistic religion.

There is no viable explanation of the universe without God. So many immense and intricate wonders could not exist without a Designer. There’s only one possible explanation for it all, and that is the creative power of an all–wise God. He created and sustains the universe, and He gives meaning to it. And without Him, there is ultimately no meaning in anything. Without Him, we are left with only the notion that everything emerged from nothing without a cause and without any reason. Without Him, we are stuck with that absurd formula of the evolutionist: Nothing times nobody equals everything.

From "The Battle for the Begining" - Jonh MacArthur

[billvon 2,990]

> Chance is the engine most evolutionists believe drives the evolutionary process.

Nope, that's completely wrong. I'd recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "Dinosaur in a Haystack" to better understand what scientists believe about what drives the evolutionary process.

[jakee 1,489]

That is one of the most intellectually devoid posts I have ever seen on the subject and believe me I've seen a few.

Picking up on one casually used word or phrase and using the literal definition to try and build a case to bring down an entire area of scientific endeavour.... dude, it is beyond juvenile.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Chance is the engine most evolutionists believe drives the evolutionary process. Naturalism essentially teaches that over time and out of sheer chaos, matter evolved into everything we see today by pure chance.

No. Adaptation is not something left the "chance." This is why it is not just "chance" that penguins developed body systems to deal with extrme cold - it so happens that adapting to cold let penguins do things like survive the Antarctic.

Personally, I think that "Intelligent Design" would mean that things stop evolving. There would be no erosion. No continental drift. There would be no novae. There would be evolution of species for I recall no part of the Bible where God said, "Oops. I made a mistake. Let's make it better."

I simply have a hard time believing that God made a flawed product when he created the Universe. This would be the rationale of intelligent design - things change because of the desre for improvement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Low-Mao 0]

This post is more related to evolution's theories on the the begining of the universe.

Also, lifeform adaptation is true, proven science where as an organism evolving into a completely different species is not.

But since I was to lazy to write this post myself, I suppose I shouldn't be discussing it with you.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I'll have to print all that out. I just ran out of toilet paper.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

This post is more related to evolution's theories on the the begining of the universe.

I'm confused how does a theory "evolution" have a theory about anything.

[Low-Mao 0]

excuse me.....ist's

[Stumpy 284]

I love it - ruining your credibility on an entire essay with your first sentence.



Some lessons in basic biology may help you.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,990]

>where as an organism evolving into a completely different species is not.

The following species have evolved into new, separate species while we watched:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)
Drosophila paulistorum

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

excuse me.....ist's

HUH?

[Low-Mao 0]

Quote

The following species have evolved into new, separate species while we watched:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)
Drosophila paulistorum

Excellent! I'll be looking forward to reading more on this and the enviornment in which it took place and how true science does not disprove the Bible.

Also, I know it's the same old question but do you know of any literature that gives a scientific explanation on the origin of matter and the force that started the process of evolution? The failure to answer this question seems to be the main reason why everybody can't accept it regardless of how interesting or true it may be in some regard.

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

Excellent! I'll be looking forward to reading more on this and the enviornment in which it took place and how true science does not disprove the Bible.

Again huh? "True Science" seeks to explain. Not to prove or disprove a certain religions precepts are true or not true.


A better question would be why flora and not fauna. In other words why are all of his listed examples plants?

[stayhigh 2]

Dude i just can't believe that you had time to post page full of shit here...
or did you pasted it???

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

This post is more related to evolution's theories on the the begining of the universe.

.

The beginning of the universe is a matter for physics, not biology.


You are out of your depth.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Quote

The following species have evolved into new, separate species while we watched:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)
Drosophila paulistorum

Excellent! I'll be looking forward to reading more on this and the enviornment in which it took place and how true science does not disprove the Bible.

Also, I know it's the same old question but do you know of any literature that gives a scientific explanation on the origin of matter and the force that started the process of evolution? The failure to answer this question seems to be the main reason why everybody can't accept it regardless of how interesting or true it may be in some regard.

