Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
‘Creation’—The Evolutionists’ Favorite Four Letter Word
Webster’s online dictionary defines Dogma as, “a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate
grounds.” My purpose in writing this paper is three fold. 1) To convince you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the theory of
evolution, specifically macroevolution—from goo to you, is a dogmatic tenet that has very little scientific evidence to support
it. 2) To combat the widely accepted theory of evolution with both scientific and philosophical evidence, not religious dogma.
“We must convince people that the debate is not about the Bible versus science. The debate is about pursuing an
unbiased examination of the scientific facts and following those facts wherever they may lead” (VI, 55). And 3) To
present to you good, scientific evidence for a supernatural cause of life i.e. a Creator-God. I know you have been taught to
believe that that my previous statement is logically unjustifiable, but I hope you will remain open-minded enough to hear me
out.
By the way the term ‘creation’ is used in my science class, one would think it was an evolutionists’ favorite four letter
word. Philosophers use a term called ‘Ad Hominem’, which literally means ‘to the man’. It is used in arguments and debates
when someone attacks the person instead of the person’s ideas. For instance, if I were in a debate with someone who believed
in the right for woman to have abortions, and I just kept on calling her a baby killer and appealed to everyone who would listen
that you couldn’t take a person serious who was a baby killer and never directly addressed the arguments, positions, or ideas
that this person was putting forth, then I would be guilty of an Ad Hominem argument. Namely, I would be appealing to a
person’s emotions not their intellect to win them to my viewpoint. It is when someone demeans, belittles, and condescends
another’s viewpoint by simply attacking the person or the person’s views and not the credibility, or lack there of, of their
position. Another classic smokescreen device is almost always used in conjunction with the Ad Hominem argument. It is called
the ‘straw man’ argument. This is where one side or position of an issue constructs the other’s side of the issue in their own
terms and labels it with the opposition’s name. In other words, they create a ‘straw man’ and then easily destroy their own
creation (see pages 65-70 in Evolution, XIII, by Monroe W. Strickerberger for a classic example). Someone unaccustomed to
debates and argumentation can easily be lead astray by these, as well as other ploys. Often times, these two are done
unintentionally; however, they are misleading and damaging nonetheless. I hope you can see how the combination of these two
can be very powerful. I’ve known professors to build a ‘straw man’ label it religion or Christianity and then apply the Ad
Hominem tactic. The professor can and usually does indoctrinate his/her students against religion simply because the student
doesn’t want to be seen as stupid. And if the professor does it in a condescending, patronizing way, the effects can be even
more drastic. However, often times nothing at all has been said about the factual position of that particular group—just the
professor’s ‘straw man’, Ad Hominem view. We will look at one more classic logical fallacy, ‘circular reasoning’ or ‘begging
the question’ a little bit later on in the paper, but these two will do for now.
Am I biased? Yes, I am. However, so are you. In fact, everyone comes to the table with some sort of bias, and
preconceived notion of life. Science is supposed to be free from this bias and led specifically by the scientific evidence.
However, as you will see from some of the following quotes that this isn’t always the case. Anti-creationist Boyce Rensberger
gives us some insight into this issue:
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell
you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists
first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As
individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody
else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his
heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position (Sarfati, 17).
The next quote is from a world-renown champion for neo-Darwinism, Professor Richard Lewontin:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because
we have a prior [a given] commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori [given]
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door (Sarfati, 18).
“In his book The Criterion, Dr. Bergman interviewed over 100 creationists who had at least a master’s degree in science, the
majority with a Ph.D. degree—among them Nobel prize winners and those with multiple doctorates in science. ‘Nevertheless,

Feel free to copy and distribute this paper in any way you see fit.
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
1
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
all, without, exception, reported that they had experienced some discrimination…some cases were tragic in the extent, blatancy,
and consequences of the discrimination” (I, 103) I believe it is plain to see the obvious biases of people who claim to be on a
search for what is the truth about life. I find it hard to believe that they would rule out something before they even began taking
a look at all the evidence.
It reminds me of a crime scene where you have a body. The inspector comes in and says, "All right, let's solve this crime. Round up the
suspects." It is a small town in the South somewhere. You notice something unusual when the ten suspects are rounded up and
questioned: They are all black. You say, "Did you notice that all of these are African American men? How do you know that any of them
did it?" "We don't know who did it but we know one of them did it." You ask justifiably, "If you don't know which one did it, then how
do you know any of them did it?" The answer is, "They are the only black men in town." "What if a white man did it?" "We don't believe
in such a thing. We don't believe that white men commit crimes like this. Therefore, since we have a dead man and we have ten black
men in town, one of these men must have done it." Such a thing is ludicrous. Not only the injustice of it is obvious, but it is utmost
stupidity to attempt to solve a problem and then arbitrarily restrict the options that are available to you. One could reasonably suggest of
this murder that maybe a white man did it. What if it were the case that a white man was the murderer? What then? You've convicted the
wrong man. The exact situation applies to the creation/evolution controversy. In the question of origins there is only one kind of answer
that is allowed: a scientific answer, i.e., an answer that makes no appeal to agent causation, to an intelligent Creator Who designed the
universe. Of course, the question has got to occur to you, What if God did do it? We would never know because the option is not
allowed to be discussed (X).
But enough of my conspiracy theory, let’s look at the scientific facts and ask ourselves is it more rational, logical, and scientific
to believe in the theory of evolution, specifically macroevolution, or is it more rational, logical, and scientific to believe in a
supernatural, creative act of God? “We should not oppose science with religion; we should oppose bad science with better
science” (VI, 61). Because of the extreme prejudice there is against this view, and most likely against me at this very moment, a
lot of the quotes I will use in this paper will be from evolutionists themselves. And mostly all of the quotes will be from degree
holding scientists. I am going to follow the advice given to Alice by the Cheshire Cat when she was in Wonderland when he
told her, very gravely, to begin at the beginning and go until she reaches the end.
