Non-Mathematical Concepts

Prophets or Evolution - An LDS Perspective

Chapter 18

Non-Mathematical Concepts

"If the brain were simple enough to understand, we would be too simple to understand it."

Quoted in: Listening to Prozac by Peter D. Kramer

Story #1: The Space Shuttle

Let us suppose you had been in charge of building the first American space shuttle. You would have had hundreds of PhDs, and other experts, working for you, directly or indirectly.

Let us consider some of the things involved in building the first space shuttle.

First, you (or someone who works for you) would have to have an understanding of the mathematics of planetary motion and space flight. You would have to be able to calculate where the space shuttle is going to go. Of course, there had been space flights before the shuttle, but the mathematics still has to take place because each flight is unique.

Second, there is the technology of metals and ceramics. The space shuttle has to go into space and has to come back. Thus, the metal must be protected from the extreme heat of re-entry. Plus the space shuttle has to be as light as possible, but strong enough to survive each trip (the shuttles are designed to be reusable).

Third, is the technology of chemistry. Very dangerous chemical reactions occur during a space flight, and these dangerous toxic chemicals must be safely removed from the shuttle after landing.

Fourth, are the computers, both on the ground and in the spacecraft. An enormous amount of effort needs to go into the software (i.e. the computer programs) and the hardware (the computers).

Fifth, are the communications equipment. You don't go down to Radio Shack® to buy the types of radios they used to communicate between the ground and the space shuttle.

Sixth, is the actual construction of the space shuttle. The space shuttle wasn't built in someone's garage by a group of car mechanics. It is an enormous structure which requires a huge building for its construction and many people to construct it.

Seventh, are all of the issues related to launching the space shuttle, such as the chemicals in the rockets. These are the people to whom the common term "rocket scientist" refer (e.g. the popular phrase: "What do you think I am, a rocket scientist?").

Eighth, is the aerodynamics of the space shuttle. In order to be reusable, it must land safely. It must come all the way from space and land on a landing strip that must seem, to the astronauts, the size of a postage stamp.

Ninth, is the training of the astronauts and the many people who work with them.

And the list goes on and on. Building a space shuttle, launching it, and landing it, is a huge task involving thousands of people who are technical experts at what they do.

The First Grade Class

Suppose you had been in charge of coordinating all of these highly trained astronomers, mathematicians, chemists, numerous kinds of engineers, etc. etc.

Now suppose, as the head of the space shuttle team, you are invited by a first grade class (i.e. 6 year old students), at a local grade school, to come and meet with the class. There are 25 first graders in the class. You agree to come and talk about the space shuttle.

You walk into the class, with all kinds of pretty pictures. However, the class does not want to see any pretty pictures; they want to actually build a space shuttle as a class project!!

What they want you to do is give them enough technical information so they can build their own full-size space shuttle. You find out they will give you half an hour to tell them how to make a space shuttle. Then, after your lecture, they are prepared to take over and they are confident they will be able to build, launch and land a full-size space shuttle by themselves.

You, of course, would be both humored and horrified. You know that this class cannot build a space shuttle any more than 25 alley cats can build and fly a Boeing 747.

You know that perhaps when these children grow up, and if they were joined by thousands of others, perhaps they could help build a space shuttle, but you also know that a class of 25 first graders is not going to be able to build a space shuttle from scratch, after a thirty minute lecture or even ten thousand hours of lectures.

How This Relates to the Theory of Evolution

When human DNA was first discovered and analyzed, it was thought that it was not very complex, just like the above school class did not understand the complexity of building a space shuttle.

Some of the first estimates as to what percentage of human DNA was necessary for life were 2.5%.

Scientists claimed that the other 97.5% of human DNA contained a lot of leftover DNA from our ancestor species, which was no longer necessary for humans. This was a major "evidence" for the theory of evolution for many years.

However, as time passed a lot of things changed. The incredible complexity of DNA started to be unraveled. It is now known that at least 50% of DNA is necessary for life, and there are strong suspicions that almost all of our DNA will eventually be shown to be necessary for life.

Over time, the concept that our DNA contained a lot of leftover DNA from our ancestor species (such as genes which had been used for our ancestor species, which are not needed by humans), was no longer mentioned and the concept was buried because it looked like all of our DNA would eventually be understood to be important.

So what happened to all of the genes which were needed by our ancestor species, but which are no longer needed by humans? There is no mechanism to remove these obsolete genes, thus they would forever be stuck on our DNA.

I call this phenomenon: "genetic leftovers." Scientists cannot find these leftover genes and other genetic material on our human DNA. This is strong evidence that the theory of evolution is false. Nucleotides which would be on human DNA, if evolution were true, are not there.

DNA has 3 billion pairs of nucleotides. In one hundred years, scientists will look back at 2009 and state that scientists didn't have a clue how DNA functioned in 2009.

Yet, there is already a dictionary specific to genetics called: A Dictionary of Genetics, by King, Stansfield and Mulligan. This is a standard size book, with small print, which has 484 pages of definitions and more than a hundred pages in its Appendix. Did you note that there were not 484 definitions, there were 484 pages of definitions? That is how complex the study of genetics is. Yet scientists still don't have a clue about many key things with regards to DNA.

Discoveries in genetics happen so fast that any dictionary (even online dictionaries) will be slightly obsolete within weeks after they are published and will be totally obsolete within a few years.

DNA is composed of pairs of molecules called nucleotides. There are four different kinds of nucleotides, which have the initials: A, C, G and T. There are 6 billion nucleotides in one human DNA, but they are paired together. Thus, there are 3 billion pairs of nucleotides in each human DNA strand. They are pairs because an 'A' is always paired with a 'T" and a 'C' is always paired with a 'G'.

Each and every one of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies has the same DNA strand (each person's unique DNA strand) of 3 billion pairs of nucleotides (there are a few exceptions to this rule). Different kinds of cells will pick different subsets of these 3 billion pairs of nucleotides in order to create the proteins needed for that type of cell.

This means there are about: 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nucleotides in the average person's body!! When the person was conceived there was one DNA strand and 6 billion nucleotides.

So what is a DNA sequence or DNA strand used for? DNA is essentially nothing but information. The DNA contains sequences which are called "genes." Genes are templates for making proteins (though it is a lot more complex than that, as will be discussed in a future chapter).

The DNA is also a template for making the molecules needed to convert the genes into proteins and to control what happens to the proteins after they are made.

The DNA also includes what might be termed "computer programs." These programs are a complex system of timers and feedback mechanisms needed to control the morphing of the embryo, the clotting of blood when you get a cut, how your eye reacts to light, and many, many things which happen inside the cells or outside the cells (e.g. in the blood stream).

The computer program which controls the morphing of the embryo is more sophisticated than any computer program ever written by a human being. It is more complex than any person can even comprehend!! That is why scientists cannot find all the pieces of the computer program on the DNA. They don't know what they are looking for because they have only a small clue how the program works.

DNA is a lot of highly, highly complex information. Never forget that. While the amount of information in DNA may be compared to a huge set of volumes of an encyclopedia; when taking into account the complexity of information in human DNA, DNA has more complex information in it than any library.

Where is science in their understanding of DNA?

First, let us consider the brain:

"They (the speaker's son and another medical student) learned of a brain bathed in fluid which continually receives signals from 130 million light receptors in the eyes, 24,000 hearing receptors in the ears, 10,000 taste buds, and hundreds of thousands of receptors in the skin, with specialized commission to recognize touch, vibration, cold, heat and pain."

Douglas L. Callister, BYU-Idaho Devotional, November 8, 2005

How in the world could a single cell, at the time of conception, end up being transformed into a brain (see the quote at the top of this chapter) and many other organs and biological structures?

When the egg of a mother is fertilized, the new baby starts as a single cell, meaning the fertilized egg. When the new baby is born it has a brain capable of the above mentioned feats. The information needed to create the brain, which by itself has hundreds of different kinds of cells, is totally and completely built into the DNA in the mother's egg. Yet not one brain cell of the future baby exists at the time of conception. The fertilized egg is called "undifferentiated," meaning it has no specific function.

Do you think scientists could design DNA to replicate making a brain as just mentioned? It would be easier for the first grade class above to build and fly a space shuttle.

As another example, suppose a paleontologist dug up a complete skeleton of a rare type of dinosaur which went extinct millions of years ago (using the time frame of the evolution establishment). This fossil would have zero DNA left in it.