To paraphrase a hundred other threads - the fact that we don't know how all this started to any degree of certainty does NOT mean (as some people have said) that the only logical answer is some kind of supreme being (insert your chosen deity figure here). There are plenty of theories, but obviously its very difficult to know with any degree of certainty what happened, this was long before man came along (much more than 6 days).
It also doesn't disprove evolution in any way shape or form no matter how much religious people would like that to be the case.
As billvon has posted, there are plenty of examples of evolution taking place as we speak. Let us know what you think once you have read up on those examples. Would be interested to hear your points of view.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Low-Mao 0]

Quote

"True Science" seeks to explain. Not to prove or disprove a certain religions precepts are true or not true.

I agree and that is why it doesn't disprove the Bible. I slipped that comment in there because as of late I seem to have been bumping heads with an awful lot of people that would like to use "science" strictly to disprove the Bible.

Quote

Dude i just can't believe that you had time to post page full of shit here...
or did you pasted it???

I pasted it.

Quote

The beginning of the universe is a matter for physics, not biology.
You are out of your depth.

I figured this would be addressed at some point and rightly so, but Kallend, would you not agree that the combination of biology and physics are essential in explaining our existence scientifically? In my experience, the majority of evolutionist denied the existence of God and His role in creation and try to use evolution to support their denial and even went as far to say that the universe exists by chance. But that's just my experience with evolutionists. It isn't unusual for these two issues to be combined.

Quote

As billvon has posted, there are plenty of examples of evolution taking place as we speak. Let us know what you think once you have read up on those examples. Would be interested to hear your points of view.

I believe the Bible and science compliment eachother and I believe we could have a very interesting and stimulating discussion once I get reacquinted with modern science and people give much more attention to the Bible and study it verse by verse etymologically in it's historical, cultural, and literal context using hermeneutics.

Best Regards,

Corey....Peace

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

I believe the Bible and science compliment eachother

Americans...

[JackC 0]

Quote

I believe the Bible and science compliment eachother

Sorry to burst your bubble but they don't. Religion is the antithesis of science. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence but its independence from evidence is a source of great pride and joy. Why else would Christians be so critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are cited as role models because faith was enough for them. But not Doubting Thomas, he wanted evidence.

Quote

...once I get reacquinted with modern science...

Are you suggesting that you were once "aquainted"?

Quote

and people give much more attention to the Bible and study it verse by verse etymologically in it's historical, cultural, and literal context using hermeneutics.

Will you put the same effort into studying physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, paleontology, cosmology, astronomy, archaeology...?

It always puzzled me why God, in his infinite wisdom, decided that he would get his autobiography ghost-written by a bunch of semi-literate bronze-age nomads, in the full knowledge that people would have to invent a special technique called hermeneutics, specifically designed for interpreting religious texts, in order to make head or tails of his piss poor prose. It's a schoolboy error.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

But “chance” is not a force that can actually flip the coin. Chance is not an intellect that designs the pattern of mathematical probabilities. Chance determines nothing.

Actually chance determines everything - from whether you are going to ever exist on this planet to whether you wake up alive tomorrow instead of dying of heart attack.

Even my 10 year old said this article is full of bullshit, and pointed exactly where. Is your potential auditory supposed to be the people without any brain activity?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[philh 0]

I think Ill add my voice to the chorus here. Whoever wrote this doesnt have a clue what they are tralking about. Evolution does not work on chance alone. but chance coupled with selection, selection is not random; mutation is. To consider only the chance element and ignore the non random element is either stupid or ignorant.

There are plenty of very plausible theories of abio genesis I reccomend reading the book :

Gen-e-sis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins
by Robert M. Hazen


http://www.amazon.com/Gen-e-sis-Scientific-Quest-Lifes-Origins/dp/0309094321

there is no consesnus yet on how life originated. But quote frankly that is utterly irrelvant. evolution describes how life changes so by definition life has to be there. How life got here is a seperate question. People that dont understand that are usually those that havent got the frist clue about any basic concepts in biology.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I figured this would be addressed at some point and rightly so, but Kallend, would you not agree that the combination of biology and physics are essential in explaining our existence scientifically? In my experience, the majority of evolutionist denied the existence of God and His role in creation and try to use evolution to support their denial and even went as far to say that the universe exists by chance. But that's just my experience with evolutionists. It isn't unusual for these two issues to be combined.

