9.1. What is science and biology?

The definition of science

"Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

Laws of science:

1. It must be able to be observed or measured or tested or experimented upon.

2. It is based on evidence and facts.

The definition of biology

"Biology is the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behaviour, origin, and distribution."

Laws of biology:

1. An animal produces the same specie as it:

“According to the biological species concept, organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed to produce viable, fertile offspring. Species are separated from one another by prezygotic and postzygotic barriers, which prevent mating or the production of viable, fertile offspring.” In other words:

o Cats produce cats.

o Humans produce humans.

o Ants produce ants.

o Fish produce fish.

There are variations of one specie, but one specie cannot produce another different specie.

• There is no record of whales creating elephants.

• There is no record of dogs producing cats.

This is against the laws of biology.

2. Non-living things cannot produce anything living:

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology says that only life can produce life.

“Non-living things cannot naturally create copies of their own kind; living things can, by reproduction. A living thing can produce life. There are two ways by which a living thing can: sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction.”

However,  evolutionists say non-living things can produce living things. For example, a large rock will eventually produce an elephant.

9.2. The problems with evolution

The definition of evolution

"Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

- The general reasons that indicate that evolution is unscientific and biologically impossible:

• Evolution is not directly observable or testable, making it unscientific.

• It is considered a theory rather than a proven fact.

• Gaps in the fossil record are cited as evidence against evolution.

• Individual organisms do not evolve within their lifetimes.

• Evolution is not a goal-oriented process.

• Nobody has observed the Big Bang. Another sign that it is unscientific

• Nobody has observed one animal evolve into another different animal, e.g., a whale evolving into an elephant.

In order to believe in evolution, you must believe the following:

• That a complete ecosystem can evolve all at one time. Certain organisms cannot exist without others, so the evolution happened to all of them at the same time.

• That while mutation is random, which mutations survive often is not. 

• Given enough time, the accumulation of one beneficial mutation after another can produce amazingly complex systems.

If you take even the simplest species alive today and evaluate the odds of obtaining its genome by randomly mixing DNA sequences, you will see that the chances are extremely unlikely. Even matching the sequencing of the simplest virus is impossible.

- Other six major problems with evolution

1. No practical method exists to produce a primordial soup.

Most atheistic scientists claim that life resulted due to unguided chemical reactions on the early earth between 3 and 4 billion years ago. Most of them theorize that the first step involved the production of a primordial soup (a water-based sea of simple organic molecules) out of which life arose.

In 1953, Stanley Miller, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago and his faculty advisor Harold Urey conducted experiments aimed at producing the components of life in conditions like those of early Earth. These “Miller-Urey experiments” were designed to mimic lightning striking the gases in the early atmosphere of Earth.

But it has been known for decades that the gases in the earth's early atmosphere were different than the ones that were used in the Miller and Urey experiment. The Miller-Urey tests used an atmosphere mostly made up of reducing gases, such as methane, ammonia, and a lot of hydrogen. Geochemists now think that these components were not present in large amounts in the early earth's atmosphere. 

A lot of good reasons can be used to explain why the Earth's early atmosphere did not have a lot of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gases. Volcanoes are thought to have released gases into the earth's early atmosphere. The chemical makeup of those gases is linked to the chemical makeup of the earth's inner core. The earth's mantle would have had the same chemical traits in the past as it does now, according to geochemical studies. But today, volcanic gases don't have any methane or ammonia in them.

Because of these inconsistencies, some theorists no longer believe the Miller-Urey experiment and the “primordial soup” theory. 

2. The origin of the genetic code cannot be explained by unguided chemical processes.

The "RNA world" is the most popular theory about how life began. In living cells, DNA stores genetic information and proteins do most of the work inside the cells. However, RNA can both carry genetic information and speed up some biochemical processes. Because of this, some scientists believe that the first life could have performed all of these functions using only RNA.

But there are many problems with this hypothesis.

• The first RNA molecules would have to be produced by undirected, non-biological chemical processes. However, it is known that RNA cannot assemble without the intellectual guidance of a trained laboratory scientist. 

• Although RNA has been demonstrated to play a variety of roles in the cell, there is no proof that it could carry out every essential cellular function that proteins do.

