Subject: Chapter 2: ...And Then Came Assumptions
From: <Saved by Microsoft Internet Explorer 5>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 20:59:08 -0500

The Evolution of a
Creationist

2
...AND THEN CAME ASSUMPTIONS

Many college science professors never tell their students
that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on assumptions.
What is an assumption? It is something taken for granted and supposed to
be true.[1] As a
six-day creationist, I believe God created the universe and everything
in it fully mature (with the appearance of age). I cannot prove this
with scientific experiments so this belief is called an assumption. I
suppose it to be true. Evolutionists likewise have assumptions. They
take many necessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. In
other words, evolutionists assume that non-living chemicals gave rise to
that first living cell which, in turn, evolved into ever and ever more
complex forms of life. There are no scientific experiments to prove
the molecules-to-man scenario.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A.
Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic
theories an evolutionist “takes for granted” or “supposes” to be
true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these
assumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a high school
or college textbook.

There are seven basic
assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of
evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only
consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living
things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation
occurred.

2. The second assumption is that
spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses,
bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa
(single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life
forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various
invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the
invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within
the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles
and the reptiles to birds and mammals.[2]

MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS
ASSUMED

What Dr. Kerkut has listed as
“assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words,
there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible)
science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living
things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giant Redwood
trees is all an assumption.

Dr. Kerkut clearly states the evolutionary assumption that
all life is related to that first cell. However, through the use of
phase-electron microscopes scientists have discovered that there are
consistent differences in cellular substance in various kinds of
animals. When studied microscopically, the living things of the
evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all. I
Corinthians 15:39 records: "All
flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts, another flesh of fishes, and another of
birds." This was written 1900 years before scientists "discovered"
the differences in the basic cellular components of the various kinds of
living creatures. God created life and inspired His apostles and
prophets to record details of His creation, which scientists are just
beginning to discover. God says there are different types of flesh in
the bodies of His earthly creatures. But there are also different types
of heavenly bodies -- the stars are different from each other and not
the same as the moon (I Cor. 15:41). Astronomers estimate there may be
one trillion-trillion stars. The best English dictionaries have less
than 800,000 words. Yet, the God of the Bible has a name and a number
for each star, "...He calleth
them all by names..."! (Isaiah 40:26) God is infinite in His power
and wisdom.

From the biggest star to the smallest atom, the magnitude
and complexity of the universe is unexplainable, except in terms of a
creative designer who is infinitely above any "chance processes" or
human technology.

Many scientists assume life came from non-living
chemicals[3] and
that this only happened once. They say that everything we see alive,
whether plant or animal, came from that first, primordial, single cell.
Most evolutionists do not believe that one kind of life began in the
Amazon and another in Africa and another in Arizona. They believe
non-life gave birth to life in one cell that became the ancestor of the
entire plant and animal kingdoms.

Why do scientists such as Dr. Kerkut
assume this startling event happened only once? Because the chances of
life evolving from non-life are so astronomically high as to be
impossible without an intelligent designer. Dr.
Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for Creation Research
have recorded the probability of the chance origin of life in their
revised book, What is Creation Science? (pp. 269-276). If all the
universe was crammed with electron particles, the maximum number of
particles would be ten to the power of 130. If each particle could do
one hundred billion-billion events (steps in ever onward and upward
evolution) every second for 3,000 billion years (100 times older than
anyone says the universe is), then in the span of history of the
universe 10 to the one-hundred seventieth power events could possibly
happen. But to get a series of even 1,500 events to happen in order [and
without God's help] (events that might be moving from non-living
chemicals to a living cell), there is only one chance in ten to the
power of 450! This means that the probability of evolution even getting
started is zero. There aren't enough electrons in the universe to, by
chance, generate a single living cell of a single evolutionary
scientist. And yet, these scientists who do not believe in God are here.
How did they get here? Without belief in God, the only option these
people have is the evolution of non-living chemicals over eons of time
into a living cell and ultimately into man.

For nearly 150 years some of the most
brilliant scientists in the world have attempted to convert non-living
chemicals into some form of reproducible life. No one has done
it.

