Why Atheistic Darwinism is Unscientific
Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and author of The Ancestors Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, wrote: “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice [emphasis mine].” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p.613.) In our tract “‘Nothing’ Disproves Atheism” (download at ChristianProofs.net) we debunk the atheist assertion that “literal” nonexistence accidentally fathered our precisely fine-tuned universe at its “big bang” beginning. The scientific evidence points towards a supernatural Creator being responsible for the beginning of time, space and matter. But what about the atheist’s sequel “fact” claim that life evolved “out of nearly nothing” in a second, undirected, freak accident?
Darwin Didn’t Discuss the Origin of Life Itself
In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species. He claimed by the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations the first self-replicating cell slowly evolved into all of today’s living creatures—like a single seed becoming a tree with many branches. But, incredibly, Darwin never addressed the ultimate origin of the species i.e., how that so-called “first cell” (seed) got here! He just wrongly presumed its naturalistic origin to have a foundation upon which to build his theory. Why? On atheism, evolutionists cannot propose a plausible mechanism to explain the origin of the complex, specified information necessary to construct the “first living cell.” The cell is more complex than the space shuttle or any computer program designed by man. High information content always traces back to a mind. Atheism cannot posit a mind at life’s beginning. It logically follows that the same intelligent Mind who had fine-tuned the universe also programmed the first life. Dawkins inadvertently confirms this by admitting “…nobody has an idea” how the first life started. (Interview with Ben Stein in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”) What? Atheists from Darwin to Dawkins don’t know how life started but they dogmatically assert evolution did it and God did not? This is the error of assuming the conclusion, aka begging the question. A mindless, “nearly nothing” has no innovative potential. Therefore, “nearly nothing” can’t pull off the greatest creation event of all time I.e., the sublime invention of intelligent life possessing brains more complex than any structure in the universe! It’s illogical to ascribe “staggering”creative powers to i when secular scientists, with all the necessary chemicals for life in hand, have failed to produce even a single living cell.
Tragically, academia brainwashes our youth and culture with invalid proofs for atheistic evolution. To rebut these, we will be quoting extensively from Jonathan Wells must-read, expose’ book: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing Inc., 2000.)
Jonathan holds a PhD. in molecular and cell biology and is a senior fellow at The Discovery Institute. (FYI: My theistic conclusions aren’t necessarily those of Wells or The Discovery Institute). Wells establishes the focal point of his book: “Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is utterly uncontroversial. But Darwinian evolution claims much more. In particular, it claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things” (p. 5)
#1 Evolution Icon: Darwin’s atheistic tree of life.
Wells’ Response: “Of all the icons of evolution, the tree of life is the most pervasive, because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin’s theory….yet Darwin knew—and scientists have recently confirmed—that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin’s tree of life has been uprooted…When Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the oldest known fossils were from a geological period known as the Cambrian…But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn’t fit Darwin’s theory…the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many fully formed phyla and classes of animals. In other words, the highest levels of the biological hierarchy appeared right at the start. Darwin was aware of this and considered it a major difficulty for his theory: He wrote ‘…If the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed [in which] the world swarmed with living creatures.’ Yet he acknowledged that ‘several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.’ Darwin called this a ‘serious’ problem which …may be truly urged as a valid argument against the view here entertained’” ( pp. 31; 35).
#2. Evolution Icon: Haeckel’s faked drawings. Ernst Haeckel (1868-1908) drew “pictures of similarities of early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descendant from a fish like ancestor” (p. 6).
Wells’ response: “Darwin concluded that early embryos ‘show us more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.’ In other words, similarity in early embryos not only demonstrate that they are descended from a common ancestor, but also reveal what that ancestor looked like. Darwin considered this ‘by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of’ his theory…German biologist Ernst [Haeckel’s] embryos seem to provide such powerful evidence for Darwin’s theory that some version of them can be found in almost every modern textbook dealing with evolution. Yet biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings. Vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be. Furthermore, the stage Haeckel labeled as ‘first’ is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking difference in earlier stages of development. Although you might never know it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin’s ‘strongest single class of facts’ is a classic example of how evidence can be twisted to fit a theory” ( pp. 81-83).
