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 Darwin's - the fossil record is not complete.  But the creationist could answer back by talking about living species, such as the giraffe, and many other living species, and ask: where are their ancestor species; which are or were only "slightly different" than they 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 Darwin, the only tool Darwin had to discuss the theory of evolution was morphology, meaning the study of the shapes of animals; and more specifically the shapes of bones.  Darwin had no clue DNA existed.  Scientists in the nineteenth century thought cells were globs of goo and were very simple.


The nineteenth-century technology of morphology, combined with the theory of evolution, led Darwin to believe in gradualism and to believe that many more transitional species would be found by paleontologists.


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.





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.