Could scientists design the DNA of this creature, and put the DNA in several egg shells, along with other things inside the egg shells; such that several dinosaurs would hatch and the species would live again and be able to generate new generations of dinosaurs? The answer is: absolutely not!!

Until scientists can do that, they really don't know much about DNA.

Scientists can build a space shuttle fairly easily, but they are nowhere near able to design and build DNA; put it inside of several egg shells and revive an extinct species, both male and female, which are able to reproduce.

And that is the point. Designing DNA as complex as human DNA is a technology which is far, far beyond the current capabilities of human scientists.

Furthermore, scientists would NEVER be able to figure out how DNA works without being able to study what God has already done.

Here is a test for science. Isolate 100 very smart students who are in first grade. Isolate them from all other students for 20 years. Do not tell them about DNA or anything related to DNA. Do you think they could figure out what DNA was, or do you think they could design the DNA necessary to create a human brain or recreate an extinct dinosaur? Not in ten thousand years. Scientists have to see DNA in order to have a clue what it does. Science has to steal ideas from DNA in order to understand anything about DNA.

Since scientists have no clue how the morphing of the embryo algorithm works in DNA, scientists would have no clue how to design a morphing of the embryo algorithm. They have to steal the plans from existing DNA. But they can't even do that yet.

Everything scientists know about DNA they learned by studying existing DNA, and they still don't understand human DNA very well, after over 50 years of studying it. Without stealing thousands of ideas from existing DNA, scientists would have an impossible task designing the DNA of an extinct species.

Current scientists are not even in the "first grade" when it comes to being able to design new DNA for new species (or new DNA for extinct species). Yet, as always, they claim to be ready for the challenge like the first grade class mentioned above.

Science claims that the complex motor in bacteria with flagellum are not signs of intelligent design. Then why don't they have someone who has never seen the DNA of any type of bacteria; build a new DNA strand which can create the complex motor (including all the incredible specifications of the motor and the actual construction of the motor and the repair of any damage to the motor) in the bacterial flagellum??

A better challenge would be for them to design the bacterial flagellum DNA by using random mutations of DNA. Computers are fast enough to generate trillions of random mutations of DNA (in a computer). But I guarantee you they cannot do that either.

Modern evolutionists are not even to the point of being first graders, when it comes to creating DNA for a new species which is not a slight modification of an existing species. Yet they proclaim they are in graduate school in understanding DNA.

Yet, even though they are not in first grade yet, they claim to know enough to proclaim that evolution created human DNA by a long series of accidents over a long, long period of time.

Can something which is incomprehensibly sophisticated be created by accident?

Evolutionists claim that there is nothing which is so complex as to justify believing in "intelligent design." Yet, their understanding of DNA is still less that that of a "first grader."

There is something functionally wrong with their claims. They don't know what they are talking about.

If very intelligent human beings are no where near being able to design the DNA of an extinct species (even after already spending over 50 years looking at DNA designed by God), it is absolute nonsense to believe that human DNA was created by a long series of accidents.

Story #2: Air Force Pilot Manuals

One retired Air Force pilot was asked: If all the textbooks and frequently used reference manuals he studied during pilot school were stacked on top of each other, how high would the stack be? His reply was: "About 12 feet."

There is more information, and more complex information, in the DNA of a mouse than in those 12 feet of books!!

The pilot training books and reference manuals were written by experts in their field, much of it by long-time pilots themselves; but also by many engineers and others. The amount of expertise in these manuals is staggering.

Do you think that future pilots would want someone to start randomly changing the words in their textbooks and reference books; and randomly changing the numbers, drawings and diagrams in their books?

Yet, the theory of evolution is based on taking a perfectly good DNA strand, and randomly mutating it to end up with a superior species which has new and superior genetic information!!

Phase 1

Let us consider the 12 foot high stack of textbooks and frequently used reference books used to train pilots in the Air Force.

Suppose there are ten sets or copies of original textbooks (and reference books) used by Air Force pilots in their training. Suppose ten different people are each given one 12 foot tall stack of textbooks and they are told to make 10,000 different random changes to the pages in their stack.

These changes include changes to words (e.g. randomly changing the word "north" to "east" or "south"), numbers (e.g. randomly changing 35 degrees to 47 degrees or 12 degrees), graphs (i.e. changing the slope or shape of a graph), etc.