• The origin of genetic information cannot be explained by the RNA world theory.

• In order to create DNA or protein-based life that exists today, RNA would need to have the ability to convert genetic information into proteins, which it cannot do by itself.

3. Random mutations cannot produce the genetic information needed for complicated structures.

Darwinian evolution ultimately produced the grand diversity we observe today, according to evolutionary biologists. It is widely believed that the DNA of living organisms contains all of the intricate characteristics of existence. Therefore, the development of new characteristics necessitates the production of new information within the genetic code of DNA. 

Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, used the term “irreducible complexity” to describe systems that require a large number of components and, thus, a large number of mutations to be present simultaneously before they can provide any kind of survival advantage to the organism. It is not possible for such systems to evolve in the sequential manner that is required by Darwinian evolution, according to Behe. He argues that genetic information cannot be produced by random mutation and unguided natural selection to produce complex structures. The occurrence of too many simultaneous mutations at once is an unlikely event.

4. There are no fossil records to support Darwinian evolution.

The late evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged that there is no fossil evidence of evolutionary intermediates. He stated “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

Evolutionists say that man evolved from apes. If this is true, then there should be evidence of fossils of apes that are partially man. But there are no fossil records of part-ape and part-human creatures.

• No fossils/skeletons of 50% monkey and 50% human.

• No fossils/skeletons of 30% monkey and 70% human.

• No fossils/skeletons of 60% monkey and 40% human.

We only have skeletons/fossils of 100% monkeys and only skeletons/fossils of 100% humans.

Furthermore, the Darwinian evolution of whales from land mammals faces serious mathematical challenges from population genetics.

Many changes would have been necessary to convert a land-mammal into a whale, including:

• Emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control

• Modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision

• Ability to drink sea water

• Forelimbs transformed into flippers

• Modification of skeletal structure

• Ability to nurse young underwater

• Origin of tail flukes and musculature

• Blubber for temperature insulation

5. Neo-Darwinism has a protracted history of erroneous Darwinian predictions regarding vestigial organs and "junk DNA."

For decades, evolutionists have asserted that human bodies and genomes include numerous superfluous components and genetic material termed “vestigial” organs, indicating that life is the product of extensive unguided evolution. Over time, these assumptions regarding vestigial bodily parts and superfluous DNA have proven inaccurate. As scientists have learned more about how living things work, they have found that these so-called "vestigial structures" serve important purposes.

Structures that were previously and incorrectly thought to be vestigial include:

• The tonsils – They used to be removed because their purpose was unknown. Now medical experts have found out that they serve a purpose in the lymph system and help to fight infection.

• The thyroid – This organ was also thought of as being of no use by scientists. Now it is known that it is vital for regulating metabolism.

• The appendix - Darwinian scientists for several claimed that the appendix did not have a function. Scientists now understand that the appendix serves as a storehouse for beneficial bacteria, produces white blood cells and plays a crucial role during fetal development. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ'” but many biologists have stated, “it’s time to correct the textbooks.”

6. People have a lot of behavioral and cognitive skills that offer no apparent survival advantage.

Evolutionary biologists have tried to use Darwin's ideas to explain how moral, intellectual and religious skills came to be in humans. 

The problem is that natural selection can't explain why some people do very kind things. No matter their background or views, if they see strangers trapped in a burning car, they will risk their own lives to help them get out, even if it doesn't help them evolve. For instance, evolutionary scientist Jeffrey Schloss says that people who saved Jews during the Holocaust took a lot of risks that did not personally benefit them.

In spite of what evolutionary scientists claim, many of our best intellectual, artistic and charitable skills go beyond the basic needs of natural selection. If all there is to life is surviving and reproducing, then why do people write symphonies, get involved in charity work, and build orphanages? How are these actions related to the survival of the fittest?

Quote from scientists and biologists who do not believe in evolution

    Dr. Arthur Compton, Nobel Prize-winning physicist once said:

“For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is plain that where there is a plan there is a divine intelligence. An orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—‘In the beginning God.’”

    Dr. Arthur Conklin, a noted biologist, once wrote: “The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop.”