Defining the Problem—From Goo to You by way of the Zoo
I would like to start off by first clarifying the real issue on hand here. The theory of evolution basically has two main
components: 1) Mutation of Genes 2) Natural Selection. The theory basically states that about 15 billions years ago that the
universe exploded out of nothing in a ‘big bang’ of energy and matter and created the universe we now know. About 4.5
billions years ago in a primordial swamp a few amino acids were formed. These amino acids gave rise to some small proteins,
the building blocks of life, and then these proteins gave rise to polypeptides, which eventually formed the first single-celled
organism. This organism eventually gave rise to a multi-celled organism which eventually gave rise to greater and more
complex organisms all the way until today where we now have a wide variety of life on earth. The way this came about,
according to the theory of evolution, is that these genes (the genes of an organism are what are responsible for letting the
organism know what form to take) would undergo mutations throughout the many millions of years. These mutations, slight
changes in the genetic code, would change the outcome of the organism every so slightly. This organism would now differ
from the other organisms of its type in just some slight ways. This type of evolution is called Microevolution. Since, organisms
live in competitive environments and food is scarce the organism that is best suited to survive in the environment will most
likely out compete the other organisms for the limited food supply. This organism would then live to pass on its genes to the
next generation. If this pattern of the mutated organism out competing the non-mutated organism continues for thousands of
generations, then evolutionists argue that there would be an entirely different organism from the original one altogether. The
proposition of thousands of generations of mutations going on in a type of organism that brings about the change of that type of
organism into a different type of organism altogether is called Macroevolution. Therefore, the term evolution can basically be
divided into two parts: 1) Microevolution—variation within species and 2) Macroevolution—genetic changes over a great
many generations that bring about new types of organisms. The issue and debate is not at all about microevolution. We see
microevolution around us everyday of our lives. From Darwin’s famous finches all the way to the peppered moths of England,
we are confronted with the simple fact of microevolution. However, the point in contention here is the belief that because we
see small changes going on within species all around us that, given enough time, major changes have occurred through
mutations and natural selection. The theory of macroevolution basically states that every living thing has evolved from a single,
primitive ancestor a few billions of years ago. In short, from Goo to you by way of the zoo is how you and I have come to
inhabit this earth. This is the issue that I would like to debate here in this paper.
In The Beginning—Origin-of-Life Experiments
In the beginning there was nothing and then there was something. Nowadays this is common knowledge. However, it
wasn’t too long ago when the accepted scientific position was that the universe was eternal. But because of relatively recent
evidence, (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Radiation Echo, and the expansion of the universe) the widely accepted position in the
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
2
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
scientific community is that the universe had a definitive beginning i.e. the Big Bang. Evolutionists used to mock people who
believed in creation by saying, “I find it hard to believe that you believe that something, God, created something out of
nothing.” However, now naturalists and evolutionists would have everyone believe that nothing created something out of
nothing. If you go back far enough in time, according to the Big Bang theory, then at one point there was nothing and all of a
sudden in an explosion of immense energy and power there was something. This is called a singularity. The definition of a
singularity is: That point at which all the laws of Physics break down. In other words the best answer that science has been able
to offer for the beginning of the entire universe and matter is a non-scientific answer.
The idea of spontaneous generation goes all the way back to the Greek philosophers who taught it some 2,000 years
ago. Spontaneous generation basically is the belief that life is generated from non-living matter. For instance, people used to
believe that if you were to place some meat out in the open that once it began to rot and decay that it would spontaneously
generate flies. It was also widely believed that some cheese left alone in a corner after a while would spontaneously generate
mice. About 130 years ago Louie Pasteur, the father of modern biology, through tests and experiments, showed that flies were
attracted to the rotting meat and there they laid their eggs. From the eggs came maggots and the maggots grew into flies. He
showed the same thing with the cheese and the mice. The mice would be attracted to the cheese and they would give birth to
their young. This gave rise to a basic axiom of biology: Life only comes from Life. This axiom is called the law of biogenesis.
It is scientifically impossible to get life from non-living matter. When confronted with this obvious contradiction to the laws of
science the common answer that professors, teachers, and evolutionists give is by pointing to Stanley Miller’s Origin-of-life
experiment or a contemporary of that experiment. Basically, Stanley Miller and his contemporaries wanted to perform an
experiment that would simulate the chemicals, and conditions of the early earth and see if some sort of electrical spark (to
simulate lightning) could induce these chemicals to give rise to amino acids—the basic building blocks of life. The assumption
was that way back when life first came about it did so through a mechanism of energy (lightning or some other such energy
source) striking a primordial, or primitive, pond or sea. It is interesting to note several things that they neglect to inform you of
in the completely unbiased, evolution textbooks in school. One being, that chemicals 1 million times more concentrated than
found anywhere on earth are needed to produce the same chemicals used in the origin of life experiments (VII). Another
interesting fact is what Brooks and Shaw, two evolutionists, write about in The Origin and Development of Living Systems, “In
fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. The like of which are supposed to be in the primordial sea” (VII).
William Day who is also an evolutionist writes this, “A curious flaw of human nature is to permit the imagery of a catchy
phrase to shape ones reasoning. Paul Dane’s ‘Hot Glupe Soup’ became ‘primordial soup’ a feature that has been popularized
for nearly 50 years without geological evidence that it ever existed” (VII).
H. P. Yacky writing for the journal of theoretical Biology writes the following:
The warm little pond scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialist, reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is
unsupported by any other evidence, and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found. One must conclude that contrary to
established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on
the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written (VII).
All this aside, let’s assume that the evolutionists’ theory of the ‘primordial sea’ is correct even though there is no solid evidence
to support it. It is definitely within the realm of possibility, and as far as the theory of evolution goes, it is a necessity that it, or
something similar to it, did exist. Let’s take a specific look at the actual experiment that Stanley Miller performed.
Within a closed system of glass tubes, he established a reducing atmosphere of hydrogen, ammonia, methane
gas, and water vapor. Through these gases, he passed a spark to simulate lightning. Within a few hours the
system was found to contain numerous simple organic compounds, including hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, cyanogen, acetaldehyde,
cyanoacetylene, and propionaldehyde. In water, these compounds dissolved and were rapidly converted into amino acids, simple acids,
purines, and pyrimidines—the building blocks of life (XII, 519-520).
The problem with all of this is, you, like me, too readily accept the things that parade under the banner of science as fact.
However, as you will see, this facade of scientism falls apart when we look closely and when we begin to ask critical questions.
Let’s start with the amino acids that came out of Miller’s test tube. The truth is that these differ in critical ways from those found in
living things. Amino acids come in two forms, what scientists call left-handed and right-handed. Living things are highly selective: They
use only the left-handed form. But when Miller and his colleagues mixed chemicals in the laboratory, they got both kinds—an even
fifty-fifty mix of left-handed and right handed. In fact, this is what happens every time anyone mixes the chemicals randomly in the
laboratory. There is no natural process that produces only left-handed amino acids, the kind required by living things. All this means that
the amino acids formed in the test tube are useless for life (VI, 70).
Every origin-of-life experiment must control the environment of the experiment in many ways in order to get the things that
they want. However, are these controlled environments similar to the ones that were present when the first life forms
supposedly evolved on earth from nonliving material?
As an analogy, suppose a famous chef said that random natural processes could produce a chocolate cake. In his effort to prove it, we
would not begrudge him taking whole plants—including wheat, cacao, and sugar cane—and placing them near a hot spring, in the hope
that the heated water would extract the right materials and cook them. But we would become a little wary if the chef bought refined
flour, cocoa, and sugar at the store, saying that he didn’t have time to wait for the hot water to extract the components from the plants.
We would shake our heads if he then switched his experiment from a hot spring to an electric oven, to “speed things up.” And we would
walk away if he then measured the amounts of the components carefully, mixed them in a bowl, placed them in a pan, and baked them in
his oven. The results would have nothing to do with his original idea that natural processes could produce a cake (IV, 169).
One popular device that every origin-of-life experiment uses is a contraption to trap and to protect the products after they have
formed. It is essential that the amino acids are removed from harms way as soon as they are formed because they are very
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
3
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
delicate and will break apart just as quickly as they formed, if they aren’t kept safe. The solution to this problem, scientists have
figured out, is to build a trap that removes the amino acids from the reaction site right after they form. Colson gives a good
example in his book:
To understand why this is so important, imagine you are a child eating a bowl of alphabet soup. When you stir the soup, you are an
energy source. Stirring slowly, you might cause a few letters to line up and form short words, such as ‘T-O’ or ‘A-N-D.’ But as you keep
stirring, your spoon will quickly cause the letters to scatter again—unless you scoop the words out with your spoon and put them
carefully on your plate. That’s what the trap does: It takes amino acids out of harm’s way and preserves them (VI, 72).
As you might have guessed by now, nature doesn’t come equipped with this neat little ‘trap’ to help protect the delicate
building blocks of life. And Natural Selection does not apply here for the simple reason that Natural Selection is what occurs
when an organism is better suited to the environment than its competitors so that it is the ‘fittest’ and survives where its
competitors die and thus passes on its genes. That previous example is how nature is said to ‘select’ the best suited or adapted
organisms. However, do you see the problem with using Natural Selection at this point in the game? We are talking about the
formation of the very first cells. At this time, there was no natural process to select these particular amino acids and to preserve
them.
At every turn, the experiments that have ignited so much excitement turn out to be artificial. As a result, even the most successful originof-life experiments tell us next to nothing about what could have happened under natural conditions. They tell us only what happens
when a brilliant scientist manipulates the conditions, “coaxing” the materials down the chemical pathways necessary to produce the
building blocks of life. So what do these experiments really prove? That life can be created only by an intelligent agent directing,
controlling, and manipulating the process. The latest scientific findings do not discredit biblical faith; rather, they provide positive
evidence that the origin of life requires an intelligent agent, a creator (VI, 73).
Klaus Dose, a prominent worker in the field of origin-of-life research writes the following intriguing remarks:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better
perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal
theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance (IV, 168).
I close this section with a more philosophical challenge written by the Oxford don C.S. Lewis.
On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more
natural than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not
reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside the sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into
the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside of Nature for the real Originator of
the natural order? (VIII, 89).
What is Irreducible Complexity?
Michael J. Behe, a biochemistry professor for Lehigh University, wrote a book in 1993 called Darwin’s Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. David Berlinski, the author of A Tour of the Calculus, wrote this about Behe’s book, “No
one can propose to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges set out in this superbly written and compelling book.” Behe
coined the phrase of irreducible complexity, and he uses the mousetrap as an example. “A mousetrap cannot be assembled
gradually he points out. You cannot start with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, add a spring and catch a few more
mice, add a hammer, and so on, each addition making the mousetrap function better. No, to even start catching mice, all the
parts must be assembled from the outset. The mousetrap doesn’t work until all its parts are present and working together” (VI,
88).
Many living structures are like the mousetrap. They involve an entire system of interacting parts all working together. If one part were to
evolve in isolation, the entire system of interacting parts would stop functioning; and since, according to Darwinism, natural selection
preserves the forms that function better than their rivals, the nonfunctioning systems would be eliminated by natural selection—like the
fish with lungs. Therefore, there is no possible Darwinian explanation of how irreducibly complex structures and systems came into
existence” (VI, 88).
Even Darwin understood that this was tantamount to his theory because he once wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory
would absolutely break down” (VI, 88). “The most advanced, automated factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated
on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell” (VI, 89). “Attempts to explain the
evolution of highly specified, irreducibly complex systems—either mousetraps or cilia or blood clotting—by gradualistic route
have so far been incoherent…” (IV, 177). There is no feasible way for natural selection to select for an irreducibly complex
organ because nature, by the definition of natural selection—Nature persevering an organism that has the highest chance to
survive in a competitive environment—would necessarily not select these intermediate forms of the irreducibly complex organ
because it would only increase the organisms chances of being killed. As an example let’s take a look at the bat. Evolutionist
would have us believe that the bat evolved from mouse-like creatures. However, if you follow that logically, you will see that
this logic is fatally flawed. “But picture the steps: As the ‘front toes’ grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them,
the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And
so, during most of its hypothetical transitional stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for
flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct” (VI, 89). If you think about it, there are thousands upon
thousands of similar types of necessary transitional forms that would be detrimental to the organism not beneficial.
