|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 16 The Debate
- Part 1 Overview The
scientific establishment; meaning the entities which control what is considered
"science," including scientific journals, the television stations,
the magazines, almost all universities, etc. etc.; all claim that the theory of
evolution is a "proven fact of science." Aside from
the fact that the theory of evolution is scientific nonsense, one of the key
things that the scientific establishment wishes to do is suppress the research and claims of the creationists. If the
claims of the creation scientists were known to the general public, and were
placed on an equal basis with the claims of the scientific establishment, the
general public would consider the claim that the theory of evolution is a
"proven fact of science" to be laughable. The data
and theories of creation scientists are far, far superior to the data and
theories of the theory of evolution. But
few people know that fact. If the
truth be known, every major argument of the theory of evolution is based on
false information, assumptions and pure deception. There is no
scientific evidence that a "first living cell" came to exist by a
random series of accidents. There is no
scientific evidence that any segment
of DNA on the planet earth came to exist by random mutations of nucleotides of
DNA. Creation
scientists literally dissect the claims of the scientific establishment and rip
them to shreds. This
chapter and the next chapter will present a non-mathematical discussion of the theory
of evolution versus a hypothetical creation scientist; by telling a story. The story is about a discussion between
yourself, the reader (an evolutionist); and a young man named "Herman,"
the creation scientist. This chapter
and the next chapter will represent one specific way of representing the debate
between "evolution" (i.e. the evolution establishment) and creation
science or creationism and will explain why it is so important to the
scientific establishment to suppress the discoveries of creation scientists. This
chapter and the next chapter are essentially a "big picture" of what
is going on in "science" today.
Many details of what is wrong with the theory of evolution will be given
in later chapters. The Debate To
visualize the debate between the two different camps (evolution versus creation
science), suppose there is a football field and all the contestants in the
evolution debate are on the field. There
is a fence that crosses the football field on the 50 yard line (which divides
the field into two equal parts). You (a high
school student in this case) are standing at one end of the fence, on the
sideline, at the 50 yard line, looking across the fence. On your right side (i.e. the right side of
this fence from your perspective) are all of the people chosen by the
scientific establishment to represent the theory of evolution in the debate. On your
left side (i.e. the left side of the fence from your perspective) is a rag-tag
group of under-funded creation scientists; who you did not even knew existed;
and who are always broke and thus are not dressed in fancy clothes; among whom
is a young man named Herman. Many times
in school you have heard that the creation scientists are “renegades” or
"religious fanatics" who are simply not smart enough to understand
true science. You have been told many
times to ignore them. After looking at
what they are wearing, you tend to agree with what you have heard. Yet, today
you have the choice of listening to the "establishment" (i.e. the
evolutionists on your right side) or the "renegades" (i.e. the
creation scientists on your left side) or both.
This is the first time in your life you have seen a real creation
scientist (i.e. someone who knows the issues in the scientific debate), so what
do you do? How will
you proceed to find the truth (as best as you are capable of honestly
determining as an "open-minded" person): Is evolutionism or creation
science correct based on the scientific evidence currently available? Let us suppose you have no other
options. You cannot leave the field
until you make up your mind. Your Quest Begins Suppose you
decide to start your decision-making journey by first talking with the
establishment evolutionists; because everything you have heard in school is
that evolution has been scientifically proven to be true. So you head to the right side of the fence
and start talking to an evolutionist. Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why evolution occurred by
a series of accidents. He talks about microevolution,
macroevolution, why transitional species cannot be found in many cases,
punctuated equilibrium; the other evidences from fossils the paleontologists
have found, and so on. After this
conversation, you are impressed and you start to walk away, but the
evolutionist stops you and calls you back.
