Evolution is a belief about history. It involves events that cannot be repeated or reproduced in the laboratory, so it does not depend on science in the usual sense of the word. Evolutionists believe that the basic categories of living things had already evolved long before history began to be written so there is no recorded observational evidence that any basic kind of animal evolved from another. The idea that all of them did is a purely faith based belief system. In spite of the facts I frequently read: "Evolution is science and should be taught in science classes. Creationism and intelligent design are religion and have no place in the science class." You have probably read or heard it too. It's repeated like a mantra in the media, in lawsuits against schools, and in materials that promote evolution. According to my dictionary the principle definition of religion is, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," so while evolution fits the definition of a religion it is not science in the sense that chemistry and physics are science.

Michael Ruse, a well known evolutionist, scientist, and defender of evolution wrote, "My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather between two religions." {Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, 2005, p. 287, as quoted by Henry M. Morris in ICR's Back to Genesis, Feb. 2006} To be scientific an experiment must be repeatable, and a concept must be testable. Evolutionists believe the process that developed the different forms of life took millions of years; far to slow to demonstrate in the lab. Creationists, on the other hand, believe God created certain basic types of animals as a one time event. One way of checking out beliefs about science is by whether or not predictions, based on them pan out. Predictions can, and have been made of what we should find if living things were formed by one or the other method, and we will examine these. While evolution fits the definition of a religion, it includes many scientific elements. Is it more religious or scientific?To determine which aspect is the most important, we will trace what happens when the two aspects clash.

The Big Bang

Let's start at what evolutionists generally consider the beginning, the Big Bang. While the Big Bang may seem to have nothing to do with evolution, both are important parts of the naturalistic viewpoint, so books on evolution often include a section on the Big Bang. While the same word, "naturalism," also has other uses, when used in this sense, it is the name of a philosophy that maintains that the natural world is all that exists. It does not accept the supernatural.Naturalism also fits the definition of a religion: "a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Naturalism, in this sense of the word maintains that the universe got here by itself, with no creation or even direction by God. Since naturalism rejects God and Creation, it is, in essence, atheism, the belief that there is no God.

Atheist teachers, supported by our taxes, teach in the classrooms of public schools and universities in a way that will bring students to follow them in doubting that God created. While they are doing it, many of them actively attempt to deny the simple rights of freedom of speech and religion to Christians. As an example, as I write this they are leading schools to require that the terms "Christmas" and "Christmas vacation" not be used. They find the first five letters of the word Christmas offensive. In my opinion those who try to deny Christians the right to use the word "Christ," while they themselves are actively teaching atheism and agnosticism are religious hypocrites. Freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed in the constitution which says nothing at all about freedom from being offended.

Many evolutionary textbooks promote atheism under the name of "naturalism," or sometimes just "nature," and begin teaching it in the section on the Big Bang. Logically, the Big Bang would seem to imply a beginning, and therefore a Creator, but those who believe in naturalism use the Big Bang to make the Creator seem unnecessary. They claim that an explosion called the "Big Bang" produced both the materials and the design of the universe.

They see the Big Bang as beginning either with nothing, or with the tiniest pinpoint of a compressed chaotic plasma: "Bam!" They see it exploding and producing hydrogen! "Look! Evolving from the hydrogen are the other elements! Now stars and galaxies are forming!"

Is this reasonable? Roger Oakland asks: "Has anyone ever observed any kind of explosion that has produced any kind of order? Do things proceed in a natural direction from disorder to order?" {Witness to this Generation, 1998, p. 63}

He observes:

"Our common sense tells us no intelligent person would ever attempt to blow up an object with the hope of obtaining another object of greater complexity, no matter how much time was allowed. In other words, it is a plain simple fact: explosions produce disorder out of order." {G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland, Larry McLean, The Evidence for Creation 1995, p. 102}

We ask ourselves, is Oakland right that no intelligent person would ever attempt to blow up an object with the hope of obtaining another object of greater complexity? Do unguided explosions really produce disorder rather than order? Yes, and there are laws of science that will help us understand why.
 

Scientific laws and the Big Bang

If the Big Bang made everything from nothing, it would have been the ultimate "free lunch." It is exactly contrary to several fundamental laws of science. Here are three examples:

• The Second Law of Thermodynamics: More about this one later.

• Conservation of Mass: "the amount of mass remains constant--mass is neither created nor destroyed."

• Conservation of Energy: "energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed."

Were this true, the Big Bang would have been contrary to the laws of Cause and Effect, and of Inertia. That tiny point of matter would have been a dud, not a Big Bang. It would have continued as it had been before the explosion, rather than exploding and forming the universe from which you evolved. A few have suggested that the Big Bang blew up more like a balloon than like an explosion. Others try to escape Big Bangs problems with science by claiming that the laws of science must have been different then. I interpret this to be a confession that they understand that the laws of science would not permit what atheists believe happened. They are right! What they believe has been completely falsified (shown to be false) by some of the most fundamental laws of science. Instead of admitting that the idea of an explosion causing a tiny point of chaotic plasma to produce all the elements and become an ever more organized and huge universe has been proved false by the laws of science, they take a mighty leap of faith that jumps over some of the most fundamental laws of science, and over a great deal of physical evidence as well. They believe it happened anyhow.

Understanding that Big Bang theory clashes with important laws of science will help us understand the authors of The Evidence for Creation as they apply logic to the problem: "From a logical point of view, it is difficult to accept an explosion as the basis for all design and complexity in the universe, especially since all the explosions ever observed have always brought about chaotic disorder." {G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland, Larry McLean, 1995, p. 102} They are speaking of unguided explosions. A good fireworks guy can set up an explosion that looks like the American flag, but no one has ever observed an explosion that produced order unless some one who knew how was guiding the process. Naturalism specifically excludes a Creator and insists that the Big Bang was unguided by any such influence. The Big Bang was exactly the kind of explosion that according to the authors of Evidence for Creation always brings about chaotic disorder. Are these authors right or wrong?

I was able to check out explosions personally when I lived in a town in southern Italy. Every once in a while, while walking to the center of town, we would pass a shop that had been fire bombed during the night. It happened often enough that we never had to ask, "Oh! What happened here?" We knew someone had not paid the protection racket. I kept track of the percentage of bombs that made the shops more disordered and those that made them more orderly. It was:

• 100% more disorderly

• 0% more orderly.

We can't know by direct observation whether the Big Bang increased the order or the disorder because no one was there to see it. No one, however, who believes that undirected explosions bring organization out of chaos does so for historic, logical, or scientific reasons. That would be like believing it was nice of Mr. Hitler was to drop bombs all over London during the second world war to "improve those English buildings!"

In spite of the fact that it is contrary to all the evidence, many people believe that there was one explosion that did bring order out of disorder. They don't believe this for logical, historical or scientific reasons. They believe the explosion of the Big Bang did the opposite of all known explosions for another reason: It is a major doctrine of the religion of naturalism and if they want to hold to that worldview, they are stuck with it.

The Big Bang foundation on which materialism and evolutionary naturalism builds is anti scientific. Explosions do not bring order out of chaos. Therefore, evolutionary naturalism is, from its beginning an anti scientific religious belief. It is contrary to scientific laws, to observation, and experiment as well as to history. Evolution uses science, but when evolutionists must decide between science and their religion, science comes in last, along with logic, and history.

The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Your intelligent powerful God brought about order. God is a sufficient cause. An explosion is not.

The Bible also says: "The fool has said in His heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
 

The origin of Big Bang theory

Astronomer Edwin Hubble for whom the telescope that orbits the earth was later named, became the father of Big Bang theory when he wrote the book, The Observational Approach to Cosmology in 1937. In it he stated that observations of redshifts make it appear that the earth is at the center and that the galaxies are flying out from it in all directions. His conclusion was just the opposite:

"But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs." {Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.51} Further on He explains, "…the density of nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy within the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, …to escape the horror of a unique position…." {1937, p. 58-59. See also the quote and discussion in TJ 19(3) 2005, p. 96.}

Why was Hubble so upset that he considered it intolerable to find the earth in a favored position in the center of the galaxy? Hubble was an atheist, and a special position for the earth suggests that God exists and placed the earth in a central position on purpose. Obviously, he felt that an important prediction of atheism was that earth would not be in a favored position. To avoid a favored position for the Earth, Hubble added an assumption: Space must be curved in a way that does not allow the universe to have a center. Following Hubble, the idea that there are no special places has become a tradition.