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
4
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
In fact, evolutionary experiments even of systems that do not appear to be irreducibly complex, such as specific metabolic pathways, are
missing from the literature. The reason for this appears to be similar to the reason for the failure to explain the origin of life: a choking
complexity strangles all such attempts (IV, 177).
Also, the first time a bat is found in the fossil record it is a fully formed bat. There are no transitional fossils leading up to it.
We will look into the fossil record a little bit later, but now let’s take a look at the microscopic level of life—Biochemistry.
What does Biochemistry Reveal about Evolution?
If you were to study biochemistry you would soon discover that every living cell, no matter how simple or how
complex, has a complex-enzymatic-protein-metabolic-motor. Simply put, every living cell has the ability to extract energy from
its environment in order to supply energy for the reproduction of that cell and for other cell needs. This metabolic-motor is
absolutely essential for life! However, here is the kicker—it can only be produced by life! How, when no life existed did
substances come into being, which are absolutely essential for life, but can only be made by life (V)? This is also true for DNA.
DNA is essential for life, but it can only be produced by life. How, when no life existed? As we saw earlier, Evolutionists have
no good answer for this question.
In looking in a very prestigious journal entitled Journal of Molecular Evolution (JME), Michael Behe decided to
research the scientific knowledge that had accumulated since the journal’s inception in 1971. The JME is run by prominent
figures in the field, including about a dozen who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. After 10 years of studying
the articles in this prestigious journal he wrote the following:
Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals,
specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even
might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or
calculations….“Publish or perish” is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the
community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia (and if you don’t already have tenure, you will be banished). But the
saying can be applied to theories as well. If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an
attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling, molecular evolution has
never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not
published, and so it should perish….In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever
proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step fashion….The
very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate
framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems (IV, 185-86, 176).
“The search can be extended, but the results are the same. There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of
the evolution of complex biochemical systems” (IV, 179).
The Limitations of the Gene Pool
Darwin was amazed by the fact that in the hands of a skilled breeder a Rock pigeon could become a fantail (with
feathers like a Chinese fan), a pouter (with a huge crop bulging under its beak) or a Jacobean (with a hood of feathers like the
hoods that the Jacobean monks wore). Darwin took what he saw, observable facts, and basically said that if these pigeons could
‘evolve’ so dramatically in such a short period of time (microevolution), than he believed that given enough time that single
celled organisms could evolve into multi-celled organisms (macroevoltuion). That fish could evolve into amphibians,
amphibians into reptiles, and reptiles into mammals. What Darwin had observed was natural selection, which is a basic law of
biology. However, he deduced from his observations his theory of macroevolution.
In 1800 there was a group of plant breeders who started trying to increase the level of sugar production in the sugar
beet. The first 75 years they increased the production of the sugar beet from 6% to 17%. Although, they used the same intensive
techniques over the next fifty years they were unable to increase it beyond 17%. Why does this happen?
Because once all the genes for a particular trait have been selected, breeding can go no further. Breeding shuffles and selects among
existing genes in the gene pool, combining and recombining them, much as you might shuffle and deal cards from a deck. But breeding
does not create new genes, any more than shuffling cards creates new cards. A bird cannot be bred to grow fur. A mouse cannot be bred
to grow feathers. A pig cannot grow wings (VI, 84).
“No scientific finding has contradicted the basic principle that change in living things is limited. Luther Burbank, regarded as
the greatest breeder of all time, said the tendency for organisms to stay true to type is so constant that it can be considered a
natural law” (VI, 87). A recent study of finches found that the finches’ beaks grow larger in dry seasons in order to break open
the seeds that are tough and hard, but grow smaller after a wet season when the seeds are soft and easy to break open. Some
scientists point to this and say that this is evolution happening before our vary eyes. If they mean microevolution, then they are
correct. However, many times they are implying that this evidence for microevolution can be applied to macroevolution.
The change in finch beaks is a cyclical fluctuation that allows the finches to adapt and survive, points out Phillip Johnson in Reason in
the Balance. In other words, it’s a minor adjustment that allows finches to…stay finches. It does not demonstrate that finches are
evolving into a new kind of organism or that they originally evolved from another organism (VI, 86).
Unless of course, you have already made up your mind that macroevolution is true. Then any example of microevolution seems
to give evidence to macroevolution. The diagram below (XIV, 59) illustrates the natural selection of nature through time, which
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
5
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
then yields a final product: the word ‘EVOLUTION’. The point is that the probability of the word ‘EVOLUTION’ happening
at one point in time by random chance is 1 in 1,000,000,000. However, via nature selecting that which is best adapted to the
environment the word can slowly, step by step evolve into the final product, ‘EVOLUTION’.
The problem with this however
should be clear to you by now. This
again is a simple illustration of
natural selection working on the
known gene pool to produce a form
of high information
‘EVOLUTION’ from a low
information gene pool (letters in the
bowl). This is an illustration of
natural selection working on genes
that are already available in the
gene pool. Again this is a diagram
that misleadingly implies
macroevolution. However, in order
to get a ‘new’ type of organism,
macroevolution, you need to get
new information, new genes (in the
diagram this would be analogous to
totally new letters in the bowl not just a random selection of the ones already available). The only available options of ‘genes’
in this case are the letters A, C, E, I, L, N, O, T, U, V. In order to give rise to a new type of organism there needs to be new
letters i.e. new genes. The second part of the theory of macroevolution—from goo to you by way of the zoo—is that of natural
selection, which everyone fully accepts. However, the first part of this theory is the need of mutations in these genes in order to
bring about new ‘letters’, new genes with a new, different kind of information. In comes the necessity of beneficial mutations.
Beneficial Mutations?
A mutation is like a typing error, and just like the fact that the typing error makes the thing you are typing worse not better, this
is also true of most mutations. Most mutations are harmful to the organism and many are flat out deadly.
