CrossLinks Topical Index - EV


Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, W. A. Elwell : Ref-0820
Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, W. A. Elwell - Elwell, W. A., Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology : Ref-0820
Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, W. A. Elwell - Elwell, W. A., Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Logos-0533 : Ref-0820
Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old : Ref-0231
Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old - Robert L. Thomas : Ref-0231
evangelism : evangelism - problems ; evangelism - to unreached; great - commission ; second coming - spiritualized
evangelism - command to : great - commission
evangelism - Jews - preterism : second coming - spiritualized
evangelism - problems :

"The problem is that Americans always face evangelism like its salesmanship. Evangelism is not salesmanship, and yet so often we come up with these campaigns to try to win the whole country to Christ." Ref-1368, p. 18.215. "If you have a people that in rebellion against the Word of God then you treat them a certain way, and if they are responsive and open then you treat them a different way. But you do not treat all people the same way, that is not love, that is sentimentalism. That's exactly what evangelicals have been doing and that's why evangelicals haven't communicated." Ref-1359, p. 20.260. ". . . to be dishonest and lead unbelievers to a pseudo Christ, a Christ of their own making, to make it look like we can come over gradually from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, let's make a gray bridge across and creep inch by inch, slowly illuminating them to Jesus. This is not the way you win people to Jesus Christ." Ref-1359, p. 21.273.


evangelism - to unreached : Rom. 15:20-21
evangelist : evangelist - office of
evangelist - office of : Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Ti. 4:2-5
evangelistic : preaching - evangelistic
evangelistic - preaching : preaching - evangelistic
evangelists : evangelists - Jewish
evangelists - Jewish : Isa. 66:18-19 (?); Mat. 23:15; Rev. 7:3-8; Rev. 14:1-5

✪ Questionable: Isa. 66:18-19 (?);


evangelization : Ireland - protestantism ; Jew - first ; proselytizing - death penalty; sinners - evangelization; tongues - evangelization tool; worship - evangelization
evangelization - Ireland - protestant : Ireland - protestantism
evangelization - Jewish : Jew - first
evangelization - pagan - death penalty : proselytizing - death penalty
evangelization - sinners : sinners - evangelization
evangelization - tongues for : tongues - evangelization tool
evangelization - worship : worship - evangelization
Evans, C. Stephen, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion : Ref-1166
Evans, C. Stephen, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion - Logos-0630 : Ref-1166
Evans, C. Stephen, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion - Logos-0630 - Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion, C. Stephen Evans : Ref-1166
Evans, C. Stephen, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion - Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion, C. Stephen Evans : Ref-1166
Evans, Craig A., Dictionary of New Testament Background : Ref-1174
Evans, Craig A., Dictionary of New Testament Background - Dictionary of New Testament Background, Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter - Porter, Stanley E., Dictionary of New Testament Background : Ref-1174
Evans, Craig A., Dictionary of New Testament Background - Logos-0638 : Ref-1174
Evans, Craig A., Dictionary of New Testament Background - Logos-0638 - Porter, Stanley E., Dictionary of New Testament Background : Ref-1174
Evans, Craig A., Dictionary of New Testament Background - Porter, Stanley E., Dictionary of New Testament Background : Ref-1174
Evans, G. R., Faith in the Medieval World : Ref-1257
Evans, G. R., Faith in the Medieval World - Faith in the Medieval World, G. R. Evans : Ref-1257
Evans, G. R., Faith in the Medieval World - Faith in the Medieval World, G. R. Evans - Logos-0674 : Ref-1257
Evans, G. R., Faith in the Medieval World - Logos-0674 : Ref-1257
Evans, Great Doctrines of the Bible, The : Ref-1005
Evans, Great Doctrines of the Bible, The - Cross-0076 : Ref-1005
Evans, Great Doctrines of the Bible, The - Cross-0076 - Great Doctrines of the Bible, The, Evans : Ref-1005
Evans, Great Doctrines of the Bible, The - Great Doctrines of the Bible, The, Evans : Ref-1005
Evans, William, How to Prepare Sermons : Ref-1188
Evans, William, How to Prepare Sermons - Cross-0169 : Ref-1188
Evans, William, How to Prepare Sermons - Cross-0169 - How to Prepare Sermons, William Evans : Ref-1188
Evans, William, How to Prepare Sermons - How to Prepare Sermons, William Evans : Ref-1188
Evans, William, The Great Doctrines of the Bible : Ref-1189
Evans, William, The Great Doctrines of the Bible - Cross-0170 : Ref-1189
Evans, William, The Great Doctrines of the Bible - Cross-0170 - The Great Doctrines of the Bible, William Evans : Ref-1189
Evans, William, The Great Doctrines of the Bible - The Great Doctrines of the Bible, William Evans : Ref-1189
evaporation : water - hydrological cycle
evaporation - brings rain : water - hydrological cycle
Eve : Eve - deceived; Eve - named
Eve - deceived : 2Cor. 11:3; 1Ti. 2:14
Eve - named : Gen. 3:20

"From the first Adam believed in the original good news of the coming seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15). This is proved by the name Eve. . . which he gave to his wife. . . ‘Sunken in death he nevertheless gave his wife so proud a name’ (Calvin), and thereby expressed his faith in the conquest of death by life. So it was ‘an act of faith that Adam named his wife Eve’ (Franz Delitzsch)" Ref-0197, p. 62n1.


evening : evening - Jewish day starts; evening - morning
evening - Jewish day starts : evening - Jewish day starts; Gen. 1:5; Lev. 11:24-25; Lev. 11:31-32; Lev. 11:40; Lev. 22:6-7; Lev. 22:12; Lev. 23:32; Num. 9:3; Dan. 8:14
evening - morning : Gen. 1:5; Num. 9:21; Deu. 16:6
everlasting : kingdom - eternal
everlasting - kingdom : kingdom - eternal
evidence : apologetics - belief - evidence insufficent; apologetics - evidence ; evolution - evidence lacking ; manuscript - witness - nonbiblical historical works ; manuscript - witness - number of ; manuscripts - evidence - internal
evidence - evolution - lacking : evolution - evidence lacking
evidence - insufficient for belief : apologetics - belief - evidence insufficent
evidence - internal - evidence : manuscripts - evidence - internal
evidence - manuscript : manuscript - witness - number of
evidence - manuscript - nonbiblical historical works : manuscript - witness - nonbiblical historical works
evidence - rational : apologetics - evidence
Evidence for the Bible, Clive Anderson, Brian Edwards : Ref-1491
Evidence for the Bible, Clive Anderson, Brian Edwards - Anderson, Clive, Evidence for the Bible - Edwards, Brian, Evidence for the Bible : Ref-1491
Evidence for the Bible, Clive Anderson, Brian Edwards - Edwards, Brian, Evidence for the Bible : Ref-1491
evidential : apologetics - evidential
evidential - apologetics : apologetics - evidential
evil : dead - spiritually ; evil - avoiding; evil - by law; evil - called good ; evil - condoning; evil - corrupts good; evil - delighting in; evil - from good ; evil - God sovereign over; evil - hate; evil - in God's presence; evil - not to repay; evil - origin of; evil - perish; evil - prospers; evil - respond with good; evil - restrain; evil - righteous protected from; evil - separate from; evil - serves God; evil - sought by man; evil - wise to; heart - wicked; law - evil by; self - evil against; silent - prudent; spirit - evil from God; viewing - avoid wickedness
evil - against self : self - evil against
evil - avoid seeing or hearing : viewing - avoid wickedness
evil - avoiding : Job 28:28; Ps. 34:14; Pr. 14:16; Pr. 16:6; Pr. 16:17; Pr. 22:3; Pr. 24:1
evil - by law : law - evil by; Ps. 94:20
evil - called good : Pr. 17:15; Pr. 24:24; Pr. 28:4; Ps. 12:8; Isa. 5:20; Mic. 3:2; Mal. 2:17; Rom. 1:32; 1Pe. 3:16

✪ See evil - delighting in.


evil - condoning : 1K. 22:14; Ps. 50:18; Rom. 1:32
evil - corrupts good : 2S. 13:3-6; 2Chr. 22:4; 1Cor. 15:33
evil - delighting in : Pr. 2:13-14
evil - from God : spirit - evil from God
evil - from good : Gen. 3:5

"The serpent had promised man the knowledge of good and evil, and in a distorted form he has kept his word. But ‘instead of perceiving the evil from the free height of the good he perceived the good from the deep abyss of the evil.’" Ref-0197, p. 47.


evil - God sovereign over : Jer. 51:7
evil - hate : Ps. 97:10; Pr. 8:13; Amos 5:15
evil - heart : heart - wicked
evil - humans are : dead - spiritually
evil - in God's presence : Job 1:6-12; Rev. 14:10
evil - not to repay : Ex. 21:24; Lev. 19:21; Lev. 24:20; Pr. 20:22; Mat. 5:44; Rom. 12:17; 1Th. 5:15; 1Pe. 3:9
evil - origin of : Eze. 28:15; 1Ti. 3:6
evil - perish : Job 24:18-24
evil - prospers : 1S. 25:2; Job 21:7; Job 24:1-7; Ps. 73; Ecc. 7:15; Ecc. 8:12-14; Ecc. 9:2; Dan. 8:10; Mal. 3:15; Luke 6:35
evil - respond with good : Ps. 35:12; Rom. 12:17; 1Th. 5:15; 1Pe. 3:9
evil - restrain : Ex. 32:25
evil - righteous protected from : Job 1:10; Isa. 57:1-2
evil - separate from : 2Chr. 18:1-3
evil - serves God : Jdg. 9:23; 1S. 18:10; 1K. 13:13-22; 1K. 16:11-12; 1K. 16:18-20; 1K. 22:22; 2K. 19:7; 2Chr. 18:21; Job 1:12; Job 2:6; Isa. 37:7; Mat. 4:1; Luke 22:31; John 19:11; 1Cor. 5:5; 1Ti. 1:20; 2Cor. 12:7; Rev. 2:10; Rev. 9:5; Rev. 9:15; Rev. 16:14; Rev. 17:17; Rev. 20:3; Rev. 20:8
evil - silence prudent : silent - prudent
evil - sought by man : Isa. 59:7
evil - wise to : Jer. 4:22
evil company : company - evil corrupts good
evil company - corrupts good : company - evil corrupts good
Evilmerodoch : chronology - B.C. 0561 - 0560 - Evilmerodoch - reign - Newton
Evilmerodoch - reign - Newton : chronology - B.C. 0561 - 0560 - Evilmerodoch - reign - Newton
evolution : evolution - adaptation ; evolution - adultery ; evolution - AGAINST ; evolution - Agassiz ; evolution - antibiotic resistance ; evolution - Archaeopteryx ; evolution - atheism ; evolution - atheists oppose ; evolution - bird - intelligence ; evolution - brain ; evolution - brain - free will ; evolution - brain size ; evolution - Burgess Shale ; evolution - Cambrian explosion ; evolution - cell - not simple ; evolution - computer analogy ; evolution - creation myth ; evolution - dating ; evolution - design - appearance ; evolution - dinosaurs to birds ; evolution - DNA - additional information ; evolution - DNA - junk? ; evolution - DNA - twins ; evolution - DNA similarity ; evolution - dogma ; evolution - epigenetic information ; evolution - eugenics ; evolution - evidence lacking ; evolution - eye ; evolution - fact - assumed ; evolution - fossil evidence ; evolution - fossils - living ; evolution - fruit fly ; evolution - genetic decay ; evolution - hibernation ; evolution - Hitler's views ; evolution - importance ; evolution - information loss ; evolution - irreducible complexity ; evolution - language - uniquely human ; evolution - law ; evolution - life - origin ; evolution - macro vs. micro ; evolution - missing link - Lucy ; evolution - missing links ; evolution - molecular clock ; evolution - moral implications ; evolution - morphology - vs. design ; evolution - mutations - beneficial ; evolution - mutations - damaging ; evolution - mutations - ineffective ; evolution - natural selection ; evolution - neo-Darwinism ; evolution - nonsensical statements ; evolution - order vs. creation ; evolution - parallel ; evolution - pillars ; evolution - probability ; evolution - purposeless ; evolution - RNA ; evolution - science doesn't require ; evolution - scientific? ; evolution - speciation ; evolution - survival of the fittest ; evolution - theistic - AGAINST ; evolution - theory - unproven ; evolution - tree of life ; image - man in God's ; kind - created ; link - missing - DNA ; quote - evolution - life from non-life - Hawking; quote - evolution - vs. creation - Watson ; Ref-1560 ; Ref-1561
evolution - adaptation : Gen. 1:1

"Adaptive immunity is often brought up by the evolutionist as an example of ‘new’ genes (traits) being produced by mutation. Here we have an example of a mechanism that takes DNA modules and scrambles those modules in complex ways in order to generate antibodies for antigens to which the organism has never been exposed. This is a quintessential example of intelligent design. The DNA changes in adaptive immunity occur only in a controlled manner among only a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only part of the immune system, and these changes are not heritable. Thus the argument for evolution falls flat on its face." Robert W. Carter, "Can mutations create new information?", Ref-0784, 25(2) 2011, 92-98, pp. 94-95.


evolution - adultery : Gen. 1:1

"By studying how the process of natural selection shaped the mind, evolutionary psychologiest are painting a new portrait of human nature. . . . The good news is that human beings are designed to fall in love. The bad news is that they aren't designed to stay there. According to evolutionary psychology, it is only ‘natural’ for both men and women -- at some times, under certain circumstances -- to commit adultery. . . .It is similarly natural to find some attractive colleague superior on all counts to the sorry wreck of a spouse you're saddled with." Robert Wright, "Infidelity: It May Be in Our Genes", Time, August 15, 1994, 46 (emphasis added), cited by Ref-0122, p. 194.


evolution - AGAINST : Gen. 1:1; Ex. 20:11; Job 20:4; Job 40:15; Ps. 100:3; Isa. 29:16; Luke 1:70; Mat. 6:26; Mat. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Mat. 10:31; Luke 12:7; Luke 12:24; Acts 3:21

