When you buy the theory, you get the entire package—and it is full of the wildest speculations. Just now, read for yourself these laughable requirements, necessary for "evolution to occur." This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Six Strange Teachings of Evolution: 1
Introduction: The foundation principles of evolutionary theory
1: Evolution Always Operates Upward, Not Downward: In another words, evolution always has positive effects. Yet, because it is supposedly totally random, half its effects would have to be negative
2: Evolution Operates Irreversibly: But scientists well-know that actions in nature can reverse and go in either direction
3: Evolution Operates Only from Smaller to Bigger: This is another fantasy which does not agree with nature
This material is excerpted from the book,
. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
The falsity of these six points is shown by their obvious artificiality. Evolutionary theory is dry and sterile. It has no connection with reality. It is the armchair speculation of atheists who desperately want to prove that everything made itself.
The foundation principles of evolutionary theory.
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only two means by which evolution (cross-species changes) could possibly take place.
A growing number of evolutionists imagine that infrequent, sudden, massive mutations produce new species. The "hopeful monster" advocates pin their hopes solely on sudden, massive mutations, producing total, perfect changeovers to new species all at once. Their view is that a billion-billion mutations occur every 50,000 years in two newborns—a male and a female—located a short distance apart.
Until the 1930s, the Darwinists were in the majority; thereafter the neo-Darwinists held sway until the early 1980s, when many turned to the hopeful monster view. They recognized that scientific facts about genetics, fossils, and harmful mutations left them little else to turn to.
All evolutionists firmly maintain that the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection and / or mutations) operate in two special modes: (1) they are purposeless, and (2) they are random. Evolutionists are deeply concerned that not the slightest definite purpose be involved in the process, well-knowing that if purpose be involved an intelligence would have had to do the planning and executing. All of evolutionary change, they are proud to say, is solely the result of innumerable accidental changes.
Yet it should be obvious that random, accidental changes could only produce confusion, disorientations, randomness—an ever-failing, useless process.
In addition, evolutionists fiercely maintain that the mechanisms and modes operate specifically in six ways. When you buy the evolutionary theory, you get the whole package. Here are the six:
Evolution always, only, improves the organism.
Although they do not say it that bluntly very often, by this they mean that evolutionary processes always produce positive results,—outcomes that are always improvements on what the organism was like previously.
"Natural selection allows the successes, but `rubs out' the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable actual."—*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.
"Natural selection," by evolutionary definition, is random changes, random effects. The evolutionists tell us that these "modify" random mutations (which we know to be always harmful),—and produce "complex order"! (But sheer randomness never results in order), that very randomness would move both up and down,—but evolutionists declare that it always only moves upward.
Evolution can only go in one direction.
By this they mean that evolution can only "go in one direction," as they call it. A frog, for example, may evolve into a bird, but by some strange quirky "law" of evolution, the process cannot reverse! A bird will never evolve into a frog, nor will a vertebrate evolve into a worm. A monkey can produce human children, but people will never produce monkeys.
"The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."—*J.H. Rush, The Dawn of Life (1962), p. 35.
This theory of irreversibility is known as "Dollo's Law. *Dollo first stated it in 1893 in this way:
"An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors."—*Dollo, quoted in "Ammonites, Indicates Reversal," in Nature, March 21, 1970.
*Gerald Smith of the University of Michigan has reported finding "reversals" in the fossil record of Idaho fishes. In his article, he suggests there are many such cases of reversals in the fossil record but that they are considered "anomalies" and not reported (*Gerald R. Smith, "Fishes of the Pliocene Glenns Ferry Formation, Southwest Idaho," Papers on Paleontology, No. 14, 1975 (published by the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology).
*Bjorn Kurten, a Finnish paleontologist, writes about fossil lynxes which lost a tooth and then regained it. (We are told that some lynxes today have it and some do not.) In commenting on the discovery, Kurten says:
"Even more astonishing is the fact that this seems to be coupled with the reappearance of M2, a structure unknown in Felidae since the Miocene. All of this, of course, is completely at variance with one of the most cherished principles of evolutionary paleontology, namely Dollo's Law . .
"This would then be an example of a structure totally lost and then regained in similar form,—which is something that simply cannot happen according to Dollo's Law."—*Bjorn Kurten, "Return of a Lost Structure in the Evolution of the Felid Dentition," in Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Biologicae, XXVI (4):3 (1963).
Whether or not the tooth disappeared for a time, the species was never changed.
The same serious problem applies to the irreversibility claim: Random mutations, modified by random actions ("natural selection" is nothing more than random action), do not operate in one direction only. If you take a deck of cards or a pile of dominos and kick them around awhile, they will not gradually work themselves into a better and still better numerical sequence. Random actions just do not produce such results.
The random accidents only produce bigger and better.
This particular point is called "Cope's law" by the evolutionists. We are here dealing with size. Small creatures are said to always evolve into larger ones, but never into smaller ones. On this basis, evolutionists come up with their "horse series" which we will discuss in the back of our book, Similarities.
"Among these, one of the best substantiated is a tendency for increase in size."—*George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Life (1967), p. 132.
But *Olsen qualifies it:
"Increase in size is the usual course followed in the evolution of phyletic lines and adaptive radiations. It is, of course, by no means universal."—*E.C. Olsen, The Evolution of Life (1965), p. 240.
And elsewhere, *Simpson admits the exceptions:
"Increase in body size is very common, a stock example being the change from eohippus to the modern horse. The phenomenon is perhaps sufficiently usual to be a rule, but the rule has many exceptions. Even in the horse family, several evolving lines became smaller rather than larger. The apparent extent of this rule has been exaggerated by students who thought it absolute and who insisted that because an earlier animal was larger than a later relative therefore it was not ancestral to the latter."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record," in Scientific Monthly, October 1950, p. 265.
"To whatever extent Cope's `Law' may have applied during the formation of fossiliferous strata, it appears that its trend is now reversed! Practically all modern plants and animals, including man, are represented in the fossil record by larger specimens than are now living (e.g., giant beaver, saber-tooth tiger, mammoth cave bear, giant bison, etc., etc.)."—John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, Genesis Flood (1961), p. 285.
"Since man lived at least 11 times longer before the Flood, the mammals, birds, insects, fish, and reptiles lived longer than they do today. Therefore, they were getting larger, heavier, and changing in various ways. Compare a 50 year-old elephant to a 200 year-old woolly mammoth. They differ primarily in size, weight, length of tusks, and amount of hair.
"This data shows a direct relationship that can be explained by how long the elephant and woolly mammoth lived. A giant tortoise can now live as long as 177 years, grow to be 11 feet long, and weigh 1,500 pounds; but fossils have been found that are larger than any known size of tortoises today. The difference between a 20 year-old tiger and a 100 year-old saber-tooth tiger is size, age, and length of teeth. The dinosaurs were long-lived reptiles, changing in size, shape, and weight as they lived longer and longer."—Barry Busfield, "Where are the Dinosaurs Now?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 234.
Once again, that same glaring inconsistency shines out: Random actions would not produce an always "smaller to bigger," and never a bigger to smaller. (Much more data on the giant size of earlier forms of life will be found in Fossils and Strata.)
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the NEXT PAGE to conclude what you are now reading (Six Strange Teachings of Evolution: Part 2 of 2)