In order to make this theory work, neo-Darwinism must hope that some mutations, somewhere, somehow, will be beneficial. And since
the evolution of a single new organ or structure may require many thousands of mutations, neo-Darwinists must hope that vast number
of these rare beneficial mutations will occur in a single organism. The improbabilities are staggering (VI, 85).
One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr. Werner Gitt from Germany’s
Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, writes, “There is no
known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any
physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this” (II, 55). “His
challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first
published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of
information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection
can then go to work” (II, 55). Instead of evolution it is more likely that there would be
de-evolution. The picture to the left is a picture of what some have called the ‘genetic
workhorse’ of macroevolution—the fruit fly. Through artificial selection, attempts to
speed up natural selection through intensive breeding, mating, and laboratory
techniques, macroevolutionary scientists have tried to change the fruit fly through a
variety of means over the last 75 years. Dr. Norman Geisler writes “However, even
with intelligent intervention, and under laboratory-controlled conditions, all of the efforts of macroevolutionists have been in
vain. Drosophila [fruit fly] remains what it has always been—a fruit fly. Instead of demonstrating that genetic boundaries do
not exist, Drosophila has proved just the opposite” (VIII, 149). Throughout all of its microevolutions it has shown the limit of
its genetic makeup. Of course, it is possible that mutations have occurred throughout the millions of years to bring about ‘new’
information. The problem however is something that I told you in the introduction that I would get back to—circular reasoning
or also called ‘begging the question’. Evolutionists have an a priori (given) presupposition that evolution is true. Therefore
mutations must have occurred in the past for macroevolution to happen. Stephen Jay Gould said, “Our continuing struggle to
understand how evolution happens (the theory of evolution) does not cast our documentation of its occurrence—the ‘fact of
evolution’—into doubt.” “Gould has openly acknowledged that the mechanism (how macroevolution happened) is not really
known, but the “fact of evolution” (that it happened) is certain. This is a simple case of question begging—the conclusion
(macroevolution is a fact) is used as an assumption (macroevolution happened). Stated more forthrightly, Gould should have
said, “I know that macroevolution is true because it has happened, and I know it has happened because it is true”” (VIII, 145).
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
6
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
This is a classic example of circular reasoning. In science, there needs to be some sort of evidence (empirical, operational,
observational, or circumstantial) that would support the claim not a presumed starting point that justifies only one possible
conclusion. Niles Eldredge who is the Curator-in-Chief of the permanent exhibition "Hall of Biodiversity" at the American
Museum of Natural History in Myths of Human Evolution says that, “Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the
most obvious single fact about biological evolution, non-change has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone’s scientific
notion of how life actually evolves” (VII). So far, all attempts at showing evolution to be true beyond reasonable doubt has led
to a dead-end. And since we do not have any empirical evidence, let us now turn our attention and focus to the observational
evidence—Paleontology—the fossil record.
Paleontology—What Does the Fossil Record Tell Us?
If Darwin’s Theory of evolution is correct, then there should be numerous examples in the fossil record of transitional
species. “…[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers
in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection
which can be argued against my theory” (I, 210). That is a quote from Charles Darwin’s own hand. Since that time much more
solid fossil evidence has been collected. What does it look like today? Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, an avowed evolutionist,
writes, “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change…All paleontologists know that the
fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically
abrupt” (I, 212). Elsewhere he says, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of
paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. The rest is
inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” (VII).
“[American Museum of Natural History paleontologist] Eldrege admits that ‘The Cambrian evolution explosion is still
shrouded in mystery.” But creation scientists say, what greater evidence could the rocks give than this abrupt appearance of a
great variety of complex creatures without a trace of ancestors? Thus we see, right from the beginning, on the basis of an
evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contradictory to predictions based on evolution but is remarkable in accord with
predictions based on creation. “This [Cambrian] evidence alone is sufficient to establish the fact that evolution has not occurred
on earth” (I, 228).
In 1981 Dr. Colin Patterson, author of the book Evolution and a lifelong macroevolutionist gave a series of lectures to some of
the top macroevolutionists in the United States. At that time Dr. Patterson was the senior paleontologist at the British Museum
of Natural History in London and editor of its journal. The following is extracted from a transcript of his lecture given at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York City on November 5, 1981 (VIII, 167).
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden
realization that for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had
happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long….For the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various
people and groups of people. The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that
question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of
the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, all I got there was silence
for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.”…The level of
knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in the high school and that’s all we know about
it….So I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years if you had thought about it at all, you’ve
experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me and I think it’s true of a good many of you
in here” (VIII, 167).
Dr. Colin Patterson also wrote a very significant book on evolution, and when he was asked why he didn’t show any pictures of
the so-called ‘transitional forms’ of fossils this is what he wrote:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or
living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where
would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead
the reader?…. Yet [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there
are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral
forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I
will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument” (XV, 17-18).
Well what about the Archaeopteryx?
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between
reptiles and birds (because it shares features found in both classes) shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would
establish it there beyond reasonable doubt—the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward-facing claw
and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g., the platypus) are also a mosaic of features normally found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who
has fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young,
is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a “halfway house” between any two of the creatures listed (XV, 18-19).
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
7
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
Alan Feduccia who is a world-renown authority on birds and is an evolutionist says this, “Paleontologists have tried to
turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
“paleobabble” is going to change that” (II, 58). It is not so unique for a bird to have claws. Ostriches have claws on their wings.
It is a bird.
This is why Patterson said that, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Dr.
Carlson tells a story of when he visited the Royal Turel Museum of Paleontology in Alberta, Canada. This is the largest
museum on evolution in North America. It took him four-and-half hours to walk through the entire museum. There are
thousands and thousands of fossils. However, he says that he failed to see a single transitional fossil. He was upset so he went
to see the director of the museum. He talked to an associate director because the senior director was out of town. And Dr.
Carlson asked him, where are the transitional fossils? The man responded, “As soon as we find one, we’ll certainly have it in
our museum” (V).