After these ten different people make 10,000 random changes to their copy of the original stack of books, there are ten different mutated copies of the 12 foot high set of books.

Now suppose ten different groups of 100 student pilots are trained to fly using these 10 different stacks of mutated books (each group of 100 student pilots exclusively uses a different set of modified stacks of books), not knowing that they are looking at modified versions of their original textbooks and reference books.

The stacks of books used by the groups of student pilots are called: Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, etc.

These ten stacks of mutated textbooks and reference books represent the random mutations of DNA in the theory of evolution.

But now we need to simulate "natural selection." This is how we will "select" which set of mutated books are "superior": We will "select" the set of mutated books which kills the least number of pilots over the course of the first two years after they finish pilot school.

To be more specific, two years after these ten groups of student pilots complete their training (exclusively using their set of mutated books); we will note how many of the pilots are still alive in each group.

Suppose, in this hypothetical example, two years later, in two of the groups, 35 of the pilots are still alive. Suppose these are Group 3 and Group 7. The rest of the groups have less than 35 of their original 100 pilots still alive.

Using this statistic (i.e. survival of the pilots) we will "select" the two stacks of books which were used by these two groups (Group 3 and Group 7) and throw the other stacks away (i.e. survival of the fittest).

Phase 2

We will now make 5 copies of the Group 3 stack of books and 5 copies of the Group 7 stack of books. All 10 groups of books have already had 10,000 random changes made to them from the first round of random mutations.

We will then have ten new people make 10,000 additional random changes to each of the 10 stacks of already mutated stacks of books (5 from Group 3 and 5 from Group 7).

These 10 stacks of books now have a total of 20,000 cumulative random changes made to them. Beneficial mutations, which just happened to improve the information in the books, are extremely, extremely rare, but let us assume such events do happen. But the vast number of mutations made to these books create either: harmless, false or dangerous information.

Now we will again take ten new groups of 100 student pilots, who will use these 10 new stacks of mutated books in their training (each group of 100 student pilots uses a different set of modified stacks), not knowing that there were any changes made to their books.

The stacks of books and groups of student pilots are called: Group 3‑1, Group 3‑2, Group 3‑3, Group 3‑4, Group 3‑5, and Group 7‑1, Group 7‑2, Group 7‑3, Group 7‑4, and Group 7‑5.

After 2 years we note that only one of the groups has any of the new pilots left. This is Group 3‑5 (of the new group of pilots) and it has 3 pilots still alive.

Using the "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" criteria above, for selecting which stack of books will be used for the next sets of pilots and which will be thrown away; we will "select" the stack of books which were used by Group 3‑5.

We will now make 10 copies of the Group 3‑5 stack of books. These stacks of books already have 20,000 random changes made to them.

We will now have ten new people make 10,000 additional random changes to the words, numbers and graphs in these books. Likewise, ten new groups of 100 student pilots will use these new mutated textbooks and reference books.

The ten stacks of books have 30,000 randomly modified words, numbers and graphs.

The stacks of books and groups of pilots are called: Group 3‑5‑1, Group 3‑5‑2, Group 3‑5‑3, etc.

We note that within 2 months of graduation, none of the pilots are alive in any of the ten groups.

Now we have a problem. All of the groups had the same number of surviving pilots (none). How will we decide which of the stacks of books to "select" for the next group of pilots?

Comments

In this process we "selected" the sets of mutated books which killed the least number of pilots for use for the next new set of pilot trainees.

Here is the question: Is this a good way to train pilots for the Air Force?

The answer is obviously: no.

When you start with a virtually perfect set of manuals, mutations almost always do harm to the information, and thus to the pilots. Yes, there will be extremely rare instances where a mutation actually improves the information in a book, but these will be very rare and will be overwhelmed by the negative changes.

Overall, the changes to the books and reference manuals made them increasingly dangerous to the students.

In actual genetic research, it is common knowledge that virtually all point mutations, and other types of mutations, are neutral or harmful. Yes, there are rare beneficial, or partly beneficial, point mutations, but these are extremely rare and usually involve a loss of genetic information.

When you start with something that works, and you randomly modify it, it will get worse, not better.

In fact, the rate of good mutations tells geneticists a lot about how perfect the DNA is. In all animals and plants, beneficial mutations are extremely, extremely rare. Thus, the DNA of all animals on earth is virtually perfect, meaning there are very, very few imperfect nucleotides which can be fixed by random point mutations.