"These things go to the core: Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup; Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code; Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures; Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations; Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution; Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"; Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry; Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry; Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species; Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"" David Klinghoffer, "Let The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik Read Our Series on the 10 Top Problems with Darwinian Evolution, and Then Give Us His Thoughts", Evolution News and Views, February 25, 2015. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/let_the_new_yor093931.html] accessed 20150228. "Repeated selection > Gene pool becomes poorer > Variability decreases > Adaptability to environmental changes decreases > Danger of extinction increases" Ref-1560, par. 1250. "Before we delve into that claim, notice that for 150 years we have repeatedly been told that the grand powers of the mutation/selection mechanism have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yet here, in 2008, a prominent science journal reports that a lab has uncovered the first evidence of evolution’s ability to innovate in an impressive way. The implication shouldn’t be missed: All the grand claims for evolution that came before this lacked empirical support." Ref-1560, par. 2353. "The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves towards a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs." Ref-1560, par. 2856. "When one starts to treat Darwinism as a hypothesis about the biochemical level of life rather than as an assumption, it takes about ten minutes to conclude it’s radically inadequate." Ref-1561, par. 151. ". . . the claim that biologists know Darwinian processes caused profound, constructive changes in life over the course of billions of years is preposterous—we barely know why existing species do better or worse in their present environments." Ref-1561, par. 558. "The epidemic of tongue-tied Darwinists unable to explain how their theory might account for the real functional intricacies of life continues to this day." Ref-1561, par. 3165. ". . . the whole field of evolutionary theory really is disconnected from reality." Ref-1561, par. 3293. "The claim that Darwin’s theory explains life is like the claim that an illiterate who doesn’t know that u follows q authored Romeo and Juliet. It’s like a guy who says he’s an Olympic hurdler, but can’t lift his foot over a curb without tripping. It’s like saying the theory can easily explain an outboard motor—it just has trouble explaining the hook-and-eye latch on the shed where it’s stored. It’s like Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite asking, “How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?” It’s like . . . Well, you get the idea." Ref-1561, par. 3557. "Beginning with something very much like a finch, Darwinian processes labored long and mightily in the Galápagos and brought forth . . . a finch." Ref-1561, par. 2089.


evolution - Agassiz : Gen. 1:1

"Agassiz thought the evidence of abrupt appearance, and the absence of ancestral forms in the Precambrian, refuted Darwin’s theory. Of these earlier forms, Agassiz asked, “Where are their fossilized remains?” He insisted that Darwin’s picture of the history of life “contradict[ed] what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth tell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the globe. Let us therefore hear them;--for, after all, their testimony is that of the eye-witness and the actor in the scene.”" Ref-1340, pp. 12-13. "So passionate was Agassiz for the particulars of the natural world that he began organizing a system of information-sharing among naturalists, sailors, and missionaries around the world. He collected more than 435 barrels of specimens, among them an extremely rare group of fossil plants. In a single year, Agassiz amassed more than 91,000 specimens and identified close to 11,000 new species, making Harvard’s natural history museum preeminent among such museums in the world." Ref-1340, p. 21.


evolution - antibiotic resistance : Gen. 1:1

". . . in a new report, it has been discovered that antibiotic resistance was already built into the organisms well before antibiotics were even invented. Scientists recovered what they believe is 30,000-year-old DNA from the permafrost in non-glaciated areas of the Yukon Territory of northwest Canada. Within it they discovered a highly diverse collection of genes that encoded resistance to three antibiotics. Resistance to antibiotics before antibiotics were even developed was actually first discovered in 2004 when scientists from the University of Alberta in Edmonton revived bacteria from the remains of members of the Franklin Expedition who froze to death in the Arctic over 150 years ago. The bacteria were already resistant to antibiotics that were not developed until a century later. This research shows that the antibiotic resistance was already part of the genetic variability within organisms, and it did not evolve in modern times due to the selection pressures by antibiotics." Michael J. Oard, "Fossil ranges continue to expand", Ref-0784, 26(1) 2012, p. 15.


evolution - Archaeopteryx : Gen. 1:1

"Practically all paleontologists think ofArchaeopteryx as the first bird or the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil is used as a showcase for evolution. However, Chinese paleontologists now challenge this classification, and instead make a case that Archaeopteryx is a feathered theropod dinosaur. This belief is based on the finding of an Archaeopteryx-like fossil in China called Xiaotingia zhengi (figure 1), the affinity of which is supposedly with the early theropod dinosaurs and feathered dinosaurs. The new fossil is said to resemble theropod dinosaurs and, just like Archaeopteryx, it has teeth, claws on its wings, and a vertebrate tail. But the new fossil still has many features of birds, such as: feathers; small size; boomerang-shaped wishbone; and features of enantiornithines, unique fossil birds." -- Michael J. Oard, Is Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? [http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-feathered-dino/] accessed 20130910.


evolution - atheism : Gen. 1:1

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." -- William Provine, slide from W.B. Provine’s 1998 “Darwin Day” address, “Darwin Day” website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998.


evolution - atheists oppose : Gen. 1:1

"Thomas Nagel joins the ranks of non-theists who question or reject important elements of the standard evolutionary worldview. Their very existence refutes those who say that the questioning of evolution is necessarily motivated by religious teachings. It also shows that the rejection of evolutionary explanations in no sense depends upon tacit religious presuppositions." John Woodmorappe, Another knowledgable atheist acknowledges the inadequacy of materialistic evolutionary reductionism, Ref-0784 27(2) 2013, 21-22, p. 22.


evolution - bird - intelligence : Gen. 1:1

"A Clark's nutcracker in one year buries up to 33,000 seeds in up to 2,500 locations, and scientists estimate that the bird recovers two-thirds of them up to 13 months later. It was thought that birds did not have the brainpower to remember where they'd buried their seeds, but rather must have been following a few simple rules, poking around randomly until they happened to come across their seed caches. But research now shows seed-storing birds have astonishing intellectual prowess, remembering burial sites with pin-point accuracy, even in the absence of any landmarks." Science News Online, [https://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040214/bob8.asp>, 18 March 2004 cited by Ref-0028, 26(3) June-August 2004, p. 7.


evolution - brain :

"We do not have a serious scientific theory explaining the powers and properties of the human mind. The claim that the human mind is the product of evolution is not unassailable fact. It is barely coherent. The idea that man was created in the image of God remains what it has always been: And that is the instinctive default position of the human race." Ref-1386, loc. 2161. "Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate an unexpected ability to play the violin. This is a question that Darwinian biology has not yet answered." Ref-1386, loc. 284. "The reality of mind will surely strike most people as something that is too obvious to need mentioning, let alone defending. But in a world where our finest institutions of higher education house learned professors who write about mental zombies (automated beings with the appearance and behavior of real people but no consciousness) and who argue that our bodies go through life with their thoughts and motions determined solely by chemical reactions in our brains—well, in such a world it is the duty of us all to constantly defend the obvious." Ref-1561, par. 3722. ". . . the best short statement of the dominant academic view of mind is by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, at the start of his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul: The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” 3 Crick’s position can be more formally labeled as neo-Darwinian materialism: our minds are nothing more than our physical brains and nervous systems, shaped entirely by random mutation, natural selection, and other irrational forces." Ref-1561, par. 3728. ". . . the structures beyond Darwinian explanation also include brains and nervous systems. A process that labors mightily to account for a simple disulfide bond is woefully unfit to account for what are likely to be the most complex, most profound structures in the universe." Ref-1561, par. 3768. "Because Darwin’s mechanism can’t build a brain, then Francis Crick’s “astonishing hypothesis” (in other words, neo-Darwinian materialism) is false." Ref-1561, par. 3770. "One implication of Darwinian materialism (it wasn’t “neo” yet) eventually dawned on Darwin himself. In an 1881 letter he wrote: “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”" Ref-1561, par. 3902. ". . . as the book titles themselves readily show, almost all modern materialism rests on a Darwinian foundation, so it’s all built on a cloud. It’s astonishing to think of all the work that’s been premised on what even in its heyday was at most a promising hypothesis. There never was any hard evidence that Darwin could build the coherent machinery of life, let alone our brains, let alone our thoughts." Ref-1561, par. 3977. ". . . the whole enterprise of evolutionary psychology, built on the entirely fictional constructive power of Darwin’s mechanism, is misguided." Ref-1561, par. 3989. "In his autobiography, Darwin worried about a closely related problem. He wondered how we could trust the reliability of our cognitive faculties if they had evolved from the minds of lower animals. As he explained in a letter to a friend, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”" -- Ref-1568, p. 641. "Plantinga and Koons argue that given evolutionary naturalism, we have significant reason to doubt the reliability of our minds. They conclude that the probability of human beings having reliable belief-forming cognitive faculties given evolutionary naturalism is, as Plantinga puts it, “either low or inscrutable.”" -- Ref-1568, p. 643. "On the other hand, Plantinga argues that the probability of our having a reliable belief-forming apparatus is much, much higher given theism. Since theism holds that a benevolent God possessing a rational intellect created our minds, we have good reason to expect the basic reliability of our belief-forming cognitive equipment." -- Ref-1568, p. 643. "Plantinga concludes that the probability of human beings having reliable cognitive equipment is much greater given theism than given evolutionary naturalism." -- Ref-1568, p. 643.


evolution - brain - free will :

"The most unwelcome conclusion of evolutionary psychology is also the most obvious: If evolutionary psychology is true, some form of genetic determinism must be true as well. Genetic determinism is simply the thesis that the human mind is the expression of its human genes. No slippage is rationally possible. . . . A successful evolutionary theory of the human mind would, after all, annihilate any claim we might make on behalf of human freedom." Ref-1386, paras. 2138-2148. "Those who declare they have no mind, are not intelligent, conscious, or free are hardly in a position to reason about any topic, let alone about the state of the mind they deny having." Ref-1561, par. 3740.


evolution - brain size : Gen. 1:1

"No evidence exists that demonstrates a relationship between brain size and intelligence within any given species. The human brain, for example, is known to range in volume from less than 1,000 cubic centimetres to more than 2,000. In fact, some of the most intelligent people in history had small brains, while Neandertals, who are normally characterized by evolutionists as being of low intelligence, allegedly had larger brains on average than people today. Yet evolutionists routinely classify hominid fossils largely according to brain size." Brad Harrub, "Lunatics, Lucy and a little book for the school library", Ref-0003, 18(3), 2004, p. 38.


evolution - Burgess Shale : Gen. 1:1

"The site of the Burgess Shale and its setting nicely illustrates the difference between diversity an disparity. Walcott’s celebrated quarry is tucked away in the Canadian Rockies near the Continental Divide. Reaching it involves a six-mile hike through the picturesque scenery of Yoho National Park--Takakkaw Falls, Emerald Lake, and glaciers and glacier-cut mountain peaks thrusting into view at almost every turn." Ref-1340, p. 40. "Long after the sea creatures of the Burgess Shale were entombed, these tectonic forces drove the fossils upward from the seafloor carrying them many miles eastward along faults, at the same time building the mountains that Walcott would climb millions of years later." Ref-1340, p. 45.


evolution - Cambrian explosion : Gen. 1:1

"During this [Cambrian] explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-size total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth . ." Ref-1340, p. 31. "The discoveries near Chengjiang demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that sedimentary rocks can preserve soft-bodied fossils of great antiquity and in exquisite detail, thereby challenging the idea that the absence of Precambrian ancestors is a consequence of the fossil record’s inability to preserve soft-bodied animals from that period." Ref-1340, p. 64. "If the Precambrian sedimentary strata beneath the Maotianshan Shale preserved the soft tissues of tiny, microscopic sponge embryos, why didn’t they also preserve the near ancestors of the whole animals that arose in the Cambrian, especially since some of those animals must have had at least some hard parts as a condition of their viability? If these strata could preserve embryos, then they should have preserved fully developed animals--at least, if such animals were present at the time. That well-developed, clearly ancestral animal forms were not preserved, when tiny sponge embryos were, strongly indicates that such forms were simply not present in the Precambrian layers." Ref-1340, p. 68. "Most paleontologists doubt that well-known Ediacaran forms represent ancestors of the Cambrian animals and few think the late Precambrian fossil record as a whole makes the Cambrian explosion appreciably less explosive. The claim . . . persists as a kind of palaeontological urban legend, one that even occasionally finds its way into the mouths of paleontologists." Ref-1340, p. 79. "The preservation of numerous soft-bodied Cambrian animals as well as Precambrian embryos and microorganisms undermines the idea of an extensive period of undetected soft-bodied evolution. In addition, the claim that exclusively soft-bodied ancestors preceded the hard-bodied Cambrian forms remains anatomically implausible. A brachiopod cannot survive without its shell. An arthropod cannot exist without its exoskeleton." Ref-1340, p. 105. "The late-Precambrian and Cambrian fossil records present another difficulty for punctuated equilibrium. Though Gould and Eldredge envisioned new traits becoming fixed in small isolated populations where speciation eventually occurs, they envisioned these traits first arising during periods of stasis in the large populations from which the smaller populations later separated. Gould realized that only stable large populations would afford enough opportunities for mutations to generate the new traits that macroevolution requires. At the same time, he recognized that these new traits would have a far greater chance of being fixed into small, isolated populations where the random loss of some traits makes the fixation of others more likely . . . But by relying on the accumulation of new traits within large parent populations, Gould undercut his own rationale for concluding that the fossil record should not preserver many intermediate forms. The reason for this is obvious: if novel genetic traits arise and spread within a large population of organisms, they are more likely to leave behind fossil evidence of their existence. . . . Thus, the process by which Gould envisions new genetic traits arising in large populations implies that new forms of life--some presumably transitional to other forms--should be preserved in the fossil record." Ref-1340, p. 144. ". . . leading Cambrian paleontologists such as James Valentine and Douglas Erwin concluded in 1987, that “neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to [explaining] the origin of new body plans.”" Ref-1340, p. 151.


evolution - cell - not simple : Gen. 1:1

"Richard Dawkins is wll known for stating that ‘there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over’." Chase W. Nelson, "Design in the genome? A matter of bias," Ref-0003, 18:(3) 2004, p. 5.


evolution - computer analogy : Gen. 1:1

"To use a modern analogy, this would be akin to saying that small, random changes in a complex computer program can create radical new software modules, without crashing the system." Robert W. Carter, "Can mutations create new information?", Ref-0784, 25(2) 2011, 92-98, p. 96. "Richard Dawkins, Bernd-Olaf Küppers, and others have developed computer programs that putatively simulate the production of genetic information by mutations and natural selection. Yet these programs succeed only by the illicit expedient of providing the computer with a “target sequence” and then treating proximity to future function (i.e., the target sequence), not actual present function, as a selection criterion. As mathematician David Berlinski shows, genetic algorithms need something akin to a “forward-looking memory” in order to succeed. yet such foresighted selection has no analogue in nature." Ref-1340, pp. 361-362. ". . . the presence of . . . digitally encoded information in DNA presents, at least, a striking appearance of design in all living organisms. As Richard Dawkins observes, for example, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Similarly, biotechnology pioneer Leroy Hood refers to the information stored in DNA as “digital code” and describes it in terms reminiscent of computer software. And as we have seen, Microsoft’s Bill Gates notes: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”" Ref-1340, pp. 358-359.


