Jon Hakes’s Research Paper

Evolving Out of Evolution
By, Jonathan Hakes Mrs. Richards English 11CP 6/7th 10-25-07
Evolving Out of Evolution:

Creation versus evolution is widely thought of as religion versus science, when in fact the debate is truly science versus science. “More and more biologists, biochemists, and other researches — not just Christians –
have raised serious objections to evolutionary theory in recent years, claiming that it’s broad inferences are sometimes based on flimsy, incomplete, or flawed data” (Strobel 126). Such data includes rigged experiments, altered findings, or even false claims. Much of the facts thrown in by evolutionists have been disproved, and yet these facts are still used in biology textbooks to provide evidence toward evolution. One such example is of the German biologist Ernest Haeckel, and his statement: “embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship,” when in fact he altered 13his drawings of the embryonic stages just to prove his point (qtd. in EFE 1). “Nevertheless, his drawings (or similar representations) remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution” (1). Adolf Hitler states his opinion of natural selection, a strong basis for evolution, by saying: “Should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?” (qtd. in CEFS 1). Creation is more plausible than evolution, but evolution is still considered scientifically accurate even though many key points have been disproved, and so the theory of evolution needs to be removed from educational texts and instead state that the origin of life is unknown, since any religious belief can not be considered and is illegal to be taught in public schools.

There is only a choice between creation and evolution; a creator, or a spawning. This idea is accepted on each side (Discredits 1). Many evolutionist atheists choose evolution over creation just because they refuse to accept the possibility of a creator. As explained by 15Sir Arthur Keith: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable” (qtd. in Burrell 1). Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales further prove this statement in their book Why Scientists Accept Evolution by “showing many letters written by early evolutionists, such as Darwin, Huxley, and Spencer saying because of their own hostility toward God and their bias against the supernatural, they jumped at the doctrine of evolution” (Burrell 1). Scholar Patrick Glynn recaps on his childhood and when he first heard of Darwinism by saying:
“I embraced skepticism at an early age, when I first learned of Darwin’s theory of evolution in, of all places, Catholic grade school. It immediately occurred to me that either Darwin’s theory was true, or the creation story in the book of genesis was true. They could not both be true, and I stood up in class and told the poor nun as much” (qtd. in Strobel 124).
The major flaw for scientists in creationism is the fact that faith plays a tremendous role in religion, whereas scientists base their beliefs on material data.

Requiring solid facts can leave some ideas seem completely impossible. The first chapter in Genesis 11describes how God created the world in six days. 6The first day God divided light from darkness, and said the light will be day and the dark will be night. The second day God separated vapors to form the sky above and the oceans below. 1On the third day, God separated some land from the water, where he made plants (grass, fruit trees, etc.). During the fourth day, God made the Sun, the moon, and the stars to light the earth. Over the course of the fifth day, God created fish, birds, and all of the other animals, and told 5them to multiply and fill the earth. Finally on the sixth day, God created man in his own image to be the 10master over all life on the earth, in the oceans, and in the skies (Genesis 1: 3-31). Those who refuse to grasp the awesome power of a Creator desperately cling to their own faiths, and do not accept the truth that their belief has been disproved and discredited.

Giving the generation of tomorrow a faulty education will indeed lead toward a faulty future. The big bang theory, for example, has been disproved, and yet the theory is still being taught in most, if not all, biological classes (Discredits 1). 4The idea behind the big bang theory is that the universe once composed of one great chunk of matter, which exploded throwing the matter out into space (if this is true in itself, then there had to be a beginning, which evolutionists can not explain). Eventually, the matter moving outward will stop, then start going back toward a center of gravity until all the matter is once again in a great chunk. Another explosion goes off, restarting the process (Burrell 1). What disproved this theory was the realization made by Alan Sandage that distant galaxies are in fact accelerating instead of slowing down to return toward a central point (1). Another faulty idea is Darwin’s 14Natural Selection (survival of the fittest).
“While survival of the fittest is observed in nature, it is not absolute. We also observe survival of the weakest and survival of the luckiest. Every infant is the weakest of their species, and yet obviously, some of them survive or there would be no species at all. Similarily, when a whale swims through a school of fish swallowing eighty percent, the twenty percent that remain were not the fittest, but they were the luckiest” (EFE 1).
A third originally thought revolutionary discovery by Stanely L. Miller, turns out to be altered, and so has been discredited, but is still popular in biology texts. Miller’s experiment of recreating 3the atmosphere of primitive earth in a laboratory 9resulted in the creation of amino acids (the building blocks of life). The problem with his experiment is they changed the environment in a way that it would make it favorable for life (it 7composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen), and left out gases that would have been abundant in primitive earth, 7such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide, but would not have reacted to form life2….From 1980 on, NASA scientists have shown that the primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen to amount to anything, but instead was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen (Strobel 134-5). These new gases would yield no such results as did Miller’s experiment. Having major evidence for evolution being disproved, it is clear to see that evolution needs to be removed from biological texts.

A major issue between creation and evolution is the origin of life. In order for something to be considered alive, according to Walter L. Bradley (expert in polymers and thermodynamics), “it must be able to do three things: process energy, store information, and replicate” (qtd. in Strobel 136). In order for a living organism can come into existence, a long, difficult process is required. Building a living organism starts with amino acids. There are 3eighty different types, but only twenty are found in living organisms. The idea is to isolate only the correct amino acids. Then 8they have to be linked together in the right way in order to create protein molecules. There’s a problem though; other materials bond easily with amino acids, which wouldn’t let them function “lively.” After a protein molecule is successfully made, another two hundred are required to form a typical living cell that can complete the tasks required to be classified as a living organism (Strobel 137-9). The texts goes on to say that based on the age of the earth, what is required to make life, could not happen in such a short time. Even though the earth is said to be less than five billion years old, it took time for the earth to cool down enough for the possibility of life. 12Scientists have estimated that the life gap between the earth cooling and life emerging is only four hundred million years. That’s not much time for chemical evolution, especially with astronomically low odds for random chance to be a credible theory, which is said to be one in ten to the sixtieth power (Strobel 140-1). Fossil records actually give more support to a creation belief on the origin of life, because “The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no disputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance…has been a major problem for the evolutionists” (SAE 1). It is clear to see that the popular evolutionary belief that life originated by chance is faulty compared to creation beliefs backed up by scientific evidence.

Creation versus evolution, as said earlier, are the only two choices for a belief. Too many factors in evolution contradict what creationists believe, as stated by William Provine (educated at Cornell University) by saying: “If Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications: there’s no evidence for God; there’s no life after death; there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there’s no ultimate meaning for life; and people don’t really have free will” (qtd. in Strobel 125). Also, the idea that Darwin and other evolutionists choose evolution is so they do not have to believe in a divine superior, and 4Dr. Wernher von Braun (Father of the American Rocket and Space Program) replies to this claim by saying:
“Must we really light a candle to see the Sun?… The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities… What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a designer on the grounds that they cannot conceive Him?…The inconceivability of some ultimate issue should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction” (qtd. in CVE Questions).
Essentially, this quote reveals the ignorance of evolutionist ideals against the belief of a creator. If evolutionists can get over the idea that their scientific faith is a fraud, then the education will not have to suffer the consequences. As John Sarfati, an expert in creation ideals with a PhD in physical chemistry, says: “Normal science deals only with repeatable, observable processes in the present. This has been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life. In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past” (Sarfati 1). Since evolutionism is flawed, and in most cases unrealistic, then it needs to be removed from biological texts that educate the next generation. If schools willingly teach invalid information, then there is no use of an education if the system is bogus.