Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Evolution: A scientific view (Part 1)

Science defined (by Google) - The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Through observation and experiment. In other words, in order for information to be scientifically knowable, it must be observable, measurable and repeatable.

Having established a fixed definition of science, let's subject the theories of Darwinian Evolution and the Big Bang as well as the general consensus of the scientific community that the earth is billions of years old to the very discipline from which these theories were born.

First, a disclaimer. From now on, when I use the term "evolution," I am referring to what is known as macroevolution. Macroevolution is the transformation of one species into another, or, transmutation. Microevolution on the other hand is the ability of a species to adapt to minor changes in the environment and is completely scientific (it has been observed, measured and repeated in numerous situations)

So, what is wrong with evolution?

Well, for starters, it's completely unscientific in that it has never been observed, much less repeated. No lower life form has ever changed into a higher life form. Anytime there has ever been a genetic mutation observed, it has always been a negative one, causing a defect or problem. Never has a mutation been beneficial.

Evolution violates the scientific law of Biogenesis. This law states that living things can come only from other living things. It cannot scientifically be argued that life came from some soupy, primordial substance in which there was previously no life.

The evolutionary formula states that Time + Chance = Everything; however, this formula makes no scientific sense because we know (from observation and repetition of results) that outside forces never enhance, they always degrade. Take, for example, an egg. If you crack it and leave it on the ground, it will never come back together or turn into a chicken or any other life form. It will rot and biodegrade. When a tornado goes through a junk yard it does not leave in its path a perfectly crafted airplane. It leaves behind even more destruction than before.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, symbiosis (organisms living together in codependent relationships) throws a wrench into the machine of evolution. In order for us to have flowers and bees, both would have had to evolve at exactly the same moment in history, in the exact same location. What are the odds of that happening? Of course, flowers and bees are just one example. There are numerous symbiotic organisms that we know (and probably many that we don't yet know).

Geneticists have discovered that human DNA is getting weaker and weaker as generations pass. According to the Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest", this makes no sense. The weaker genes should be dying out and mutations should be making us stronger. Interestingly enough, this discovery supports the biblical account of creation. Adam and Eve were created in physical perfection. Through the fall of mankind and the entrance of sin into the world, sickness, disease and death also entered. Humanity began with long lives which became shorter and shorter. Food for thought...

(This post will be continued in the following blog)

No comments: