Canadian Flag RyanKidd.com Justice
For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.
Kidd Family Blog | Online Library

Blog
About
News
Library
Photos
Search
SiteMap

PremaritalTexts
Apologetics
Evangelism
BibleStudy
Evolution
Lectures
eBooks
InBrief
Lyrics
Politics
Articles
WebLinks
LibertyTips
TechnoTips

Whatís Wrong with Evolution (4 of 10)

Creation Index
Date: 1986
Source: Video Lecture Series on Creation, Australia, 1980s
Keywords: Darwin, natural selection, peppered moth, mutations, skin colour
Comment: These notes were taken on a laptop during video lectures. Due to transcription errors and subsequent editing, these notes may not accurately reflect the original lecture content.
Posted: JUN-23-01

by Dr. Gary Parker (Lecture 4 of 10)

The year 1859 is when Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species. Darwinís theory gave people an excuse to rebel against God. Now man had a way to explain design without a designer. Atheism was now thought respectable and life could be explained without reference to God.

Darwinís theory, natural selection, describes the Struggle for Survival, or Survival of the Fittest. Observations of artificial breeding selection led Darwin to think that the same process could happen in nature. Pigeons, for example, can be bred to have some slight varieties in their appearance. The famous example is the Peppered Moth in central England. A moth whose colours were camouflaged (hidden from birds) would live. Moths which could not hide would be eaten. In this example there is no change of life-form. There is merely a change in the population.

Edward Blithe had recognized the fact of natural selection 24 years before Darwin. He was a creationist and understood natural selection to be consistent with a perfectly designed creation which was corrupted by sin. However, Darwin made natural selection the basis for a new religion, a religion without revelation (i.e., a Word from God, or the Bible).

Extrapolation (extending a pattern based on known facts) is a normal scientific endeavour. But there are some logical limits to extrapolation. You must know the boundary conditions. For example, if you begin your training by running a mile in 12 minutes, and cut one minute from your time each week, you reach a human speed limit at about 4 minutes a mile.

Scientifically we can specify the limits of natural selection: variations within a kind. Darwin was aware of this limit and called it a difficulty with the theory. Natural selection assumes the thing exists in the first place. It does not explain how the organism got there. Natural selection taught that a physical trait developed by exercise or habit would be passed along to offspring. However, we now know that genetic information is set at conception, and the only changes which occur are negative mutations.

Modern evolutionary thinking is called neo-Darwinian because natural selection (brute effort) has been replaced with the idea of pure chance mutation (change). But there are scientific limits with mutations too: Mutations do occur (causing flaws in existing creatures) but they never result in new life-forms. Evolution from lower to higher life-forms does not occur.

The odds of chance mutations creating a single cell are 1 in 1040. That is virtually impossible considering the size of the universe. Even if the molecules of a cell came together, it would not be alive.

Mutations are making things worse. One in 100 human babies will have a defect requiring medical treatment. A side- effect of mutations is lowering life-span. Death and extinction are the future of mutations.

Furthermore, mutations point back to creation. Mutations always hit a gene of an organism which already exists. Mutations are part of the corruption of the created order that resulted from the entry of sin into the world.

Variation in singing voice, or variation in skin colour, are examples of genetic combinations. Such variations can occur rapidly in as little as one generation.

These limits of natural selection and chance mutations are now well known. Part of the reason evolution hasnít been widely recognized as false is the segregation of science. Because various branches of scientists donít get together they each depend on the other for evidence to prove evolution. Logically, scientifically we cannot extrapolate from micro- evolution to macro-evolution. Variation from blue to brown eye colour is not a scientific basis for evolution from molecule to man.

Psalm 139:14 -- Wonderful things in the creation point to a personal Designer.

Does natural selection describe a creative force, or a fact about existing creatures? Do mutations create life or destroy life? How is an evolutionist like a creationist if he claims that chance mutations in the past were responsible for creating life?


[Back to Top] [Home] [Email Corrections]