I wanted to do a deeper random thought this time around and I recently finished a book called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He investigated and interviewed scientists and field experts about main objections to the Christian faith. One of the ones I really liked was about evolution. Apparently evolution isn't even a plausible theory. Did anyone else not know that? They teach it in school like it's frickin' fact! Anyways, so here goes...
First of all I should point out that this is in reference to macro-evolution, not micro-evolution. Micro-evolution includes such things as variations in plant and animal species; which explains why there are more than two hundred different varieties of dogs, how cows can be bred for better milk production, and how bacteria can adapt and develop immunities to antibiotics. This kind of evolution is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking macro here. The big stuff. Humans coming from primordial ooze kind of macro. Get me? Good. So we can't talk about evolution without talking about Darwin, right? Well, what people don't know is that Darwin proposed his theory with no actual proof, claiming that future discoveries would vindicate [him]. But in actuality, we have less proof for evolution now than we did when he originally proposed the theory. Almost every scientific advance in this field has gone against evolution. For example, fossil record now shows that in rocks dated back 570 million years ago, there is a sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla. And not only that, they appear fully formed, and we haven't found anything supporting their evolutionary ancestors that Darwin's theory would require. Also, Darwin himself wrote in his book Origin of Species, that if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then [his] theory would absolutely break down. Well, Michael Behe's award winning book Darwin's Black Box showed that recent biochemical discoveries have proven numerous (as in not just one) examples of this very kind of irreducible complexity. So unless Darwin could do some pretty good rationalizing, I would say even he wouldn't be an evolutionist anymore.
Now would you believe that these are not even the STRONGEST arguments against evolution? The really good ones come into play with the question of how life began in the first place. Under Darwin's theory, non-living chemicals, given the right amount of time and circumstances could develop by themselves into living matter. But what you need to keep in mind is that Darwin developed this theory at time when it was thought that life naturally developed all the time. This was a time when people thought that maggots spontaneously developed from dead meat. Now we know that life does not just spontaneously generate. Now Russian bio-chemist Alexander Oparin was the first to propose that the functions of living matter evolved from simpler molecules that preexisted on the early earth. Later, Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey suggested that Earth's primitive atmosphere would have made it favorable for organic compounds to have emerged. It was Stanley Miller who first decided to test this experimentally. For those of you taking biology or are just biology fans (Angela) you may remember Miller's experiment. He recreated the atmosphere of the primitive Earth in a lab and shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning. Before long, he discovered that amino acids, the building blocks of life, mind you, were created. Obviously all evolutionists were euphoric. The only problem is what the textbooks don't tell you: that experiment is a sham! Miller wanted to get a reaction that would be favorable, so he proposed that Earth's primitive atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Those were the gases he used to conduct his experiment. The problem with that is that in 1980, NASA scientists proved that primitive Earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen to amount to anything. Instead, it was mainly composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Experiments have proven that you cannot get the same results with that mixture. Yet where in the textbook does it tell you that Miller's experiment didn't mean jack? I haven't found it yet. I'd tear apart the random chance theory but I haven't the space. It boggles the mind how evolutionists claim to be a rational logical thinking group (as opposed to the creationists) when all the evidence points towards an intelligent creator who created us individually and uniquely. Oh well, until next thought.....