Darwin's Doctrines vs. the Facts

As Mark Twain once quipped: ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact’. Last year marked the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin whose dubious theory of Evolution plays fast and loose with the facts, as I demonstrate below.

The fact is: The known universe itself exists as it does because of many variables which, if not precisely as they are now, would render the universe itself so different, that we would not exist. The doctrine Evolution asks us to believe is that there are countless parallel universes that must have developed spontaneously and we happen to be in the one that is able to sustain life. This really is a doctrine because there is no scientific proof whatsoever that there are any other universes than this one.

The fact is: The features of our planet and its moon point to the impossibility of it being old enough to support the absurd periods of time required by Evolutionary doctrine. Everything from the mere inch-deep dust on the moon to the Polonium 210 halos in rocks on earth show this. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe keeps adding millions of years at will even though carbon 14 dating is left far behind.

This brings us to the ‘Laws of Nature’ that Evolutionary doctrine treats with contempt. The Law of entropy says that everything runs down if left to itself. It does not automatically get better (or more evolved). (The same is true of the Laws of Thermodynamics) The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe that life evolves from the simple to the complex with all creatures, given enough time, on their way toward evolving into ‘higher forms’ of themselves.

What about the law that matter is neither created nor destroyed? The facts bear this out. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that some random ‘big bang’ resulted in the universe. Does that doctrine show itself to be more scientific (require less ‘faith’) than the biblical doctrine of creation?

The fact is: the earth is perfectly suited for life to thrive. Is this a coincidence of monumental proportions? Both Creationists and Evolutionists say no. The fact is: life as we know it thrives only when the environment is suited to it. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that life suited itself (adapted itself) to thrive in earth’s (or any planet’s) environment. Is that a fact scientifically? Let them find life (other than as we know it) in an alien environment or create life under laboratory or any other conditions, and then they can claim to be scientific rather than simply doctrinaire.

The facts are that living things always produce young like their parents. (The Law of Biogenesis). Believers in Evolution won’t accept such a law. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that life forms give birth eventually to young unlike themselves and eventually utterly different ‘more highly evolved’ forms of life (birds from lizards &c.).

The facts are that mutations or odd individuals produced by chromosomal change (e.g. Down’s Syndrome), that occur in nature are overwhelmingly inclined to be harmful (99%). And even if they are not lethal, the mutations are recessive traits and don’t get transmitted to subsequent generations. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that favorable mutations or chromosomal changes have occurred simultaneously to enough individuals to change them from one species into another.

The facts are that we have found no fossil evidence of ‘missing link’ life forms. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that there must be millions and millions of such missing links. (Some desperate Evolutionists have even concocted hoaxes in the past). Missing links amount to missing facts that expose Darwinism as doctrine-based, not fact-based.

The facts are we see “irreducibly complex” living things that - without having all the features they have – would not exist in the first place. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that these organisms lived prior to having these features and gradually acquired them by “natural selection”. Darwin himself conceded that, "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." 1

The facts are that the current population of the world is most consistent with descent from the six members of Noah’s family over a period of around 6,000 years. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that man gradually evolved over millions of years. The absurdity of Evolutionary theory is clear. If man were between 1 and 14 million years old (Evolutionists can’t decide), then people would now populate the earth to something like the tune of 10602. Even if it were ‘only’ 10 to the one-hundredth power the world’s population would be incomparably different from what the facts are2.

The fact is: by almost anyone’s standards, Evolutionary theory requires more than enough faith (and worship?) to be classified as religion rather than science. Darwinism should come out of the closet as the religion that it is, rather than benefit from the popular credence given to science. As a religion, on a “level playing field” against Christianity, Darwinism would be defeated. But by masquerading as “science” and benefitting from the credence real science deserves, Darwinism gains followers as it moves into its third century.

God forbid that we are so deceived by “junk science” that me miss what science is intended to show us: the glory of God.

The fact is: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.(Psalm 19.1-4)
It Christianity “doctrine-based”? Of course it is. But our faith is also fact-based, with plenty of evidence all around us in both the natural world and the historical world of human experience. The fact is: God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Last month I talked about the problem of “invisibility”. This month I remind you of the old adage: “there are none so blind as those who would not see”. What a sin it is for many who are powerful scientists to fail to see the evidence because they cannot cope with the implications of it! Of them it was written long ago: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen” (Romans 1:25).