|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 17 The Debate
- Part 2 "Why may not the Bible and
especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in
school? Where else can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly
or so perfectly as from the New Testament?" Vidal v. Girard's Executors, Justice Story delivered the Supreme Court's unanimous
opinion Microevolution and Macroevolution Herman then
states that Herman
tells you that one person has red hair and another person has brown hair and
another has black hair because of microevolution. The three people not different species
because they have exactly the same DNA structure, but there is variety within
the nucleotides of their DNA. Thus,
Herman says, even the data of He also
states that microevolution is quite powerful, and gives as an example, "Macroevolution,"
Herman says, is totally different because macroevolution means the two plants
or animals have a different structure of DNA.
For example, a horse and a mouse have a different structure of DNA. They have a different set of genes, for
example. True
evolution, if it existed, would require macroevolution. It requires "new genetic material,"
which would include at least one new gene complex, and probably many new gene
complexes. Herman
states that in order for science to be honest, every time they use the term
"evolution" they should be referring to an example where there are
new genes, as part of the new genetic information and new genetic material. Yet, says
Herman, every example of "evolution" science uses has nothing to do
with any new genetic material; it is only the result of microevolution or their
vivid imaginations. For
example, Herman mentions the peppered moth.
The various colors of peppered moths is no different than the different
colors of human hair, it is an example of microevolution. Yet textbooks claim it is an example of
macroevolution. This is false, Herman
says. Another
example Herman gives is viruses which are claimed to "adapt" a
resistance to medications, such as for AIDS.
Herman says this is absolute and total nonsense. Herman
states that some microbes have very, very high rates of point mutations (i.e. a
"point mutation" is a mutation of a single nucleotide) and they
multiply in huge numbers. By pure
coincidence, by combining their huge populations with very, very high mutation
rates, they purely and coincidentally have a point mutation or two which
provides a resistance to drugs. Herman
states that textbooks make it sound like viruses have intelligence and are
constantly trying different experiments to develop an
immunity to a medication. Science
textbooks make it sound like the viruses hold a convention to discuss how they
can change their DNA to "adapt" to drugs. Herman says this is pure fantasy. Herman
states that there is no new genetic material (i.e. additional sequences of
nucleotides and new genes) developed in these microbes at the time they develop
a resistance to a drug. He then
states that everything which is
claimed to be caused by evolution must have new genetic material, meaning the
DNA must have new sequences of nucleotides and new genes added to the DNA of
the species in order to create a new species. Herman
warns you that every time you hear the term "evolution" you need to
ask yourself: "have they proven that there is new genetic material,
including new genes, and that the new genetic material was created by random
mutations of DNA -- or are they just using clever definitions and their vivid
imaginations?" The fact
is, Herman says, scientists have
never, never seen useful new genetic material form by random mutations of
nucleotides. All they have
observed is very, very rare partially beneficial point mutations.
Herman then says with a flare: point mutations do not represent new genetic sequences of nucleotides,
including new genes!! There must be new genes formed by random
mutations, Herman adds, with voice raised, to truly constitute evolution!! A point
mutation, Herman says, involves one or two or three nucleotides, but a gene
complex involves at least 3,000 new nucleotides!! Herman
takes a minute to calm down. Herman then
states that all of the "evidence" for macroevolution (i.e. true
evolution, meaning the creation of new genetic information) comes from the
study of microevolution (variety within a single species); but that microevolution
and macroevolution are as different as a rock and a jet airplane. Both a rock and a jet airplane can fly, but
he tells you that throwing a rock into the air (microevolution), does not
qualify a person to design, build and fly a jet airplane (macroevolution). You then
learn about the improbability of irreducible complex protein systems forming
large numbers of complex inter-related proteins in the same random mutation
event in macroevolution. He gives the
bacterial flagellum as an example. Its
parts are so complex they could not have "evolved" by gradual random
mutations. Until all the proteins were
in place, the flagellum would have been a burden to the bacteria. Herman
states that attempts by orthodox science to dispute the claims that "irreducible
complex" mechanisms are evidence of creation; are ridiculous, but because
the scientific establishment controls the media, people don't know how absurd
their attempts to refute this evidence really are. You then
hear about the "morphing of the embryo," which is the time period
between the fertilization of the egg and the time the baby is born. A new
creature starts out as a single cell, a fertilized cell, which is
undifferentiated (meaning it has no specific function in the body), but when
the "baby" is born it has hundreds of different kinds of
differentiated cells, mixed with massive amounts of natural chemicals (which
came through or from the mother). To
accomplish hundreds of different kinds of cells; when cells divide, they must
divide into one or two different kinds of cells which are not the same as the
original cell, or some mechanism must go back and "fix" some of the
cells. The timing of these many strange
cell divisions has to be with pinpoint accuracy. You learn
that the instructions for this pinpoint accuracy must be built into the DNA,
thus making random mutations even less likely to be advantageous (i.e.
requiring more precise chains of nucleotides, meaning the percentage of
"correct" permutations of nucleotides is much smaller than might be
expected if only genes are considered). Herman
states that every different kind of cell in the body must create different
kinds of protein structures within the cell.