But what if they're wrong about that? What if the observational evidence is right, and we are in a special place in the universe? That would be a serious problem for every model that begins with the opposite assumption. Astronomers whose naturalistic religion does not recognize God, don't even want to consider this evidence. But a few astronomers put their reputations on the line, and consider it anyway. {See Tifft, William G., "A Brief History of Quantized Time," Mercury, vol. 24, is. 5, Sept. /Oct. 1995), p. 12} Arp, another astronomer concludes his discussion: "Hence the whole foundation of extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away." {Arp, Halton, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal, Canada, 1999, p. 195.}

Our conclusion? The atheistic interpretation of Big Bang theory has from its inception been rooted in the religion of naturalism. To make it fit the prediction based on naturalism, it ignores contrary observational data.

I could hardly say it better than the well known atheist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31)

The Big Bang is important to atheists, not because of the evidence, but because they need a cause for the universe that does not allow a divine foot in the door.

I would add that neither can the laws of science get a foot in this door. The Big Bang is contrary to the most fundamental laws of science, which are based on the best, most consistent observational evidence. Faith in an atheistic Big Bang is not based on science but on religion. Atheists, naturalists, humanists, and evolutionists do not arrive at their position because of the laws of science, but in spite of them. While they probably have never thought it through, in practice they allow the religion of naturalism to trump the laws of science. When science and their naturalistic religion clash to the point that they must choose one or the other, they follow their religion.
 

The source of life

Evolutionists generally believe that among the products eventually formed as a result of the Big Bang, are the macromolecules of which living things are made. They believe that undirected by any divine intelligence, these complex chemicals eventually came into being, made a concentrated organic soup, and then A FIRST LIVING CELL!

Amazing? Yes! Scientific? No!

Evolutionists believed the ingredients of living things must have been easily available because of the predictions of the naturalistic position.

An atheistic philosopher of science points out the prediction based on naturalism: "If life indeed started without the help of miracles, the first organisms must have been made of materials that were easily available." {Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 127. See also: Holt, Biology, Visualizing Life, 1998, p. 192, and many other older biology textbooks.} This obvious fact puts textbook authors who oppose the Creator in a terrible bind because, as we will see, in spite of many attempts to make students believe otherwise, cells are made of very large molecules that will not form in nature except when assembled by already living cells. The order of their component parts is not determined by which chemical reactions are most likely to happen, but by the instructions in the cell's information. (Predictions based on an intelligent creator have generally been that living things would be too complex to happen without intelligent direction.)

Evolutionists first selected protein as the originator of life because protein is composed of amino acids, and some amino acids really can form in nature. The proteins of living things, however, are composed of all left handed amino acids (which don't occur in nature), linked together one after another like links in a chain, with no side branches. The real proteins that living things contain never form in nature except in already living cells.

Books promoting evolution publicize Oparin's protinoids, bunches of amino acids put together by heat. These were not proteins, though many books mislead students by giving the impression that they were. Oparin's protinoids were not long single strands of left handed amino acids, but chaotic arrangements of right and left handed amino acids with side branches. They are of no use in living things.

As it became clear that proteins do not form in nature, many textbooks abandoned them, and chose RNA as the most important ingredient of the first cell. It was then found that, like protein, the mega molecules of RNA used in cells never form in nature except when made by an already living cell. Earlier evolutionists who accepted naturally occurring protein or RNA as the simple precursor to life did so because the because of the prediction of evolutionary naturalism.Those who still accept such an idea do it by a leap of pure faith that soars above huge amounts of solid evidence to the contrary.

Evolutionists generally still believe that a string of events set off by the Big Bang eventually brought into being chemicals that by undirected chemical reactions formed the "first life". They not only see the "first life" as having been built up from non living chemicals with no outside direction, they see it as having popped into existence with the ability to reproduce already in place.

They believe life started as a single cell something like a bacterium, though when challenged with evidence of the complexity of even the most simple bacteria, they back peddle from the bacterium and tell me, "You just don't understand how simple it really was." Since there seems to be no way something really simple could live, this is nothing but a statement of faith. How do they develop that faith? Both schoolbooks and the media promote it. Here is how one issue of Popular Science put it: "The formula for life as we know it is carbon plus water plus an energy source." {J. Hooper, "…Life on Mars," Feb. 2006, p. 71} Origin of life researchers have been trying to develop life in the laboratory since the 1950s. Even though many of them still believe in abiogenesis, they are not complete idiots. If all it takes were "carbon plus water plus an energy source," they would have succeeded in making life in the laboratory long ago.

In 1953, when Stanley Miller found that some of the simpler amino acids could really be made by adding energy to the ingredients of amino acids, evolutionists predicted that amino acids would get together to form proteins, and that that was the way life had formed. The prediction was false. Amino acids don't get together and for proteins. In fact, one discovery after another has added to the overwhelming evidence that life itself requires a very intelligent creator. Some of the most stunning evidence has been discovered very recently, but first a bit of background.
 

The Principle of Biogenesis

An important scientific principle, directly violated by the idea that a first cell pulled itself up by its bootstraps, is the "Principle of Biogenesis:" Life always comes from life. This principle describes the fact that living things can not be made by non living chemicals. Living things are always produced by other living things. It can also be stated negatively: "Spontaneous generation does not happen." According to all the scientific evidence, living things are born from living things. The Principle of Biogenesis makes this universal observation into a scientific statement.

Contrary to this basic principle of science, atheists and many other evolutionists believe that non-living chemicals did get together once to form the first living cell. Many biology textbooks strongly publicize this anti scientific dogma. On one page they explain that spontaneous generation does not happen, and on the next they ask, "but how did the first life start?" and maintain that the first life was the exception to the rule. Because everyone knows that spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible and does not happen, that term has largely been replaced by the word "abiogenesis." The first letter, "a," means "not," so the very word, "abiogenesis," alerts us to the fact that this theory about the way life started is contrary to the Principle of Biogenesis.

If abiogenesis had been a scientific theory, the fact that it is contrary to a fundamental principle of science would have proved that it was false, and abiogenesis would have been discarded. Since belief in abiogenesis is not based on scientific evidence, but on religious faith, its believers just claim the first cell was an exception to the Principle of Biogenesis and are off on their merry way, teaching it in the public schools and universities as they go.
 

Is there evidence for abiogenesis?

When I began to write the book How Life Began, I planned to weigh the evidence for abiogenesis against the evidence that God created life. I had been doing research on the book for several years, reading what school biology books, origin of life researchers, etc. had to say about life forming from non living chemicals when one day I realized that with all the reading I had done, I had never come upon even a single scrap of evidence for abiogenesis.

I had expected to find more evidence for God having created than for abiogenesis, but I was not prepared to find that no one presented any evidence at all for abiogenesis. Some of the books and articles that I am writing are on creationism.org, a popular website which has a way for readers to send me emails. Since lots of atheists read what I have written on creationism.org and write me, I put up a request several years ago for anyone that knows of any evidence for abiogenesis to let me know. I receive several letters a week from people who believe deeply in naturalism, but none have given me any evidence at all for abiogenesis.

What I find both in their letters and in the literature, are claims like: "Wherever there is water life occurs," and "Living things contain amino acids which can form in nature." This is a bit like saying, "because iron ore occurs in nature, SUV's pop up spontaneously with no need for a designer." Everyone agrees that some of the simpler chemicals of living cells also occur elsewhere in nature, but the huge complex megamolecules: protein, DNA, RNA that characteristic of living cells, are found no where else, nor is the way in which these and other ingredients of living things work together. After years of looking, I have never received or found any serious evidence at all for abiogenesis. If you write to tell me that I am wrong, that abiogenesis did occur, please include evidence that a first cell formed spontaneously without a Creator, not that something simple like amino acid or water can also form outside of cells. Until then, I am forced to conclude that those who believe undirected chemicals formed life do so by a leap of faith that is contrary to the scientific Principle of Biogenesis.

Even if, for the sake of the argument, I were to suggest that somewhere there may be a faint scrap of evidence that might uphold abiogenesis, it is clear that no one, or almost no one knows about it. Books that promote the idea do it with speculation. No evidence! Therefore, even if one assumes that somewhere a small scrap of evidence for abiogenesis exists, it is clear that almost no one who believes in abiogenesis knows of any evidence for it. Why then do they believe? Mostly because it is a major dogma of the religion of naturalism! If they are to follow orthodox atheism, naturalism, materialism or humanism or evolutionism, they almost have to believe in abiogenesis. Therefore, encouraged by textbooks written to convince students to accept the naturalistic viewpoint, those who choose a form of naturalism as their religious viewpoint generally also accept abiogenesis. It comes as a part of the package, and as such is accepted without any knowledge at all of any supporting evidence.

At least one court has claimed that abiogenesis is science, and that schools cannot mandate the teaching of alternatives. That judge's faith in abiogenesis has no foundation in fact or in science. Some of my readers will disagree strongly with me on this. If you are one of them, I challenge you: As you read, search diligently for evidence for abiogenesis. Your own fruitless search will do far more than I ever could to convince you that there is none.