Then this same evolutionist starts telling you all of the things that
are wrong with the creationists. He tells
you one theory after another of the creationists and why each theory cannot be
true and why all creationists are a bunch of uneducated goons who don't know
how to talk, but can only babble. You marvel
that he has mocked the creation scientists so much, and you wonder why he has
done this; but since he has portrayed himself as a brilliant scientist, you
think that he must be right. After this
conversation, you thank him and you now feel that you understand both the
evolutionist's theories and the creationist's theories about how mankind came
to be. You decide it is not necessary to
go to the left side of the fence and talk to a creationist because you already
think you understand their views and why their views are wrong. At this
point the only thing you know about creation science is what an evolutionist
has told you. The Four Concepts of a
Truth Table If you
decided not to visit the left side of the fence, you would be making a huge, but common, mistake: you have
heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on one side of the
fence. You have really only heard how
the people on one side of the fence feel about both sides of the issue. But you haven't heard the arguments of the
creationists, from the mouth of a real
creation scientist, nor have you heard why the creation scientists
think that the evolutionists are wrong. There are
actually four categories involved in the two sides of the fence. These are the four things in the "truth
table" that you need to hear to make an informed decision: The Truth Table The four
parts of the truth table can be broken down into two groups, the evolutionist
perspective and the creation scientist perspective: From The Right Side of the Fence
(the evolutionists) 1) The
pro-evolutionist arguments (from the evolutionist side of the fence), 2) The
anti-creationist arguments (from the evolutionist side of the fence), [The above
two items are the two things you have already heard.] From the Left Side of the Fence (the
creation scientists) 3) The
pro-creationist arguments (from the creation science side of the fence), 4) The anti-evolutionist
arguments (from the creation science side of the fence). [At this
point, you don't know anything
about these last two items because you haven't talked to a real creation
scientist.] In other
words, from the right side of the fence you have heard the pro-evolutionist
arguments (item #1) and also from the
right side of the fence you have heard all of the anti-creationist
arguments (item #2). But these
things only represent two of the four categories. It is at this point that most people stop
looking for the truth because they have been told all their lives it is not
necessary to listen to the renegades because the establishment has all the
answers. It is at
this point that science (i.e. the scientific establishment) wants people to
stop looking and thinking!! The most
common error people make is to think they are experts in a subject when they
have only heard from the people on one side of the fence. They
haven't heard a word from the mouth of a renegade, yet they think they are
experts in what the renegade creation scientists believe!! After
talking to the evolutionist, you may think that you are an expert in both
evolution and creationism. You are not an expert in either subject!! THIS IS THE KEY!! If
the evolutionists will exaggerate the validity of the theory of evolution, they
will also exaggerate the faults of creation science. Ponder that again and again!! If they
will deceive you (via their ignorance or intentionally) about the validity of
evolution; they will also deceive you about the flaws in creation science. That is why everything you have heard to this
point, about both sides of the fence, may
be wrong. That is why you cannot, at this
point, be an expert in either belief; and certainly you are not an expert in
creation science!! It is
exactly this type of control of information which forms one of the five basic tactics
of modern science to manipulate and control information. Evolutionists cannot tolerate that a student
might actually listen to a real creation scientist. If it forbidden. It is taboo.
It is unacceptable according to the Supreme Court. All information about creation science must
come from an approved evolutionist under highly
controlled conditions. At this
point in your search for truth, however, even though you have only heard half
of the four items listed above, you probably wonder why anyone could be a
creationist. You might think this
because you haven't heard yet about creationism from a creation scientist. (This is
another key point!) You have been taught
in school all your life that an "open-minded" person is someone who
absorbs the propaganda of why the establishment is always right, and defends
the storyline propaganda of why the renegades (the people on the left side of
the fence) are always wrong. You are
taught never to talk to a renegade or your mind might become contaminated. So in
reality "you" (the hypothetical person at the end of the fence)
probably have absolutely no desire to talk to anyone on the left side of the
fence. You have heard everything you
think you need to hear. You feel you are
an expert on both sides of the issues.