Bwaaahahahahahahahahahah!!!

That's awesome. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with advances in astrophysics and cosmology. The big bang theory did not come about as a result of a biologists saying to a physicist how cool it would be if the whole universe had naturalistic origins as well.

By the way, you say that this is 'your experience with evolutionists.' Excuse me, but how many people do you know who work on researching either evolution or cosmology for you to know what their motives are?

Quote

I believe the Bible and science compliment eachother and I believe we could have a very interesting and stimulating discussion once I get reacquinted with modern science and people give much more attention to the Bible and study it verse by verse etymologically in it's historical, cultural, and literal context using hermeneutics.

I'm sorry dude, but it's painfully obvious that you've never been acquainted with modern science. Hell, you've never even passed it in the street.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

The following species have evolved into new, separate species while we watched:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)
Drosophila paulistorum

Excellent! I'll be looking forward to reading more on this and the enviornment in which it took place and how true science does not disprove the Bible.

Also, I know it's the same old question but do you know of any literature that gives a scientific explanation on the origin of matter and the force that started the process of evolution? The failure to answer this question seems to be the main reason why everybody can't accept it regardless of how interesting or true it may be in some regard.

"This question"? Don't you mean "These two completely unrelated questions"?

Google 'Big Bang' and 'Abiogenesis'.

It's not the failure to answer the questions which is the problem, it is the inability of some people to accept any answer which is not "God".

And by the way, evolution is not even contingent on either of those two things happening naturalistically anyway.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,990]

>Also, I know it's the same old question but do you know of any literature
> that gives a scientific explanation on the origin of matter . . .

Well, matter began a few minutes after the universe began (just after the singularity; the singularity is often referred to as "the big bang.") The first matter was helium and deuterium; the process that created them is referred to as "big bang nucleosynthesis." Later, elements were created by nuclear fusion in the hearts of stars. Elements up to iron were created primarily in main-sequence stars. Heavier elements were created in supernovas.

As a starting point for your own research I'd go with the Wikipedia articles. "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking is also a good resource.

>and the force that started the process of evolution?

No one "force" did that. Evolution began when four elements were in place:

1) Self replicating structures (call it "life" if you like; some do not define self-replication as life though)

2) A means to inherit traits from the parent structure (in us it's our genes)

3) An environment in which natural selection takes place (today it's often "who eats who")

4) A means to introduce infrequent and random heritable changes to the structure (in us it's mutation often caused by natural radiation)

Once you have all that, evolution begins automatically. Indeed, evolution is sort of the definition of what happens when all those factors get together.

There are some additional mechanisms that modern life has that helps evolution proceed more rapidly:

1) Sexual reproduction. This allows a beneficial mutation to spread throughout a population.

2) Diploidy (or having two of each chromosome.) This allows mutations that are both beneficial and harmful to coexist. A good example is sickle cell anemia.

3) Random association. Our mechanism of creation of sex cells (gametes) takes random snippets of each side of each chromosome of varying length. This means that traits that are close to each other on the chromosome are often inherited together; this allows groups of chromosomes that together confer a useful trait to remain together in most offspring.

However, these are not needed for basic evolution.

>The failure to answer this question seems to be the main reason why
>everybody can't accept it regardless of how interesting or true it may be
>in some regard.

I think many people do not accept it because they feel it conflicts with their religion, and is complex. This is akin to not accepting that the earth is not the center of the universe - it certainly _feels_ wrong, and many people centuries ago felt that the Bible made it clear that the earth was the center of the universe (and was created before anything else in the universe was.)

We have since learned differently, of course, and chrisitanity did not collapse. For most people, science does not present a significant threat to their religion.