What you will find are arguments built on speculation: "perhaps life started this way, perhaps that way." These statements give the gullible something they can believe in, but for over 50 years origin of life researchers, who are generally atheists themselves, have been trying out these suggestions in the laboratory. By now, most of the speculations in which atheists have placed their trust have already been tested in the lab. Zip, nada, zilch! Living cells have never been produced by dead chemicals, nor have their important components DNA and RNA. Scientists can put small proteins together in the lab, but not even these happen in nature except in already living cells.

Evolutionist George Wald, Harvard professor and Nobel Prize winner wrote: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." He felt compelled by his religion to believe something that he recognized was contrary to the scientific evidence.

Before you claim spontaneous generation should not be called impossible, remember the lawsuits that follow when a school board wants its students to be able to compare the evidence for intelligent design with that for evolution. Clearly many atheists want censorship. They consider the availability to students of any evidence at all against evolutionary naturalism to be an unbearable threat to their belief system.

Are they right? Can the evidence against evolution really be that devastating? Yes it is, and I am one of those old fashioned people who think that students should be able to confront the evidence for and against, rather than being brainwashed with the religion of naturalism.
 

How evidence is kept out of the schoolroom

Evolutionists have overcome evidence for creation and intelligent design in two ways that we need to consider.

•The first is outright censorship. Honest presentations of the evidence for the Creator, or against evolution, are quite effectively kept out of the schools, making it appear that there is no evidence except that which supports evolution.

When it becomes known that a school is teaching evidence for creation or intelligent design, or evidence against naturalism or against the theory of evolution, the ACLU and like organizations threaten a lawsuit that will cost the school much time and millions of dollars. (ACLU lawsuits are subsidized by your tax dollars.) Usually the threat is enough. If a school does not back down, they really do sue and sometimes win. With censorship so strictly enforced, if anyone is to get the evidence to teachers and students we must allow God to show us how we can do it.

•Evolutionists also overcome the evidence by a redefinition of science that makes science and naturalism the same thing, and the evidence unimportant. The new definition is: "Science is the search for natural solutions,"People whose religion is naturalism are now widely using the new definition.

When I was growing up, science was a search for truth. It had to do with experiments and observation that followed the evidence wherever it led. The new definition has no interest in truth. It throws out all evidence that does not support naturalism. No matter how strong the evidence is that God created, it is declared not scientific, and thrown out simply because it does not support naturalism. The new definition is not only used in textbooks and lesson plans, but also in censorship lawsuits.

The natural solutions definition is never applied uniformly, but only in cases where the intelligent designer would have been God. It is particularly used in the question of where life came from, because, as we will see:

• There is a huge amount of evidence that indicates that God created life.

• There seems to be no evidence at all that chemicals just got together to make a first living cell.

The obviously strong desire of the naturalistic establishment that students not have the chance to compare the evidence that God created with that for a naturalistic origin of life seems to indicate that somewhere deep down inside, atheists understand that if students were allowed to follow the evidence, it would lead them to God.

If you are an atheist, stop and think! You are living by faith in the impossible. Move on!
 

New evidence that God created life

Atheists often claim that evolution is science and is right even though a few of its problems have not yet been solved. I often read the claim that most of evolution's problems have been solved, and the rest will soon. This is not true. In fact evolutionists are still trying to solve most of the same problems they were working on when I was a schoolboy. In the area of how life began, they have not presented a single evidence for abiogenesis that I have been able to find. New lines of evidence that God created living things, however, are being discovered at a surprising rate. Evolutionists, far from getting the problems solved are slipping farther and farther behind. Recent discoveries give strong evidence that God created, and present one new problem after another for evolutionary naturalism.

Since evolutionists are so successful at keeping evidence that God created from getting a foot in the classroom door, I encourage you to learn the evidence that follows, and get it into the hands of as many students and teachers as you can:
 

Enzymes

Cells don't live long and the materials of which they are made decompose, so cells could not exist if they had to wait around for their essential chemical reactions to take place at their normal speeds. To solve this problem, God made speeder-upper proteins called enzymes. They catalyze chemical reactions, making chemicals combine (or break apart) millions of times faster than would otherwise be the case. They also help them combine in ways that will make exactly the right compounds for each situation.

To do this, each enzyme must fold into a shape that will fit perfectly with the chemical it is speeding up. Even evolutionists usually compare this to the way a key fits into a lock. Enzymes are able to flit from one molecule to another in a split second. An extreme case: one molecule of an enzyme called catalase can take apart 40 million molecules of hydrogen peroxide each second! Interestingly, most enzymes will only work with one specific chemical reaction, so huge numbers of different enzymes are popping up all of the time, each "key" in the right "lock." The new enzyme does its thing in a split second, and it's out of there!

No "first cell" (or any subsequent cell) could have lived without being able to deliver many speeder upper enzymes to just the right places at just the right times because the chemicals that cells are made of decompose much more rapidly than the proper chemical reactions could happen without enzymes, if the needed reactions would happen at all.

In addition, the amino acids which link together to form proteins must all be of the left handed variety. Those that form outside of cells are all half right handed and half left handed, so they will not work in living things. Not only that, when all are left handed, they tend to gradually return to half and half. Spontaneously, one here and one there, they flip! No way is known by which all left handed amino acids could have accumulated to make up the proteins of the theoretical first cell, but had there been an initial supply, without enzymes to speed the chemical reactions, many of the left handed amino acids would have become right handed before the needed reactions could take place. That is one reason we know that no cell could ever have formed by the random action of unguided chemicals. Many people whose worldview requires them to believe that a first cell did, in fact, form by slow random chemical reactions consider evidence like this an embarrassment that should be kept from the eyes of weak vulnerable students and teachers.

Let's embarrass them!
 

Pathways

Cells use many big complex chemicals that cannot be formed by just mixing the right elements together. Making these materials from the nutrients that enter a cell usually takes a number of steps which must be taken in a particular order called a "pathway."

A simplified example makes the process easy to understand: We will call a chemical the cell needs "ABCD" because its elements must be put together in that order. If you just mix them, A will react with D or C so ABCD cannot be made. To form ABCD, a helper chemical called an enzyme must first attach A to B, making AB. Then C becomes available and another enzyme attaches AB to C making ABC. After that, D becomes available, and a third catalyst attaches D to ABC, making ABCD.

Many pathways have eight or ten steps that must be taken one after another in the proper order, helped at each step by by the proper catalyst. For a cell to live, it must have many different chemicals, each doing its part of the cell's work. The only known way for many of the chemicals in cells to build up is if each one follows its own unique pathway. None of the chemicals that can only be built up following a specific complex pathway can come about by lucky accidents. The evidence indicates that no cell could live unless many chemicals which will only form by following pathways are present and functioning at the same time. If we simply follow the evidence, it brings us to conclude that the information that directs the building of these chemicals was provided by a very intelligent God who knows a lot about chemistry. Obviously, the "prediction" of evolutionists before pathways and enzymes were understood was that slow random normal chemical reactions would have explained the first life.

People whose religion is evolutionary naturalism see the "first life" as a single cell something like a bacterium built up by accident from non living chemicals with the ability to reproduce already in place. They feel that from that first cell eventually evolved the human brain, estimated to contain 10 trillion nerve cells, and so wonderfully coordinated that you can ponder what I am saying even if it may still seem strange to you that I don't agree with the atheistic indoctrination provided by so many of the public schools and universities. Perhaps the next section will make my viewpoint more compelling.
 

Machines

Tiny machines do much of the work of every cell. They are called "molecular machines," or "molecular motors." Even tiny one-celled creatures must have some of these machines if they are to live. The one that has been known long enough so you have probably heard of it works like a tiny boat motor, driving a microscopic one celled animal through the water.

Every machine known is a product of intelligent design. Did you ever see a train or even a simple wheelbarrow that was not made by somebody? Cells have some machines that do jobs similar to the jobs of trains and wheelbarrows. They transport things from one part of the cell to another. Lets look at a few easy to understand examples of machines cells must have to live.

Even "simple" cells have a covering that encloses them. Otherwise they would just be loose goo dissolving into the water. There's a problem: The membranes that hold cells together let in water, but keep nutrients out. For a cell to live, its membrane must contain little pumps that are molecular machines made of proteins. Some recognize and selectively pass nutrients in. Others pass wastes out. Unless both the machines that pass nutrients in and those that pass the wastes out are present and functioning, no cell can live.

Show an atheist a simple mortar and pestle made by people living in primitive conditions, and he will immediately recognize that they were produced by intelligent beings to work together. The pumps are made of several specific protein parts, specially folded to work together.

Like these examples, there are many machines that are absolutely necessary. No cell could live if a certain number of them were not present, designed properly, and functioning. This is a fundamental problem to evolutionary naturalism: Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." {Origin of species, 1872, New York University Press, sixth edition, p 154 as quoted in Reason and Revelation, Sept. 2005} None of us have ever seen any machine just build up by accidental slight modifications without a designer. Many people, however, have been taught to have so much faith in naturalism that they believe that the machines in cells did gradually build up by slight undirected modifications. Were it possible for this to happen, it would not have helped a "first cell" because not one, but many machines must be on line and working at the same time for a cell to live.

What's more, the materials of which cells are made do not last long after they are made. If even one of the machines a cell could not live without happened to finish building up by numerous, successive, slight modifications a day later than the others that were also essential for the life of the cell, the cell would already be dead. Too late or too early and the cell would have been dead meat. Faith that all these machines came on line with no one directing the process at close enough to the same moment for a first cell to live is more blind faith than should have to be asked of an Atheist.

All of us have seen many machines, and none of us has ever seen any machine that built itself by successive slight modifications undirected by a designer/builder.This makes it obvious that those who believe the machines in cells built up by undirected successive slight modifications did were not influenced by the evidence. A leap of faith taken not because of the evidence but in spite of it brought them to believe that all the machines necessary for a cell to live came about by successive slight modifications. What brings them to take that leap of faith? Many atheists have such a strong commitment to their religion of naturalism that once they have taken that step of commitment, they are willing to accept, more or less without question, all of the sub doctrines that are included.

Strong evidence indicates that a very intelligent designer created even the simplest living beings. It was our loving Creator.
 

Machines make proteins

Evolution could not begin before life and reproduction, but since schoolbooks package abiogenesis and evolution together, atheists and many other evolutionists have faith that naturally occurring chemicals came together accidentally to form the first cell. For years they believed in the spontaneous formation of proteins from amino acids as the cause of the first cell. However, proteins never form in nature outside of already living cells, partly because each amino acid must be linked in the right order, one behind another to form a chain with no side branches. {See my books: How Life Began and The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution for details and references.}

Proteins, however, abound! Where do they come from? They are made in living cells by molecular machines. In every cell, a number of RNA and protein molecules fit together to form the machines that make proteins. They line up left handed amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, in the proper order and link them together one behind another like links in a chain. Most proteins have from 50 to a few thousand amino acids, each chosen from 20 different varieties. The machine links them together one after another in the order specified by information in the cell's DNA, an order that is different for each protein.

At the end of each new protein, an address label is slapped on, and the new protein is shipped off to the one place designed for it. During the trip, each protein is folded so that when it arrives, it will fit with the other molecules with which it must work. The folding process is so complex that IBM built Blue Gene, at that time the world's most powerful super computer, in an attempt to help scientists understand how proteins fold to fit so that they can work together. {http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/press_release.html} No molecular machine will function if its proteins are not addressed so they will come to the right place, and folded to fit. Errors not only make a machine useless, but will usually cause a genetic disease. Proteins are the main ingredients of cells and the main parts of most of their machines, so no cell could exist without the machines that make its proteins.

Protein making must be carefully regulated. Otherwise, the machines would make too many of one kind of protein; an easy one for example, and not enough of another. Lack of regulation would kill the cell, so protein making had to be intelligently regulated from the very first.

One type of protein regulation uses specific stretches of DNA called regulatory DNA sequences. The DNA, however, cannot turn protein production on or off by itself. Each regulatory DNA sequence works with a specific protein which folds perfectly to fit the correct spot on the DNA and work with it. DNA and protein working together form a machine that regulates the production of a protein, a switch that turns its gene on and off at the right times. No cell could exist without both the machines that regulate the production of its proteins and the information that lets them know when to turn production on and off. Because the contrary belief put forth by atheists and evolutionists requires faith that many chemically impossible steps did indeed happen, any worldview that depends on it is a false religion.
 

RNA

When the fact that proteins won't form in nature outside of already living cells became well known, most whose religion was naturalism easily abandoned their faith that proteins had come together to form life. With no evidence that RNA could form outside of already living cells, they switched without apparent discomfort from faith in the spontaneous formation of proteins to faith in the spontaneous formation of RNA as the producer of the first cell. Most of the older evolutionists who are reading this have made that switch themselves.

RNA has proven to be a most unfortunate choice. It not only won't form spontaneously in nature, scientists can't even make it in the laboratory. Not even the ribosome building blocks from which RNA is largely formed, will form outside of already living cells.

Neither will real RNA do the things evolutionists believe the imaginary "primitive RNA" must have done. If it really could do them, why would it then invent proteins and pass the job off to them? If the choice were determined by natural selection, would it not be more scientific to believe that natural selection would have chosen for better and better RNA? {To verify these statements with references, check the quotes from evolutionist scientists with their references in my books, How Life Began, p. 63-85; The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution, p. 72-82}

The religion of naturalism has been constructed on a foundation of false science. If you are one who believes it, why not abandon RNA in favor of God, our Creator like you abandoned proteins in favor of RNA?
 

Reproduction

Another scientific evidence that a first cell could not have been generated spontaneously without a Creator is that each cell must have a way to reproduce. If "the first cell" did not have this ability already fully functional, there would have been no second cell, and without a second cell, no more life, no natural selection, no evolution! Since natural selection could not have been a help until after reproduction was already taking place, the evolutionists only hope up to this point is his faith that the Big Bang, unlike every known explosion, was building order out of chaos, an ordering process that continued through billions of years to build an ever greater order out of a very small chaos.

In reproduction, one copy of a cell's DNA is passed on to its offspring. This is not easy because the DNA is long, thin, and its two strands are tightly twisted together like the strands of a rope. The DNA strands must be untwisted if it is to divide and give one of its strands to its offspring. How does it get one strand separated from the other? Among the machines necessary for reproduction are DNA unwinding machines. Without unwinding machines, regulatory machines, protein making machines, and pumps all present and working at the same time, no "first cell" could have produced a second cell." What produced them, built the necessary information into them and made everything work together?
 

Appearance of design

The fact that every known machine is a product of intelligent design, and many machines would have to have been present from the very first is powerful evidence for an intelligent designer/creator. The evidence is so overwhelming that even many who believe in evolutionary materialism admit that cells appear to have been designed. They just have faith that they were not designed. Even the most militant atheists occasionally admit that cells appear to have been designed. Here is a quote by the famous anti creationist atheist scientist Richard Dawkins:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins, {The Blind Watchmaker, 1988. p. 1.}

I agree with Him, both that the evidence really does make it appear that things were designed for a purpose, and that much of the biology that is taught today is man's attempt to get around the evidence. The atheist has as his ultimate criterion the religion of naturalism. The evidence must be reinterpreted in a way that is consistent with naturalism rather than accepting the normal explanation of the evidence. The atheist is attempting to convince himself and others that evidence which taken at face value indicates a Creator, must not be taken at face value. Think it through. It will give you a glimpse into the dark realm of the power of the atheist's religion over science.
 

Information

The information in cells is information with meaning. Like a complex instruction book, it guides cells in producing widely diverse materials and machines, many of which are far beyond the ability of today's best scientists to even understand. There is a level of meaningful information that comes only from minds. It is never produced by matter or energy. Many scientists consider meaningful information to be unfailing evidence of an intelligent creator:

•When an archeologist digs up an ancient book, he knows someone wrote it.

•The science of cryptography depends on the ability to distinguish between random code and meaningful messages. If a terrorist receives directions for building an atom bomb in a suitcase, written in a secret code, he can be certain the message came from an intelligent source.

•The SETI Institute uses huge radio telescopes to search for extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI scientists know that if they ever find an intelligent message coming from space, it will prove that there are intelligent beings out there! Meaningful messages are a sure indication of an intelligent source.

A tourist who knows various languages can ask, "Where is the Bathroom?" in English, Spanish, Chinese, etc. The message does not depend on the language in which it is written. It is the same even if every letter in every word of "Where is the bathroom?" in Spanish is different than the letters and words in Chinese. When I speak of meaningful, translatable information, I am purposely narrowing the definition, making the kind of information I am talking about very specific. I must do this, because one person claims ripples in the sand are information, and another claims sunbeams. By making these claims, they have not discovered a clever way to invalidate my thesis, they have just changed the subject. The same evolutionists who deny that higher levels of information exist send their kids to the best schools they can afford. If they really believe what they email me about information, they would just buy the kid a puppy and have him listen to it bark!

DNA shares a characteristic with telegraph, radio, television, computers and paper. The material the information is written on does not dictate the message. Like paper, the same DNA, can carry one message or another.

Where did the information in DNA come from? Some atheists claim that the information in DNA must have evolved from matter or energy. Others claim that it arises from the chemical properties of the material that carries it. A look at information traveling through a computer should help get us all on the same track.

If I download from the internet our old question, "Where is the bathroom?" it comes into my laptop through a modem with a little transmitter that sends it to my computer by a wireless connection. It can enter my laptop in any language. Once inside my computer, the question is no longer written in letters with ink on paper, but has been translated into a two-letter code called zeros and ones. Because the kind of information I am talking about can be coded, it could also have been sent by an old fashioned telegraph. The message is now in my computer's memory. I save it to my hard drive, and back it up on CDs or DVDs along with my other files. When I print it out, the question moves in the form of some sort of electrical signals through the wire that goes to the printer where it again becomes ink on paper. The meaning of the message did not originate from the CD, the hard drive or the paper in the printer. A new computer with nothing on it yet, if taken off the production line and stored in a museum for 1000 years will never think up any information. It has to get into the computer from somewhere.

Our question, "Where is the bathroom?" is not only the same no matter what language it happens to be written in, but also no matter which material is carrying it at any given moment. We can trace it from the paper that comes out of my printer, all the way back through each step along the way, to its place of origin: A MIND!

Intelligent messages are not composed by hard drives, wires, the airways they pass through, or even by the current that powers them. They are different than these things, and have a different source. They are information!

A message is coded into DNA using the DNA equivalent of letters, words, and language. Like a hard drive, DNA warehouses and recalls huge amounts of information. DNA, however, stores it in the smallest space possible, much smaller than men have ever been able to invent. {See my book How Life Began, page 104-108 for interesting details.}

The messages of DNA, like the tourist's question, are real messages that can be translated from the language of DNA into other languages. DNA instructions are, in fact, normally translated into the somewhat different language of the RNA that carries the message from the DNA to the tiny machines that construct the cell's proteins. The messages of DNA have even been translated into computer language, printed out, and read by scientists!

Another fact comes as a terrible blow to those evolutionists who insist that the information in DNA is determined by the chemical structure of the DNA molecule: People who know how, can write whatever information they want to in DNA. High school student Viviana Risca won a $100,000 scholarship from the Intel Science Talent Search for writing the words: "JUNE 6 INVASION: NORMANDY." Why the prize? She wrote them in DNA, using its chemical code! {Gungan Singha, Popular Science, June 2000, p. 83.} The same message that another person can scribble on a napkin, Viviana Risca and genetic engineers have learned to "write" in DNA.

DNA itself does not make any of the proteins or other substances a cell needs. It calls up messages from its storage and sends them by RNA messenger service to other parts of the cell that follow the instructions to do the actual work. DNA information for making proteins is routinely translated into RNA which carries each set of instructions to the machine that will make that protein. There the instructions are carried out: In most cases from 50 to 1000 left handed only amino acids are lined up in order, each amino acid in the right position to make that particular protein. The machine then links the amino acids together in a long chain with no side branches. Are you beginning to see why no real proteins are ever formed in nature except by cells?

If you are an atheist, you can run, but you can't hide! The information that comes from your telephone, computer, or your DNA, was not a mindless accident. The fact that the DNA of even the most "primitive" one-celled animals is crammed with complex meaningful, translatable information without which no cell could live is irrefutable evidence that our intelligent God created the information that makes life possible.

Deal with it!
 

Here is a prominent atheist who did

At the end of 2004, the newspapers called Antony Flew, a British professor who taught at Oxford and other leading universities, one of the world's most influential atheists. The big news was his announcement that recent scientific discoveries had convinced him that a God exists. Flew said that investigation of DNA: "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved". {The Sunday Times - Britain, December 12, 2004 } He also said that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for "the first emergence of living from non-living matter"—that is, the origin of life. He added that even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow assembled itself from non-living chemicals, it would have had no ability to reproduce.

The fact that exposure to the evidence convinced even a long time atheist like Flew, makes it easy to understand the desperate fight to keep all evidence for our Creator out of the textbooks. School districts, which have wanted to include even the simple statement that evolution is a theory, have been hit by expensive, and sometimes successful, lawsuits claiming that evolution is science, and that these school districts were trying to bring religion into the public schools. Actually they were trying to keep the religion of naturalism from being taught to their students exclusively, as if it were the official approved religion of public schools and universities. I can think of no example in American history where censorship has been more effective than in keeping scientific evidence for creation out of the schools.
 

Evolution

When Darwin left on his world changing voyage, he took with him Lyell's, Principles of Geology which he read during the voyage. Lyell changed Darwin, who then changed the world. Lyell followed a few earlier geologists in protesting against catastrophism, the idea that most sediments had been laid down in catastrophic floods which could have laid down a lot of sediment in a short time. The main reason for the protest was to get rid of the Biblical flood. His science was greatly motivated by his reaction against religion. Lyell claimed that there had been no large floods or other rapid changes in the earth's features. Erosion and deposition had always been the very slow processes usual today, therefore the earth was very old. Darwin had found that the millions or billions of years needed for the small changes he observed to produce the animals and plants around us today. Most Geologists also accepted Lyell's ideas including rejecting the Biblical flood.

While most geologists today still have faith that the earth is very old, the majority have been convinced by a huge amount of evidence that much erosion and deposition did take place somewhat rapidly caused by water. While they don't accept the Genesis flood, they eventually came to accept the Missoula flood which earlier geologists that followed Lyell rejected. They still accept the same long ages as before, so the addition of a good number of rapidly acting floods has left them with many extra years that don't show up in earth's strata. They resolve this by placing millions of years between one layer and another. Often, they put time into places that give evidence of some time having passed, but sometimes they claim that millions of years passed between layers which look like they were laid down one layer right on top of another with no erosion between layers.

Moving on from chemicals and geology to living things, we must now consider evolution. Hopefully you agree with me that naturalism is not science but religion. How about evolution? While most evolutionists would heatedly deny that evolution is a religion, a few are more honest: Michael Ruse, an outstanding evolutionist, and one of the few remaining who is not afraid to debate creation/evolution with knowledgeable creationists wrote:

"In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival escatologies—pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind." {Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, 2005, P. 3, as quoted in ICR's Back to Genesis, Feb. 2006, article by Henry M. Morris.}
 

Mutations

In addition to being unable to account for the great amounts of meaningful information that would have to have been present for even the simplest cell to live, evolutionists have no satisfactory explanation for the huge amounts of additional information which would have been required to build up all those organs that exist in animals today that one celled animals do not have. Their claim is that this information was produced gradually from copying errors called mutations made while passing the genetic information from the DNA of parents to offspring.

A new organ, even a simple fin or finger, when none had existed, would require coordinated changes in bone, tendon, muscle, blood vessels, and nerves. If even one essential part were lacking, the others would be useless. Even if a copying error could add a new gene containing newinformation, trusting it to add genes commanding the construction of all the different types of tissue needed to build a new organ would require more gullibility than faith.

In addition, in all of our experience, copying errors make things worse, not better. The Encyclopedia Britannica compares the number of helpful mutations to the number of harmful mutations it this way: "Most mutations, however, turn out to be deleterious and often lead to some impairment or to death of the organism. To illustrate, it is unlikely that one can improve the functioning of a finely crafted watch by dropping it from a tall building. The watch may run better, but this is highly improbable. Organisms are so much more finely crafted than the finest watch that any random change is even more likely to be deleterious." {Life, Encyclopedia Britannica 2002"}

Most evolutionists have irrational faith to believe that this statement is false, even though the very examples they use to bring people to faith in evolution show that it is true:
 

Eyes

Many textbooks promoting evolution teach us that eyes gradually evolved from dark spots on the skin. They support this statement with an example: Fish that live for many generations in dark caves lose their eyesight. Making fish go blind is the kind of thing that copying errors such as mutations might do, but huge numbers of textbooks seem blind to the fact that fish going blind are not examples of eyes being formed, but being lost. Those who teach this are actually providing an example of the blind leading the blind.

The argument that the eye evolved from spots on the skin is deceptive for another reason as well. The most perfect fossilized eye lenses are found on fossils evolutionists date the oldest, the "trilobites," index fossils of the Cambrian period! Atheistic evolutionist paleontologist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History marvels:

"… We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate." {Quoted from Reason and Revelation, Apologetics Press, Oct. 03 which quotes from Ellis, Richard (2001), Aquagenesis (New York: Viking) }

If there is even one public school or college level textbook promoting evolution to our young people that tells the truth about trilobite lenses I have never found it! They could not build faith in evolutionary speculation if they let the students know that according to evolutionary dating, the best lenses ever formed were the earliest, and were already in existence before the dark spots on the skin. Building faith in evolutionary naturalism in slippery ways may lead to a fall if the truth gets out. Help me get it out!
 

