|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 34 Debate
Tactics Assumptions Used as Proof
of Evolution What is the
"evidence" for the theory of evolution, knowing that from a
scientific standpoint the theory of evolution is total nonsense? In other
words, they have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life. They have zero evidence that any new
information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of
nucleotides. And so on. So what do
they use for their "evidence?" Their
primary evidence is to assume
the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology
or genetic research is the result of evolution. The
scenario goes something like this: 1)
Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true, 2) Then
they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come
up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true, 3) They
then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution. Nowhere is
this tactic more obvious than in the fossil record. Let us consider an example of how this works. The Natural History
Museum Suppose
there is a huge building, a natural history museum, which houses all of the
fossils found in the world which became extinct during a specific range of
time. Suppose this collection includes
the bones of many tens of thousands of extinct species which have lived on this
earth. An evolutionist, who is also a
paleontologist, would look at these bones very differently than someone
familiar with DNA who is a creationist. A
paleontologist, who is also an evolutionist, would look for ways to explain why
the data supports evolution. They would
look at the bones with a strong assumption that the theory of evolution is
true. They would build their
phylogenetic tree based on morphology.
They would date some of the fossils based on where they fit on the
phylogenetic tree. If a person
assumes evolution is true, the person will look at the huge numbers of similar
physical features of the different species, and the ever present phylogenetic
trees, and say: "evolution is true."
If a person assumes evolution is true, then the bones are “proof” to him
or her that evolution is true. While this
is perfectly logical for someone who assumes the theory of evolution is true
and is looking for "evidence"; let us suppose a second person, in
this same building, who is a creationist, ponders what the DNA of each of these
species might have looked like. This
person would contemplate the huge volume of favorable random mutations which
would have been needed to generate all of the features of these species. The
mutations would have been massive in number and would have had to have occurred
in a relatively short amount of time. Multi-generation
evolution would be considered. Male and
female issues would also be considered.
Changes to the circulatory system, changes to the nervous system, etc.
would also be pondered. New physical
features would be considered. The
reprogramming of the brain would be pondered. The vast
array of complex physical features combined with the necessary vast array of
unique gene complexes, new types of cells, and incredibly complex morphing of
the embryo algorithm changes would be visualized. This second
person would conclude the vast variety of bones, and the requisite totally
random mutations to DNA necessary to create all of this variety in a relatively
short amount of time, was proof that the theory of evolution was false. Also, the
theory of evolution would be rejected because of the lack of transitional species. Too many of the species would not have any
transitional species preceding them; nor would some of them seem to have any
ancestors at all. Any huge
jumps (i.e. jumps without transitional species) would need huge and
sophisticated changes to their DNA which would be impossible due to the
complexity of the morphing of the embryo algorithms and vast number of new gene
complexes, new types of cells, male and female issues, multi-generation issues,
etc. Huge
changes to DNA, from one species to another, where there is no clear
transitional species, are not statistically consistent with the theory of
evolution for many reasons. The answer
of evolutionists, of course, would be the same are Second, the
creationist would reject the theory of evolution, as applied to all of these
bones, because the many necessary favorable random permutations of nucleotides
could not mathematically have happened in only a few hundred million years
among such a relatively small population base.
Population size is limited to the surface area of this planet and is
usually limited to a small geographic area. No one
faults paleontologists for searching for bones and for reporting on their
findings. That is not the problem. True scientific data is never the problem and
never will be the problem. The problem
is in the interpretation of the vast data. With the
bones of many, many millions of different examples at their disposal;
scientists can spin any number of different "theories" about
evolution. It is like owning a gigantic
bucket of every different type of Lego® building block ever made. You can make anything you want to make with
them. If you make
the right assumptions, and avoid the mathematical and DNA issues, you can avoid
the most troublesome issues which face the theory of evolution. Thus, the
person who assumes evolution is true; will conclude that the probability of
evolution is 100% because of the way they interpret the data and because they
only consider morphology and its child the phylogenetic tree. The person
who assumes creation science is true would conclude the theory of evolution is
scientific nonsense because of the complexity of the necessary changes to DNA,
especially as applied to the male and female issue, just to name one issue. Science is supposed
to be about data - analyzed with an open mind and taking all issues into
account. Scientific conclusions should
not be based on huge, totally unproven assumptions. To make
things worse, modern textbooks on biology are so anxious to be published and
sold that they are consistently full of clever definitions, doctored
photographs, bad logic, theories stated as facts, huge unproven assumptions,
bogus data and in many cases the perpetuation of well-known fraudulent
"discoveries." The book: Icons
of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells, goes into all of these things in great
detail and is highly recommended to the reader.