evolution - creation : Ref-1560 ; Ref-1561
evolution - creation - design : Ref-1560
evolution - creation - intelligent : Ref-1561
evolution - creation myth : Gen. 1:1

"If Darwin’s theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences, it has much to offer their ideology. It serves as the creation myth of our time, assigning properties to nature previously assigned to God." Ref-1386, loc. 2278. "For whether or not Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution actually happened, it must be admitted on all hands that without the theory or some equivalent the modern secular world would be quite unable to give an account of itself. Its whole self-understanding rests on the idea that there are natural processes that will account for all present phenomena. The atheist and the agnostic recognized will enough that the theory of evolution must be true, and in consequence--as some eminent men have actually said--whatever the difficulties in believing the theory (and it has faced and does face strong challenges, for instance of a mathematical nature, which evolutionists acknowledge) they are incomparably less than the difficulties involved in rejecting the theory, since that would imply special creation; and special creation would imply God." Ref-1417, p. 14.


evolution - Darwin Devolves, Michael J. Behe - creation : Ref-1561
evolution - dating : Gen. 1:1

"One of the most (inf)famous examples [of manipulated fossil dating] is the rather convoluted story of the hominid fossil KNM-ER 1470. After the discovery of KNM-ER 1470, the tuff deposit associated with the fossil was first ‘dated’ by K-Ar method at 212-230 million years (Ma), but since hominid fossils are ‘clearly’ not that old, the ‘date’ was rejected. Analysis of selected samples gave an ‘age’ of 2.9 Ma, which was considered acceptable. This was ‘corroborated’ with numerous other methods, and was widely accepted. That is, until another palaeontologist, Basil Cooke, said those dates were 800,000 years too old based on pig fossils. The pig fossils won the argument--over the five different dating techniques that were all consistent with each other in giving a ‘date’ around 2.7-3.0 Ma. Therefore, the presence of certain types of fossils and evolutionary assumptions provide the primary dating information, and are often used to override other dating methods, even when those other dating methods are all consistent with each other!" Shaun Doyle, Precambrian rabbits--death knell for evolution?, Ref-0784 28(1) 2014, 10-12, p. 10.


evolution - design : Ref-1560
evolution - design - appearance : Gen. 1:1

"Intelligent design addresses a key scientific question that has long been part of evolutionary biology: Is design real or illusory? Indeed, part of what Darwin set out to explain was precisely the appearance of design." Ref-1340, p. 340. ""It's very exciting to see one after another component of human mechanical engineering being discovered in the living world, too," said Alexander Riedel, curator of the State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe in Germany." -- Tanya Lewis "Insect has actual gears on its legs to sync jumps, and that's a first", LiveScience, NBC News, September 12, 2013. [http://www.nbcnews.com/science/insect-has-actual-gears-its-legs-sync-jumps-thats-first-8C11139752] accessed 20130913. "Steve [Meyers] answers among other things that ID has the advantage of being the natural alternative to Darwinism since it directly tackles Darwin's main argument. What's that? Richard Dawkins memorably put it this way: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Now given that biological artifacts "give the appearance" of intelligent design, as even Dawkins agrees, the question posed by Darwin is whether the appearance is real or deceptive. Dawkins obviously thinks the latter. Now here's the query to put to any upholders of Darwinian theory you know who are religiously committed: You believe in God. Everyone agrees that life appears to be designed. Is that an illusion? Yes or no, please. If yes, why does God include such trickery in his world? I just cannot imagine any coherent response to that question that doesn't weasel out of answering." David Kinghoffer, Here Is the Question to Ask Your Friends Who Are Theistic Evolutionists, Evolution News and Views, September 23, 2014. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/here_is_the_que090011.html] accessed 20140923.


evolution - design - intelligent : Ref-1560 ; Ref-1561
evolution - dinosaurs to birds :

". . . recent discoveries of the contents of dinosaur stomachs pose a gut-wrenching challenge to the idea that dinosaurs gave rise to birds. Because it now turns out that dinosaurs ate them." David Catchpoole, Dinosaurs ate birds, Creation Ministries International, [http://creation.mobi/article/8917/] accessed 20121116.


evolution - DNA - additional information : Gen. 1:1

"Another issue, especially displayed among evolutionists (but creationists, including myself, are not immune), is a lack of understanding of the location of biological information. Most people tend to think DNA (the ‘genome’) is the storage place for information. While it is certainly the location of a tremendous amount of it, this gene-centered view ignores the information originally engineered into the first created organisms. The architecture of the cell, including the cell wall, nucleus, sub-cellular compartments and a myriad of molecular machines, did not originate from DNA. Neither can exist without the other. Thus, a large, yet immeasurable, part of biological information resides in living organisms outside the DNA." Robert W. Carter, "Can mutations create new information?", Ref-0784, 25(2) 2011, 92-98, p. 92. "Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long. "For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," said Stamatoyannopoulos. "Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways." The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made." David Klinghoffer, Genome Uses Two Languages Simultaneously; Try That Yourself Sometime, Why Don't You, Evolution News and Views, December 13, 2013. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/genome_composes080111.html] accessed 20131213.


evolution - DNA - junk? : Gen. 1:1

"The discovery that the vast majority of the information stored in DNA is not primary protein-coding information but secondary meta-information, demolishes the neo-Darwinian argument that it arose by some random (independent) process. Meta-information is inextricably dependent upon the information it refers to so an independent origin is impossible." Alex Williams, "Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darinism", Ref-0784, 21(3) 2007, 111:117, p. 117. ". . . a new study has brought the notion of Junk DNA closer to the dustbin of discarded evolutionary speculations. Faulkner et al. have put junk DNA on the run by claiming that retrotransposons (supposedly the remains of ancient viruses that inserted themselves into the genomes of humans and other species) are highly functional after all." Robert W. Carter, The slow, painful death of junk DNA, Ref-0784, 23(3) 2009, 11:12, p. 12.


evolution - DNA - twins : Gen. 1:1

"Considering that [identical twins] have the same DNA sequence in each of their cells, it seems a bit strange that they often possess a number of physical differences, such as different fingerprints, and different susceptibilities to disease. This raises the question: if two people can have identical DNA sequences and yet be so different, is there more to our genetic blueprint than just DNA? The answer is an emphatic ‘yes’! Everyone, it seems, has heard of DAN. But may people are unaware that the DNA code itself is governed by another code, known as the epigenetic code. In fact, so significant is this code that one Science writer said that genes (stretches of DNA) are ‘little more than puppets’ whereas the enzymes controlling this other code are the ‘master puppeteers’. . . . identical twins possess the same DNA code, but different epigenetic codes. . . . the epigenetic codes of identical twins, though indistinguishable during the early years of life, can diverge markedly as they age. Also, epigenetic differences were greater in identical twins that lived apart and had different lifestyles." David White, The genetic puppeteer, Ref-0028, 30(2) March-May 2008, 42:44, p. 42.


evolution - DNA similarity : Gen. 1:1

"Surprise, surprise! Evolutionists are now saying that bats and horses are more closely related than cows and horses. In the prestigious Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, scientists reported their study of genetic re-arrangements associated with retroposons, which are strands of DNA that copy themselves into RNA and then copy themselves back into DNA at different sites on a chromosome. In the evolutionary paradigm, closely related species should share more of these rearrangements than more distant relatives. Until this study, scientists considered bats and horses to be very distant cousins. They were shocked to discover that bats and horses share a high degree of DNA similarity. . . . Bats and horses should thus have been very different in their DNA, because of their obvious structural and functional differences. This shocking result revealed an astounding discrepancy between morphological and genetic data." Ryan Jaroncyk, Saddle up the Horse, It's Off to the Bat Cave, Ref-0028, 30(2) March-May 2008, 40:41, p. 40. "Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has found that the supposed human chromosome 2 “fusion site” actually sits in the middle of a gene and encodes a functional domain, effectively refuting the pervasive evolutionary idea that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. He has also discovered that the actual overall genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98-99% as is frequently claimed but rather only 70%, a genetic gap far too large to be bridged even in the six million years of evolution that secular scientists commonly invoke." Nathaniel T. Jeanson, New Findings Presented at Creation Research Society Conference, Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/article/8206/] accessed 20140802.


evolution - dogma :

"Whatever scientists may say on those all too frequent occasions when they are advising the rest of us what to think, one thing that they do not say is that they believe what they are telling us to think." Ref-1386, loc. 2122.


evolution - epigenetic information : Gen. 1:1

"As Müller and Newman explain in their introduction, “Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form.” Instead, as Newman explains, “epigenetic” or “contextual information” plays a crucial role in the formation of animal “body assemblies” during embryological development." Ref-1340, p. 272. "Perhaps because the information-carrying capacity of the gene can be so easily measured, biologists have often treated DNA, RNA, and proteins as the sole repositories of biological information. Neo-Darwinists have assumed that genes possess all the information necessary to specify the form of an animal. They have also assumed that mutations in genes will suffice to generate the new information necessary to build a new form of animal life. Yet if biologists understand organismal form as resulting from constrains on the possible arrangements of matter at many levels in the biological hierarchy--from genes and proteins, to cell types and tissues, to organs and body plans--then biological organisms may well exhibit many levels of information-rich structure. Discoveries in developmental biology have confirmed this possibility." Ref-1340, p. 275. "Even in a best-case scenario--one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection--mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information--information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DAN cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." Ref-1340, p. 282. ". . . it turns out that mutating epigenetic information doesn’t offer a realistic way of generating new forms of life. First, the structures in which epigenetic information inheres--cytoskeletal array sand membrane patterns, for example--are much larger than individual nucleotide bases or even stretches of DNA. For this reason, these structures are not vulnerable to alteration by many of the typical sources of mutation that affect genes such as radiation and chemical agent. Second, to the extent that cell structures can be altered, these alterations are overwhelmingly likely to have harmful or catastrophic consequences. . . . Altering the cell structures in which epigenetic information inheres will likely result in embryo death or sterile offspring . . ." Ref-1340, p. 285. "More and more biologists are convinced that there is information in the cell outside DNA. In other words, DNA does not control all cell activities but is only one of the necessary requirements for the cells, tissues, and organs to function properly. In particular, developmental biologists have observed that the formation of body plans is influenced by the form and structure of the embryonic cells, and such information is outside DNA." Ref-1560, par. 1700.


evolution - eugenics : Gen. 1:1

"Many have tried to distance Darwin from the human consequences of his ideas but Darwin himself made his own beliefs clear concerning the status of Aboriginal people when he wrote: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, . . . instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla." David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood, Ethics and Morality, Ref-1370, loc. 6032-6033. "In examining the findings of the Nazi war trials, Leo Alexander concluded: Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans." David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood, Ethics and Morality, Ref-1370, loc. 6115.


evolution - evidence lacking :

"Suspicions about Darwin’s theory arise for two reasons. The first: the theory makes little sense. The second: it is supported by little evidence." Ref-1386, loc. 2232. "The effort by Darwinian biologists to promote Darwin is simply explained. Within the English-speaking world, Darwin’s theory of evolution remains the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else. No matter the effort made by biologists, the thing continues to elicit the same reaction it has always elicited: You’ve got to be kidding, right? There is wide appreciation of the fact that if biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life, and if they are wrong about life, they are wrong about everything." Ref-1386, loc. 2223.


evolution - eye : Gen. 1:1

✪ See 20180513183040.pdf. "However, ophthalmologists, specialists in eye anatomy and disease, have denounced Dawkins' claim [that the eye is poorly designed] repeatedly. E.g. Dr. George Marshall, the Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, stated in reply to Dawkins: “The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.” Dr. Marshall explains that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front." Jonathan Sarfati, "Fiber Optics in the Eye", Ref-0028, 32(1) December 2008 - February 2009, 45:47, pp. 45-46. ". . . the same gene . . . helps to regulate the development of the eyes of fruit files (arthropods) and those of squid and mice (cephalopods and vertebrates, respectively). Yet arthropod eyes exemplify a completely different structure from vertebrate or cephalopod eyes. The fruit fly possesses a compound eye with hundreds of separate lenses (ommatidia), whereas both mice and squid employ a camera-type eye with a single lens and retinal surface. In addition, although the eyes of squid and mice resemble each other optically (single lens, large internal chamber, single retinal surface), they focus differently. They undergo completely different patterns of development and utilize different internal structures and never connections to the visual centers of the brain." Ref-1340, p. 367. "The reason evolutionary biologists believe in "40 known independent eye evolutions" isn't because they've reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don't assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian "tree of life." Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent "independent" evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion. This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right -- for Darwinism." Author Unknown, It's a Shame, Really, that Cosmos Is a "Ratings Disaster", Evolution News & Views March 18, 2014 3:31 PM [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/its_a_shame_rea083441.html] accessed 20140319. "Lane then parts ways with most evolutionists, who insist that the ‘backward retina' is ‘bad design'. He elaborates on the non-liability, and then the advantages, of the ‘backwards' human retina: “The wires are colourless, and so don't hinder the passage of light much; and insofar as they do, they may even act as a ‘waveguide', directing light vertically on to the light-sensitive cells, making the best use of available photons. And probably more importantly, we have the advantage that our own light-sensitive cells are embedded directly in their support cells (the retinal pigment epithelium) with an excellent blood supply immediately underneath. Such an arrangement supports the continuous turnover of photosensitive pigments. The human retina consumes even more oxygen than the brain, per gram, making it the most energetic organ in the body, so this arrangement is extremely valuable. In all probability the octopus eye could not sustain such a high metabolic rate. But perhaps it does not need to. Living underwater, with lower light intensity, the octopus may not need to re-cycle its pigments so quickly” (p. 175)." John Woodmorappe, Evolutionary speculations, yet no 'badly designed' vertebrate eye, 20151124151336.pdf, 23-27, pp. 26-27. ". . . according to evolutionists, the origin of sight occurred over 40 separate times (such as the compound eye of the fly), and the origin of a lens-bearing eye occurred at least seven separate times, as it occurs in vertebrates, cephalopods (e.g. octopus), jellyfish, a spider, annelid worms, and crustaceans." -- Walter ReMine, "Developmental genetics supports creation theory," Ref-0784, volume 30(1) 2016, pp. 36-42, p. 41. See 20160308113036.pdf "There is so-called ‘convergence’, which is superabundant in life. For example, evolutionists claim vision arose more than forty separate times, and that a complex eye like yours--with a lens and retina--originated at least five separate times, as is found separately in vertebrates, cephalopods (octopus/squid), annelid worms, jellyfish, and a spider. Such origins have not remotely been demonstrated experimentally, and though these designs are complex, their similarity cannot be explained: . . . " Walter J. ReMine, "Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution’", Ref-0784, 26(1) 2012, 24-30, p. 27.


