are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental
biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
- microbiologist Dr. James Shapiro, University of Chicago
First we need
to to establish a common terminology for discussing this subject,
because there are two ways that science is defined in our culture.
Definition One: The systematic knowledge or study of the material
world. Science uses experiments and observations and follows the
resulting evidence wherever it leads. We do experiments and calculations
others can repeat. We start with a hypothosis and empirically determine
whether that hypotheses is true or false.
with this is that, since 1859 when Darwin's Theory was put forth,
all of our scientific research has not produced one bit of evidence
that life formed spontaneously. On the other hand:
really interesting to notice that the more we know about life and
the more we know about biology, the more problems Darwinism has
and the more design becomes apparent." - Dr. Michael J.
As a result
our culture started accepting a second, different definition of
Definition Two: This second definition of science is described
by Dr. Phillip Johnson:
is applied materialistic philosophy. The scientific enterprise says
that our job is to explain the whole world and the cosmos and all
the creatures in it without any reference to God as the creator,
without any supernatural acts, and on the basis of invariable natural
laws that were the same from the beginning--all so that the creating
was done by nature itself without God participating. And if you
don't do that, it's not science, it's religion."
Now when we
raise the question, "Is it possible for nonliving chemicals
to combine and become a living organism?" The answer we are
given is: yes, of course it is. The proof is that living organisms
exist, so it must be possible. (Circular reasoning.)
is that we think we are doing science based on the first definition,
but in reality we are doing science based on the second definition
of science. Thus the answers we get are based on the unproved, underlying
assumption that creation is not possible. If we are to correctly
do science based on the second definition (as we now do), we must
first address the question, does God exist? We can anser this question
using science as described in the first definition and looking at
the question of creation.
Here is what
Darwin said: "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage
of slight successive variations. She can never take a great and
sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow, steps."
We find that
in over 150 years of effort, there has been no scientific proof
that chemicals can combine and become life. We have found no process
of short, slow, successive steps that results in life being created.
There is no scientific evidence that shows Darwin was right.
On the other
hand Darwin gives us the criteria that would prove his therory to
be wrong. Darwin wrote: "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
day the best technology could only allow him to see a living cell
as a moving blog of protoplasm. Today, we have the technology that
allows us to look inside the cell where we see extremely
complex components that look like "machines" and which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight
modifications. They had to have been formed complete, with all their
parts fully functional. We see this same irreducible complexity
in things such as our eyes and blood clotting. If you have a scientic
background and would like to get into the science of this, I suggest
reading about the work of Dr. Michael Behe. It is available on the
set by Darwin himself, using the first definition of science above,
have been met. Darwin was wrong. All of the scientific evidence
points to there being a God who created life. You can either accept
the results of science, or continue to believe the unscientific
myth of creationism.