Considering that all DNA on earth is virtually perfect (because almost all mutations are neutral or negative), and considering that genetic entropy (i.e. the deterioration of DNA), combined with this fact, is a proof that all species on this earth are very new species (to this earth), meaning only a few thousand years old.

To better understand this concept, consider the theory of evolution. If evolution were true we would have inherited all the genetic entropy of our ancestor species. Over a period of hundreds of millions of years genetic damage caused by mutations would have been passed on from one species to the next, and within the same species, from one generation to the next. If evolution were true, our DNA would be incredibly damaged. But that is not the case. Rather, our nearly perfect DNA is one of the strongest proofs of the Biblical account of creation.

In other words, if the theory of evolution were true, we would have inherited all the genetic mutations of our ancestor species - going back 660 million years and our most distant homo sapiens sapiens ancestors would have lived 100,000 years ago. Were these facts, and considering genetic entropy; virtually every human on earth would have been born with many, many millions of genetic defects from our ancestor species and several significant genetic defects from our homo sapiens sapiens first parents. But that is not what geneticists have observed.

Thus, the perfection of our DNA and the DNA of all other plants and animals is absolute proof that the theory of evolution is false. But pursuing DNA as a proof of evolution (using the perfection of our DNA as the evidence) requires computer simulations (mainly to teach and prove concepts) which will actually be discussed later in this book.

The "First Living Cell"

Now let us consider the "first living cell." Suppose a "first living cell" was created by evolution and that its DNA was perfect (it would not have been perfect, but we will assume it was perfect). Do you really think that tampering with it's DNA will create new and improved DNA and new and improved species?

That is the point to this discussion. As Bert Lance stated: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But yet that is the whole basis of the theory of evolution. You start with something that is perfect (i.e. the "first living cell"), or nearly perfect, then you start to randomly make changes to it and end up with something better than the original. Does that make any sense? That is absolutely not what is being observed by geneticists.

There have been millions of species on this earth. Each had perfect DNA or nearly perfect DNA. Yet the claim is that each of these species was created by randomly mutating the DNA of a prior species with perfect or nearly perfect DNA. This is nonsense.

This is as absurd as trying to convince the Air Force to improve their textbooks and reference books by randomly mutating them by people who couldn't build a paper airplane.

Suppose a book existed with over 250 pages of computer simulations, statistics, etc. on the subject of evolution. What would you learn from this book? The main thing you would realize is that "if it ain't broke, randomly mutating it will do more harm than good!!"

This is exactly what is observed in nature (i.e. genetic entropy).

Yet the theory of evolution operates on exactly the opposite premise!!

Randomness never makes something better (unless it is totally wrong to begin with, which is impossible among living things or the species could not exist).

Thus, if it is alive, it cannot be improved upon by random mutations.

Look at it this way, if a DNA is 99.999% perfect, it is almost certain that all mutations will be negative or neutral because they will be affecting "right" nucleotides (i.e. 99.999% of the nucleotides are correct, thus changing them will not improve them).

The entire premise of the theory of evolution is that random mutations do more good than harm. That would only be true if our DNA was extremely defective. But if our DNA was that defective we couldn't survive.

The prime directive of the theory of evolution is not only mathematical nonsense; but it totally violates what geneticists have observed numerous times. They have never seen an instance where random mutations created new genetic information which was useful. All they have seen is a very, very rare beneficial point mutation and lots and lots of detrimental or neutral point mutations.

But a point mutation is a change in existing genetic material; it does not represent new (i.e. additional) genetic information; which would include one or more new gene complexes.

Story #3: Changing Computer Programs

Let us take the Air Force example one step further. Now we will not only change the textbooks and reference books these pilots study, but we will also randomly mutate the computer programs in the jets they fly.

When you start to randomly change computer programs, by choosing random "bits" of information in the program, and replacing these "bits" with randomly generated '0's and '1's, how long do you think the computer program in a jet will continue to function and the plane will continue to fly?

Even highly trained computer programmers have a difficult time getting complex computer programs to work. Once they work, randomly changing them is not going to be a good thing. It would be like mutating a DNA strand which is 100% perfect.

