Why Evolution is Stupid


	WHY EVOLUTION IS STUPID PART ONE


	1


	1


	What follows is a summation of a two-frame "demonstration of absurdity by being absurd" by Dr. Ralph O. Muncaster in his booklet CREATION VS. EVOLUTION. Although Dr. Muncaster is a compromised Creationist (he buys old-earthism) he nontheless has some good material. This is one example.

The Gold Watch - Creation Model

Hans created timepieces. As a young man he made ordinary sundials. He later built hourglasses and water timers. And he fashioned all kinds of clocks... magnificent grandfather clocks, pretty little anniversary clock... clocks of every shape and size. But his most prized creation was a watch.

Hans worked on details of his gold watch for many years. Day after day he labored over design - sizing every gear, calculating every small weight and detailing the exquisite artwork. Meticulous care went into the manufacture of each piece. Tiny gears were microscopically measured, formed and polished for precision. The balance wheel was carefully calibrated ensuring maximum accuracy. The spring, the casing, the face, the crystal... every detail was crafted to create the most "perfect" timepiece ever. Finally, when the last gear was delicately placed, the polished crystal gently set and the gold band lovingly attached... Hans marvelled at the beauty and precision of his masterpiece. He realized, however, that he was still holding just a beautiful ornament. Then Hans began to wind the watch. The sound began... "Tick, tick, tick." The ornament had become a timepiece.

The Gold Watch - Evolution Model

Billions of years ago, the earth was far more favorable to "manufacturing" than today. Surrounding the earth was a sea of "ooze", richly laden with the precise elements to create timepieces. Bits of gold, bits of silica, even bits of paint.

Years and years went by. Then the inevitable happened. Bits of metal were joined together by volcanic heat. Amazingly, metal molecules bonded in the exact way needed to create intricate gears and balance wheels. As the parts tumbled in the "ooze," delicate polishing occurred: Precision polishing in the exact way to produce a perfectly calibrated timepiece. Then, molecules of black paint formed together in exact patterns to create numbers. And they coincidentally landed on a surface randomly covered with pure white paint. As the years continued to pass, eventually gears, wheels, a face, a crystal and a beautifully engraved band came together to form an exquisite gold watch... a product of the right mix of materials and billions of years. It was beautiful. It was complete and meticulously formed. It was perfect in every way. Almost... It still needed someone to wind it.

Sound absurd? Only by orders of magnitude. The simplest "simple" cell is infinitely more complex than even the most intricate gold watch. It is far easier to get a gold watch out of random events than it is the DNA molecule [see point 3 in this article]. Yet whereas even the most dedicated evolutionist would scoff at the idea that a gold watch had evolved, it is nearly canonized that molecules became men through a vastly more complex and interrelated series of events, all through raw chance and freak accidents!

Which is truly the more absurd argument?


	2


	2


	Observation Supports Creation Observation (i.e., "science") soundly supports Creation and militates overwhelmingly against evolution.

FOSSIL EVIDENCE

Multiplied millions of fossils have been unearthed since THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. Hundreds of thousands of species have been identified. Yet in all this, not one transitional form has ever been identified. There isn't one fossil that demonstrates a transition from one reproductive species to another.

The scientific conclusion? None ever existed.

If the evolutionary model were true, we would expect to see countless transitional forms, countless "attempts" by blind chance to "get it right." Yet not only do these forms not exist, but those fossils found which have representative creatures still living today show that absolutely no change has occurred in the imagined "millions" of years since the fossilization took place. (Take, for example, the case of the coelocanth.)

The fossil record, instead, demonstrates catastrophism (a cosmological theory which militates against evolutionary theory, and assumes that the universe was shaped by catastrophic, abrupt forces rather than slow, uniform, unbroken processes) and abruptness of appearance of special forms. The species appear suddenly, "as if from nothing."

This happens to be precisely what one would expect were the Creation model to prove true.


	MUTATIONS Evolutionary "scientists" conjecture a series of random mutations in a species' DNA which eventually produces adaptations in the species that enable it to better compete and, thus, survive, thereby passing on those advantageous mutations to succeeding generations. A fascinating mythology unfortunately absolutely lacking in observational evidence of any kind whatsoever. Mutations are always destructive. They reduce the organism's ability to survive. What about the "Peppered Moth?" This was far from an addition of genetic information deriving from an advantageous mutation. Rather, it should be noted that the tendency to produce dark-coloted moths already resided in the population's gene pool. That is, the peppered moth naturally produced offspring of either the dark or light - colored variety. What happened in Industrial England was adaptation. The light-colored moths no longer had an advantage, and were killed off. The dark-colored moths survived, and transmitted the tendency toward dark-coloredness to their offspring. The necessary information -- the coloration of the moth -- was already resident in the species. What happened was not a gain in information -- which is what evolutionary religion requires -- but rather an overall loss of information ("de-evolution," if you will). The moth began as a generalized "kind," if you will, which through adaptation lost some genetic information in order to specialize to better survive. This observed phenomenon happens to support the Biblical model of generalized created kinds possessing all the genetic potential of the species which derived from them, which subsequently specialized into those species depending on environment.


	EXPERIMENTATION We have been able to create the building blocks of life in the laboratory -- amino acids. However, after having a carefully constructed (and by intelligent designers, it must be emphasized) environment, we have only been able to construct 2 of the (approximately) 50 necessary acids. And levels of destructive byproducts were high enough to forever hinder protein development. To state that Stanley Miller's experiment "proves" evolution is like someone randomly producing a period of black ink, then claiming it to be proof that the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA randomly evolved.


