Evolution theory teaches that the universe came into existence on its own, having fine tuned the forces necessary to bring about existence as we know it, set the planets in their orbits, gave us a moon that not only stabilizes our planet's orbit, but also just so happened to provide us with a lesser light source when the sun sets.
Life emerged on its own through multiple repeated, exceedingly impossible accidents, the odds of it happening even once is so great Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros.
That's 2 miracles by my count, not counting the multiple times a living cell randomly Came into existence .one might say it takes a great deal of faith to believe in evolution . And to be honest, sounds quite a bit like magic.
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma: "The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth."
Two British scientists confirm that the genetic code is not simply the product of random chance. "Their analysis has shown [the genetic code] to be among the best of more than a billion billion possible codes," notes New Scientist magazine. Of the roughly 1020 (1 followed by 20 zeros) possible genetic codes, only one was selected early in the history of life. Why this specific one? Because it minimizes errors made during the protein-making process or errors caused by genetic mutations. In other words, the specific code guarantees that laws of heredity are strictly followed. Although some ascribe the selection of this genetic code to "strong selective pressures," the two researchers have concluded that "it is extremely unlikely that such an efficient code arose by chance."
Michael Behe raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that "haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along 'highways' made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex." Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms "irreducible complexity."
Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms "irreducible complexity."*
Biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks: "Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood . . . has solidified?" He explains that "the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot" make up an integrated biological system. If any part fails, then the system fails.
Russell Doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks: "How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble?" Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an "enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places." He shows that Doolittle's explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties.
Thus, one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states: "I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select—something that is useful right now, not in the future."
Professor Behe states that some scientists have studied "mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data." However, he concludes: "The mathematics assumes that real-world evolution is a gradual, random process; it does not (and cannot) demonstrate it." (Last phrase italics ours.) He earlier said: "If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism's universal reach."
French science writer Philippe Chambon wrote: "Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And today's biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that 'the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.'"
"Any science of the past . . . that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism."—Origins Research.
"The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age."—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. . . . There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that . . . the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."—Darwin's Black Box
Inside the cell, there is "a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity."—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. . And I attribute a supreme mind for being behind that supreme technology.
Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Dept. of Biological Anthropology, Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary wrote in 2002: "The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate."
Anthropologist Anthony Ostric weighed in on the matter of fossil evidence stating, "at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that....there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance."
Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: "Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don't want an honest debate that might undermine their world view."
No, my mind can't be changed. On the other hand, it appears that some evolutionists' minds have changed . And let me be clear on a couple of things: I'm no creationist. They believe the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. The word for "day" used in the creation account "YOHM" can mean Looong periods of time. Billions of years long. at Genesis 2:7 we find that God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person [soul]. It's worth noting that the Bible too says that life emerged from non-living matter, however, the catalyst to convert that matter into life was not chance or random, non-intelligent forces, but a highly intelligent Creator. It should also be noted that "The World Book Encyclopedia" cites: All the chemical elements that make up living things are also present in non-living matter." The Bible certainly isn't at odds with science here.
You talk about fairy tales and magic. I'm talking about someone of vast intelligence creating everything. You're talking about millions of improbable accidents taking place; unintelligent forces shaping who and what we are as a species. Which one sounds more like magic and fairy tales? Judge for yourself.