He states that these different kinds of cells have exactly the same DNA,
but each type of cell must pick different subsets of genes to create the
protein structures for that specific type of cell. Herman
asks: how could a single undifferentiated cell turn into hundreds of different
kinds of cells, each of which knows which subset of genes to pick to meet the
needs of that kind of cell? Then Herman talks about the circulatory system, the nervous system, the
lymph system (including the lymph nodes), the electrical system (including the
brain), and the immune system of the body. He tells you
the DNA must contain unbelievably complex morphing algorithms to properly put
all of these systems in place as the embryo is being formed. He
describes this as trying to put the electrical system, plumbing system, water
systems, windows, pipes, desks, rest rooms, etc. into a tall building as the
steel beams are being put into place and are being riveted. In other words, as the steel workers are
riveting I-Beams for the 50th floor (of a 100 story building), hundreds of
other people are standing on that I-Beam waiting to put the desks, water
fountains, plumbing, pencils, etc. in place. Herman also
talks about the human heart. The heart
starts beating in about week 5 after conception. If the heart started beating before the
circulatory system was enclosed the embryo would bleed to death. Herman then asks you how the cells are given
oxygen prior to the heart starting to beat? You don't know. Herman says a very specific chemical reaction
keeps the new cells alive until the heart can beat. Herman then
says that as animals got more complex (assuming the theory of evolution), so
did the morphing of the embryo algorithms on the DNA. The more complex the animal the more complex
the algorithm and the less likely it could have happened by accident. When Herman
started taking about the morphing "timing" issues, the
incomprehensibly complex computer programs which needed to be built into the
DNA to control the morphing of the embryo, etc. you started thinking that
Herman might not be retarded after all, like you had always been taught. Herman
interrupts your thinking by explaining that modern science wants you to think
that the morphing of the embryo algorithms built into DNA are simple, and only
involve a handful of nucleotides. Herman
explains this is like claiming that the computer programs which put astronauts
into space were written by monkeys. Herman then
starts talking about the evolution of species which had both a male and
female. He starts talking about how the
same random mutations must occur in the germ cells (i.e. the cells involved in
reproduction, meaning the sperm and eggs) in both the male and female in order
to have viable offspring. Herman
likens this to two different people (who do not know each other) receiving an
email with a 10,000 volume encyclopedia.
Each of the two people is instructed to independently make 20,000 random
word changes to their soft copy of the encyclopedia. These 20,000 word changes can be to any of
the pages in any of the 10,000 volumes. Herman
states that the probability that the DNA of both a male and female germ cell
having the same random mutations (and thus being able to have offspring with
new genetic material) is equal to the probability that the two different people
coincidentally make the same 20,000 random word changes to the 10,000 volume encyclopedia. Herman actually started laughing at such an
absurd possibility. Yet, Herman
says, such an improbable event would have had to have happened millions of times in order for
the theory of evolution to be true!! Herman then
started talking about a few things for which you had no clue what he was
talking about. All you could make out
was that it involved the male and female issue, coupled with multi-generational
changes to DNA to form a new set of inter-related genes. Then Herman
starts to talk about the evolutionists (this is the anti-evolution part, heard
from a creationist viewpoint, the fourth item in the truth table). He tells
you that the first argument the evolutionists use (when confronted with the
severe problems caused by probability and statistics, such as the issues
related to permutations of nucleotides) is to respond by saying that "we
exist, thus our existence is proof of evolution and the statistical issues
related to evolution can be ignored." In fact,
Herman tells you that every time an evolutionist looks at a fossil bone, this
bone is claimed to be a "proof" of evolution. Herman then
uses a common analogy (common to him, but you had never heard it before) and
likens their logic to the theory that all of Shakespeare's plays were written
by six monkeys locked in the basement of a building. It is someone's theory that Shakespeare did
not write his works, but that the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually
written by these six monkeys randomly pointing to letters on a chart on the
wall. He states:
is it logical that because Shakespeare's plays "exist," that their
existence is proof that six monkeys actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays? If the
answer is 'no', then why do evolutionists claim that the mathematical problems
with their theory are irrelevant because humans exist? You then
hear how "punctuated equilibrium" (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion) is
really many super irreducible complex protein systems forming at the same time,
and you hear how absurd it is for science to challenge irreducibly complex
protein systems, but at the same time to believe in punctuated
equilibrium. Herman tells you this is
like choking on a single sunflower seed, then swallowing a large watermelon in
one gulp. You hear
why the phylogenetic tree was designed by scientists who were assuming that
evolution was true; then it was used by other scientists to "prove"
evolution. In other words, they assumed
evolution was true in order design the tree; then the tree was used to
"prove" evolution was true.