evolution - fact - assumed : Gen. 1:1

". . . one professor in the audience asked Chen, almost as if in warning, if he wasn’t nervous about expressing his doubts about Darwinism so freely--especially given China’s reputation for suppressing dissenting opinion. I remember Chen’s wry smile as he answered, “In China,” he said, “we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.” " Ref-1340, p. 52. "Becky Ashe, president of the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, wrote in opposition to a law that would protect the careers of teachers who critiqued evolution, that “the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists from around the world as the cornerstone of biology and the single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on earth and is, therefore, beyond question.” Anthropology professor Cameron Smith also has equated scientific consensus with unimpeachable fact: “there is consensus among the scientific community that Darwinian evolution does occur [and] that it is a fact”, not a theory." Jerry Bergman, Why consensus science is anti-science, Ref-0784 27(2) 2013, 78-84, p. 78. "The reason [Crichton] condemns consensus science is because the task “. . . of science has nothing to do with consensus.” . . . Crichton added that “in science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.” In support of this claim, Crichton noted that the “greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus”, opining that there “. . . is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science . . . the claim of consensus is invoked . . . only in situations where the science is not solid enough . . . . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away [because it is a verifiable fact].”" Jerry Bergman, Why consensus science is anti-science, Ref-0784 27(2) 2013, 78-84, p. 79. "In the introduction, written by evolutionist Francisco Ayala, the reader encounters the hoary quoted statement of Theodosius Dobzhansky: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (p. ix). Evidently, Fitch, Ayala, and Dobzhansky all conveniently forget the works of many pioneering biologists—such as Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, and many others—who made perfect sense of biology, and major advancements in the biological sciences, while dis-believing in evolution." -- John Woodmorappe, "A very shallow anti-creationist book that emphasizes logic but is devoid of it," Ref-0784, volume 30(1) 2016, pp. 43-46, p. 45. See 20160308113036.pdf "In the evolutionist's way of thinking, there can be no evidence against evolution. Instead, all evidence against evolution is reinterpreted as evidence in favour of some evolutionary explanation—no matter how far-fetched, no matter the paucity of experimental demonstration, and no matter how untestable—because evolution is a ‘fact'!" -- Walter ReMine, "Developmental genetics supports creation theory," Ref-0784, volume 30(1) 2016, pp. 36-42, p. 41. See 20160308113036.pdf


evolution - fossil evidence : Gen. 1:1

"in 2003 various news outlets announced the discovery of the earliest vertebrate (chordate) within the same assemblage. Deemed “the deepest part of the tree of life”, the creature has no name and conveniently faded away almost immediately! After initially creating a bit of a stir, the scientific community was so perplexed that it deliberately stopped speaking about the fossil. Unlike in other situations when a challenging offset fossil was found, there was no plethora of debunking articles in the mainstream science media. The fossil stands generally ignored, which can mean only one thing: it is a real challenge to the evolutionary scenario of the origins of life. That is because it pushes the evolution of the first vertebrates much farther into the past, leaving an unreasonably short time for pre-chordate evolution. To make things even worse, there is nothing in terms of fossils to connect this vertebrate to earlier times. It looks like vertebrates simply popped onto the scene of life from no discernable or even imaginable ancestry!" Evil Silvestru, The Fossil Record, Ref-1370, loc. 3028-3033. "There are many other problems with whale evolution, even though the story is portrayed as clear-cut. Evolutionists cannot even agree on which land animal gave rise to the whales. Based on fossil similarities of teeth, some paleontologists favoured hyena-like animals (Pachyaena), while other preferred a cat-like animal (Sinonyx). However, based on recent comparisons of DNA evidence, molecular biologists decided hippos were the closest to a whale ancestor. But there are huge problems with converting a hippo into a whale (like how a land animal gains the ability to give birth and nurse young underwater!)." Evil Silvestru, The Fossil Record, Ref-1370, loc. 3306.


evolution - fossils - living : Gen. 1:1

"There are multitudes of living fossils existing today. Sharks, tortoises, horseshoe crabs, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, oysters, mussels, paddlefish, monk seals, elephant shrews, ginkgo trees, and even pandas have been added to the long list of living fossils. These are all virtually the same as their fossilized grandparents. As the list grows, these living creatures continue to cause problems for the evolutionary model of origins." Living Fossils: A Problem for Evolution, Ref-0042, September 13, 2005. "The most amazing aspect of the new fossil is that it looks surprisingly modern, indicating little or no change in lampreys for 360 Ma!" Michael J. Oard, Modern-looking lampreys ‘older’ than thought, Ref-0784, 22(1) 2008, 5, p. 5. "Numerically speaking, the vast majority of living things on planet earth are simple organisms like bacteria. These creatures are so well adapted to a huge variety of environments that they exhibit neither the need nor the tendency to evolve into earthworms or earwigs — nor yet to vanish into evolutionary obscurity as they are superseded by later models. If, as is alleged, evolution is driven solely by reproductive efficiency and optimized survival, then by rights all life forms should be striving to become bacteria, which perform superbly by these criteria. Yet in spite of having near perfect adaptation as a class of living creatures, evolutionary theory insists that bacteria (or something very like them) did evolve — otherwise you and I would not be here. Laboriously, they hoisted themselves up the evolutionary tree, becoming all the while decidedly more complex and environmentally ‘picky’. That is, they evolved into vulnerable creatures that, according to the fossil record, regularly got themselves snuffed out by extinction. Why, I wonder, would they do that, seeing that their un-evolved bacterial cousins lived on in happy adaptation to every conceivable environment, sublimely unaware of the hazards of climbing trees?" Ref-1341, loc. 3835. "Dr Yockey finished his paper with: One must conclude that, contrary to the 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." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2450. "The ‘oldest’ fossils on earth (supposedly 3.5 billion years), stromatolites are interpreted as the remains of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) colonies. While blue-green algae are still around today, it came as a surprise that colonial forms of these microorganisms known from the fossil record, called stromatolites, are also alive today and virtually unchanged!" Evil Silvestru, The Fossil Record, Ref-1370, loc. 3335. "One of the best examples of a ‘living fossil’ comes from rocks in Utah. This jellyfish is not only beautifully preserved, but, since very similar animals exist today, it is thought to have remained essentially unchanged from about 505 million years ago. Half a billion years puts this into the middle of the Cambrian Era, when multicellular life was first evolving. Thus, this jellyfish has remained unchanged through the entire evolutionary history of multicellular life on earth, while one of its cousins went on to evolve into people!" Evil Silvestru, The Fossil Record, Ref-1370, loc. 3396.


evolution - fruit fly :

"Macroevolutionary scientists have tried to change Rdosophila [a fruit fly] through a variety of means over the past seventy-five years or so in an effort to force it to mutate into some new life form. However, even with intelligent intervention, and under laboratory-controlled conditions, all of the efforts of macroevolutionists have been in vain. Drosophila remains what it has always been -- a fruit fly. Instead of demonstrating that genetic boundaries do not exist, Drosophila has proved just the opposite." Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984) 88-89, cited by Ref-0122, p. 149.


evolution - genetic decay : Gen. 1:1; Gen. 5:27

"In his landmark book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, geneticist Dr John Sanford clearly demonstrates that human genomes are decaying at an unstoppable rate, a principle he calls ‘genetic entropy’. The reason for the decay is that natural selection can only remove the severely deleterious mutations from the gene pool. The vast majority of mutations are only mildly deleterious, or they have no detectable effect at all, so they are passed on from one generation to the next and accumulate continuously. Sanford includes a model calculation that predicts our species will become extinct in about 300 generations (6,000 years, with a generation time of 20 years). . . . There appear to be no (realistic) evolutionary models in the scientific literature that contradict these results. This overwhelmingly negative evidence clearly contradicts Darwinian expectations, but clearly and dramatically fits the biblical record of the Fall." Alex Williams, Human genome decay and the origin of life, Ref-0784 28(1) 2014, 91-97, p. 91. "The only kind of genome copying system that can sustain life over thousands of years is one that has two primary characteristics. First, it must be precisely engineered so that it can begin with copy fidelity so high as to be indistinguishable from perfection. Second, it must be protected and maintained over thousands of years in such a way that it is at least partly insulated from the general genome decay that is rapidly going on around it. These characteristics fit very well into the biblical account of Creation and Fall just a few thousand years ago, but are impossible to achieve from a Darwinian starting point. The Darwinian claim--that life could have started with low-fidelity self-replicating molecules--is exposed as culpable foolishness. The ‘RNA world’ scenario collapses into ‘error catastrophe’ so quickly it is scandalous that such nonsense can be taught as a realistic model of origin in our schools and universities." Alex Williams, Human genome decay and the origin of life, Ref-0784 28(1) 2014, 91-97, p. 96. "The copy fidelity in our cells today is a million times higher than the general genome quality, so it should remain in good shape and continue its work of high-fidelity copying for many generations to come. But it cannot last forever. Even if nothing else intervened it would come to an end through its own degeneration within thousands (not millions) of years. Meanwhile, about 99.9% of our mutations are coming from sources other than copy errors. It is these that will intervene and lead to our extinction via ‘mutation meltdown’ well before then. Human ancestors cannot have been around for more than a few thousand years or it would have already happened!" Alex Williams, Human genome decay and the origin of life, Ref-0784 28(1) 2014, 91-97, p. 96. "One of the most important finds in recent years came from modeling the accumulation of mutations (genetic code errors) in the human genome over time using computer simulations. Researchers found that this buildup of mutations can only reach a certain level before the genome completely deteriorates and humans go extinct. This process of degradation, called genetic entropy, fits perfectly with a recent creation of six to ten thousand years ago. . . . One author stated, “The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.” This places the beginning of the period of genetic decline close to the Genesis Flood, when the earth began its repopulation through Noah’s family and humans rapidly diversified . . . this recent explosion of human genome variation, mostly associated with genetic entropy, also fits the same pattern of human life expectancy rapidly declining after the Flood as recorded in the Bible . . . " Jeffrey Tomkins, Genetic Entropy Points to a Young Creation, Acts & Facts. 43 (11). [http://www.icr.org/article/8374/] accessed 20141106. "My conclusion from both studies is that our best estimate of the whole genome error rate is currently ~40 new mutations per generation." Alex Williams, "Human genome decay", Ref-0784, 28(3) 2014, p. 50. "The biblical age question was more difficult to deal with, but in my mind a major factor that supported a young creation was the profound evidence for genetic degradation. It is well documented that each new generation of humans adds about 100 to 150 mutations (genetic errors) per person, and an estimated 99.9 percent of these mutations are near neutral, harmful, or lethal. Consequently, there is no way that life could have first evolved 3.5 billion years ago and still be around today because life would have become extinct long ago from genetic meltdown and cell catastrophe." Jerry Bergman, Creation Conversion: From Atheist to Creationist. Acts & Facts. 44 (2) 2015 [http://www.icr.org/article/8535] accessed 20150202. "When mutational events occur during meiosis, they can be inherited and passed on to the next generation and when these are empirically measured within a pedigree, an estimate of the mutation rate can be achieved. In fact, scientists have actually measured this rate in the genome of humans in multiple studies and found it to be between 75 and 175 mutations per generation." Jeffrey Tomkins, Empirical genetic clocks give biblical timelines, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 3-5, p. 3. ". . . over 90% of deleterious mutations fail to be selected away even with intense natural selection. Because of this, the buildup of mutations would eventually reach a critical level and become so severe that humans would eventually go extinct at a point called error castastrophe. This process of genome degradation over time and successive generations is called genetic entropy. And remarkably, the process of human genome degradation is closely mirrored by the biblically documented trend of declining human lifespan, particularly in the last approximately 4,300 years since the Flood." Jeffrey Tomkins, Empirical genetic clocks give biblical timelines, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 3-5, p. 3. "Healthy genomes, a concept underlying both genetics theory and medical practice, provide an irrefutable ‘engineering timescale' argument for both intelligent design and recent origin. Genome decay projected forwards points to extinction in just thousands of years, and projected backwards it produces perfect copy fidelity in the very recent past. Darwinism is emphatically denied. Only Genesis-style fiat creation can explain it." Alex Williams, Healthy genomes require recent creation, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 70-77, p. 70. "When projected into the future it seems that only a few tens of thousands of similar mutations will be enough to drive us to extinction. Such conclusions are devastating for Darwinism." Alex Williams, Healthy genomes require recent creation, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 70-77, p. 76. "The models considered in this article all point to a primordial error-free ‘healthy genome' just thousands of years into our past. There is no room anywhere—either in the experimental or theoretical data—for the Darwinian view of the human genome evolving ‘upwards' over millions of years via mutation and natural selection. It simply does not exist. The inescapable conclusion is that humans must have been created with mutation-free ‘healthy genomes' just a few thousand years ago, and their future is likewise limited to thousands, not millions, of years." Alex Williams, Healthy genomes require recent creation, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 70-77, p. 76. "In software programs and in human languages, non-functional sequences are vastly more common than functional sequences. This is a key reason why random changes to a book’s text, or (even more so) to a software program, degrade its meaning or function, and it is why attempts to evolve meaningful sentences or functional software code through a truly neo-Darwinian process have failed." Ref-1560, par. 518. ". . . selection are in fact fiercely devolutionary. It turns out that mutation easily breaks or degrades genes, which, counter-intuitively, can sometimes help an organism to survive, so the damaged genes are hastily spread by natural selection." Ref-1561, par. 179. "Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology actively prevent it at more complex ones. Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain." Ref-1561, par. 554.


