1. HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?
Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew
Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. Show did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? creation.com/origin
2. HOW DID THE DNA CODE ORIGINATE?
The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? creation.com/code
3. HOW COULD MUTATIONS—ACCIDENTAL COPYING MISTAKES (DNA ‘LETTERS’ EXCHANGED, DELETED OR ADDED, GENES DUPLICATED, CHROMOSOME INVERSIONS, ETC.)—CREATE THE HUGE VOLUMES OF INFORMATION IN THE DNA OF LIVING THINGS?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
There is information for how to make proteins and also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? creation.com/train
4. WHY IS NATURAL SELECTION, A PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED BY REATIONISTS, TAUGHT AS ‘EVOLUTION’, AS IF IT EXPLAINS THE ORIGIN OF THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE?
By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.
It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? creation.com/defining-terms
5. HOW DID NEW BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS, WHICH INVOLVE MULTIPLE ENZYMES WORKING TOGETHER IN SEQUENCE, ORIGINATE?
Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” creation.com/motor (includes animation)
6. LIVING THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY WERE DESIGNED, SO HOW DO EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT DESIGNED?
Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable.
Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? creation.com/design_legit
7. HOW DID MULTI-CELLULAR LIFE ORIGINATE?
How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
8. HOW DID SEX ORIGINATE?
Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). creation.com/evosex
9. WHY ARE THE (EXPECTED) COUNTLESS MILLIONS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS MISSING?
Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard palaeontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also admit the problem. creation.com/pattquote creation.com/multicellularity
See: creation.com/evoquest for supporting references.
Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity.
10. HOW DO ‘LIVING FOSSILS’ REMAIN UNCHANGED OVER SUPPOSED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, IF EVOLUTION HAS CHANGED WORMS INTO HUMANS IN THE SAME TIME FRAME?
Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”
11. HOW DID BLIND CHEMISTRY CREATE MIND/ INTELLIGENCE, MEANING, ALTRUISM AND MORALITY?
If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton
12. WHY IS EVOLUTIONARY ‘JUST-SO’ STORYTELLING TOLERATED?
Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS (USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centred and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behaviour, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” creation.com/sexstories
13. WHERE ARE THE SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS DUE TO EVOLUTION?
Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance
Who is responsible for this pamphlet?
This pamphlet and others like it have been produced by Creation Ministries International (CMI) and made available to concerned individuals and churches who wish to help spread awareness of this greatly censored information.
14. SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
15. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
#1 by NSherrard on 07/25/2012 - 05:33
Hi there. Your post popped up in my newsfeed. I think I am one of those to whom you are addressing your questions. I would not refer to myself as an evolutionist, or darwinist, or anything like that. But I do consider evolution to be something true that humans know about the world. I have been interested in the sciences as a layperson for many years, and I’m reasonably familiar with the theory of evolution, although I’m not a professional. Even so, it never struck me how astonishingly poetic the theory is until I read your questions. I am going to only try to answer the first four questions, because I think the other questions are pretty easy to answer after those four. Actually, number 12 is pretty interesting so I’ll try to answer that one too.
Question 1 (How did life originate?): Well, you already have the answer, from two people who sound like respectable experts in their field. One said “nobody knows” and the other said “we don’t really know.” That seems pretty definitive and accurate to me. We may know someday, though.
Question 2 (How did the DNA code originate?): Chemical interactions at the level of DNA are a little beyond my level of understanding, but from what I do understand the answer is similar to the answer to question 1: we don’t know. Scientists suspect RNA probably came first, and DNA developed from it, or after it anyway, but we can’t make it from scratch as far as I’m aware.
Question 3 (How could mutations – accidental copying mistakes – . . . create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?): This is a serious question! With random mutation, you can’t get a microbiologist from a microbe. It would be impossible. But this is only half the story. The reason question 3 seems so impossible is you’ve separated it from question 4.