Swedish botanist and geneticist D. Nihls Heribert-Nilsson who is a secular scientist offered an amazing statement.
After 40 years of attempting to find evidence to support the theory of evolution, he finally concluded that the task was
impossible. He writes in his 1200-page magnum opus, Synthetic Speciation, that the theory of evolution “ought to be entirely
abandoned” (I, 224). Furthermore this is part of what he wrote,
Has there really been an evolution? Are the proofs of its occurrence tenable? After a detailed and comprehensive review of the facts we
have been forced to give the answer: No! Neither a recent nor a palaeo-historical evolution can be empirically demonstrated. If this is the
case, all discussions and problems concerning the causation of an evolution lose all interest…the roads of evolution are not problems any
more. It is rather futile to discuss the digestion or the brain functions of a ghost. When we have arrived at this standpoint, the evolutionist
has the obvious right to ask: What has caused the fundamental differentiation in the world of organisms, the immeasurable variation
among animals and plants? That it exists is a fact: you owe us an explanation! We turn to empirical facts to obtain the answer. They tell
us that during the geological history of the earth gigantic revolutions have occurred which at the same time mean…catastrophes for a
whole world of organisms but also the origin of a completely new one. The new one is structurally completely different from the old
one. I will be asked: Do you seriously want to make such a statement? Do you not see that the consequences of such a theory are more
than daring, that they would be nearly insane? Do you really mean to say that an orchid or an elephant should have been instantaneously
created out of non-living material? Yes, I do” (I, 224-225).
Granted the fossil record is not complete, and there are many organisms that were not preserved. But how come we don’t have
turtle intermediates? Surely, their hard parts survived in some sort of intermediate form. The fossil record tells us that this isn’t
the case. When turtles appear in the fossil record they appear fully formed without any intermediate ancestor. In an honest
encounter with this truth Stephen Jay Gould writes, “Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We
fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history; yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection
we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study….The history of most fossil species
includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis….2. Sudden appearance….” (VIII, 163-165). In
comes the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated Equilibrium?
Michael Denton, in regards to the theory of punctuated equilibrium writes the following intriguing remarks:
Whatever view one wishes to take of the evidence of paleontology, it does not provide convincing grounds for believing that the
phenomenon of life conforms to a continuous pattern. The gaps have not been explained away. It is possible to allude to a number of
species and groups such as Archaeopteryx, or the rhipidistian fish, which appear to be to some extent intermediate. But even if such were
intermediate to some degree, there is no evidence that they are any more intermediate than groups such as the living lungfish or
monotremes which are not only tremendously isolated from their nearest cousins, but which have individual organ systems that are not
strictly transitional at all. As evidence for the existence of natural links between the great divisions of nature, they are convincing to
someone already convinced of the reality of organic evolution (VIII, 166).
In light of the irreducibly complex nature of all organisms, it is still irrational for one to think that even some sort of supperduper speed up process of producing new information in the gene pool, which the Cambrian explosion evidence obviously
necessitates (this is why evolutionists have come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium because the original model,
progressive evolution, was wholly inadequate), could account for sudden appearance of all the fully formed organisms that
scientists have discovered in the fossil record.
Have Humans Evolved?
Lucy is probably the best evidence of a transitional fossil when it comes to human ancestry. Lucy is classified as an
australopithecine. She is estimated to be 3.2 millions years old, and was found by Dr. Johanson in Ethiopia. The best evidence
that pointed to Lucy being a human was based upon her knee joint. However, Dr. Johanson now admits that the knee joint
attributed to Lucy was found about one-and-half miles away and 200 feet down in a different strata of earth! It truly could be
anyone’s knee joint.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of
measurements by computerized analysis (an objective method that does not depend on preconceived beliefs of ancestry), do not believe
that these creatures [australopithecines] are human ancestors. He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or
at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they “differ more from both humans and African apes than do these
two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.” He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is
supported by an increasing number of investigators who are “independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.”
(XV, 19-20).
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
8
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
Claimed Pre-Human Intermediates
Refutation
Neandertal man
150 years ago, Neandertal reconstructions were stooped
and very much like an ‘ape-man’. However, the stooped
posture was due to disease (rickets). Neandertals were part
of the human kind, fully able to speak, create art and
music, have a religious outlook, etc.
Ramapithecus
Once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has
now been realized that it was merely an extinct type of
orangutan (an ape).
Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus)
Many were convinced of evolution by this hoax based on a
human skullcap and an orangutan’s jaw. It was widely
publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus)
Based on a single tooth of a type of pig now living only in
Paraguay.
Java Man (Pithecanthropus)
Now renamed Homo erectus, and part of the human kind.
Australopithecus africanus
This was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is
very ape-like and evolutionists themselves no longer
consider it to be transitional.
Peking Man (Sinanthropus)
Has now been reclassified as Homo erectus.
(III, 22)
Commenting on a find of the famous macroevolutionist, Louis Leaky which led to the conclusion that Homo habilis and Homo
erectus existed together, Duane Gish writes the following:
If Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus existed contemporaneously, how could one have been ancestral to another? And
how could any of these creatures be ancestral to Man, when Man’s artifacts are found at a lower stratigraphic level, directly underneath,
and thus earlier in time to these supposed ancestors of Man? If the facts are correct as Leaky has reported them, then obviously none of
these creatures could have been ancestral to Man, and that leaves Man’s ancestral tree bare (VIII, 183).
Stephen J. Gould also seems to be a bit confused because he writes, “What has become of our ladder if there are three
coexisting lineages of hominids…none clearly derived from another? Moreover none display any evolutionary trends during
their tenure on earth: none become brainier or more erect as they approach the present day” (VIII, 183).
There is no clear fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The whole chain of missing links is still missing because they
simply never existed….Considering the history of defunct ‘ape-men’, all future claims should be treated skeptically (III, 23).
It really isn’t about a few missing links. It is about missing whole pieces of the chain!