Herman spends an hour talking about the logic tricks used by the
evolutionists. You also
learn about the massive assumptions evolutionists make with regards to carbon
dating of bones and how these assumptions allow them to come up with the "right
answer" when they need it. The theory
of evolution, he tells you, in order to be true, requires massive amounts of
time (hundreds of millions of years).
Herman tells you the public must be convinced that life has been on this
earth that long in order to justify the theory of evolution. In order to appear that life on this earth
has been around for hundreds of millions of years, they use dating techniques which are known to be defective. Herman
tells you the defect is because moisture leeches radioactive atoms from samples
(and thus throws off the accuracy of radiometric dating). This extremely relevant fact is intentionally
ignored by labs in order to obtain the huge time periods needed for the theory
of evolution. Herman
tells you the age of the earth is not a big issue (i.e. few people really care
about the age of the earth, but some do), but it is the dating of bones and
fossils which are the key issue. Herman
tells you that fossils are the "best" evidence for the theory of
evolution, but in fact the fossil record absolutely disproves the theory of
evolution. Herman
tells you that bones of humans have radiometric dating techniques used on them
which are known to be false, in order to date the bones to be older than the
Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Herman
tells you this is pure fraud and that these fossils are no where near as old as
labs claim. Regarding
fossils, Herman says, obvious transitional species simply don't exist in the
fossil record. Second,
and more importantly, is that many hundreds
of millions of random mutations to DNA would have been needed to create
evolution, but this would mean that new species would appear on the earth in an
increasing, but gradual count. In other
words, Herman says; if Darwin had known about random mutations of DNA, and if
Darwin would have had a computer to simulate evolution, he would have concluded
that the fossil record would display "a slowly increasing
gradualism." The gradualism would
have been an "increasing gradualism," not a flat gradualism, but it
would have been gradualism nonetheless. The fact
is, Herman says, when you have huge numbers of random events, which would be
required for evolution to be true; the main data is very predictable. However,
the "increasing gradualism" predicted by any computer model of
evolution, using random mutations of DNA as the driving factor, is not what is
observed in the fossil record. In other
words, Herman states: "punctuated equilibrium" is not at all
compatible with random mutations of DNA and he states that there is no way to
explain the Cambrian Explosion by using random mutations of DNA. Herman
states that the permutation of nucleotides issue is the very issue which makes
the theory of evolution totally ludicrous because as DNA got longer and more
complex (as species got more and more complex); the issues related to
permutations of nucleotides would have become more and more impossible to
explain. Herman
tells you that mutations on DNA are always at random locations on the DNA, but
that evolution assumes that all mutations are precisely in the locations where
they are needed. Herman then
states there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the DNA of all plants and
animals is slowly deteriorating (i.e. genetic entropy). He states that geneticists have never observed new genetic
material form by mutations. In fact,
geneticists see nothing but genetic entropy, and no new genetic material. Thus, what scientists actually observe
(entropy of DNA) is not in harmony with what the theory of evolution claims
(constantly growing and improving DNA sequences by random mutations) In other
words, says Herman, every factual amount of information from the study of
genetics is exactly the opposite
of the claims of evolution!! Thus,
Herman says, the overwhelming mathematical and observed data all point to the
fact that evolution could never have happened on any planet, or on any
Galaxy. Furthermore, there is zero
evidence from labs that evolution is even possible under controlled conditions,
much less in truly random conditions. When all is
said and done, Herman says, there is not one shred of evidence for the theory
of evolution. Ten hours
pass and you realize the sun went down and it is now dark - and Herman is still
talking. You also realize that for four
of the ten hours you had no clue what Herman was talking about. You also
realize that this is not what you expected.