#3 Evolution Icon: “Peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of natural selection” (p. 6).
Wells’ Response: “Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks in the wild and photos showing them on tree trunks have been staged; Kettlewell’s experiments are now being questioned” (p. 260).
#4 Evolution Icon: The Miller-Urey Experiments.”A laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth’s primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the building-blocks of living cells” (p.6).
Wells’ response: “The Miller–Urey experiment probably did not simulate the Earth’s early atmosphere, it does not demonstrate how life’s building-blocks originated” (p. 259).
#5 Evolution Icon: Homology in vertebrate limbs. These are “similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’ leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor ” (p. 6).
Wells’ response: “If homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestry, it cannot be used as evidence for common ancestry; whatever its cause may be, it is not similar genes” (p. 260).
#6 Evolution Icon: Archaeopteryx is “a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds” (p.6).
Wells’ Response: “Paleontologists now agree that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of living birds, and its own ancestors are the subject of the most heated controversies in modern science. The missing link, it seems is still missing” (p.112).
#7 Evolution Icon: Darwin’s Finches. Darwin “…observed thirteen separate species [of finches]that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks” (p.6).
Wells’ Response: “The Galapagos finches did not inspire Darwin with the idea of evolution, and oscillating selection on their beaks produces no observable net change” (Wells, p. 260).
My comment: Darwin started with a bird and ended up with a bird—not one species evolving into another. For nearly two centuries Darwinists have no idea how the “first cell” originated or where the missing link is (actually their whole chain is missing). Yet they call their theory a “fact” in spite of the fossil record which records the sudden appearance of an orchard of life (not a tree!)—confirmation that a supernatural Creator made all living things simultaneously.
#8 Evolution Icon: “Four-winged fruit flies with an extra set of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution” (p.6).
Wells’s Response: “Four-winged fruit flies must be artificially bred, and their extra wings lacked muscles; these disabled mutants are not raw materials for evolution” (p.260).
#9 Evolution Icon: Horse Fossils. “A branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed” (p.6).
Well’s Response: “Evidence from fossil horses does not justify the claim that evolution was undirected, which is based on materialistic philosophy rather than empirical science” (p. 260).
#10. Evolution Icon: From Ape to Human. “Drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes” (p. 6).
Wells’ Response: “Many human-like fossils have been found since 1912, and unlike Piltdown some have distinctly ape-like features, while others are more human-like. But even genuine fossils that bear on human origins have typically been so controversial that in 1970 British anthropologist John Napier called them ‘bones of contention’…In 1982 American paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall noted that it is a ‘myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery.’ If this were really true, they wrote, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything the opposite has occurred.’…Just recently, National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of several fossil bones thought to be from the same species…One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy gorilla-like brow. This…shows clearly how a single set of fossil bones can be reconstructed in a variety of ways. Someone looking for an intermediate form to plug into an ape-to-human sequence can pick whichever drawing seems to fit best….” (pp. 219-220).
My Conclusion: The reason evolutionists, after centuries of research, must use weak or downright fraudulent arguments is pure and simple—they have nothing better to offer. This explains why some, not all, employ dishonest tactics to stop open-minded critique of Darwinism in its tracks e.g.,“Don’t listen to those creationists!” (many theists cower in fear of being tagged a politically incorrect “creationist” by cancel-culture academics) or “Theists are science-deniers who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.” The fact they use such tactics instead of engaging with our actual arguments is telling. Most theists, not all, practice the truly scientific way of providing students with the best arguments both sides of the origin questions has to offer. In stark contrast, many leading atheists forbid an intelligent design alternative to even be considered in classrooms. But because we have the truth, we have nothing to suppress or misrepresent. Todd Weiner ChristianProofs.org 484-400-4816