Even though the DNA of any living thing is far more complex, and far more perfect, than any computer program on earth, it still would be suicide to randomly change "bits" in a computer program that controlled jet airplanes.

How many of the first group of pilots would still be alive after 2 days of flying (not 2 years as above), if the computer programs in their jets were tampered with?

Depending on how many changes are made, and in what sections of the programs they are made, the chances are that none of the pilots would still be alive after two days of flying.

There are many sections of DNA where even the slightest mutation can cause severe damage to the animal or human under consideration. This is particularly true in the morphing of the embryo algorithms, but it applies to other areas as well.

Even animals which lay eggs are subject to the morphing of the embryo algorithms. There is a lot of morphing going on inside the egg, whether it be a duck egg or an insect egg.

DNA contains incredibly complex computer programs, especially for the morphing of the embryo of animals which have live births or lay eggs. If you start randomly changing these computer programs, built into the DNA, the number of "live births" will quickly drop to zero.

Another issue with regards to the morphing of the embryo is that if there is a flaw in the DNA morphing algorithms (in either the male or female germ cells), there will not be a new species because there will be no live births. The morphing algorithms are a zero defect computer program, just like the computer program which controls a jet airplane. You only get one shot at getting it right or the plane crashes (or the baby of the new species does not survive, thus the new species will not survive).

This is significant for the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on random mutations of DNA. If a pair of animals have their DNA randomly modified so that a new species can exist; but there is a slight defect in the morphing of the embryo algorithm; even a slight defect in the morphing of the embryo will likely prevent the new species from ever existing. There are no second chances.

Yet the morphing of the embryo algorithm is the most complex algorithm in DNA and it is the most easily damaged by the slightest defect!

Story #4 - Writing Computer Programs

Have you ever tried to get a computer programming job at a large corporation? You had better have credentials because that is what they look at.

Suppose you believe in evolution. Suppose you know absolutely nothing about writing computer programs, but you have bought a computer program which randomly generates (or changes) long strings of '0's and '1's (by the way, "evolution" knows nothing about designing DNA; the fact is that all mutations to DNA are totally random).

Suppose you go to the Human Resources department of a large corporation and say this: "I have never written a computer program in my life, but I did purchase a random number generator over the Internet and I want the job of a computer programmer. I will take an existing computer program which works, but you want to improve, then I will randomly make changes to the 'bits" in the program and create 1,000,000 new computer programs, each of which is a randomly mutated copy of the original program. I will then "select" the "best" of these 1,000,000 new computer programs, and then mutate this program 1,000,000 times, and so on. Eventually, you say, I will end up with computer programs which are far superior to what your computer departments are capable of writing."

Do you think you would get the job? I will save you the time and embarrassment. You won't get the job.

Computers now have the speed to generate billions of randomly generated computer programs. They also have the ability to evaluate these billions of randomly generated computer programs for certain kinds of effectiveness.

Yet, with all this computing power, no corporation in their right mind would try to write a computer program by using "evolution," meaning by randomly generating '0's and '1's or by randomly changing the '0's and '1's in an existing computer program which works perfectly well.

Even using the step by step process of evolution (whereby each new species is only slightly better than the previous species) will not help you write new computer programs.

Why won't this process work to write new computer programs?

The reason is permutations (which will be discussed many times in this book). There are estimated to be 10⁸⁰ atoms in the known Universe. This doesn't look like a big number, but it really is a huge number. It is the number:

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

You could write a unique computer program, one unique program for each atom in the Universe, using less than 300 'bits' of '0's and '1's.

In other words, you can uniquely order 300 '0' and '1' bits more times than there are atoms in the known Universe.

Most computer programs that large corporations write are millions of bits long. Do you realize how many trillions of centuries it would take to randomly write a simple computer program (randomly generating '0's and '1's) which was one million bits long; a program that actually did something useful?

Actually, it would never happen during the time that 10 million consecutive Universes were created and died - because random numbers don't generate the same kinds of patterns that intelligently designed programs generate.

The point is that you don't take something that works perfectly well, and then improve on it by randomly mutating and changing it. Yet, that is the very mechanism by which the theory of evolution works.

Do you really think that science has "proven" that the theory of evolution is a "proven" fact of science? Are you beginning to see why the theory of evolution is scientific nonsense? It gets worse for the theory of evolution as this book progresses.