You expected some wild and crazy theories. But in fact you realize that creation
scientists are not stupid and they really do have some very strong arguments. But most
importantly you realize that what you had been taught by the evolutionists,
about what the creation scientists believe, was totally wrong. You realize you had been deceived into
thinking the creationists did not have any strong arguments. You finally
thank Herman for his time, and go back to the end of the fence a very confused
person. Afterthoughts As
incredible as this sounds; it is very, very difficult to get people to grasp
the concept of hearing both sides of an issue from both sides of the
fence. All your life you have been
taught that it is not necessary. Society
always has all of the right answers, for both sides of the fence, and anyone
who does not agree with society is a crackpot, quack, moron, rebel,
incorrigible, mentally unstable, or whatever. Of course,
many individual scientists and many individual educators are strong believers
in God and do not believe in the theory of evolution. There are many known flaws with the theory of
evolution, but above all, there is simply zero evidence for the theory of
evolution. It is a theory, and a very
poor theory at that. It is based on poor
chemistry and very poor mathematics and a massive amount of falsehoods. Yet, in the
public arena, the scientific establishment has such total control of
information; that anyone who defends God is an outcast and a renegade and is
ridiculed. Nobody wants to be a
renegade; it is very lonely. People
would much rather be a conformist: "When they give a person a
Bachelors degree, they take away their mouth, when they give them a Masters
degree, they take away their brains, and when they give them a PhD, they give
them back their mouth." Helen Kehr Billings, PhD
(1901-1995) (an aunt of the author) Not all
renegades are right, but many of them are. "The reasonable man adapts
himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the
world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on
the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw While the
media and many schools have portrayed the creation scientists as the
"unreasonable man," the reality is that it is the evolutionists who
are using their vivid imaginations to invent things that science and
mathematics simply cannot even remotely support. The reality
is, and don't forget this fact, creation
science has a complete and absolute monopoly on good science and good
mathematics; but the evolution establishment (i.e. "science")
has a complete and absolute monopoly on the control and manipulation of
information. That is what the evolution
debate is all about. The debate
is between overwhelming scientific truth (i.e. creation science) versus the
overwhelming control and manipulation of information (i.e. the theory of
evolution). Note To Reader The
community of creation scientists is large in size but is virtually unknown to
the general public. The large number of
creation scientists, as a whole, can totally shred the absurd theory of
evolution. However, even
though the community is large they do not always agree among themselves. For
example, how long did it take to create the earth and all life on earth? Some
creation scientists think it took six 24-hour calendar days to create the earth
and everything on it. Others
claim it took six thousand years (via versus in the New Testament which define
the term "day" to mean a thousand years). Others
claim it took six creative periods, of indefinite and not necessarily equal
time periods. In other words, some
creation scientists define the term "day" to mean "period"
and have no problem with believing it took God
millions or billions of years to create all of the life on this earth. The reader
may dismiss some of these theories because of the age of the earth and the age
of fossils as determined by radiometric dating and other methods. Few
creation scientists refute that the earth (as a large rock) is billions of
years old; but some do refute it and they have good evidence for their claims
because they believe in the power of God. The point
is that the reader should not assume that just because a person is a
"creation scientist"; that they necessarily agree with all other
creation scientists or that they agree with your beliefs. The
creation science community is a close knit community in condemning the
perceived corruption in mainstream science; but they are not close knit with
regards to all issues relative to the actual creation. Many of the
creation science books are written to support the specific creation science
beliefs of a specific group of creationists or religionists. Thus, just because a book is a creation
science book, does not mean its focus is on the same brand of creation science
the reader believes. The
scientific establishment has a "field day" (i.e. a good time)
criticizing "Young Earth Creationists" (Y.E.C.) because their claims
do not fit the data of geologists and others. While God
is certainly capable of creating this planet in six calendar days or six
thousand years, the claims of the Y.E.C. are an easy target (which is called a
"straw man") for evolutionists, even though the creation scientists
may be correct. As
mentioned previously, LDS doctrine does not care how long it took Christ to
create this earth because He took "existing materials" to create this
earth. The LDS
reader should be aware that the dating of the earth is irrelevant to LDS
scientists who support creation science, but that it is a very important
subject to many creation scientists of other faiths. The reader
should also note that there are many people who believe in a combination of
evolution and creation science. For
example, some people believe God created the "first living cell" and
then left the rest of creation to evolution. Those who
believe in a hybrid of evolution and creation science most likely do so because
they have been taught over and over again that the theory of evolution is
scientifically valid. However, as
this book will show in graphic detail, every aspect of the theory of evolution
is scientific nonsense. LDS doctrine
also claims that all species remain as they were created and do not evolve into
new species. |