	3


	3


	Probability Supports Creation The laws of Probability militate overwhelmingly against evolution and argue eloquently for Creation.


	"CHANCE" HAS NO CHANCE TO CREATE LIFE In the famous debate between Wilberforce and Huxley, the latter asked the theologian/mathematician for three assumptions: Ten monkeys that never die, ten perfect typewriters that never break or run out of ink, and unlimited amounts of paper. Having granted Huxley these assumptions, Wilberforce was backed into a mathematical corner: According to the Probability Formula, as you reach infinity in the amount of time, the probability for anything becomes "1," or "a foregone conclusion. Therefore, Huxley's monkeys, clanging away at the typewriters, would eventually type out all the works of Shakespeare, and other works -- including Psalm 23. Shamed, Wilberforce never again spoke in public; the defeat was rabidly pounced upon by Darwinist and liberal theologian alike as a death-knell for rational thought. Huxley, however, had a problem that neither he nor any of his contemporaries ever picked up on. His starting assumptions were grossly faulty. Leaving aside for the moment a discussion of amino chirality and reversible processes (which dictate that in a random environment amino acids will never form proteins or even peptides due to the nasty little problem of "critical mass"), we note that the universe is *not* infinitely old. Even rabid evolutionists agree that the universe had an origin. Seeing as how it did, that seriously truncates Huxley's monkeys chances. The most liberal (i.e., "favorable to chance") probability I've been able to find calculates the odds of DNA spontaneously producing itself from a primordial "ooze" at 1 in 10⁷⁰. Let's put that into perspective. Granting for the moment the ridiculously inflated estimates for the universe's age given by evolutionists, and assuming that present estimates for the universe's actual volume are correct, we find that: There are only 10¹⁸ seconds in the history of the universe There are only 10⁶⁶ atoms in the universe There are only 10⁸⁰ particles in the universe What this means is that a) there's not been enough *time* in the universe for DNA to spontaneously generate [if you had one try every second, you're out of luck; even if you had one try every microsecond, that's still only 10²⁴, so you're still out of luck]; b) there's not enough *material* in the universe to experiment with. Now, that's using a very liberal estimate of the chances for DNA to develop randomly. But once you have the molecule, you're still not out of the woods; for DNA to be viable, *all* the required attendant protein apparatus are necessary for reproduction! It's not as simple as "cooking up the stuff" (the way Stanley Miller tried -- and failed to do back in 1953); the entire molecule must be completely present, absolutely without error, *the first time, along with attendant servant proteins, in order to be viable; i.e., to reproduce. Why? Superb question! Here's the answer: The DNA molecule contains coded information and complex interactions that are so interdependent, that if one* of the necessary pieces is out of order or missing, the entire construct becomes unviable. This is made all the more impossible when one considers that in order for DNA to reproduce, there must be a special error-correcting protein that has to travel up the nucleotide chain to check for errors. This protein is in turn produced by the DNA molecule (of necessity, since that's how we get proteins in the first place; from DNA) Which brings up a very irritating (to the evolutionist) twist to the old quandry, "which came first?" The duplication protein, or DNA? *Both* had to be present, in *perfect* working order, at the same time. *Add to that* the fact that DNA is a truly breathtaking -- and absolutely unparalleled -- example of an information storage system. The information encoded on the DNA molecule is, first of all, digital. It is encoded in 4-bit code [the four bases that make up nucleotides: adenine, thymidine, cytosine, and guanine]. DNA has built-in redundancy to ensure error-free data transfer; that is, many nucleotide sequences occur in multiple places, so that if one sequence is damaged (the special duplication protein knows when it is so!), the backup sequence can take over the production of the necessary proteins! DNA also is error-correcting (the duplication protein travels up the "daugher molecule" checking for errors). In summary, the DNA molecule stores coded information in 4-bit binary, redundant, error-correcting chains. And all this must be in place, perfectly, before any duplication (i.e., "reproduction"*) can take place.* Harold Morowitz estimates the probability of all necessary conditions existing simultaneously for a single "simple" cell to be at 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000}, or similar to the odds of winning 10,000 lotteries in a row. Sir Frederick Hoyle (an avowed atheist) calculates the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as 1 in 10^40,000! What are the odds? Well, in order for all of this to occur (and it must in order for evolution to be a viable theory of origins), we compute as follows: 10¹⁷ seconds in the history of the universe (average age estimated by evolutionists) 10⁸⁴ particles in the universe (counting baryons) 10²⁰ events per second (maximum number of conceivable interactions between subatomic particles) 10¹²¹ total events (10¹⁷ x 10⁸⁴ x 10²⁰ = 10¹²¹) 10^{100,000,000,000} events necessary to produce a single living cell (estimate by molecular biologist Harold Morowitz) The equation would be thus: Probability of evolutionary start = 10¹²¹ / 10^{100,000,000,000} = 1 / 10^{99,999,999,879} = zero One final thing should be noted: Whereas nothing is mathematically "impossible," strictly speaking, statisticians define odds beyond 1 in 10⁵⁰ as being absurd, or as being so incredibly unlikely that it will never occur. So, not only is there not enough time in the universe (even granting evolutionists their mythological "billions of years"), and not enough material in the universe for the necessary tries, and not enough chances in the first place in the universe, the best-case scenario for DNA producing itself randomly calculates out to zero, but even the best odds available are definitionally *absurd!!!* Conclusion: Evolution is irrational on pure mathematical grounds.