But even his book is only the tip of the iceberg. An even
more detailed book is Evolution Exposed - Your Evolution Answer Book for the
Classroom, by Roger Patterson, in which the author actually went through
several major biology textbooks in great detail. It
took an entire book to document all of the errors and unjustified bias
favorable to the theory of evolution in these highly popular books. It must
never be forgotten by the reader that every discovery in biology or genetics is
automatically claimed to be the result of evolution. Yet there is absolutely zero scientific evidence
that random mutations of DNA caused any of their claims!! Thus, one
side would claim a 100% probability for the theory of evolution and the other
side would claim a 0% probability for the theory of evolution. The Debate Tactics of
Modern Science Assuming
the theory of evolution is true is a tactic that can only go so far. If someone assumes the theory of evolution is
true and tries to convince someone familiar with the permutation of nucleotides
mathematical issues, and other major problems such as genetic entropy, their
assumption won't work. So another
tactic used by science is to limit the discussion of evolution to areas in
which they can get away with assuming the theory of evolution is true. In other words, they carefully avoid areas of
discussion where they cannot control the discussion using unproven assumptions. In other
words, they only use highly subjective subject matter to spin their tales. Highly subjective issues, such as fossils,
can be twisted and turned without the reader ever realizing what is happening. Back in the
days of The
nineteenth-century technology of morphology, combined with the theory of
evolution, led Today,
scientists have the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century
technology of DNA analysis. So why do
scientists today refuse to talk about the twenty-first century technology
issues such as permutations of nucleotides, the morphing of the embryo algorithms
(which will probably be a twenty-second century technology), male and female
issues related to DNA, multi-generational issues related to DNA, genetic
entropy issues, genetic chaos issues, why modern human DNA is so perfect, the
complexity of cells, etc. etc. Why are scientists still using
nineteenth-century morphology, and its child the phylogenetic tree, which is
designed based on the assumption the theory of evolution is true, as their main
"evidence" for the theory of evolution? The reason
is that morphology, which is really a distraction and diversion from true
scientific evidence, and is a
technology totally subjective and totally subject to wishful thinking and vivid
imaginations, is still their only "evidence" for evolution. They want
to talk about morphology, yet they don't want to talk about intelligent design,
which is another observational technology. While
morphology is stuck in the mud of nineteenth century observation technology;
intelligent design is based on a modern day understanding of the complexity of
cells and the complexity of DNA. In other
words, even though morphology and intelligent design are both observational
technologies, morphology uses very old bones and very old technology; whereas
intelligent design uses state-of-the-art cellular analysis, DNA analysis, the
study of how proteins fit together and bind to each other, etc. Yet,
morphology, even though it is totally
unscientific and is totally subjective, is considered
"scientific." Intelligent
design, which is based on state-of-the-art technologies, is considered
"unscientific." In reality,
the theory of evolution has failed to exist on the basis of true science for
over 50 years. In 1953, the theory of
evolution should have been instantly rejected based on the complexity and size
of DNA. Yet,
somehow, DNA, and all of the discoveries since 1953; have been assigned to the
theory of evolution. The vast majority of people who believe in the theory of evolution do
so because they have been deceived by monopolistic information and are
therefore vulnerable to the arguments of subjective data. All the average person has ever heard in
their life is that the theory of evolution is a proven fact of science. They have heard it so often and for so long
they have concluded the theory of evolution is true. We can
summarize the tactics of science in the following way: First, they
totally control what everyone hears about evolution; Second,
they give credit to all new discoveries in science to the theory of evolution,
thus the theory of evolution is itself evolving; Third,
their scientific "evidence" for the theory of evolution is to assume
the theory of evolution is true; Fourth,
their best public "evidence" is nineteenth century, totally
subjective, morphology (who is to say that God did not create all of those
species?); Fifth, they
intentionally misrepresent the evidence for creation science when they can't
suppress it; Sixth, they
carefully suppress any area of discussion where a true creation scientist might
have their evidences discussed. But why? Let us remember the key quote from Phillip E.
Johnson: "Science is committed to
philosophical naturalism and therefore science must assume that no Creator, and
no purposeful intelligence, is behind our existence ... All that science can
address is the question of: 'granted that we are here as a result of
purposeless material mechanisms, what's the most plausible purposeless material
mechanism that we can imagine?'" Phillip E. Johnson, author,
attorney; quoted on UCTV It is all
about their desire to be considered the most intelligent beings in the Universe
(i.e. philosophical naturalism). Using Microevolution As Evidence Most of the
"evidence" for evolution (and some of their "evidence" is
nothing but the use tricky definitions) comes from microevolution or point
mutations. For example, Darwin never
observed evolution, he only observed microevolution. As another example, the peppered moth, which
is in almost every biology book, is an example of microevolution. It is no different than two people having
different colored hair. Neither
microevolution, nor point mutations (e.g. a bacteria
developing a resistance to a drug) have anything to do with creating new
genetic information, including new genes.
Creating new genetic information, including new gene complexes, is a
requirement for true evolution (this is true macroevolution) and has never been
observed in the lab or in nature - only by assumption (i.e. if you assume it is
true, you cannot claim you have proven it is true) or wishful thinking (which
is total nonsense). Logic should travel
from truth down to assumptions, not from assumptions up to truth. Non-Differentiating
Issues The logic
of the scientific establishment is that everything is a disproof of intelligent
design (i.e. God). Two examples are
natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest), and the concept of using DNA
to prove common descent. Both of these
examples are fatally flawed because they are both non-differentiating, meaning
they apply equally well to the theory of evolution and to creation science, but
for different reasons. Microevolution is
another non-differentiating event which is claimed to be a "proof" of
evolution. Microevolution is sometimes
used, along with tricky and defective definitions, to "claim"
macroevolution has been observed. Summary The total
control of the media allows the scientific establishment the luxury of
developing and incorporating a wide array of deceptive tactics to pretend the
theory of evolution has some scientific validity to it. One tactic
is to ignore the evidence, such as the permutation of nucleotides issues, the
male and female issues, the morphing of the embryo issues, and so on. By using a
wide array of tactics to hide the truth, cover up the embarrassing issues, bury
the mathematical issues, mock the creation scientists, use "straw
man" tactics at every opportunity, etc., they have totally convinced many
people that a totally bogus theory is a scientific fact. Never
forget that the main purpose of brainwashing is to create a society which has a
"uniform pattern of public utterance." Once this is achieved, "evidence"
becomes irrelevant, especially if you can bury it. |