Thus, you are a member of the establishment and a certified
"defender of the faith" of the evolutionists. End of
story - time to go home. Your Trip to the Left
Side of the Fence Oh well,
just for the heck of it, out of morbid curiosity, and to test your debate
skills, you decide to walk over to the left side of the fence and talk to a
creation scientist. You randomly pick a
person and you decide to try and convince him to become an evolutionist, now
that you feel you are an expert in the errors of what the creationists believe. You
carefully walk up to (gulp, drum roll): Herman the Horrible Hermit
Heretic. Be careful, you say to
yourself, close your ears and don't listen, this person is an idiot. Oh well, because you have been taught in
Sunday School to be courteous to your enemies, you
shake hands with him and start to listen. (Note to
the reader: Do not be intimidated by the terminology Herman uses below, some of
these terms will be discussed later in the book.) After
shaking hands with Herman and exchanging pleasantries, you are immediately
amazed at something: Herman can talk!
You had always been taught that creationists had the IQ of a rodent and
wore beanie caps with rotors. Herman
starts by talking about life on earth.
He states that life on earth began with a single cell, according to the
theory of evolution. This "first
living cell" on the planet (which would be the first living thing and it
would only have been a single cell); had to have an RNA or DNA component and it
had to have a cell membrane, among many other things. He states
that the "first living cell" would have needed at least 300
specialized proteins in order for it to survive and divide. He estimates that the 300 genes which created
these 300 proteins would have needed an average length of 1,000 nucleotides. By the way,
Herman tells you; in human DNA the average gene can create 10 different
proteins and is much, much longer and vastly more complex than the genes of any
imaginary "first living cell".
Some human genes can create 50 different proteins he says. Getting
back to the "first living cell," Herman says that each of these genes
would have needed an additional 2,000 nucleotides to: manufacture the proteins
from the genes, fold the polypeptides, incorporate the proteins into the cell,
etc. Herman
defines for you what a "gene complex" is. He says it is a gene plus all of the other
nucleotides necessary for the gene to be manufactured, folded, incorporated
into the cell, etc. Thus,
Herman estimates the minimum size of the DNA or RNA of the "first living
cell" would be 3,000 nucleotides (for the average gene complex) times 300
genes, or about 900,000 nucleotides long. Herman then
asks this question: "Has science ever created a 900,000 nucleotide RNA or
DNA chain by purely random means?" The answer,
he says, is an emphatic 'no'.
Furthermore, he says, there are many reasons, especially from chemistry,
that such a chain of amino acids (note: proteins are made from amino acids)
could ever have formed by accident. Herman
states that amino acids form proteins, but that amino acids cannot bind to each
other in a stable fashion. He states
that to create proteins, amino acids must have a chemical bonding, controlled
by a chemical agent, and that the natural
attraction between amino acids could never create a protein. Herman states that science has many theories
as to how such chemical bonding could have happened in nature, but that all of
these theories are not possible. Herman also
says that all single-celled entities today, which are able to sustain life without a host (as the "first living
cell" must have done), are very, very complex and even the
evolution establishment admits that a prokaryotic cell or eukaryotic cell could
not have been made by accident in a prebiotic (i.e. pre-life) pool of water. Thus, says Herman, the "first living
cell" of evolution is now extinct.
"How convenient," Herman says sarcastically, "that the
evidence of a "first living cell" is gone." He also
asks whether science will ever create life from non-life, meaning a living cell
created by a series of random events which replicate the prebiotic (i.e.
pre-life) world. Herman states with
great fervor that they never will create life from non-life by random means,
but he says he doesn't have time to explain why it is mathematically impossible. However,
Herman does provide a partial explanation of the mathematical problems of this
happening when he states that it would have been impossible for a randomly
created nucleotide chain that long to have had a "permutation of
nucleotides" which could have created the necessary exactness to create
life. You think you have a vague idea of
what he is talking about, but you are not quite sure what a
"permutation" is. You then
ponder on your own that the "first living cell" only had a 900,000
nucleotide chain, but that human DNA has 3,000,000,000 pairs of
nucleotides. You realize the creation of
human DNA by random processes would have been far more impossible than the
creation of the "first living cell" both because of the length of the
DNA and the much smaller tolerances for error because of the vastly added
complexity. (The
discussion with Herman is continued in the next chapter.) |