When Empiricism Fails In Evolution: Where Do They Turn?

Has anyone seen evolution take place? When I first started writing this blog, a gentlemen came in and responded to my statement that “macro-evolution” is not observable. Instead of agreeing with me on the obvious he rather tried a different approach and stated that “bacteria” trying to resist medication like an anti-biotic was a prime example of evolution in action.

Richard Dawkins who appeared in the movie “Expelled” and is considered to be one of the leading spoke persons on the subject of evolution, he said…

“Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.”

-The Genius of Charles Darwin, Series 1, (UK) Channel 4 TV: Sat 11 Oct 2008

Dawkins admits evolution is not observable. It’s too slow to be observable in his opinion. Now this is not empirical science but rather inference or analogy which creationists have been using for many years. I have covered a variety of topics that use this method.

Now evolutionists basically believe they can figure out the past by studying the present.  Stellar evolution theory is a recent example. It had claims sunlight on the early earth would have been 20-30% dimmer than it is today but geology shows the oceans were liquid in the earliest (Archean) rocks which verifies the Bible.

In order to supposedly solve this problem, they claimed carbonyl sulfide produced by volcanoes is the answer because of it’s ability to create a greenhouse gas effect which they believe would have been large enough that it would be able to save the earth from a weaker sun.

Why would carbonyl sulfide not be a problem today with warming the Earth? Well because free oxygen of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would destroy carbonyl sulfide.

So this is how they look for things in the present in order to try and explain the past even though there is no real direct evidence that was the case. I do believe this method in evolution is dying somewhat. Let me explain…

Specified complexity of DNA has really opened eyes. We know that DNA is the source of information needed for protein to understand then execute that information by performing construction which creates more DNA. Without DNA, those proteins cannot build more and without proteins, DNA cannot be built either. So evolutionists have taken to the notion, that DNA was much simpler with no precise parts needed to function rather than linking the present DNA with the past as seen previously in another field of science.

There is nothing wrong with inference or analogy but it certainly destroys the evolutionary argument on one hand, but verifies the Bible on the other. We observe information being created by intelligence. We have observed languages being created by intelligence. So when we observe DNA language, and microscopic machinery that resembles man-made machines but only far more advanced one can draw an inference for being designed by God.

When we see organic material like fossilized  trees standing upright through several meters of sedimentary rock layers we can assume the layers were laid down fairly quickly before the trees could rot, happened by a flood not millions of years. When we observe unfossilized animal tissue containing amino acid sequences  within fossils of dinosaur bones, we can assume those fossils to have been formed fairly recently (thousands of years ago, not millions) because of the chemical decomposition rates involved.

All of the logical conclusions based on the above analogies and inferences prove devastating to evolutionary presuppositions.

Creationist Museum’s Second Anniversary

Containing more space than London’s Natural History Museum, the BBC asks the question, “who goes to the creationist museum and what motivates people to make a visit?

I remember the controversy when this particular creationist museum was proposed. As I recall, they had to change locations due to special interests groups which turned out to be much better, and added more space to the project. When the museum did finally open it was greeted with some protesting from airplanes flying by to protesting signs on the ground…

I find it interesting, those who believe in a faulty view of separation from church and state (the government can only disagree with religion), would be so worried about a creationist museum. One of the reasons is competition from other museums, another is the fact that they just don’t like Christianity or any other religion.

Back to the BBC quest in answering why people go to a creationist museum. They interviewed a few people, not a very good study but interesting comments nevertheless…

Laurie Geesey, the former high school teacher, who says she believes God created “everything visible and invisible”, feels people look down on her views “especially under the current [White House] administration”. “It interferes with their lifestyle, you know ‘If it feels good go ahead and do it’ – the Bible doesn’t teach that,” she says.

Scott Rubin, “Evolution is a good theory, I don’t believe in it, but parts of it are sensible and parts of creationism are sensible,” he says. “When it comes down to it, how can you know for sure? What I do know is God’s changed my life. I believe God created the world in six days, I do believe that.”

Dan Schoonmaker, the Army helicopter pilot (who as a member of the military gets in free) described himself as a “creationist in training”, admitting it needed “a lot of faith”. “I personally don’t know, but natural selection seems to be the only thing people go on. It should be more open,” he says.

Robert Mailloux, the retired businessman dismisses Darwin’s theory as “not even a low grade hypothesis” and said it had “no substantial science” in it. “The Bible says God created the Earth in six days and we flat believe that. There are over 100 ways science is able to look at the Earth and 90 say it is thousands of years old – only 10 say it’s real old…Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He’s not a king. He’s the king of the atheists’ movement.”

What I found also interesting, the BBC enters the creation vs evolution debate by trying to make a case for evolution with the fossil Ida found years ago, which has been dismissed by most evolutionists even as a ‘missing link’ and used for profit reasons.

So there has been skepticism from the other side about Ida’s impact on the hypothesis of evolution but the BBC makes a weak attempt to say otherwise…“The most recent such finding, a “47-million-year-old fossil” of a primate, called Ida, may have given scientists a “fresh insight” into evolution.”

Speaking of skepticism, what I found lacking in the BBC report, was the fact that anti-creationists have visited there as well, not just outside protesting, but actually taking on tour on the inside. The Creationist Museum is a great family destination,  and refreshing to see that evolution is not taught like a religion like you see in secular museums.