by
Gary DeMar
The theory of evolution is posited as an established scientific fact
even though there is no empirical evidence of how inanimate matter came
into existence and evolved into highly complex living organisms. There
is no empirical evidence demonstrating where organized information came
from to give structure and development to evolved matter. Finally, there
is no empirical evidence showing the millions, possibly billions, of
gradual evolutionary steps that were necessary to go from an inanimate
glob of atoms to fully evolved humans.
There are theories for such things, but no empirical data to prove the theories.
Evolutionists wax eloquently about “nature’s design capabilities,” as if nature has a mind.
[]
Nature isn’t a person. When “Our whole universe was in a hot dense
state,” as the opening line to the theme song for “The Big Bang Theory”
TV show states, where was life, thought, mind, logic, rationality,
morality? What was directing the organization of atoms into “autotrophs”
and “Neanderthals” and everything else?
The first question is not “is the human race just a chemical scum on a
moderate-sized planet?,” as Stephen Hawking asked. The primary question
is, Where and how did the “chemical scum” come into existence in the
first place and organize itself into complex life forms? Erwin
Schrödinger noted the problem in his book
What is Life?, published in 1944:
“How
can the events in space and time which take place with the spatial
boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?
The preliminary answer . . . can be summarized as follows: The obvious
inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such
events is no reason for doubting that they can be accounted for by those
sciences.”
Dr. Schrödinger didn’t know then, and physicists and chemists don’t know now.
Andy Pross writes that the passage of more than 65 years and “enormous
advances in molecular biology, illuminated by a long list of Nobel
prizes, we continue to struggle with Schrödinger’s simple and direct
question.”
Chemists, biologists, and physicists know that “living things are made
up of the same ‘dead molecules as non-living ones, but somehow the
manner in which those molecules interact in a holistic ensemble results
in something special—us, and every other living thing on this planet.”
This is what is known. What’s not known, and Pross and other evolutionists admit, is how it call came to be.
Even so, contrary to all “common sense,” the “basic laws of physics,”
and the fact that “highly organized entities don’t spontaneously come
about,” Pross and other evolutionists have no other choice but to deny
common sense and the basic laws of physics in order to maintain that the
cosmos and life in it arose spontaneously.
They need to take a lesson from the development of
Roboy
said to be “one of the most advanced humanoid robots.” Did it arise
spontaneously? From conception and design to manufacture and assembly,
building Roboy has taken “15 project partners and over 40 engineers and
scientists.” Why don’t we see examples of early models of Roboy buried
in the fossil record? Why no Transformers?
Roboy is certainly a
marvel of engineering, but it cannot compare to a human, and if it
hadn’t been for humans, there wouldn’t be a Roboy.
Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, would claim
that the evolution of the robot is similar to biological evolution.
Instead of a robot, he appeals to the
evolution of the Corvette:
“Everything
evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be
government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The
revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive
ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary
refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was
shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was
introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette
morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978
silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version
continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since
1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process
acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms
and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar
process shapes the evolution of organisms.”[]
Berra’s definition of automotive evolution is in no way similar to
non-directed biological evolution whereby life arose from nonlife and
changes within a species resulted in gradual changes so that a new
species is said to have evolved. The first Corvette was designed by
someone as was each new model thereafter. The same is true for
everything — from the thumb tack to the space shuttle.
No comments:
Post a Comment