Other examples

A mutation that causes short defective legs in sheep is also frequently used to support evolution. A huge amount of new information would be necessary to evolve sheep from fish, and evolutionists don't have evidence for up hill mutations that progress from a lower to a higher level of genetic information. However, mutations that make things worse abound, so while evolutionists say mutations (accidental copying errors) produced all organs now in existence that the first single cell did not have, the examples they show us go backwards: Sheep with good legs become sheep with defective legs.

I admit that evolutionists also illustrate with trivial horizontal changes that may or may not have been caused by mutations. Light colored moths adapting to a smoked up environment by a shift to a darker color that predators can't see as well are an example. While not a downhill illustration, neither do examples like this show moths becoming birds, or adding new, more complex organs. The idea that mutations add complexity and form new organs is an important dogma of the religion of evolutionary naturalism that is accepted by faith and illustrated by examples of down hill or horizontal changes.

Had random mutations really added all the genetic information needed to create every organ, evolutionists should be able to overwhelm us with huge numbers of examples of mutations that have been caught adding complex new features.

Instead, whenever I point this out, evolutionists respond with the example of a mutation that causes an often fatal genetic disease called sickle cell anemia. This mutation causes a malformation of the red corpuscles that diminishes their ability to carry oxygen. This example is claimed to show upward evolution because the sickle cell mutation has a side effect: It also confers resistance to malaria. The side effect really is a help where malaria carrying mosquitoes exist, but it is a side effect to a deadly genetic disease, and adds no part to any of the millions of complex organs which evolution is claimed to explain, so it is not at allthe kind of mutation evolutionists need to demonstrate. It is a down hill illustration. It goes backward. It deforms the very efficient oxygen carrying shape of normal red corpuscles into an inefficient sickle like shape that causes an often fatal anemia.

Some evolutionists, particularly among the scientists admit that mutations are mostly bad. The famous atheist Richard Dawkins said:

"There's nothing very inventive or ingenious about those novelties, I mean they are random. And they mostly are deleterious - most mutations are bad." { Richard Dawkins, on Jonathan Miller's "Brief History of Disbelief" BBC Two, Monday 14th November, 7-8 pm, originally broadcast October 2004, BBC4, as quoted by John MackayEVIDENCE NEWSNo. 17, 23rd November, AD2005.}

Compare random accidental genetic changes to living things to random accidental changes to parts on an automobile assembly line. A cat stepping on the keyboard that programs the assembly line for examplecould make some real changes to the car. Could it, however, produce the kind of accidental changes to Ford's original assembly line that would give a car electronic ignition, self sealing tires and air bags?

Neither is there any way in which mutations could add code to the DNA that would result in whole new types of organs, change a bacteria into a biologist, or a fish into a monkey. As Gould and other evolutionists have demonstrated, the fossils don't show that such changes have taken place. {See my book The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution, chapters 4 and 7 for details and documentation}

The religion of the evolutionist is based on faith in an idea that is false, so it is a false religion.
 

Natural selection

We all know the prediction of evolution regarding natural selection. From the time of Darwin, evolutionists have claimed that natural selection was lifting organisms to ever higher levels. Many modern evolutionists attribute almost godlike creative abilities to it. However, it could do nothing until the first living thing existed and had produced the first offspring. Even then, natural selection could not have transformed simple cells into fish, monkeys and me.

Natural selection is simple! Individuals that do not do well in an environment die out. Natural selection really is able to weed out certain genes, because when an individual is weeded out, all his genes die with him. Weeding out unfit individuals adds no new genetic material, but it can eliminate some of what already exists.

Keeping in mind the fact that natural selection selects by eliminating genes carried by the less fit, ask yourself: "Which genes in single celled animals can you eliminate to produce people, cats, or elephants?" The obvious answer is: "starting with a first bacteria like life form, no amount of elimination will produce hands, eyes, the trunk of an elephant, or the sonar of a bat."

It gets worse! If a mutation were able to produce the bones, joints, etc. of even a perfect finger (or whatever) when there no fingers existed before, it would have been useless until other mutations produced a blood supply, nerves, muscles and tendons. An individual with useless bones sticking out would be less fit than one without them, so natural selection would weed her out. That is what natural selection does. The result is that useless partly formed organs don't hang around for millions of years waiting for helpful mutations to produce the other parts necessary to make a useful organ.
 

New Evidence for Human Evolution

A long scientific sounding article had the honor of a place on the front page of the March 7, 2006 New York Times because it began: "Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected…"

What was this great new evidence? Had new organs evolved? No. Had they seen a new species evolve? No.

The article admitted that a lot of evolutionists think humans quit evolving 10,000 years ago, but here was "the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving."

A Dr. Pritchard announced that he had found areas in which human genes showed less diversity, "and a significantly lesser diversity is taken as a sign of selection." He had caughtnatural selection in the act; doing what it really does: eliminating genes!

Evolutionists have faith that people, animals, and plants evolved from a first single cell. This would require millions of upward changes in muscles, nerves, blood vessels, bones, etc. all working together under the direction of new information in new genes coded into the DNA.

A single cell cannot, by losing genes, produce a man or a monkey, no matter how many genes natural selection weeds out. If the Times article is right, and reducing the diversity among human genes is the best evidence that we are still evolving, evolution is doing what natural selection really does. No new species! No new organs! It is weeding out genes, causing a loss of diversity!
 

Which bad mutations does natural selection eliminate?

Even evolutionists who honestly admit that most mutations are either harmful or more or less neutral generally claim that natural selection works as a filter that stops harmful mutations from getting through. With at least thousands of genetic diseases out there afflicting people, it is obvious that some get through the screen. Which ones?

Many mutations are so severe they immediately kill the offspring that inherits them, and don't get passed on to future generations so some are obviously eliminated. However, about two thirds of all mutations get through the filter for another reason: They are recessive. That means that they will have no effect on the offspring until some child down the line inherits the same mutation from both mother and father. Because far more mutations are harmful than helpful, huge numbers of bad new mutations that cause genetic diseases are being pumped out into the gene pool every year for every "good" mutation. The two thirds that are recessive pass under the radar of natural selection until they become common enough to be inherited from both mother and father.

When you remember that the example of a good mutation found in all the books and emailed to me by one helpful evolutionist friend after another is the often lethal sickle cell anemia, you begin to get the picture. Sickle cell anemia, and fish in caves that loose their eyes, seem to be the best examples of helpful mutations that evolutionists are offering. Neither are up hill steps toward new organs or more complex species. Both are down hill mutations.

In spite of the evidence, most evolutionists still seem to believe that natural selection brought us up from the bacteria. There is a reason for that. Apart from the fact that from Darwin on it has been a prediction of evolution, it is also an important doctrine of their religion of evolutionary naturalism. It probably cannot be sacrificed without taking the religion down with it. Once again, evolutionists choose their religion over science.

The fact is you cannot produce a biology teacher from a bacterium by eliminating genetic information, no matter what some students may think of their teachers.
 

Recent human evolution

The population of the world has gradually built up from the first humans (whether they were Adam and Eve as I believe, or descendants of ape like ancestors as evolutionists believe). Since mankind began, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the population has been building up, hitting 100 million around 500 B.C., one billion around 1850 A.D., and six billion in 1999. The great majority of all who have ever lived have lived within the time of recorded history!

The fact that most of human evolution should have happened while history was being written gives us a great opportunity to study human evolution!

There was none! No evolutionary advances were recorded during the time when almost everyone who ever lived was living. People lived in every imaginable environment from big cities to tiny isolated islands, but zip, zilch, nada, no super complex people evolved! No ape-like ancestors became people! People did not evolve any new and better organs

The fact that most human evolution should have happened while history was being written did, however, give us a great opportunity to put evolution to the test. It flunked! During its best opportunity this fundamental prediction of evolution was not happening. Creationists believe this is because God created people as people. The evidence certainly supports this conclusion.

Evolutionists have faith that huge numbers of upward evolutionary changes lifted humans from ape like ancestors, but it all happened earlier, in a prehistoric period when very few individuals were around to evolve, and no one was recording the evolutionary advances. Those who want to believe the story of human evolution must accept it by faith because it happened while no one was recording anything. Evolutionists believe it happened, not because of the evidence, which does not support their position, but because it is a major dogma of the religion of evolution, and a major prediction of the "science" of evolution.

