"Look, Katy" one dad asked his daughter, "Just think of your own experience. Have you ever seen a message written in the sky for all to see or on a rock by some kind of natural force?"
"Hmmm" she replied noncommittally.
Anyone who says that some natural force in the chemicals 'wrote' the DNA code - well, that's like saying the chemicals in the paper and ink wrote these words on this page. It never happened.
What our children are being taught in school is saying that nature can do everything on its own and that God is irrelevant.
Quietly God is being nudged into this position of irrelevance, where there is simply nothing for Him to do as far as creation is concerned. When they study Evolutionary Biology which says, "By coupling un-directed, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made Theological and spiritual explanations of the life process superfluous.
That is why there is a worship of nature and the saving of the whales all the while there is killing of the unborn children in the mothers womb right up to 37 weeks.
The Best argument against Darwinism
In the text-books they tout the variation in dogs and horses and roses as "Evolution in action."
But Darwin overlooked the obvious fact that dogs always give birth to dogs; and horses, horses; not rabbits. A rose will always be a rose. None of the variations brought about a new organism. So much more information needs to be added to the genes for a bird to become a lizard.
All observed change is limited. Dogs will always be dogs. What they are trying to say is that over billions of years these mutations add up to create major changes. Change from a one-celled organism to a bee, to a butterfly, to a little boy never happens. Even Charles Darwin's experiments breeding pigeons demonstrates the limits of biological change. These major changes never have been observed. It is just speculation. This is the fatal flaw with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
The famous Christian Evangelist, author and Apologist, Francis Shaeffer, used an argument against Evolution that was very simple and easy to grasp, and devastating: Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up to the next evolutionary stage?
Of course not. It drowns.
Living things cannot simply change piece-meal - a new organ here, and new limb there. An organism is an integrated system and any change in the system is more likely to e harmful than helpful. A fish's gills, if they were to mutate into a set of lungs, it would be a disaster not an advantage. There would need to be a whole set of integrated changes to take place at once for it to become land dwelling.
The Concept of Irreducible Complexity was developed by Michael Behe, a Lehigh University Professor in his 1993 book Darwin's Black Box. He used the mousetrap. It cannot be assembled slowly and expect to catch a few mice with just a platform and one spring. To even start catching mice you must have all parts functioning together from the outset. All organisms are an integrated system with interacting parts. There is no possible Darwinian explanation for Irreducible Complexity. Darwin himself saw this. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, slight modifications; then my theory has absolutely broken down."
The world is full of complex organs that could not possibly be made by many slight modifications. All organs are irreducibly complex. The classical examples is the "eye". Every part must be fully functional from the beginning.. What about a single cell. There is so much information in the DNA of a single cell that it has more information than 3 or 4 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Hmmm" she replied noncommittally.
 |
| VectorStock |
Anyone who says that some natural force in the chemicals 'wrote' the DNA code - well, that's like saying the chemicals in the paper and ink wrote these words on this page. It never happened.
What our children are being taught in school is saying that nature can do everything on its own and that God is irrelevant.
Quietly God is being nudged into this position of irrelevance, where there is simply nothing for Him to do as far as creation is concerned. When they study Evolutionary Biology which says, "By coupling un-directed, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made Theological and spiritual explanations of the life process superfluous.
That is why there is a worship of nature and the saving of the whales all the while there is killing of the unborn children in the mothers womb right up to 37 weeks.
The Best argument against Darwinism
In the text-books they tout the variation in dogs and horses and roses as "Evolution in action."
But Darwin overlooked the obvious fact that dogs always give birth to dogs; and horses, horses; not rabbits. A rose will always be a rose. None of the variations brought about a new organism. So much more information needs to be added to the genes for a bird to become a lizard.
All observed change is limited. Dogs will always be dogs. What they are trying to say is that over billions of years these mutations add up to create major changes. Change from a one-celled organism to a bee, to a butterfly, to a little boy never happens. Even Charles Darwin's experiments breeding pigeons demonstrates the limits of biological change. These major changes never have been observed. It is just speculation. This is the fatal flaw with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
 |
| Orthodox Presbyterian Church |
The famous Christian Evangelist, author and Apologist, Francis Shaeffer, used an argument against Evolution that was very simple and easy to grasp, and devastating: Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up to the next evolutionary stage?
Of course not. It drowns.
Living things cannot simply change piece-meal - a new organ here, and new limb there. An organism is an integrated system and any change in the system is more likely to e harmful than helpful. A fish's gills, if they were to mutate into a set of lungs, it would be a disaster not an advantage. There would need to be a whole set of integrated changes to take place at once for it to become land dwelling.
The Concept of Irreducible Complexity was developed by Michael Behe, a Lehigh University Professor in his 1993 book Darwin's Black Box. He used the mousetrap. It cannot be assembled slowly and expect to catch a few mice with just a platform and one spring. To even start catching mice you must have all parts functioning together from the outset. All organisms are an integrated system with interacting parts. There is no possible Darwinian explanation for Irreducible Complexity. Darwin himself saw this. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, slight modifications; then my theory has absolutely broken down."
 |
| Britannica.com |
Comments
Post a Comment