A Whale of a Tale
If you look closely at any textbook when it discusses evolution,
you will see that every picture of evolution, one species evolving into
another species, is an artist’s rendition of that change. In other words, if
evolution were true and we in fact did have bones of apes evolving into
humans, evolutionists could show photographs of transitional skeletons of
apes slowly evolving into modern man. However, that is not what we find
in our textbooks, is it? No, what we find is an artist’s best guess of what
the transitional stages might have looked like based upon fragmentary
collection of bones.
Pictured to the far left (II, 16) is Phil Gingerich’s, an evolutionists,
reconstruction of Pakicetus, a supposed whale intermediate. But as you
can see for yourself from the nearest picture to the left that there wasn’t
much found of the actual fossil. There was nothing found beneath the
skull. However, this didn’t stop Gingerich from imagining the picture that
you see on your far left. He even wrote an article for schoolteachers with his re-created animal swimming and eating fish. The
reason he extrapolated so much in this instance was because the inner ear of the bones he found were much like that of a whale.
However, since the time he proposed this new discoveries have been made. This led a prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and
some of his colleagues to write in Nature, “All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals,
and…indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground” (II, 16) Later Gingerich admitted his
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
9
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
error. I use this simply as an illustration of the extreme measures that some evolutionists will go to to put forth ‘evidence’ to
support the theory of macroevolution.
This is a picture (XIV, 43) of a modern
whale. Showing a close-up of what is
called a vestigial organ. A vestigial
organ, according to the theory of
evolution, is a remnant of a more
complete organ from its ancestors that it
no longer needs. However, there are
some important things to note here.
One, the pelvic bone is not attached to
vertebral column. And unless it is
attached to the vertebral column it is not
conclusive evidence that it was ever a
hind leg. In regards to the Basilosaurus,
the supposed ancestor of the modern
whale, there were some sort of
protrusions in the hind portion of the animal which Gingerich himself writes, “it seems to me that they could only have been
some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper” (II, 17). In other words, an alternative hypothesis that fits the evidence that
scientists do in fact have and not inferring anything beyond that, is that this is just another example of microevolution. The
bones in the rear of the whale are nothing but the remains of a more primitive ‘clasper’ that helped the whale to reproduce. This
could easily be just a case of variation within a type of organism not necessarily evidence of whales having evolved from land
dwelling animals. There are many cases of so called vestigial organs that we now know actually serve a purpose. And vestigial
organs do not necessarily prove macroevolution. It can be interpreted to be evidence for macroevolution but it also can be, as
seen with the whale example, as evidence simply for microevolution. Also, just because there are a long line of similar
organisms doesn’t mean that they have evolved. If I were to line up a spoon on my kitchen table all the way up to my biggest
pan with larger spoons, ladles, and smaller pans in between them, would that mean that they had evolved? Not necessarily. It
could also mean that an intelligent person made them to serve a similar purpose.
“The university textbook…claims that ‘human embryos possess gill slits like a fish’,
although it has been known for many decades that human’s embryos never have ‘gill slits’.
These ‘pharyngeal arches’, as they are properly known, or ‘throat pouches’, never have a
breathing function, are never ‘slits’ or openings, and develop into the thymus gland,
parathyroid glands and middle ear canals—none of which has anything to do with
breathing! Specialist embryology textbooks acknowledge that human embryos do not have
gill slits. For example, Langman said, “Since the human embryo never has gills—
branchia—the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted in this book.” However,
many still speak of ‘gill slits’, especially when teaching students. The term prevails in
schools and university textbooks, but it is wrong” (III, 17). Another classic fallacy is that
which is known as ‘Haeckel’s blunder’, which is named after Ernst Haeckel who came up
with the so-called biogenetic law: “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” “That embryos actually recapitulate adult ancestral
forms—that humans go through fish and reptile stages, for example—was never borne out by the evidence, and embryologists
quietly discarded it. Nonetheless, the concept was so pleasing theoretically that generations of biology students learned it as
fact. Gould recalls being taught the formula in school, fifty years after it had been discarded by science” (IX, 72). Both of these
lies are used in the Kennesaw State University textbook, Evolution, on page 44. The simple fact that evolutionists have known
for years about something like this and haven’t done anything about it gives support to my hypothesis that it isn’t really the
truth that evolutionists are after, but rather, a dogmatic stranglehold on what they believe is the only option of life.
The debate is not an Intellectual one—it is a Moral one
Dr. Arno Penzias, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics writes:
Today’s dogma holds that matter is eternal. The dogma comes from the intuitive belief of people (including the majority of physicists)
who don’t want to accept the observational evidence that the universe was created—despite the fact that the creation of the universe is
supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described
as having a ‘religious’ belief that matter must be eternal….Since scientists prefer to operate in the belief that the universe must be
meaningless—that reality consists of nothing more than the sum of the world’s tangible constituents—they cannot confront the idea of
creation easily, or take it lightly” (I, 98).
Dr. George Wald professor of biology at Harvard University who won the Nobel Prize in biology in 1971 wrote,
“Spontaneous generation, the idea that life arose from nonliving matter, that idea was scientifically disproved 130 years ago by
Louie Pasteur, Redi, and others. That leads us, scientifically, to only one possible conclusion. That life arose as a supernatural
creative act of God. But I will not accept that, philosophically, because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
10
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation” (V). Dr. Carlson tells of a time when he was
lecturing on Evolution VS Creation at a university on the East Coast. He relates that the head of the science department came
up to him after he was finished and said, ‘What you are teaching is not only good science, it is basic common sense, but I have
to admit to you I’m still going to teach evolution. I’m going to teach evolution because it is morally comfortable. As long as I
believe I’m nothing but an accident evolved from slimy algae, that I’m nothing but an animal, I can live morally any way I
choose. I can go to bed with any girl I choose. If there is no God, and I’m simply an animal evolved from slimy algae, there are
no moral consequences. As soon as I admit that there is a creator, then I become morally responsible to that creator. Frankly, I
don’t want to be morally responsible to anyone” (V). Aldous Huxley once wrote the following intriguing remark:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently [I] assumed that it had none, and was able without any
difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively
with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he
wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves….
For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political (XI, xl).
The more I learn about this topic the more glaringly clear it becomes that the issue is not an intellectual one, but
ultimately, a moral one.
Verdict?—Intelligent Design!
“The prominent Swedish biologist, Soren Lovetrup, in his Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth wrote concerning
Neo-Darwinism, ‘To all intents and purposes, the theory has been falsified so why has it not been abandoned? I think that the
answer to this question is that current evolutionists follow Darwin’s example. They refuse to accept falsifying evidence.’” (I,
95-96).The following is quote from Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box. The quote is a bit lengthy, but I believe he makes the
point very powerfully.
Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying
glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stand a large, gray elephant. The
detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm’s legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get
frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say detectives
must “get their man” so they never consider elephants. There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the
development of life. The elephant is labeled “intelligent design.” To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to
unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the
laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they
were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components,
is the product of intelligent activity. The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or
sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new
principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with
consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day (IV, 192-193).
The knowledge we now have of life at the molecular level has been stitched together from innumerable experiments in which proteins
were purified, genes cloned, electron micrographs taken, cells cultured, structures determined, sequences compared, parameters varied,
and controls done. Papers were published, results checked, reviews written, blind alleys searched, and new leads fleshed out. The result
of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design!”
The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science….
The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is
caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta (IV, 232-233).
Quite frankly, I just don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution. It is too big a leap for me to take.
Final Challenge
“Finally if creationism is really only a religion, why do evolutionists consistently lose their scientific debates to
creationists? Such debates have been held since 1970. In 1979, The Wall Street Journal for June 15 reported, “The creationists
tend to win” the debates. Six months later a report in Bioscience for January 30, 1980 agreed: “Why do creationists seem to be
the consistent winners in public debates with evolutionists?” In an ICR letter of August 1979, Henry Morris could report: “By
now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate
on creation/evolution.” One wonders why if evolution is a proven scientific fact and creation only a religion?” (I, 83).
It is my hope that this paper has intrigued you enough to at least look into the other side of the issue. This paper is
really a pale comparison to the much more thorough and convincing works of Behe, Johnson and the likes. It is my hope that
you will continue to be intrigued by a topic that has implications that influence all of human life as we know it. I think you can
see how important it is that we continue to strive after the truth—whatever the truth may be! I would like to share with you just
a moment what I believe that truth to be in light of what I’ve just laid out for you.
I truly believe that there is a God who has created you, loves you, and wants you to know him in a personal
relationship that is beyond anything you could possibly imagine: love, joy, peace, happiness, excitement, contentment, selfJeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
11
Darwin’s Dangerous Dogma
control, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and a fullness of life. However, believe because of the sin that I know to be in my
heart I, as well as every human being, is separated from the love of God because a Holy and righteous God cannot sweep the
sins of the world underneath the rug and still be a righteous and just God. Just like a judge of this land cannot let a rapist go
without punishing him and still be a judge. There must be an account for this sin that I find in myself. But because of God’s
great love for us, about 2,000 years ago God sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to die in our place on the cross so
that in believing in Jesus, with our minds and receiving him in our hearts, spiritually, the stain of sin may forever be removed
from those who would place their faith in Him as their Lord and Savior. I believe that the evidence for this is overwhelmingly
powerful as well, and if you would like to read my paper on this evidence, ‘The Evidence for the Skeptic in all of Us’, then
please visit www.svroswell.com and click on the ‘resource’ link and download the paper. If you would like to enter into a
personal relationship with God right now through Jesus Christ, it is very simple. There are no magical words to pray. The
prayer is not what brings you into a right relationship with your Heavenly Father, but rather, it is your acknowledgement that
you are a sinner in need of a savior expressed from your heart to God in words—and if it is from your heart, He will hear you
and forgive you of all your sins—past, present and future! The following is a simple suggested prayer that you can pray:
“Father, I need you in my life. I know I am a sinner and I don’t need a better set of values or morals, or a tighter set of rules and
regulations, I need a savior, I need you Jesus. I believe that you Jesus have died upon the cross to make the payment that I
should have made for my sin. Thank you for doing what I could never do. Thank you for offering to me your righteousness and
taking from me all my sin—past, present, and future. Come into my heart and forgive me of my sins and make me the type of
person that you want me to be. I ask all of this in the name of Jesus believing in and resting on the promise of God which says,
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be
saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified [just as if I’d never sinned], and it is with your mouth that you
confess and are saved” (Romans 10:9-10). Finally, I also believe that the person that gave you this paper would love to share
with you how they have come to know God in a personal way, so if you get a chance, ask them!
Works Cited
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
Ankerberg, John; Weldon, John. Darwin’s Leap of Faith. Eugene, Oregon:
Harvest House Publishers, 1998.
Answers In Genesis Minsitries. Creation: A shattering critique of the PBS/NOVA ‘Evolution’ series. CD. Florence,
KY. 859-727-2222. www.answersingenesis.org
Batten, Don; Ham, Ken; Sarfati, Jonathan; Wieland, Carl. Answers To The 4 Big Questions!
Florence, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries, 2000.
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biological Challenge to Evolution New York, NY: Simon & Schuster,
1998.
Carlson, Ron Dr. Evolution VS Creation. Audiocassette.
Colson, Charles; Pearcey, Nancy. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, Illinois:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1999.
Geisler, Norman L. Creation or Evolution. Audiocassette. www.impactapologetics.com
Geisler, Norman; Bocchino, Peter. Unshakable Foundations. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2001.
Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Koukl, Gregory. “Phar Lap & Phossils” Stand to Reason: Radio commentary
www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/phossils.htm
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.
Purves, Orians, Heller, Sadava. Life: The Science of Biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts:
Sinauer
Associates, Inc., 1998.
Sarfati, Johnathan Ph.D. Refuting Evolution. Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999.
Stickerberger, Monroe W. Evolution. Third Edition. Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers
International, 2000.
Wieland, Carl. Stones and Bones Powerful evidence against evolution. Green Forest, AR:
Master Books, Inc. 1998
Jeremy Absher – JeremyAbsher@gmail.com – (678)-488-7532
12