Many think they believe it because of the fossil record, but almost every year when new fossils are unearthed we read the claim by evolutionists that this one may replace everything that was thought to be true about human evolution. It is enthusiastically examined with great hope, only to gradually disappear into the ash bin of history. The hope is because the wild claims for Australopithecus a "perfect little upright man" as our ancestor have been found less and less believable as more fossils have been found. It has been found that Australopithecus, far from being a perfect little upright man, had apelike hands, fingers, feet, legs, arms, skull, etc. "Oh that some better proof of human evolution could be found to replace that thing!" seems to have become an urgent unspoken evolutionary hope which wells up with every new find of another old fossil.
 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Notice the direction in which naturalism and then evolution are going, beginning either from an explosion of nothing, or of a terribly tiny point, galaxies evolve. One of them includes our solar system! On earth a simple cell, it is claimed, developed from non living chemicals which resulted from the Big Bang. From that point on, evolution was up and running, producing fish, dinosaurs and us. The general direction of the whole process is from tiny point of plasma to you; from very simple to very complex. Living things today have far greater organization than non living chemicals or bacteria, just as the universe became more complex and organized than the tiny point that Big Banged.

This general upward tendency toward greater complexity and organization is in contrast with one of the most important and fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law is sometimes expressed as entropy, or as time's arrow, or as the ultimate Murphy's Law. Is defined by the evolutionary magazine Discover: "a measure of the tendency toward disorder in a thermodynamic system." {Dec. 2005, p. 58} Among other things, it describes the general tendency to run down and become more random. Isaac Asimov, an evolutionist himself, wrote: "Another way of stating the Second Law, then is: The universe is constantly getting more disorganized.

The religion of naturalism, however, sees the universe as having become more and more organized, from a tiny chaotic plasma to a first living cell. It is anti science! Then, with the first cell enters evolution itself which boosts the process from bacteria to biologists! The naturalistic evolutionary system is shooting time's arrow backward. In its view, the universe is constantly getting more organized.

Many excuse evolutionary naturalism from the Second Law with one or the other of two excuses:

• It is a tendency, there will be local reverses, and the local reverses explain the advances in complexity. The problem with this answer is that according to the religion of evolutionarynaturalism, the universe has gone from a tiny point to a universe, to simple life forms, to fish, monkeys and you. Naturalism is not about local reverses. The general tendency of naturalism is from less organized to more organized, exactly contrary to the general tendency of the second Law.

• The second excuse is that the second law only applies to closed systems and the earth is not a closed system because it receives heat from the sun. It does, but it takes more than heat to make things become more complex. It takes intelligent design. In fact the illustration evolutionists usually give is that a tree grows larger and more complex over time. Trees do, but rocks don't, because trees contain intelligent instructions in their DNA. Without the control of the information in the tree's DNA, heat does not grow trees. Undirected heat burns down forests!

Informed atheists know that the Second Law applies to everything else on earth, but insist that it gave a pass to the entire naturalistic evolutionary system from a tiny speck before the big bang, all the way to the human brain. Many are very strong in their faith that this increasing organization happened with no involvement of a creator or organizer of any kind. If you could read the emails they send me, you would see them upholding their faith with religious passion. The direction of their faith is from tiny speck to universe, to living cell to you. Compare that to evolutionist Asimov's definition of the Second Law: "The universe is constantly getting more disorganized."

The Second Law is either one of the most fundamental laws of science or it is not. It can hardly apply generally, which it does, without also applying to the big bang, to galaxy building, to ever more complex chemicals to the formation of a living cell and to its gradual evolution to more and more complex and well organized creatures until you appeared with a brain which is so wonderfully made that you can recognize the problem, and ask, "Why didn't they ever mention this stuff in the schools I attended?"

Once evolutionists have recognized the problem, they generally claim that natural selection gets around it. Even if this were true, and natural selection did not just eliminate the genes of the less fit, it could only get around the small part of the problem that comes after the first living thing reproduced. Offspring that could be selected had to exist before natural selection could come into play.
 

Evolution, intelligent design and creationism

Evolutionary naturalism is not science in the usual sense of weighing the evidence to find the truth. Neither does it have predictive value. Evolutionists believed, wrote, and taught that amino acids must get together in nature to form proteins. Wrong!

They taught, and many still do, that the first cell would have been very simple. New complexities of "simplest" cells are being discovered every year. They are horrible problems to the evolutionist system, usually resolved by conjuring up an imaginary godlike kind of natural selection that somehow doles out huge quantities of complex new genetic information. Molecular machines, pathways and the necessity of enzymes are all completely contrary not only to its predictions and claims that the first life would have been very simple. Generating complex new functional genetic information by elimination is not science. It is a doctrine of a religion that is held by faith, and propagated by definition, censorship, and huge amounts of your tax dollars and mine. Clever use of these things has effectively made it America's established religion, even though an established religion is contrary to the US constitution. It is a false religion because it is contrary to many fundamental scientific laws and principles. Had it been based on science, the fact that it is contrary to scientific laws and principles would have proved it to be false, but evolutionary naturalism is above science. People accept some parts of science because they are approved by evolutionary naturalism, and reject other parts of science because they are not. This has become evident because:

• Laws of science have been simply shrugged off with, "They must have been different in the past,"

• A new definition of science has been quite widely accepted that equates science with naturalism, and puts all evidence against naturalism in the "unscientific" category.

Creationism, like intelligent design, accepts scientific evidence, but it also accepts historic evidence. God has revealed in the Bible a great deal about how He created. Why dump the historical record? Under creationism, the miracles of the creation of matter and of life are not hidden by claiming some past exemption from scientific laws and principles, but are honestly called miracles. They are not considered lucky accidents, in which chemicals are claimed to have done things that these chemicals just don't do. Creation does not need lucky accidents, because it has a sufficient cause: a powerful intelligent God who created. Follow the evidence to God!
 

Prophesy

Testing predictions is important in distinguishing truth from fiction in science. Testing the Bible's predictions is an important way for you to see that the Bible is true. Skeptics have attacked the Bible far more than any other book in history, but anyone who really wants to find out if the Bible is true, can. God did not confine himself to explaining what happened in the past. He also said that He was announcing things that were going to happen in the future so that when they happened we would trust Him and His word. Many Bible prophesies are so striking that skeptics have tried to tone down their importance by claiming that most of the Old Testament was written centuries later than the historic dates.That let them claim that some of the Bible's short term prophesies were written after the facts had already occurred and were not prophesies at all.

The prophets, however, did not just write about the near future. Many of the most striking prophecies were written 700 years before Christ, and were fulfilled by Jesus when He came to suffer and die for our sins, and rise again. Some were even earlier: Moses, who died in around 1400 BC, wrote down God's earlier promise to Abraham that Christ, the Messiah would come from his family: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 22:18, 26:4)

As the descendents of Abraham multiplied, later prophesies gradually narrowed down the line through which the Messiah would come:

From the tribe of Judah. (Genesis 49:10)

The family of Jesse, the father of David (Isaiah 11:1-12)

From Jesse's son David: (Jeremiah 23;5-6; Psalm 89:3-4)

The Bible is also full of details about the times in which the prophets lived. Archeologists have found these details to be true. Fake prophets writing centuries later would have to have been the worlds best historians to have gotten all the historical details right.

Critics for over 100 years have been claiming that prophesy does not matter, because the Bible has been so changed down through the centuries as to be almost unrecognizable. Then in 1947 came the opportunity to test that claim. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in caves where they had been hidden for many years. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were three copies of the Old Testament book of Isaiah. They were first written 700 years before Jesus was born, and foretold details of his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus Christ the Messiah fulfilled these prophesies down to the smallest details 700 years after they were first written, and 150 years after the oldest copy was hidden in clay pots in a cave in the desert near the Dead Sea. These copies of Isaiah are the same as those in your Bible! They had not been changed like the critics had claimed, but were just like the copies that were in circulation at the time the Dead Sea scrolls were found over 2000 years later. They are kept in a museum in Israel by Jews, not Christians. Those who know Hebrew can find them on the Internet and compare them with their own Bibles. The Bible not only has not been corrupted, but Christ fulfilled the prophecies even in their small details.

Why is that important to you? God explained: "Because I knew that thou art obstinate,… I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I showed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them…." (Isaiah 48:5).

In saying this, God is challenging us to put Him to the test in the area of prophecy. I invite you to read the prophets yourself, and offer here a few samples from the book of Isaiah, the book that has been most clearly demonstrated to have remained unchanged. These prophesies are of particular importance to your own spiritual life. They will not only whet your desire to study prophesy, they will lead you to Christ your Savior. Chapter 53 treats the fact that Christ Jesus would die for our sins and rise again:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

Because we had wandered off instead of following God, Jesus Christ carried our sin in His sacrifice for us on the cross. The passage, written 700 years before it happened, also makes it clear that in carrying our sins Christ would actually die:

"… For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken" (Isaiah 53:8).