Question 4 (Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as “evolution,” as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?): The question goes on to say that the process of natural selection is “selective” not “creative” and it only operates on existing information. That is true, and this is the part that I found so poetic. I never thought of it like this before. Natural selection is not creative at all, that’s true. You can’t have natural selection alone, because it only operates on existing information. What else is there? Well, there are these wonderful little self-replicating chemical molecules we call DNA. Every once in a while, what happens? As you said in question 3, sometimes there are accidental copying mistakes. By themselves, the copying mistakes would never get you a more complex thing from a less complex thing, because they are totally random. But you also have natural selection! When a gene makes a mistake in copying itself, that mistake is new information. It’s an error in copying, so it is random information, but it is also new information. Natural selection, you yourself said, operates only on existing information. But new information exists! It comes from those random mistakes in copying. Natural selection operates on the random mistakes, and since random mistakes are new information, it actually does operate on new information.
So both questions are impossible considered separately – accidental mistakes can never randomly lead to complex creatures, and natural selection can never be creative when it operates on the same existing information. But when natural selection operates on new information – that is, the mistakes in the DNA – then the process as a whole does become creative. The “mistakes” in DNA are selected and shaped by the environment around them (natural selection) and transformed into beings of astonishing complexity. All you need is self-replication, with mistakes, operated on by natural selection. I think it is an extraordinarily beautiful thought that life is created through a process of, if you will permit me some poetic license, learning from mistakes. Thanks for giving me that new perspective.
Oh yes, I said I would try for question 12: I think a lot of evolutionary just-so stories about human behavior are pretty dumb, and I get tired of them myself. Human behavior is far too complex to be described or explained in such simple ways, and many evolutionary biologists would probably agree with me on that.
#2 by RaymondTheBrave on 07/25/2012 - 12:41
Hi, Thanks for your well mannered responses. I can understand why a non Christian would see evolution as the answer to the birth or living creatures, but there is so much missing data and proof even after 100 years of research and study. I would recommend visiting the http://www.icr.org/ institute for creation Research web site which has many detailed studies done of creationism versus evolution. The organisation is made of over 150 scientists who believe in God and creation and explain in detail how what the evolutionary scientists promote as more evidence of evolution is not scientific at all most the time and has many assumptions. The evolutionists will not debate this issue any more with ICR as they do not have answers to the questions posed and how geology is proving more and more like the Noah flood did take place. Thanks and Blessings RaymondTheBrave
#3 by NSherrard on 07/25/2012 - 17:54
Well I don’t think that you addressed the meat of my comment at all. I provided pretty solid answers to a third of your questions, and took some time to do so. Did you give any thought to what I said? I took these questions as an invitation to dialogue. Your response suggests that no the contrary these were not posted as actual inquiries, but as rhetorical questions. But these questions have answers, which I have attempted to provide. If you do not want to discuss the questions you asked, then I will just say thanks again for the new perspective, and leave it at that.
#4 by RaymondTheBrave on 07/25/2012 - 18:48
Hi NSherrard,
I must apologise as I misunderstood your first part about answering questions latter. I was expecting some more answers and so just acknowledge you comment as I like to do. When look at comments from the WordPress tool-bar only shows you a little bit at a time and thus I did not get the right understanding.
I recommended ICR as they provide extra information and are specialists in this field. Your first 2 answers seem basic when evolution is taken as fact and a scientific truth when in actual fact it is a theory which now has more questions than answers. Using the questions words to answer it is what I am used to from many people. I know someone who took many hours to just agree what they were talking about and convinced the other person did not understand English and was deliberately being difficult to waste his time. I dealt with a Luciferian who I spent over 2 weeks answering all her questions although to be told that she would not answer mine as each Luciferian has their own set of beliefs. The only information she did convey was intellectual mumbo jumbo which said nothing.
Best Wishes
Raymond
#5 by NSherrard on 07/26/2012 - 05:40
I see, sorry, I did not mean to imply that I was going to answer all of them. I thought only the third and fourth questions were interesting. I certainly don’t want to spend 2 weeks on this debate but perhaps there is some food for thought here. I am familiar with ICR but I do not find them convincing. In any case I did have fun writing my answers. I hope you enjoyed reading them. Best wishes to you as well.