evolution - hibernation : Gen. 1:1

"The champion hibernator of the squirrel clan is the Arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryi) of the northern tundra. . . . Permafrost stops the squirrel from digging very deep and forces it to hibernate in soil with below freezing temperatures, even as low as -15 degrees C (5 degrees F). Core body temperatures have been measured at -2 to 3 degrees C (28-37 degrees F), respiration and heartbeat are undetectable, brain wave activity is zero and only a trickle of blood is entering the brain. How they are able to survive is still a mystery. If these animals were human they would be pronounced dead." Tom Hennigan, Squirrels!, Ref-0028, 30(2) March-May 2008, 28:31, p. 31. "Rather than hibernation, bears go into a dormant state called torpor at the start of winter each year. “What actually happens is their respiration is reduced, their heartbeat goes down to a third of the normal rate and their body temperature drops a little bit,” said Fyten. “Bears are able to rouse themselves in the den and move around, and casually poke their head outside and come back in.”" -- Marie Conboy, Warm temperatures stirs grizzly out of den, [https://www.thecragandcanyon.ca/news/local-news/warm-temperatures-stirs-grizzly-out-of-den].


evolution - Hitler's views : Gen. 1:1

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution than the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all. . . If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans./annot. James Murphy (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942), 161:62, cited by Ref-0122, p. 56. See Ref-0065, "A Moron and a Liar", Sept./Oct. - Nov./Dec. 2000


evolution - human vs. chimpanzee DNA : link - missing - DNA
evolution - image - man in God’s : image - man in God's
evolution - importance : Gen. 1:1

"We are not discussing simply some scientific theory that may or may not be true but that does not have any practical relevance. We are discussing the great hypothesis of modern science that has become the source of man’s secular self-understanding. It may be true, it may be false, but it matters." Ref-1417, p. 15.


evolution - information loss : Gen. 1:1

"There are abundant examples in the evolutionary literature where genetic degradation has been used in an attempt to show an increase in information over time. Examples include sickle cell anemia (which confers a resistance to the malaria parasite by producing deformed hemoglobin molecules), aerobic citrate digestion by bacterial (which involves the loss of control of the normal anaerobic citrate digestion), and nylon digestion by bacteria (which involves a loss of substrate specificity in one enzyme contained on an extra-chromosomal plasmid). Since they all involve decay of prior information, none of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time." Robert W. Carter, "Can mutations create new information?", Ref-0784, 25(2) 2011, 92-98, pp. 95-96.


evolution - intelligent : Ref-1561
evolution - irreducible complexity : Gen. 1:1

"In 1975, Frazzetta wrote a minor classic entitled Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations explaining this concern. He wrote: When modifying the design of a machine, an engineer is not bound by the need to maintain a real continuity between the first machine and the modification. . . . But in evolution, transitions from one type to the next presumably involve a greater continuity by means of a vast number of intermediate types. Not only must the end product--the final machine--be feasible, but so must be all the intermediates. The evolutionary problem is, in a real sense, the gradual improvement of a machine while it is running!" Ref-1340, p. 232.


evolution - language - uniquely human : Gen. 1:1

"There is a great gulf between human language and animal communication. As a result, one must wonder how it is that every member of humankind has this capacity while none of the other ten million (or so) species does. If chimps and humans are equally 'evolved' or developed (having a common ancestor as evolutionary thinking would have us believe), then why is it that no other primate species also has it at least in some form?" Fred Field, "The language faculty: following the evidence", Ref-0784, 22(1) 2008, 73:80, p. 79. The origin of human beings involved a massive increase in cognitive ability compared to ape-like species, on a scale that we still don't understand. . . . . On this matter, I tend to agree with MIT professor Noam Chomsky: [I]t is almost universally taken for granted that there exists a problem of explaining the "evolution" of human language from systems of animal communication. However, a careful look at recent studies of animal communication seems to me to provide little support for these assumptions. Rather, these studies simply bring out even more clearly the extent to which human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world. If this is so, it is quite senseless to raise the problem of explaining the evolution of human language from more primitive systems of communication that appear at lower levels of intellectual capacity. ... There is no reason to suppose that the "gaps" are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of "higher" from "lower" stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking; the stages have no significant analogy, it appears, and seem to involve entirely different processes and principles. ... As far as we know, possession of human language is associated with a specific type of mental organisation, not simply a higher degree of intelligence. There seems to be no substance to the view that human language is simply a more complex instance of something to be found elsewhere in the animal world. This poses a problem for the biologist, since, if true, it is an example of true "emergence" -- the appearance of a qualitatively different phenomenon at a specific stage of complexity of organisation. [Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind, p. 59] Casey Luskin, Save Your Brain: Skip Luc Besson's Fantastical Lucy, Evolution News and Views, September 2, 2014. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/save_your_brain089601.html] accessed 20140903.


evolution - law : Gen. 1:1

"To say that ‘social stability has survival value’ is a tautology — for what else do we mean by ‘stability’ than the capacity to survive adverse circumstances (wars, natural disasters, internal conflicts and so on)? So the claim reduces to a statement that ‘survival has survival value’ which, while no doubt true, is also trivial." Ref-1341, loc. 2182. "the evolutionary survival value of law to a society is pragmatically of a low order and certainly not strong enough to explain societal law as the result of evolution. To explain away the ubiquity of law in human society as nothing more than an evolutionary phenomenon is simplistic." Ref-1341, loc. 2203.


evolution - life - origin : Gen. 1:1

"Chance is probably one of the most abused concepts in all of cosmology (and origins science generally). The most extreme abuse scenario goes something like this: (a) anything is possible, even if it might be very improbably; (b) the universe is so vast and has been around for so long that even the most improbably events become likely (or even certain); (c) therefore, the most improbably events are likely to have occurred somewhere at some time. This scenario is false and misleading because all events in the material world are subject to the laws of physics. Chance cannot violate the laws of physics. Miracles may violate the laws of physics, but chance cannot." Ref-0814, p. 82. "Dawkins has some surprising allies as he argues that nothing can happen except by the strict operation of the laws of nature — people like theist St Augustine and pantheist Baruch Spinoza. Their arguments, however, lead to a god who paints himself into a corner, rendered impotent by the very laws he has himself created." Ref-1341, loc. 2523. "You don’t believe in miracles? That’s a pity, because Richard Dawkins does. You didn’t know that Richard Dawkins believes in miracles? Yes, really, though he would prefer to call them ‘extremely improbable events’ rather than miracles." Ref-1341, loc. 2547. "We’ll let his friend Victor Stenger put him right: ‘Quantum mechanics changes smoothly into classical mechanics when the parameters of the system, such as masses, distances, and speeds, approach the classical [large-scale] regime. When that happens, quantum probabilities collapse to either zero or 100%, which then gives us certainty at that level.’ Stenger is here referring to a phenomenon in QM known as ‘decoherence’. For reasons not well understood, quantum particles that exhibit wave-function behaviour when isolated from other particles (or when coherent with them) cease to do so when they interact with the environment. If there are too many particles of different kinds knocking around, all their wave functions get nervous and ‘collapse’ — meaning that instead of having the freedom to turn up anywhere, each particle decides where it wants to be with 100% certainty." Ref-1341, loc. 2610. "The problem for Richard Dawkins and his fellow atheists is this. They face serious difficulty in explaining the ‘miracle’ of the origin of life in a purely materialistic way. Indeed, the problem appears insuperable, as we shall see in the next chapter. But let’s just accept for the moment that atheism currently has no answer to the riddle. The careful atheist will not appeal to as-yet-unknown scientific discoveries for an explanation, because he recognizes that such an argument is a mirror-image of the God of the gaps theory he so despises. So what can he do? His first strategy is to ‘prove’ that even the most bizarre events imaginable — like marble motility or bovine ballistics — could conceivably occur by natural causation. Of course, his explanations fail miserably at the scientific level, but that will not worry him unduly as long as he succeeds in planting in our minds the hazy idea that any ‘miracle’ may have a natural explanation. But then comes the tricky bit. He now needs to make an agile leap from ‘miracles may have a natural cause’ to ‘miracles must have a natural cause’. This he attempts to do using our old friend ‘probability’. Specifically, he advances the thesis that everything imaginable in the physical universe will surely happen by natural causation if you wait long enough, provided only that its mathematical probability is not zero. And this sounds plausible because, having rejected the old Newtonian idea of a deterministic universe, we can rule out nothing in principle. But although plausible, the thesis is false, because mathematical probabilities bear no necessary relationship to physical possibilities . . ." Ref-1341, loc. 2628-2636. "It is mathematically possible to build an infinitely tall tower of bricks but it is physically impossible to do so, because sooner or later the weight of the tower will crush the bottom brick to powder and the whole (non-infinite) tower will collapse. Before mathematical probabilities can be applied to the real world they have to be passed through the twin filters of logic and physical reality." Ref-1341, loc. 2641. "‘Impossibilities’ arise in the physical universe not from mathematical constraints but from the laws of nature (such as the non-infinite compressive strength of bricks). It’s not mathematics that prevents statues waving or cows jumping over the moon, but the stubborn facts that energy and momentum must be conserved and that QM wave functions decohere in massive objects." Ref-1341, loc. 2646. "Although it is eminently logical to assume that physical events normally follow natural causes, we create a significant problem if we rigidly exclude all alternatives. Such blanket naturalism puts God in the classic position of the man who, in staining a floor, paints himself into a corner from which there is no escape (until the stain dries). Of course, for the atheist, there is nobody in the corner anyway because the floor paints itself, but all agree that God, if he exists at all, has imprisoned himself within his own laws and cannot act in the material universe except through the medium of natural causes." Ref-1341, loc. 2680. "2816 as I scrutinized the chance-based explanations for life’s origin, I often found them disappointing. Specific chance-based proposals were few and far between. And where present, they were hopelessly vague. Upon reading them, my reaction was often the same: “That’s it?”" Ref-1231, loc. 2816. "Chance-based explanations were, as a rule, so thin on detail that it was difficult to assess them." Ref-1231, loc. 2821. "The odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebiotic soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164." Ref-1231, loc. 3467. "Another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specified particle among all the particles in the universe." Ref-1231, loc. 3477. "3712 Most origin-of-life researchers recognized that, even if there had been a favorable prebiotic soup, many destructive chemical processes would have necessarily been at work at the same time.20 Simulation experiments of the type performed by Stanley Miller had repeatedly demonstrated this. They have invariably produced nonbiological substances in addition to biological building blocks such as amino acids. Without intelligent intervention, these other substances will react readily with biologically relevant building blocks to form biologically irrelevant compounds -- chemically insoluble sludge. To prevent this from happening and to move the simulation of chemical evolution along a biologically promising trajectory, experimenters often remove those chemicals that degrade or transform amino acids into nonbiologically relevant compounds. They also must artificially manipulate the initial conditions in their experiments. For example, rather than using both short-and long-wavelength ultraviolet light, which would have been present in any realistic early atmosphere, they use only short-wavelength UV. Why? The presence of the long-wavelength UV light quickly degrades amino acids." Ref-1231, loc. 3712. ". . . the very fact that these experiments required so much intervention seemed significant. By involving “programming” and “engineering” in simulations of the origin of life, these new approaches had introduced an elephant into the room that no one wanted to talk about, especially not in the methods sections of scientific papers." Ref-1231 loc. 5303. "Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists may find it untroubling, even amusing and certainly profitable, to muse over the prospect of a universe without purpose, but for the vast majority of thoughtful people, that idea is tinged with terror. Modern life suspends many of us, so we feel, high over a chasm of despair. It provokes feelings of dizzying anxiety--in a word, vertigo. The evidence of a purposeful design behind life, on the other hand, offers the prospect of significance, wholeness, and hope." Ref-1340, p. 412. "Robert Wilensky, who passed away last year, was professor emeritus in computer science at UC Berkeley and a pioneer in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Having devoted a long career to studying deep problems in machine intelligence, he left us with a memorable quip skewering today's digital culture. "We've all heard," said Wilensky, "that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."" Erik J. Larson, What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data, Evolution News and Views, May 6, 2014 [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/what_is_a_mind085251.html#sthash.fUSRoEym.dpuf] accessed 20140506. "The main problem with much chemical evolutionary theorizing is that the theorists consider life as an assembly of chemicals rather than an information-processing machine, and they never answer the question, “How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?”" Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2494. "Asher admits that there is currently no evolutionary explanation for the origin of life, but hastens to assert his belief that this does not make God necessary . . . He then repeats the assertion that the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory, although it is commonly called ‘chemical evolution’. What wishful thinking! If life arose from non-life, it must have undergone innumerable cycles of mutation and natural selection before it could have passed for even the simplest kind of life found on Earth today. If this was not evolution, then what was?" John Woodmorappe, A theistic paleontologist with dubious theology and little-better science, Ref-0784, Volume 26 Number 3 2012, 29-34, p. 32. "Panspermia: The idea that life did not evolve on earth but arrived from outer space. ‘Directed panspermia’ claims that intelligent beings were responsible for such an event." Ref-1341, loc. 3183. "“First he was a jellypod beginning to begin, Then he was a tadpole with his tail tucked in; Then he was a monkey in a banyan tree, And now he’s a scientist with a PhD.” [Anonymouse]" Ref-1341, loc. 3193-3194. "Dr Venter’s chemical tour de force demonstrates that to produce a meaningful string of DNA requires a lot of hard work by highly skilled and intelligent chemists. No one suggests that he and his team simply poured the necessary chemical ingredients into a cake mixer, set it on automatic and took a vacation. . . . And that is just to copy an existing DNA molecule. To create the first such molecule from scratch would, I suggest, have required an infinitely greater input of intelligence. It simply isn’t good enough to claim that the cake mixer actually will produce a ‘life-giving miracle’ as long as you run it for a thousand million years or so before you bake the cake." Ref-1341, loc. 3229-3231. "Besides the improbability of surviving millions of years drifting across the cold, airless void and the trip towards our sun with its sterilizing levels of radiation, recent research shows that microbes could not survive the extreme heat produced from friction with the earth’s atmosphere—the heat which produces ‘shooting stars’." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2476. "The bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any known organism (a virus doesn’t count because it is utterly dependent on the machinery of more complex cells for reproduction and assembly). Mycoplasma contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma genitalium has no cell walls, and can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms (e.g. it lives in the cells of the respiratory system and urogenital tract of humans) that provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. Indeed, this organism seems to have arisen by loss of genetic information, making it dependent on a host. . . . A decade ago, Eugene Koonin, a researcher interested in making artificial biological organisms, tried to calculate the bare minimum required for a living cell. He based his work on the mycoplasmas, and estimated how many genes even these simple cells could do without. His team came up with a result of 256 genes. They doubted whether such a hypothetical bug could survive for long, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment. It is not surprising that follow-up research has revised this number significantly upwards. This new hypothetical minimum genome consists of 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes. A 2009 New Scientist article stated: There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2179-2189. "The noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994) pointed out: What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But . . . the machinery by which the cell . . . translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. . . . the origin of the genetic code is a vicious circle: protein machines are needed to read the DNA, but instructions to build these protein machines are themselves encoded on the DNA. Furthermore, they use energy, which requires ATP, made by the nano-motor ATP synthase. Yet this is encoded on the DNA as well, decoded by machines needing ATP! The proteins are the machinery, and the DNA is the reproductive material, yet both are needed at the same time for the cell to function at all. And of course, this would be useless without any information to reproduce." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2029-2045. "Many evolutionists will try to dismiss the strong evidence in this chapter by claiming that origin of life from non-living chemicals has nothing to do with evolution, and claim that abiogenesis is the correct term for the former. But their fellow evolutionist Gordy Slack rebukes them for that: I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 1944. "In the final chapter of the first edition of Origin (1859), Darwin wrote: I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed. That is hardly an endorsement of the spontaneous origin of life. . . . he inserted this final sentence into every subsequent edition of Origin: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. It is clear that Darwin believed in unguided evolution, but it is not clear that he believed in chemical evolution. . . . Then, in 1871 (the year he published The Descent of Man, in which he clearly spells out man’s evolutionary relation to lower life forms for the first time), he dived headlong into the controversy: . . . if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes . . . Thus, even Darwin, father of modern evolutionary theory, halted between two opinions on the most important topic of all—how did life begin?" Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 1903-1921. "As a leading [origin of life] chemistry professor summarized in 2010: The origin of life on Earth is still a mystery, one of the greatest mysteries in science today . . . Our ignorance about the origin of life is profound--not just some simple missing mechanistic detail. . . . This ignorance stems not only from our experimental difficulties with prebiotic chemistry, but is also conceptual, as we are not yet able to conceive on paper how all these things came about." Peter M. Murphy, "Open questions on the Origin of Life in 2014", Ref-0784, 28(3) 2014, 10-12, p. 10. "In 2001, Lahav et al. concluded that After almost 50 years of modern research, there is no paradigm of the origin of life. The [origin of life] community has not even agreed to fundamental assumptions, including those pertaining to (1) where did life being?, (2) which came first: genetics or metabolism?, (3) how did genetics and metabolism unify?, (4) was RNA or protein the gateway from lifeless chemicals to cellular life, and (5) was the “origin of life” a singular event or were the “origins of life” a confederacy of independent events?" Peter M. Murphy, "Open questions on the Origin of Life in 2014", Ref-0784, 28(3) 2014, 10-12, p. 10. "No one has the faintest idea whether the immense gap between what is living and what is not may be crossed by any conceivable means. It is therefore no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences has taken pains to affirm that it has already been crossed. “For those who are studying aspects of the origin of life, the question no longer seems to be whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components but, rather, what pathway might have been followed.” The view among biochemists actively engaged in research is different. “The de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth,” Gerald F. Joyce and Leslie Orgel remarked in their chapter of a volume entitled The RNA World, “would have been a near miracle.” Oligonucleotides are among the indispensable building blocks of living systems." Ref-1386, loc. 2413. ". . . apart from the fact that such experiments have yielded no DNA in the products, the size and quantity of the ‘proteins’ formed falls far short of the evolutionist’s requirements. The failure of such experiments is in accord with the operation of one aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one consequence of which is that all chemical reactions, given enough time, will proceed to a defined equilibrium state. The equilibrium for amino acid polymerisation dictates that the amount of any biologically significant protein chains formed spontaneously in even concentrated amino acid solutions will be vanishingly small. This can be expressed slightly differently by saying that conditions that favour the formation of protein or DNA molecules will favour their breakdown even more, and it follows that any structure approaching a living cell, but falling short of life itself, is also thermodynamically unstable." Chris Darnbrough, Biblical Authority and the Facts of Science, Ref-1417, p. 118. "The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars." W. J. Bock, Science, 164:684, 1969. "Clearly, the activity of an imminent designer within the cosmos (a “space alien,” for example) cannot explain the origin of the cosmos itself." -- Ref-1568, p. 393. "Naturalism, materialism, and pantheism, on the other hand, deny the reality of any intelligent agent existing before or independently of the universe. Consequently, these systems do not provide causally adequate explanations of either the fine tuning or the origin of the universe. Panspermia, for its part, not only pushes the mystery of life’s ultimate origin out of view without explaining it;" -- Ref-1568, p. 419.