9.3. Design is evidence of an intelligent designer

Let's imagine, however, that everything did suddenly explode into existence out of nothing. How did the universe miraculously have structure and order after such an explosion?

When was the last time you saw an explosion that brought about order rather than chaos?

 If you blow up a bridge, you don’t end up with a skyscraper.

It takes knowledge, planning and design to establish order. Furthermore, the design of our universe is extremely precise.

What, then, led to the organization of everything in the universe?

Answer: Design

Everything in the universe, from planets to flower petals, exhibits functional design.

Scientists engaged in the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), whereby 27 large radio antennas got spread out over a large area of a desert near Socorro, New Mexico. The purpose of these antennas was to scan for a pattern to emerge from the radiation waves in the universe.

Why did the scientists do this?

Because the identification of such a pattern was evidence of intelligence in the universe.

Our human ability to reason is a sign that there is an intelligent creator. It is ironic and hypocritical that scientists are searching for patterns in the radio waves of space as a sign of intelligent life out there, but when faced with the incredibly complex code written in our DNA of every living cell, which they struggle to explain, they assume the DNA happened by accident. It needed the guidance of an intelligent being to write the code.

When there is order and useful design, it makes sense to conclude that it was put together by an intelligent being.

The way a bird is made is much more complicated than the way an airplane is made. However, scientists argue that aeronautical experts created a plane, whereas a bird emerged by chance.

The rules of physics, chemistry and biology, as well as the amazing digital code found in DNA, all show patterns and designs that could not have happened without an intelligent designer.

9.4.  Why is a false theory being promoted?

You do not need to be moral in order to get any degree or qualification, including a science degree.

People trust educated people, and we see in the past how educated people have used this to their advantage and willfully misled and lied to the general public, who trusted in their qualification.

- Example: The doctors who lied about the effects of smoking

The best example is during the early 1900s, whereby nearly every doctor lied and told the general public that smoking was good for your health.

Between the 1930s and 1950s, doctors prescribed cigarettes to patients who wanted them. Furthermore, these educated doctors proclaimed to the general public that cigarettes were not harmful at all and people started to become addicted to smoking.

.Journalists found out that tobacco companies had hired throat doctors to blame dust, germs and lack of mental health when they got sick, not cigarettes.

Therefore, doctors claimed that smoking was healthy despite the lack of evidence. They deliberately lied to the public.

Smoking did make people cough and irritate their throats. But businesses used this to their advantage to show that their product was better than the rest. That particular brand of cigarettes was better quality than others.

During the 1920s, Lucky Strike was the dominant cigarette brand. This brand, made by American Tobacco Company, was the first to use the image of a physician in its advertisements. Its adverts claimed “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating,”

In 1948, there was research done that indicated that smoking can cause lung cancer. Cigarette companies disputed this proof in order to keep selling cigarettes. To continue making sales, tobacco firms started to make cigarettes with less nicotine.

Screenshot: Article from Best Health Clinics

Screenshot: Article from History.com

Screenshot: From Standford - Research on the impact of tobacco advertising

Screenshot: Article from Healio

- History repeating  itself

The promotion of evolution of most scientists is history repeating itself. The majority of doctors used to lie and say smoking was good for your health. Now the majority of scientists are lying about the origin of life. People tend to be gullible and do not question educated people. This is the advantage that scientists have over people.

The Bible says that all men are liars (Psalm 116:11) and it is correct. You cannot trust the words of any man regardless of their level of education.

Being ethical, moral and truthful is not a requirement to get a college or university degree, masters, doctorate, or PhD.

However, not all scientists are untruthful; a survey done by the Pew Research Center in 2009 found that 33% claimed that they believed in the existence of God.

Pew Research Center

Report|November 5, 2009

“A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,”

9.5. Past false theories of scientists which have been discarded

Source: Screenshots from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superseded_scientific_theories 

Scientists, geologists, doctors and biologists have had a bad reputation of getting  many theories wrong in the past and we should therefore continuously question and investigate what they are currently telling us. We should not trust any theories they come up with including the theory of evolution.

9.6. Charles Darwin’s life and general worldview

He was brought up a Christian, but had skeptical family members. His maternal grandfather (Josiah Wedgwood) was a Unitarian and his paternal one (Erasmus Darwin) was a disciple of the notorious French philosophes and a worshipper of science. Erasmus' idea that "the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species".