A CELL IS NOT
SIMPLE

A single reproducible cell is far from
simple. Dr. Leon Long, of the Department of Geological Sciences at the
University of Texas at Austin, writes as an evolutionist:

"Among the first organisms
were the lowly bacteria and blue-green algae. They are about as simple
as a self-sufficient cell can be, which is none too simple, considering
that a bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate
of about 1 million reactions per second! Cells of bacteria and
blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack
well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and
internal membranes." [4]

Is it any wonder scientists claim that life from
non-living chemicals only happened once? According to Dr. Long, the
simplest forms of life can perform one million reactions per second!
Something that complex obviously needs a designer, a Creator.

Scientists do not talk very much about the evolution of
the cell membrane. The membrane that provides the outside wall (or skin)
of the cell is highly complex. This membrane permits specific
concentrations of certain chemicals and solutions into and out of the
cell. If the concentrations of some of these chemicals vary by even
1/100%, the cell will die. At a microscopic spot in the universe, how
did those chemicals all get together in the correct configurations and
concentrations and at the same instant? In addition, how did the
cell membrane form around them at just the right moment permitting only
specific concentrations of chemicals in and out of the cell ("knowing",
of course, what those chemicals must and must not be)? And how could all
of this somehow know how to reproduce itself and not die in the
process?

The God of the Bible said He created, created, created!  His creation
defies the speculations of the evolutionist. Creation necessitates a
designer. It demands fully functional life from the beginning. Biology
acknowledges this with its most well-proven law, the law of Biogenesis:
Life generates life. If something is alive, it is alive because
something else alive produced it. The Bible tells us the living God is
the Creator of life, and that statement agrees with what we see in
biology. Life always comes from life.

And yet, evolutionary chemists
construct laboratory experiments that attempt to display the means by
which life began without God. Many of these experimenters believe that
the atmosphere of primitive Earth was quite different than it is today.
The atmosphere of the planet Jupiter is thought to resemble that of
early Earth. Water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane were the
supposed ingredients. In 1953, a chemist, Dr. Stanley Miller, placed
these four ingredients into a glass jar which he heated and into which
he sent sparks of electricity. He noticed a pink fluid coming off into
his trap. This fluid contained some amino acids. Amino acids are the
building blocks of proteins. Proteins are very much a part of living
tissue, but they are not life. The Miller-type experiments do not
display chemicals marching ever onward and upward until reproducing life
is generated, yet evolution in this manner is assumed to have happened.
As a matter of fact, there is no evidence in the rocks of Earth or the
present oceans that water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane ever
existed in the concentrations necessary for Miller's experiments to
accurately occur in nature.

The claim that chemical evolution is
impossible, as presented in The Mystery of Life's Origin 8, has yet to be
refuted. Random chemical reactions do not produce life! Dr. Stanley
Miller and his followers did not produce anything with raw chemicals
that even approaches life. Dennis Petersen in his
informative book, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, quotes Dr.
Henry Morris who says it this way:

"Unknown chemicals in the
primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no
longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are
not to be found...but could through...
Unknown
reproduction methods spawn new life...in an...
Unknown
atmospheric composition..in an...
Unknown oceanic soup
complex...at an...
Unknown time and
place."

Prove any of these unknowns of evolution with
experimentally testable science and the Nobel Science prize will be
yours!

A PERSONAL DESIGNER CREATES
LIFE

Let us not forget--the evolutionist
says there was no God, no higher power, no designer, no person behind
the beginning of life. It was the impersonal (no person), plus time,
plus chance (or, no one plus nothing equals everything!) So, even if the
Stanley Miller experiments did prove chemical evolution is possible,
which they did not do, you still have a personal designer
(Miller) making his creation. Does a personal designer-scientist, doing
experiments in a carefully controlled laboratory, prove that the
creation of life occurred without any creator designer (no God) in a
totally random-chance primordial ooze? Of course not. Our God is worthy
to receive the honor and the glory and the praise because He created all
things (Rev. 4:11). We can trust God and His Word, the Bible. Nothing is
too difficult for Him (Jeremiah 32:17).....He is the God of the
impossible (Luke 1:37).