evolution - life from non-life - Hawking : quote - evolution - life from non-life - Hawking
evolution - macro vs. micro : Gen. 1:1

"The neo-Darwinian synthesis has long emphasized that large-scale macroevolutionary change occurs as the inevitable by-product of the accumulation of small-scale “microevolutionary” changes within populations. The consensus in support of this idea began to fray in evolutionary biology during the early 1970s, when young paleontologists such as Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven Stanley realized that the fossil record did not show a pattern of gradual “micro-to-macro” change. In 1980, at a new famous symposium on macroevolution at the Field Museum in Chicago, the rebellion burst into full view, exposing what developmental biologist Scott Gilbert called “an underground current in evolutionary theory” among theorists who had concluded that “macroevolution could not be derived from microevolution.” . . . many developmental biologists though that neo-Darwinism did not offer a compelling theory of macroevolution." Ref-1340, p. 314. "Ernst Mayr, one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is often regarded as change at or within the level of the species. Macroevolution refers to changes at higher levels of biological classification as well as to the appearance of evolutionary novelties, such as each of the forty or so types of animal eyes" Ref-1561, par. 1142.


evolution - micro - limits : kind - created
evolution - missing link - Lucy : Gen. 1:1

"For over the last 30 years, the supposedly 3.2 Ma old Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as ‘Lucy’ has been boldly proclaimed as the ancestor of all humanity in magazines, television, shows, books, newspapers, and museums. However, Tel Aviv University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy's role as mankind's ape ancestor. Based on a comparative analysis of jaw bones in living and extinct primates, researchers concluded that Lucy and members of her kind should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’ In other words, Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. . . . As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims." Ryan Jaroncyk, "No more love for Lucy?", Ref-0784, 21(3) 2007, p. 17.


evolution - missing links : Gen. 1:1

"Darwin frankly described his concerns about this conundrum in the Origin: “The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the Silurian [i.e., Cambrian] epoch, is very great,” he wrote. “I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” The sudden appearance of animals so early in the fossil record did not easily accord with Darwin’s new theory of gradual evolutionary change, and there was one scientist who would not let him forget it [Louis Agassiz of Harvard University]." Ref-1340, p. 7.


evolution - molecular clock : Gen. 1:1

"Or as Valentine, Jablonski, and Erwin conclude, “The accuracy of the molecular clock is still problematical, at least for phylum divergences, for the estimates vary by some 800 million years depending upon the techniques or molecules used.” Reported Precambrian divergence times would vary even more dramatically were it not that evolutionary biologists and molecular taxonomists ignore certain molecules in their studies to avoid grossly contradictory results. . . . So great is this variation that one paper in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution cautions, “The rate of molecular evolution can vary considerably among different organisms, challenging the concept of the ‘molecular clock.’” . . . As Andrew Smith and Kevin Peterson note: “Molecular clocks are not error-free and come with their own suite of problems. . . . The accuracy of the technique depends upon having an accurate calibration point or points, and a reliable phylogeny with correct branching order and branch-length estimates.” Because these conditions are rarely met, “the idea that there is a universal molecular clock ticking away has long since been discredited.”" Ref-1340, p. 107,109. "Since its first inception and use in the early 1960s, standard molecular clock methodologies routinely use deep-time calibrations taken from paleontology and assume macroevolution based on a grand tree of life. In addition to this presuppositional bias, the following problems still plague the use of the molecular clock: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates (even among genes within the same genome); 2) different taxa exhibit widely different rates of change for seemingly homologous sequences; and 3) clock-derived divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite the fact that deep-time calibrations are incorporated into the evolutionary clock models." Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, Evolutionary molecular genetic clocks—a perpetual exercise in futility and failure, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 26-35, p. 33.


evolution - moral implications : Gen. 1:1

"evolutionary psychology, which teaches that our brains are genetically preconditioned to produce certain forms of behaviour. The anti-social person and the criminal are no longer responsible for their actions but are the victims of their genetic inheritance. Indeed, whatever our lifestyle, character and inclinations, we cannot help ourselves because we are simply living out our genetic predestination." Ref-1341, loc. 4241. "despite heroic efforts, atheism’s attempts to explain [moral principles] self-destruct in contradictions. Consistent atheism must deny the very existence of morality and reduce all human behaviour, of whatever kind, to the machinations of selfish genes. Yet atheists continually lay claim to the moral high-ground not realizing that the moral landscape of atheism is as flat as a pancake." Ref-1341, loc. 4405. "if scientific atheists are disposed to challenge God’s existence—the party line, after all—they are far less willing to reflect on what His dismissal entails." Ref-1386, loc. 543. "If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance." Ref-1386, paras. 534-537. "The moral concerns that are prompted by biology? The list is already long: abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, sexual deviancy. It will get longer, as scientists with no discernible sense of responsibility to human nature come extravagantly to interfere in human life." Ref-1386, loc. 484. "In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia. Critics immediately objected that Dutch doctors, having been given the right to kill their elderly patients at their request, would almost at once find reasons to kill patients at their whim. This is precisely what has happened. The Journal of Medical Ethics, in reviewing Dutch hospital practices, reported that 3 percent of Dutch deaths for 1995 were assisted suicides, and that of these, fully one-fourth were involuntary. The doctors simply knocked their patients off, no doubt assuring the family that Grootmoeder would have wanted it that way. As a result, a great many elderly Dutch carry around sanctuary certificates indicating in no uncertain terms that they do not wish their doctors to assist them to die, emerging from their coma, when they are ill, just long enough to tell these murderous pests for heaven’s sake to go away." Ref-1386, loc. 494.


evolution - morphology - vs. design :

". . . the fossil record shows a “top-down” pattern in which phyla-level morphological disparity appears first followed only later by species-level diversity. Major innovations in body plans precede minor variations on basic designs. . . . Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of novel body plans by starting with simpler body plans and gradually assembling animals with more complex body plans via the gradual accumulation of small successive material variations. Thus, neo-Darwinism employs a “bottom-up” mode of causation. With a bottom-up approach, small-scale diversification should eventually produce large-scale morphological disparity--differences in body plan. . . . this approach encounters both palaeontological and biological difficulties: the fossil record leaves no evidence of such a process . . . The logic of designed systems . . . suggests precisely the kind of top-down pattern that we see in both the history of our own technological innovation and in the history of life following the Cambrian explosion . . . On the other hand, competing materialistic evolutionary theories would not lead us to expect the fossil record to manifest such a “top-down” pattern, but the opposite." Ref-1340, p. 371,373.


evolution - mutations - beneficial : Gen. 1:1

✪ See evolution - mutations - beneficial. "Evolutionists have cited a number of mutations that can be beneficial in some populations under some circumstances. Creationists have examined these cases and agree that some are credible, but others are equivocal (with potential for advantage or disadvantage) and most involve a loss of genetic information . . ." Alex Williams, Beneficial mutations: real or imaginary? - part 2, Ref-0784 28(2) 2014, 75-82, p. 75. "For a hundred years Darwinists had put their hopes in beneficial mutations to be the source of novelty that natural selection could accumulate to produce all the variety of life on Earth. But when they finally turned up, they just as quickly vanished again. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that can produce something new that did not exist before. There is no harvest of novelty for natural selection to reap and so fulfil the Darwinian dream. . . . Every example of apparently beneficial mutation in the literature can be explained by small changes in pre-existing biological structures and functions that have either been designed to respond in such ways or where damage to such mechanisms produces beneficial consequences. Nothing new is created that did not exist previously. The only thing that life has accumulated over time is an ever=growing burden of sub-lethal deleterious mutations driving us to imminent extinction!" Alex Williams, Beneficial mutations: real or imaginary? - part 2, Ref-0784 28(2) 2014, 75-82, p. 81. "Some useful mutations have been found, such as ones that cause dwarfing (helping crop plants not fall over when laden with grain), non-shattering pods (allowing the seeds to be harvested rather than spill onto the ground), low-phytate corn (which cows can eat), or variations in flower colours in ornamentals such as chrysanthemums. However, when studied at a molecular level, we always find that something was broken to produce these new traits, rather than created." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 644-646. "For a hundred years Darwinists had put their hopes in beneficial mutations to be the source of novelty that natural selection could accumulate to produce all the variety of life on Earth. But when they finally turned up, they just as quickly vanished again. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that can produce something new that did not exist before. There is no harvest of novelty for natural selection to reap and so fulfil the Darwinian dream." -- 20160416154827.pdf, p. 7.


evolution - mutations - damaging : Gen. 1:1

✪ See evolution - mutations - damaging. "We have seen that there are some point mutations that, under the right circumstances, do give the organism an advantage. There are point mutations that make bacteria resistant to antibiotics. There are some that make insects resistant to insecticides. There are some that increase quantitative traits in farm plants and animals. But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information, and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. but if these events all lose information they can't be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who last a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume." Ref-0155, p. 160. "Behe's major argument as to where the edge of evolution lies (what random mutations can and cannot achieve), revolves mainly around the malaria parasite. He analyses the interaction between humans and Plasmodium falciparum. Plasmodium has mutated to overcome various antibiotics, such as chloroquine, and humans have mutated to generate some measure of resistance to malaria (e.g., sickle cell, thalassemia). Behe shows that all the cases of adaptation, in both Plasmodium and humans, are due to breaking things, not creating new complex features. . . . He also looks at pyrimethamine resistance in Plasmodium, DDT resistance in mosquitoes and warfarin resistance in rates. In every case things are broken by mutations to create resistance." Don Batten, Clarity and confusion, Ref-0784, 22(1) 2008, 28:32, pp. 28-29. "Long before the mutational theory of evolution was popularized, Agassiz foresaw the overwhelmingly harmful nature of mutations and the inability of “selection” to produce new life forms.16 He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying." Jerry Bergman, "Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor", [http://www.icr.org/article/5932/, accessed 20110303]. ". . . the neo-Darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. . . . the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan." Ref-1340, p. 411. "Classically, Darwinian biologists have assumed that small, separate step-by-step changes could produce all biological structures and features, provided each change confers some survival or reproductive advantage. In his chapter in the 1909 anthology Darwin and Modern Science, the British geneticist William Bateson wryly described how this widespread assumption prevented evolutionary biologists from confronting the real difficulty of explaining the origin of complex adaptations: by suggesting that the steps through which an adaptive mechanism arises are indefinite and insensible, all further trouble is spared. While it could be said that species arise by an insensible and imperceptible process of variation, there was clearly no use in tiring ourselves by trying to perceive that process. This labour-saving counsel found great favor." Ref-1340, p. 237. "But there is an even bigger problem with natural selection. It can only work by reducing the gene pool of a species." Ref-1341, loc. 3688. "Having identified mutations as the only factor in evolution theory that might conceivably introduce new genetic information into the biosphere, we look in vain for evidence that they actually do so. This leads us to examine the whole idea of ‘beneficial’ mutations. Such mutations, it is claimed, include the cases of sickle-cell anaemia (malaria resistance) and bacterial drug resistance, so we take a specially close look at these. They turn out to be beneficial only in a restricted sense, involving a loss of genetic information that just happens to protect the organism from specific threats. But these mutations are not ‘beneficial’ in the constructive sense needed by evolution — of giving rise to increased biological complexity or sophistication. Quite the reverse. We’ll find that the evidence from mutations points to genome degradation rather than upward evolution." Ref-1341, loc. 3770. "In spite of the elaborate proof-reading and repair mechanisms possessed by living cells, genetic mutations undoubtedly do happen. Ask the long-suffering fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, of which millions of generations have been bred in hundreds of laboratories and subjected to every conceivable indignity — from radiation to toxic chemicals — to induce and study mutations. The results have included a regiment of monsters (tiny but technically still monsters) with all manner of bizarre bodily features like extra legs where the antennae should be3 and missing hearts in embryos. But none of the flies was any better off for the experience, not even those which acquired an extra pair of useless wings. And, of course, the mutated Drosophila are still nothing but fruit flies." Ref-1341, loc. 3805. "Firstly, all known ‘beneficial’ mutations involve loss of, or damage to, original gene function. They are changes that fortuitously protect the organism from attack by specific ‘enemies’ but which otherwise weaken it relative to the original (‘wild type’) organism. Thus regarding insecticide resistance, Swift comments: ‘The mutation that confers resistance ... is invariably inferior to the normal “wild type” macromolecule. That is, in the absence of the relevant insecticide, the resistant strain fares less well, is less fit, than the normal phenotype.’" Ref-1341, loc. 4022. "As far as factual science is concerned, mutations do not produce new structures within cells and thus do not increase biological complexity. Even when ‘beneficial’ in some respects, they have no creative power whatever." Ref-1341, loc. 4051. "evolutionists are continually holding up examples of ‘evolution’ via adaptive mutations to try to convince us that it really does work. However, the sorts of examples they provide include loss of sight in cave fish and cave salamanders, loss of functional wings in beetles on a windy island, loss of control of enzyme production or a defective uptake channel causing antibiotic resistance, and a defective gene in tomcod fish that helps them survive in waters polluted with PCBs. That is, we are being given ‘broken’ organisms as examples of adaptive mutations and natural selection." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 750. "Dr John Sanford, retired Cornell University geneticist (currently Courtesy Associate Professor) and inventor of the gene gun, has shown that this high rate of mutation, combined with the fact that most of the mutations are slightly deleterious (falling within Kimura’s Box), means that these slightly deleterious mutations are invisible to natural selection and are accumulating in humans and other organisms. This process is relentless and it is destroying us, not creating us. We are heading for extinction, along with every other complex organism." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 726. "in recent years the mutation rate has been measured and it is at least 50-fold higher than had been assumed based on evolutionary ideology." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 725. "Darwin’s predecessors, including Hutton and Matthew, saw natural selection as conservative, or maintaining fitness, and having limited ability to effect change. However, Darwin invoked natural selection as a creative force to try to explain an evolutionary view of the origin of all living things. This is where he differed from his predecessors, but this is also where he failed, for natural selection is not creative." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 431. "Selection runs into a ‘wall of insurmountable difficulty’ when faced with mutations that affect more than one trait simultaneously. Polyfunctionality (also called pleitropy) means that a given mutation can affect completely unrelated traits (say, color vision, the ability to tolerate garlic, and mitochondrial efficiency, although this would be an extreme example). This is still yet another Achilles’ heel of evolutionary genetics. How could a simple process of trial and error, always seeking the simplest answer to an environmental problem, create an interleaved and multilayered system of regulation?" Robert W. Carter, Genetics and DNA, Ref-1370, loc. 1433. ". . . a beneficial mutation can be one that damages molecular machinery." Ref-1561, par. 2169. "The almost oxymoronic “damaging but beneficial” mutations are the poison pills of Darwinian evolution. Plain old deleterious mutations aren’t nearly as bad, because negative selection can weed them out. But degrading helpful ones are spread by positive selection. Even in limited cases where damaged genes are confined to just a segment of the population, the baleful effects stick around for a very long time, as malaria researchers have noted. If they become fixed in a species, however, the affected gene or control region is (barring very improbable reverse mutations) gone for good." Ref-1561, par. 2692. "The more genes that are degraded for short-term evolutionary adaptation, the fewer available for future adaptation, and the more brittle a species becomes." Ref-1561, par. 2853. "The primary way by which natural selection makes evolution self-limiting is by promoting poison-pill mutations. Whatever genetic alterations that help an organism survive and reproduce better than its competitors will be fodder for natural selection—even if the alterations make a species less able to adapt in the future." Ref-1561, par. 2899. "Rather than guiding the construction of elegant biological machinery, selection predominantly scavenges a junkyard of broken or degraded parts." Ref-1561, par. 2906. "Random mutation supplies beneficial variation, as we were taught, but it comes predominantly at the expense of a species’s store of genetic information, which we weren’t." Ref-1561, par. 3303. "As mentioned earlier, random mutation and natural selection both promote evolution on a small scale and hinder it on a larger one. Mutation supplies the variation upon which natural selection acts, but the greatest amount of that variation comes from damaging or outright breaking previously working genes." Ref-1561, par. 3586. ". . . mIC features require much more time to form than do simple single changes, so the time available for random mutation to cause—and natural selection to spread—mischief is greatly extended. Thus whatever selective pressures a species experiences will be alleviated by quick, damaging fixes well before any otherwise helpful, constructive mIC feature arrives on the scene." Ref-1561, par. 3600.


evolution - mutations - ineffective : Gen. 1:1

"Dr Sanford summarized the problems for evolution: 1. mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2. mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be ‘selectable’; 3. biological noise and ‘survival of the luckiest’ overwhelm selection; 4. bad mutations are often physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. Informed evolutionists are aware of these problems and have offered ‘synergistic epistasis’ (where the effects of multiple mutations occurring together are supposedly greater than their sum) as a solution. However, Sanford has shown that this would make the problem worse." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 735. "Kimura recognized that most mutations were of too small an effect for natural selection to act upon; there existed a range of mutations that were invisible to natural selection. Such mutations are said to be within ‘Kimura’s Box’." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 711.


evolution - myth : evolution - creation myth
evolution - natural selection : Gen. 1:1

"For the most part, microevolutionary changes (such as variation in color or shape) merely utilize or express existing genetic information, while the macroevolutionary change necessary to assemble new organs or whole body plans requires the creation of entirely new information. As an increasing number of evolutionary biologists have noted, natural selection explains “only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.” " Ref-1340, p. x. "As Darwin described it, the ability of natural selection to produce significant biological change depends upon the presence of three distinct elements: (1) randomly arising variations, (2) the heritability of those variations, and (3) a competition for survival, resulting in differences in reproductive success among competing organisms." Ref-1340, p. 10. ". . . in the classical model of gene evolution, random mutations must thrash about aimlessly in immense combinatorial space, a space that could not be explored by this means in the entire history of life on earth, let alone in the few million years of the Cambrian explosion." Ref-1340, p. 204. "Douglas Ace’s results highlight an acute dilemma for neo-Darwinism, a “catch-22.” On the one hand, if natural selection plays no role in generating new genes, as the idea of neutral evolution implies, then mutations alone must climb a Mount Improbable in a single leap--a situation that, given Axe’s results and Darkins’s own logic, is probabilistically untenable. On the other hand, any model for the origin of genetic information that envisions a significant role for natural selection, by assuming a preexisting gene or protein under selective pressure, encounters other equally intractable difficulties. The evolving genes and proteins will range over a series of disadvantageous or nonfunctional intermediates that natural selection will not favor or preserve, but will, instead eliminate. At that point, selection-driven evolution will cease, locking existing genes and proteins into place. Thus, whether on envisions the evolutionary process beginning with a preexisting functional gene or a duplicated non-coding region of the genome, the results of mutagenesis experiments present a precise quantitative challenge to the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism." Ref-1340, pp. 207-208. "As Nobel Prize winner and atheist Jacques Mod (1910-1976) put it: “Selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms . . . the more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and the elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethic revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, it is one where the weak are protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which god more or less set up in order to have evolution.”" Andrew S. Kulikovsky, The theological corruption of the Evangelical Church, Ref-0784 27(2) 2013, 129-127, p. 121. "This highlights a problem for evolutionary ideas of speciation. If adaptation through natural selection constantly removes genetic information (variation), species will continue to become more and more specialized as they are ‘fine tuned’ to that environment. This fine tuning will prevent them from going backwards if the environment changes." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 603. "if natural selection is part of the creationist model, how can it be a refutation of the concept of creation, or evidence for evolution as opposed to creation? If both evolution and creation claim the same territory, then the argument must lie elsewhere." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 476. "evolutionists, despite claims to the contrary, still like to talk of natural selection as a creative force, but it cannot create anything. It can only eliminate the unfit, not create the fit. Natural selection is not the same as evolution. ‘Survival of the fittest’ (elimination of the unfit) does not explain the arrival of the fit." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 358. "In his book Natural Selection in the Wild, published in 1986, Endler clearly stated why the two are not the same: Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related. Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms, and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency. Thus natural selection may affect the patterns of the origins of combinations of traits, even though it will not explain the mechanisms of their origins. This was tangentially discussed by Fisher (1930), Simpson (1944), and Rensch (1959), but has received virtually no attention since then. It would repay further study." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 338. "Evidence for natural selection is commonly held up as proving evolution. Since organisms are often able to adapt to changes in their environment via natural selection, there is no shortage of stories of natural selection and so we are continually bombarded with the message that evolution is ‘happening all the time’. But is this really evolution?" Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 273-274. "The ‘fittest’ are, by definition, those that produce the greatest number of surviving offspring. . . . biologists use ‘natural selection’ in terms of differential reproduction." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 263-266. "The full title of Charles Darwin’s 1859 book expressed the concept of natural selection: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 240. ". . . adjusting a biological system to its current function—works to block the system from taking up a significantly different function. Like random mutation, natural selection limits Darwinian evolution on a large scale by promoting it on a small one." Ref-1561, par. 2962.


evolution - neo-Darwinism : Gen. 1:1

"The discovery of genetic mutations also suggested a way to reconcile Darwinian theory with insights from Mendelian genetics. During the 1930s and 1940s, a group of evolutionary biologists, including Sewall Wright, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson, attempted to demonstrate this possibility using mathematical models to show that small-scale variations and mutations could accumulate over time in whole populations eventually producing large-scale morphological change. These mathematical models formed the basis of a subdiscipline of genetics known as population genetics. The overall synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian theory came to be called “neo-Darwinism” or simply the “New Synthesis.”" Ref-1340, p. 158. "When mutations were discovered, evolutionists adopted them as the mechanism for creating all the new information for evolution to proceed from pond-scum to scientist. This was a major component of the ‘new’ Darwinism, or ‘the modern synthesis’, that was to emerge in the 1930s and 40s." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 638. "In a nutshell, neo-Darwinian theory cites the same basic drivers of evolution that Charles Darwin’s original theory did: variation in the members of a species, natural selection acting on that variation, and inheritance of the selected variation by the organism’s offspring. The “neo” part comes from incorporating biology that Darwin hadn’t known about: mainly that traits could be inherited through specific, discrete factors called “genes” (which only later were identified with DNA) as well as the mathematics of how those traits would be expected to spread through a population over the generations." Ref-1561, par. 950.


evolution - nonsensical statements :

"At the most intimate level, attractiveness serves as a signpost for powerful sexual performance, resulting in the intermingling of high-quality genes. A man wants to share his sperm, and a woman her eggs, with the healthiest mate possible in order to enhance the likelihood of successful pregnancies and fit offspring. Signs of good health suggest the parent(s) will also be successful providers of a safe shelter, adequate sustenance, and protection for the family." Dr. John McDougall, McDougall Newsletter, November 2015, [https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2015nl/nov/foodandsex.htm] accessed 20160118.


evolution - order vs. creation : Gen. 1:1

"The “Big Bang,” evolutionary, and progressive creation order of creation: 1) sun/stars existed before the earth; 2) sun is earth’s first light; 3) first life = marine organisms ; 4) reptiles pre-date birds; 5) land mammals pre-date whales; 5 land mammals pre-date whales; 6) disease/death precede man. Biblical order: 1) earth created before sun/stars; 2) light created before sun; 3) first life = land plants; 4) birds pre-date land reptiles; 5) whales pre-date land mammals; 6) disease/death result from man’s sin." Gary Bates, Harmonizing science and Scripture?, Prayer News, October 2014. Creation Ministries International.


evolution - parallel : Gen. 1:1

". . . molecular biologists have discovered that both whales and bats use similar systems--involving similar genes and proteins--for echolocation. The striking similarity of these systems used in tow otherwise disparate mammalian species has led biologists to posit the parallel evolution of echolocation, including the gene sequences and proteins that make it possible, from a common ancestor that did not possess this system." Ref-1340, p. 215.


