Kingdom Come

Evolution has been aggressively advertised as scientific truth in opposition to religious dogma since its inception in the 19th century. A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as “evolutionists” and 28% as “creationists,” with 31% indicating that they “simply don’t know what to believe,” according to a press release issued by Ipsos on April 25, 2011.

When we review the basis to the claims of Evolution we find it absolutely cannot claim to be scientific truth, or even a theory or hypothesis.

Science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven.

A theory is a principle that has been substantiated by data through rigorous experimentation and control, but is not scientifically considered to have been proven to be truth.

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

To be scientific, Evolution had to start as a hypothesis based on what had been studied – scientifically – previously on the origins of the species.

In the 18th century, the existence of family relationships between different species was spelt out in the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus’s grouping of living things into species, genera, orders and so on. Linnaeus, along with all naturalists of his time, subscribed to the idea that every living thing on earth had been created by God in the course of a single week.

How interesting that “Three hundred years after the great Swedish naturalist’s birth, scientists the world over – even Evolutionists – are still using the system he invented to classify plants and animals” even though “there was no notion in his system of one species developing or evolving from another.”

By the 1820s, the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was talking about inheritance of characteristics acquired as the result of striving (as the giraffe’s ancestors strived to reach higher into the trees). This has since been somewhat credited by the discovery of epigenetics – where an individual’s behaviors are passed down through genetics to the offspring, but supports the biblical concept of inherited sin nature rather than differentiation into species.

By 1859 Alfred Russel Wallace independently from Charles Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection as the primary driver of evolution, operating on variation, but with no understanding of where the variants came from, or how that variation was inherited.

In the early 20th century Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel’s dicovery of genetics was incorporated into Evolution, but as yet without knowledge of the material basis of mutations as a source of variants. This emerged in the 1940s, when DNA was unraveled. Then from the 1950s onwards there was the determination of its structure and the cracking of the genetic code that revealed how it directs the formation of proteins.

Since then, we have recognised that evolution is governed by chance as well as by selection, that inheritance is complicated by things like gene duplication (where a chunk of DNA is copied twice and each copy can then evolve independently), horizontal gene transfer (where DNA is transferred between species), and even the incorporation of genetic material from viruses into our own genetic material. And of course there are plenty of other things that we still don’t understand…

One thing that all scientific endeavours have in common is the collection of data, with the hypothesis being open to modification in light of new knowledge. This commitment to the possibility of correction is known as fallibilism. But at every stage of data collection we find increasing gaps of knowledge and inconsistencies in the idea of Evolution.

It only takes a quick review of the intransigent adherence to Evolution to recognize that lack of commitment to the possibility of correction marks Evolution as NOT being a scientific endeavour that has not even attained the level of a hypothesis.

Pay close attention to the Newspeak used by Evolutionists.

From the National Science Education Standards on Evolution:

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact.

Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data…including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

Within the same breath this teacher states that “Scientists have inferred” and that evolution “is a fact” because it is “something that has been tested or observed so many times.”

In fact, Evolution is not even a scientifically established hypothesis. It has remained strictly in the realm of imagination.

We’d like to clear up and emphasize the distinctions between scientific hypothesis, theory, and law,…

A scientific theory can be defined as a series of repeatedly tested and verified hypotheses and concepts using the scientific method, and which may bring together a number of facts and hypotheses.

For a theory to be valid, it must be testable, hold true for general tendencies and not only to specific cases, and it must not contradict verified pre-existing theories and laws...

The scientific method is…a process that’s meant to ensure that the…conclusions are not biased by subjective views and can be repeated consistently by others.

In 19th century anthropologists hastily claimed fossils to be evidence of Evolution, assigning the designation “Cro-Magnon” and an age of 40,000–10,000 years ago. A century and a half of anthropological research since then has led scholars to change their minds – the physical dimensions of the so-called “Cro-Magnon” are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation.

Recent fossil evidence suggests that modern humans (Homo Sapiens) and Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) may have co-existed in Europe for as long as 5,000 to 6,000 years before Neanderthals became extinct.

More important is the successful recovery of ancient DNA.

Ancient DNA recovered from fossils is a valuable tool to study evolution and anthropology. 

This is simply not true. 

Fossils are not the remains of the organism itself! They are rocks. 

There is no DNA to be found in fossils which by definition have had all their organic cellular matter replaced with minerals.

What about preserved frozen actual organic remains for ancient anthropology?

What’s the shelf life of DNA?

If a body is left out in the sun and rain, its DNA will be useful for testing for only a few weeks. If it’s buried a few feet below the ground, the DNA will last about…10,000 years. If it’s frozen in Antarctic ice, it could last a few hundred thousand years. 

Then how can Smithsonian claim they have “700,000-year-old horse bone that yielded what was then the oldest genome ever sequenced.”?

They can’t.

However, devout evolutionists maintain their belief that “DNA supports evolution because all life on Earth carries DNA, and evolution happens only after DNA changes.“

There is no logic in that circular reasoning, let alone use of the scientific method.

DNA changes are called mutations and happen spontaneously from flawed – [FLAWED!] – DNA copying or from mutagens, such as X-rays or chemicals.

It is common knowledge that genetic mutations are detrimental, not beneficial.

You don’t hear evolutionists crowing about the latest findings being uncovered by DNA investigators.

University of Illinois animal geneticists…have created a side-by-side comparison of the human genome and the pig genome…”We took the human genome, cut it into 173 puzzle pieces and rearranged it to make a pig,” said Schook. “Everything matches up perfectly…

So, if all of the genes match up, what is it that makes a pig a pig and a human a human? “That’s the million dollar question,” said Beever. “The genes match up when compared side-by-side, but understanding how they work together is the next step.

“Why do we need this much information about the pig?”

“It’s clear that the pig is one of the closest large animal species to humans,” Interspecies organ transplants between humans and pigs have even taken place.

How do evolutionists handle this?

“Saying that we share 99.9 % of DNA is misleading…blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful.“

Really? The genetic difference between individual human beings averages out to be the same – around 0.1%.

Then evolutionists make the completely opposite claim in support of evolution.

Humans and chimpanzees share around 99 percent of the same DNA…

But when American surgeons used organs from chimpanzees – kidneys, livers, heart – chimp transplants into humans failed.

Evolution’s failure to follow scientific methodology is most clearly shown by the fact that, despite two hundred years discovering billions of fossils the world over, absolutely no fossils of the theorized transitional states between any species have ever been found.

A lack of discovery removes a suspect from legal consideration.

This lack of discovery should have eliminated evolution as a scientific consideration.

This doesn’t stop Evolutionists from clinging to the concept with the tenacity of an over-confident Middle Schooler.