Even though Darwin's family members were very radical and his own father was probably an atheist, he had a normal childhood. He went to the Shrewsbury Unitarian Chapel for a short time, but after his mother died, he moved to the parish church and then to boarding school. At the age of 16, he accompanied his brother to Edinburgh to pursue his family's profession of medicine.

When he got back to England in late 1836, he started a journey that would take him into wholly uncharted territory over the next three years.

His autobiography focuses on this time period and provides three main explanations for his loss of faith: Doubts concerning the Bible (“no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos”); moral objections (the Old Testament writers “attribute to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant”); and philosophical problems (“the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become.”)

Despite his doubts about religion he continued with Christian practices with little to no dedication or conviction. After sketching his "species theory" twice in 1842 and 1844, he put the manuscripts on hold and began a massive study of barnacles that lasted until 1854.

Annie, his oldest daughter, had been suffering from ill health for a long time and was taken to Malvern. He got an urgent message two weeks later that Annie was sick with a fever. Upon his immediate return, Darwin found a transformed child. The hardest week of his life was the one that followed and Annie passed away at the age of 10.

Although Darwin had lost two children in infancy to death, Annie was his favorite. He had seen every last, degrading second of her brief life. The experience nearly ruined him. It appears to have been the last straw that caused Darwin to lose his faith. After writing a brief, heartbreakingly poignant chronicle of her life, he stopped talking about her.

His theory of evolution had magnified the reality of suffering and it “helped” him rationalize and cope with it “From death, famine, rapine and the concealed war of nature we can see that the highest good, which we can conceive, the creation of the higher animals has directly come,” he wrote at the end of his 1842 species draft. However, after Annie passed away, suffering became horrifically, painfully real rather than just a concept. Whatever belief he may have had in the loving God of Christianity, perished in Malvern beside his daughter.

- Books that Charles Darwin wrote

• On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

• The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-believer

• The Voyage of the Beagle

• The Descent of Man

• The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals

• The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

• The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms with Observations on Their Habits

- Charles Darwin’s racist views

Few people know that the full name of Charles Darwin’s famous book called “The origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” was initially called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)”

The name was shortened because of its obvious racist implication.

Who were the favoured races according to Darwin?

Darwin depicted Indigenous people of the Americas and Australia as inferior to Europeans in terms of their capacity and conduct. Darwin consistently referred to peoples from Africa as cognitively depauperate, less capable, and of a lower rank than other races. These claims are confusing because in his book "Descent," Darwin argued against natural selection as the way that races were different by saying that the traits that were used to identify them didn't seem to have anything to do with their chances of success. He provided rationalizations for empire, colonialism, and genocide through the concept of "survival of the fittest."

Darwin expressed his prejudiced and biased views as scientific truths, notably in his 1871 work "The Descent of Man," when he asserted that Europeans were superior to non-Europeans and wrote about the dominance of hierarchical civilizations over small egalitarian cultures. In that book, which continues to be studied in schools and natural history museums, he considered "the hideous ornaments and the equally hideous music admired by most savages" to be "not so highly developed as in certain animals, for instance, in birds". He compared the appearance of Africans to the New World monkey Pithecia satanas.

- Charles Darwin’s sexist views

In the book “Descent of Man,” he claimed that men are evolutionarily superior to women.

Furthermore, in “Descent,” Darwin identified women as less capable than (White) men, often akin to the “lower races.” He characterized man as possessing greater courage, energy, inventiveness, and intelligence, citing natural and sexual selection as reasons for their superiority to women, despite the absence of empirical data and biological evaluation. His firm beliefs that men are more important than women and that women play a less important role in evolution are a reflection of both Victorian and modern chauvinism.

In summary, Charles Darwin was a man who struggled with having faith in God throughout his life and had skeptical family members that worsened this. The main thing that made him turn away from religion was the death of his daughter, resulting in him having great anger toward God. His theories about evolution are mainly based on his own personal bias, including racist and sexist views that were also among some other Caucasians living during his time.

Back to Main Table of Contents