These verses are a divine preview of what Jesus Christ actually did 700 years later. For greater explanation, see the last chapter of my book, How Life Began.

Christ's resurrection, was also foretold:

"… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days…." (Isaiah 53:10).

No wonder atheists have tried through the centuries to slander and discredit God's word!

Some of my readers will believe the critic's lies and refuse to come to our heavenly Father through His Son Jesus Christ. If you are one of these, you can throw these prophesies out, refuse to believe, and go to hell if you want to, but remember, the one who will judge you told you clearly what He was going to do before he did it to make it easy for those who are interested in finding the truth to believe.

Who was this Jesus Christ to whom the Bible points us for salvation? Messianic passages in the Old Testament spoke of Jesus coming to earth long before He came to die for our sins and rise again, saying that He would:

• be God with man (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6, 7)

• be from the family of David, born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

• be born of a virgin, (Isaiah 7:14)

• be buried in the tomb of a rich man, (Isaiah 53:9)

• suffer and die for our sins, (Isaiah 53:4-9)

• that the soldiers would gamble for His clothes.

• rise from the dead. (Isaiah 53:10-11).

Jesus said of himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6.) Why did He say that? Was he insane? Was He a deceiver? Or did He say it because it was true? Had he been a deceiver, he might have faked the fulfillment of a prophesy about the life of the Messiah, but certainly not those about His birth and His death. (For my comments on Bible prophesy and other hard evidence that Christ is really the Messiah and Savior, see my book: How Life Began, page 146-156)
 

Present day evidence

The Bible is not pointing people to a dead Christ who can do nothing, but to the risen Christ who is alive and active today. He is making saints out of the sinners. If you are a believer, you remember how passages like the ones bellow changed your life. If you are not yet a believer, take them to heart. All come from the same chapter, John chapter three:

"Jesus answered … Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)

Because passages like these have been changing lives for a long time, the Bible is the world's all time best seller: "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29).

Most of the older hospitals and universities in the US, those established before the government built things like that, were at their beginning Christian institutions. Even today, God's hammer is breaking stone hearts. When I trusted the Savior to save me, He did, and changed my whole way of life. Check out any church that believes and practices the Bible to find others who have had the same experience. Even more striking is the fact that almost every city has rescue missions where the worst and the weakest, criminals, drug addicts, etc. are coming to Christ and seeing the power of the Holy Spirit change their lives. Prison ministries are seeing convicts transformed Even though multitudes thumb their noses at the living Christ, He is working today in ways any who wish can check out.

Whenever there is a natural disaster: a hurricane or an earthquake, Christian ministries are quickly on the scene humbly helping.

Evolutionary materialism changes lives also, but not in the direction of helping others. When did you ever hear of the ACLU or the humanists, or any other organization of evolutionary materialists rushing to help like Christian groups do? A man who grew up in a Christian home wrote that he felt a real relief when his school converted him to trust in evolution. "Now I can ignore all those people who collect money to help in times of tragedies. They are subverting the beneficial effects of natural selection."

In fact, evolutionists who don't just continue to follow their old moral standards as best they can in their own abilities, adopt new standards based on evolution: natural selection, the survival of the fittest.

One of the student killers at the Columbine High School in Colorado was wearing a T–shirt that read, "Natural Selection," when he and a friend shot and killed 12 of their fellow students setting off the fad of students killing students. Right after the shooting, the superintendent of schools came to Gino Geraci and asked him a question. As a young man Gino himself had attended this high school where he was voted "most likely to go to hell." Afterward, however, Gino had come to Christ who gave him a new spirit and a transformed life. Gino had become a pastor. The Superintendent asked Pastor Gino how a thing like that shooting could have happened and the Gino blurted out, "You have taught our children that they come from nowhere, and that is where they're going, and that life is a point of pain in a meaningless existence. And they believed you" {Mike Matthews, Creation, June–August, 2003}

Did the movement to rid America of the Ten Commandments just rise up out of nowhere, or is it another result of the schools teaching evolutionary naturalism to the kids? If both the universe and life, came about by undirected natural causes, as is taught by so many schools, does that not invalidate both the ten commandments and what Jesus taught about them?

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

The teaching that God does not exist obviously leaves those who believe it without a real authority who can set moral standards. They must decide:

• Do I keep my old standards as if nothing had changed?

• Do I just do whatever I feel like in any given moment?

• Since I don't believe there is a god who set standards, should I work out new standards based on what I do believe: natural selection and the survival of the fittest?

Many schools provide the materials for "safe sex" free to the kids along with the suggestion that it is folly to think they can save sex for marriage. Since "safe sex" is not all that safe, "help" is often made available at an abortion clinic without the knowledge of the parents.

With no standards, it is claimed that 10% of the population is homosexual. Others claim that the real number is closer to 2%. Perhaps the other 8% died of AIDS. Perhaps those who made up the 10% figure were lying. If there is not God, what's wrong with that?

When was young, I left my unlocked car parked in the street every night with expensive material that I used in my work out in plain sight. It was safe there then because there were so few thieves.

As a religion, evolutionary naturalism does not make people better morally, so few would choose it if it were not propped up by false science. Evolution is a false religion propped up by false science. Purposely confusing evolution with real science is dishonest, but if evolutionary naturalism is right, dishonesty is OK. The individual who believes there is no God to decide what is right or wrong, decides as he wishes according to the situation. Sometimes it is what will most help him pass on his genes to the next generation, sometimes what will most help evolution select for the fittest by eliminating the unfit, sometimes he chooses some other criteria. None seem as helpful to those around him as: "love thy neighbor as thyself!"

A number of years ago, a missionary I know of who was responsible for a shelter for people with the dread disease of leprosy, had a problem. Their rather primitive sewer system was backing up. Before they could fix it, someone had to climb down into the holding tank and empty it out a bucket full at a time. Even though the country was desperately poor and work was hard to come by, none of those who normally would do that humble task were willing to risk catching the disease. He looked high and low for a worker and raised the wage as high as he could, but no one would do it. The missionary, a well educated man who had left the richest country on earth to serve the lepers, climbed down into the cesspool and cleaned it out himself.

I recently read the story of another man. He came from a Christian home and was converted to evolution while attending a university. He told how liberated he felt when he accepted evolution because it freed him from having to listen to people who collected money for humanitarian projects. The idiots were impeding the effects of natural selection.

As naturalism throws out God as the authority on right and wrong, it also eliminates heaven and hell. "You die like a dog and that's the end of you," they think. But How can a false religion throw out hell? Hell will burn just as hot as if it had not!

Many choose to believe the irrational: that chemicals so complex they can't and don't form in nature outside of already living cells must have formed that way anyway because their naturalistic religion requires it. They think they were the natural outcome of the explosion that brought order out of chaos. By faith they believe that natural chemical reactions not only formed the megamolecules of life, but organized them into a living cell with all the essential enzymes, the molecular machines, and the ability to reproduce that a cell must have to live. No evidence supports this faith, and much opposes it. It never happens in nature! It is contrary to fundamental laws of science! But evolutionary materialists put the doctrines of their religion above physical evidence and the laws of science. They think the spontaneous origin of life was a one time occurrence, the kind of thing that would previously have been called a miracle.

Each one must decide. Will he believe in God who has the power to create the universe and life and the intelligence to design them, or will he believe that one time events with no sufficient cause, did things that the laws of science say can't happen.If you are still trying to decide, God has explained what He did in the Bible. He invites you to put it to the test. Don't just listen to people like me who believe the Bible, or to skeptics who don't believe it, read it and check it out for yourself.

God invites you to come to Him through Jesus Christ. Because Jesus rose from the dead, He lives and touches lives today. Don't believe me? You can put that to the test too. Listen to the news about the next tragedy and you will hear reports of one group after another of Christians, whose lives He changed, hurrying down to help. Check out rescue missions, prison ministries, etc. How many groups like this do you find that were started by the ACLU or the Moslems? To shun the one who created you and who loves you, and who calls you to himself would be short sighted. Why go down into hell screaming, "This is impossible! I've always maintained that there is no hell?"

Instead, try this experiment! The Bible says that if you will trust Jesus Christ to save you, He will, and you will know it because he will also put His life changing Spirit within you. Confess your sins, and trust Christ to save you from each one of them. If He already has, trust Him to guide your life day by day. Then, join us in reading the Bible every day. As you do, pray that God will show you what to do next. He will lead you, and His holy Spirit alone can give you the ability to live the Christian life. He will lead you into fellowship with a Bible believing church, and give you a part in what He is doing in the world today. He wants to work through you to accomplish interesting and important things that you can't do in you own strength. Start by being faithful in the little tasks He entrusts to you. Life becomes a great adventure when you seek God and walk with Him each day. Enroll in His army!