evolution - pillars : Gen. 1:1

"The neo-Darwinian mechanism rests on three core claims: first, that evolutionary change occurs as the result of random, minute variations (or mutations); second, that the process of natural selection sifts among those variations and mutations, such that some organism leave more offspring than others (differential reproduction) based on the presence or absence of certain variations; and third, favored variations must be inherited faithfully in subsequent generations of organism, thus causing the population in which they reside to change or evolve over time. Biologists Marc Kirschner and john Gerhart call these three elements--variation, natural selection and heritability--the “three pillars” of neo-Darwinian evolution." Ref-1340, p. 292.


evolution - probability : Gen. 1:1

". . . it takes three bases in a group called a codon to designate one of the twenty protein-forming amino acids in a growing chain during protein synthesis. If an average gene has about 1000 bases, then an average protein would have over 300 amino acids, each of which are called “residues” by protein chemists. And indeed proteins typically require hundreds of amino acids in order to perform their functions. This means that an average-length protein represents just one possible sequence among an astronomically large number--20300, or over 10390--of possible amino-acid sequences of that length. Putting these numbers in perspective, there are only 1065 atoms in our Milky Way galaxy and 1080 elementary particles in the known universe." Ref-1340, p. 175.


evolution - purposeless : Gen. 1:1

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea." Provine, W.B. 1994. Origins Research. 16 (1): 9 cited in Lawrence E. Ford, Anchors Away, Ref-0959, March 2009, 4:5, p. 5. [Provide died from cancer in 2015.] "evolution’s nihilistic teaching has resulted in the suicide rate among young people being the leading cause of death in some Western countries. If you’re just rearranged pond scum and the going gets tough, ending your life perhaps seems a rational decision to take," David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood, Ethics and Morality, Ref-1370, loc. 5938. "In 2007, a young man named Pekka-Eric Auvinen went on a shooting spree at a school in Finland, killing seven students and a head teacher before killing himself. Because of home-made video clips he’d posted on the YouTube website and elsewhere, detectives soon had an insight into the mind of the killer. Overwhelmingly, Auvinen’s statements revealed his belief in evolution and that there is no ultimate purpose to our existence: “Life is just a coincidence … result of long process of evolution and many [sic] several factors, causes and effects.” “Religious people, your gods are nothing and exists [sic] only in your heads. Your slave morals means [sic] nothing to me.” “HUMANITY IS OVERRATED!” “Human life is not sacred. Humans are just a species among other animals and [the] world does not exist only for humans. Death is not a tragedy, it happens in nature all the time between all species. Not all human lives are important or worth saving. Sometimes I feel like no one is really worth [sic] of life at all.” “It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on track!” “I cannot say that I am of the same race as this miserable, arrogant and selfish human race. No! I have evolved a step higher.” “I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of the human race and failures of natural selection.”" David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood, Ethics and Morality, Ref-1370, loc. 6162-6174. "For two hundred years the new division of labor between science and philosophy rested uneasily—until the truce was shattered by Darwin. Ignoring the tenuous peace treaty, Darwin once again addressed the question of purpose from within science itself, but this time in order to forthrightly deny there was any such thing." Ref-1561, par. 3755.


evolution - RNA : Gen. 1:1

"The discovery of such ribozymes has led many evolutionists to postulate an RNA World. They propose that the first life consisted mainly of RNA, which could not only reproduce but also carry out many of the functions now carried out by enzymes. . . . However, there are many problems for the RNA World hypotheses: . . . It is no wonder that one of the leading researchers in ‘RNA World’ models, Gerald Joyce, wrote: The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA. … The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2269-2323. "Another chemical evolutionist, Robert Shapiro, stated after showing that one of the building blocks of RNA was an implausible component of a primordial soup, said: the evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2325.


evolution - science doesn't require : Gen. 1:1

"In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”" Jason Lisle, "Can creationists be scientists?", Ref-0028, Vol. 12 Issue 4, 2005, p. 1.


evolution - scientific? : Gen. 1:1

"evolutionary theory has explained opposite effects with equal facility, maintaining that the same selective pressure (a dark environment) causes sight to be lost in one species but enhanced in another. . . . is there any feature of any creature that could not be explained by one evolutionary scenario or another? Let’s get back to elephants. Their elongated trunks enable them to reach food that would otherwise be inaccessible. But so does the long neck of the giraffe. Why don’t giraffes have trunks instead of long necks? This would avoid the quite literal headache that an evolving giraffe might experience — as a result of blood-pressure changes — when going from a head-up position to a head-down position. In fact, the modern giraffe has a special system of valves in its long neck that eliminate this problem, but why go to all that evolutionary hassle when a trunk would provide the same benefit without valves? And how do gazelles and wildebeests survive and prosper in the same environment as giraffes without having long necks (or trunks for that matter)? The problem I have is that evolution can always contrive an answer to these questions and can therefore never be falsified. Yet the capacity for falsification is essential for any truly scientific theory. . . . Writing in the journal Nature, biologists Paul R. Ehrlich and L. C. Birch (respectively from the Universities of Stanford, California; and Sydney, Australia) stated: ‘Our theory of evolution has become … one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside of empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it [that is, falsify it]. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.’ Although these words were written in 1967, and may express a minority view, nothing has happened since to invalidate them." Ref-1341, loc. 3557-3591. "Quite simply, evolution is much more than ‘science’. In the sense that ‘science’ is concerned with experiments that can be carried out in a laboratory, it is a highly specialized subject in which a man must be highly qualified before his opinion can carry weight. But the theory of evolution is not that kind of ‘science’. Evolution is really a theory about history--historical science, to be precise. . . . A chief reason that some scientists are unhappy with regarding evolution as a theory like other scientific theories is that it cannot be tested. No one can set up an experiment to try it out and see if it works. But, more than that it is concerned not simply with events long ago--which cannot be repeated--but with events of which the Bible speaks. " Ref-1417, p. 16. "The Bible is, to be sure, not intended to be read as a scientific text-book, but it deals nevertheless with the same real world with which scientists deal. It is chiefly concerned with the history of that world, in its relation to God; so clearly when scientists wish to theorise about the very early history of the world and its origin, they will find themselves dealing with a subject also of key interest to Scripture." Ref-1417, p. 101.


evolution - speciation :

"there are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation either, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. This is the conclusion suggested as well by more than six thousand years of artificial selection, the practice of barnyard and backyard alike. Nothing can induce a chicken to lay a square egg or to persuade a pig to develop wheels mounted on ball bearings. It would be a violation, as chickens and pigs are prompt to observe and often with indignation, of their essential nature. If species have an essential nature that beyond limits cannot change, then random variations and natural selection cannot change them." Ref-1386, loc. 2256.


evolution - survival of the fittest : Gen. 1:1

"It has long been held that predators preferentially take the young, weak, and diseased prey. This concept is central to natural selection and is one of the tenets on which evolution rests. The premise is flawed. The entire superstructure built on natural selection providing a mechanism for evolution collapses into disarray if predators do not actually take the weakest individuals. Upon close examination, the these is neither logical nor supported by the scientific evidence. Natural selection therefore lacks as a mechanism for evolution. . . . Young animals are only available during a small fraction of the year and most wild animals are healthy. If predators had to rely on eating young or sick prey they would soon start to death. There is another fundamental problem with this theory. If predators ate diseased animals they would likely become ill. . . . Most predators have overkill potential. For example, cheetah or other cats are capable of catching, killing and eating prey larger than they are. The chase-kill instinct is a powerful driving force for many predators, as can be commonly observed in cats hunting mice, or dogs chasing cats or rabbits. In a 20 year study in New Zealand, it was demonstrated that well fed farm cats would travel 3 km to kill rabbits." E. Norbert Smith, "Which prey do predators eat?", Ref-0784, 24(2) 2010, 75:77, p. 75. "McBride worked with ranchers, again protecting the herd from predatory mountain lions. In this area of Mexico, cattle are taken to market only once a year. Some of the younger calves were weaned very young and had difficulty keeping up with the herd. They often straggled behind, making easy targets for the mountain lions. Without fail the lions ignored the young weak calves, but instead attacked and killed the large healthy 500-600 pound steers. Once again this demonstrated the fallacy in thinking these predators select the weak and flies in the face of evolution dogma. . . . Observations clearly show predators do not consistently select the weak, sick or young as evolutionist have long accepted and taught. Many predators have overkill potential and can easily catch and kill larger healthy prey. Predators also seem to seek the chase-kill sequence and will actually ignore live prey that will not flee when approached. . . . The entire predator/prey relation needs to be studied in depth and re-evaluated. It appears the evolutionists have been misled and one of their important foundation cornerstones is cracked and should soon disintegrate. " E. Norbert Smith, "Which prey do predators eat?", Ref-0784, 24(2) 2010, 75:77, p. 77.


evolution - theistic - AGAINST : Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11; Ex. 31:17; Mark 13:19; John 1:3; Acts 4:24; Acts 14:15; 2Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Heb. 1:10; Rev. 4:11; Rev. 10:6; Rev. 14:7

"When the NT refers to creation. . . it always refers to a past, completed event -- an immediate work of God, not a still-occurring process of evolution." Ref-0164, Spring 2002, p. 15. "Order of Appearance (long-age): 1. Sun/stars existed before earth; 2. Sun is earth's first light; 3. First life = marine organisms; 4. Reptiles predate birds; 5. Land mammals predate whales; 6. Disease/death precede man. Order of Appearance (Bible): 1. Earth created before sun/stars; 2. Light on earth before sun; 3. First life = land plants; 4. Birds predate land reptiles; 5. Whales predate land mammals; 6. Disease/death result from man's sin." Ref-0232, p. 141. For a comparison of the conflicts between the order of creation as given by Scripture vs. as given by theistic evolution, see Ref-0232, p. 141. "Theistic evolution comprises the following basic beliefs: (1) the first human couple (if there even was one) shared a common ancestor (pre-Adamites) with the apes; (2) the first human couple were highly evolved hominids who were imparted with God’s image; (3) death, decay, and suffering are an integral part of the world God created, and therefore, the teaching that physical death is a direct consequence and penalty of Adam’s sin is denied; (4) the penalty for sin is ‘spiritual death’. Theistic evolution casts doubt upon God’s omniscience, omnipotence, efficiency,and goodness. Why would an omniscient God, who surely knows exactly what He wants, create a scenario where nature aimlessly gropes around trying to find the path of least resistance in an upward direction? Why would an omnipotent God employ such a wasteful and cruel method to ‘create’ life? Why would a just and loving God design a process which requires the strong to usurp the weak?" Andrew S. Kulikovsky, The theological corruption of the Evangelical Church, Ref-0784 27(2) 2013, 129-127, p. 121. "Any general form of the position can be referred to as some variation of “old earth creationism” (OEC). Embedded within these long-age interpretations of Scripture are several unavoidable implications and consequences: 1--The creation account of Genesis 1-2 and related texts must be interpreted in a manner that allows for billions of years of cosmic history. 2--The evolutionary development of the animal kingdom, entailing millions/billions of years of death through natural selection, prior to the appearance of Adam. 3--Hundreds of millions of years of death in the animal kingdom prior to Adam’s fall by means of carnivory, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, and manifold other causes. 4--The theological and historical disconnect between Adam’s Fall and the condition of creation, since these conditions in the non-human realm obviously predate Adam’s fall into sin. Adam’s fall has nothing whatsoever to do with the corrupted condition of the physical world, either in the past or in the present. 5--A predominant denial of the worldwide nature of the Genesis Flood, and almost invariably, an acceptance of various local flood theories. Sadly, these alternative interpretations of cosmic history actually serve to theologically undermine the logical coherence of the complete Gospel message." Henry B. Smith Jr., Cosmic Death in Romans 8: Affirming a Recent Creation Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 1 Winter 2013, 8-14, p. 10. "Christian theistic evolution is incoherent and a contradiction in terms. This may be demonstrated with respect to man and his liability to death, and the sufferings of the animals." Ref-1417, p. 64. ". . . conservative writers, in trying to make the Scripture acceptable to current scientific thought, have not only mis-interpreted it in a way which abandons the actual meaning of the text, but have succeeded only in coming to a mediating position supported neither by Scripture nor by science. . . . men like Driver also made very clear what the choice actually is: between accepting the Genesis narratives in an essentially ‘literal’ sense--as teaching what they plainly intend to teach--and rejecting them as teaching anything about the origin of the world. The middle ground, which evangelicals then as now desired to occupy, is untenable." Ref-1417, pp. 82-83. "The fact that Christian evolutionists, while generally accepting the kind of time-scale for the age of the universe and the conventional cosmological evolution that orthodox science allows, still generally wish to retain an immediate expectation of the ‘personal return’ of Christ and the ensuing end of all things, raises an interesting question. Not only are they betraying inconsistency in method; they are elevating the New Testament to a special position in their thinking. For should they wish to abandon their belief in the reality of the second coming, it would not be difficult: they would simply have to apply to their interpretation of the Scripture passages which deal with it the methods of interpretation they have already applied to the passages concerning the creation and the Fall." Ref-1417, p. 96. "the great weight of scientific evidence is against theistic evolution because it is against blind evolution generally." Ref-1560, par. 3081.


evolution - theory - unproven :

"Although Darwin’s theory is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid." Ref-1386, loc. 2286.


evolution - tree of life : Gen. 1:1

"Numerous papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory trees based on evidence from molecular genetics. A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution notes that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.” Likewise a 2012 paper in Biological Reviews acknowledged that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.” Echoing these views, a January 2009 cover story and review article in New Scientist observed that today the tree-of-life project “lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” As the article explains, “Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded,” because the evidence suggests that “the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like.”" Ref-1340, p. 119. "My point in summarizing these disputes is simply to note that the molecular and anatomical data commonly disagree, that one can find partisans on every side, that the debate is persistent and ongoing, and that, therefore, the statements of Dawkins, Coyne, and many others about all the evidence (molecular and anatomical) supporting a single, unambiguous animal tree are manifestly false." Ref-1340, p. 124.


evolution - vs. creation - Watson - quote : quote - evolution - vs. creation - Watson
Evolution and the Authority of the Bible, Nigel Cameron : Ref-1417
Evolution and the Authority of the Bible, Nigel Cameron - Cameron, Nigel, Evolution and the Authority of the Bible : Ref-1417
Evolution's Achilles' Heels, Robert Carter, ed. : Ref-1370
Evolution's Achilles' Heels, Robert Carter, ed. - Carter, Robert, ed. Evolution's Achilles' Heels : Ref-1370
Evolution's Achilles' Heels, Robert Carter, ed. - Carter, Robert, ed. Evolution's Achilles' Heels - Kindle-0014 : Ref-1370

EV