HAS ANYONE SEEN AN
ELECTRON?

One of the greatest scientists of the
space age, Dr. Werner von Braun stated:

"One cannot be exposed to
the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be
design and purpose behind it all...The better we understand the
intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have
found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based...

To be forced to believe only
one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance --
would violate the very objectivity of science itself...What random
process could produce the brains of man or the system of the human eye?
They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God.
But must we really light a candle to see the sun?...they say they cannot
visualize a designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an
electron?...What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the
inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a
Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?..." [5]

Ask any scientist if he believes in electrons. He will
answer, "Certainly". Ask that same scientist if he or she has ever seen
an electron, and they will say, "No". Scientists believe in electrons by
faith as they observe the results of electron activity.

Is this not similar to faith in God? We do not see God,
but we do "see" Him through His handiwork, the creation. Romans 1
explains that as we study the intricacies of the macro- and
micro-universes, we should think about who designed them, who makes them
work, and who holds them together.

FOOLISH SPECULATIONS

When scientists examine the largest
stars and the smallest atoms and do not honor God as their Creator and
give thanks to Him, they are reduced to foolish speculations (Romans
1:18-23). Could the evolution of man from a single cell be a foolish
speculation? Dr. Harrison Matthews, the writer of the introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life, states:

"The fact of evolution is
the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or
a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to
be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of
proof." [6]

Dr. Matthews, an evolutionist, says evolution has no
scientific proof. It is a speculation of faith. Yet,
Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard University, writes:

"Since Darwin, every
knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. Today, there
is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of
evolution." [7]

Omni Magazine promotes
evolution. Dr. Mayr presents godless evolution as fact, even though the
Creator says in Romans 1 that all men know better: "For the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold
(suppress) the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known
of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them (Romans
1:18-19)."  Romans 1:22
adds: "Professing themselves to
be wise, they became fools."

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic
Energy Commission agrees:

"Scientists who go about
teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the
story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining
evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." [8]

Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan have
presented evolution as no longer a theory, but a proven fact. They have
done this without a single iota of fact. Evolutionist, D.M.S. Watson said it best:

"Evolution itself is
accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is
supported by logically coherent arguments, but because...no alternative
explanation is credible.

Whilst the fact of evolution
is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and
the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still
disputable.

...the theory of evolution
itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by
logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is
special creation, which is clearly incredible." [9]

The clearly incredible Creator says in Psalm 19:1:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
sheweth His handiwork."

[1]
Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, p. 133, G. & C. Meriam Company, Publishers,
Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., 1981.

[2]
G. A. Kerkut,
Implications of Evolution
(New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), chapter 2 p. 6.

[3] The Mystery of
Life's Origin presents the scientific position that chemical
evolution is impossible. This book by Doctors of Chemistry has not been
answered by the evolutionists. Non-living chemicals will not ultimately
generate reproducing life. The chemistry does not work that way. Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, Inc.,
1984).

[4]
Leon E. Long,
Geology (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), p.
172.

[5]
Dennis R.
Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries
of Creation, Vol. 1 (El Cajon: Master Books, 1988), p. 63, as quoted
from the Bible Science Newsletter, May, 1974,
p.8

[6] L. Harrison
Matthews, FRS, "Introduction," Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971), p. xi, as quoted in The Revised
Quote Book, ed. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. (Institute for Creation
Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, Calif. 92021), p. 2. For many more
quotes that negate evolution from the literature of the evolutionary
scientists, purchase The Quote
Book. The cost is around $4.00 and well worth
it.

[7] Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February, 1983,
p. 74.

[8] Dr. T. N. Tahmisian,
"The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959, as quoted in The Revised Quote
Book, p.
5.

[9] D.M.S. Watson,
"Adaptation," Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol. 124, #3119, pp.
231,233.

TOP
NEXT
CHAPTER      PREVIOUS
CHAPTER     TABLE
OF CONTENTS

TOP OF page

SITE
MAP * SEARCH * HOME
*  INDEX

FAVORITE LINKS *
SPECIAL BOOK OFFERS

E-MAIL- COMMENTS

HARVESTIME BOOKS

PO. BOX 300

ALTAMONT TN. 37301