Evolution Revisited


I have been reading more and more lately about the irrationality of evolution.  It is not just religious people questioning its reality. More and more it is those who are of the philosophy of science that are questioning it. So, the title of this blog is “Evolution Revisited”.


Why revisit evolution

Is evolution true?

When evolution became popular in the latter 19th century, very little was known about a lot of things.  Little was known of the vastness of the universe. Believe it or not, little was known of the structure of living things. 

It was during this era that evolution was able to become entrenched in the field of science.  After all, being defined as “change over time” was easy to prove. It was even observable, which is important to science.  However, what was observed was not change in species, but variation within species. This was one of the facts evolutionists chose to ignore and not report.  After all, they had an agenda to promote. They could not let facts get in the way.


Increase of knowledge

Knowledge continues to increase

With the advent of the 20th century, knowledge began to explode.  Because evolutionists had begun to get entrenched in the institutions of higher learning, they controlled the scientific narrative.

One prime example of the control of the narrative is that of Edwin Hubble and the redshift of distant starlight.  Hubble discovered that no matter which direction he looked the redshifts were always the same at given distances.  Being persuaded of evolution he realized the implications of this finding. His discovery indicated that the Earth was at or near the center of the known universe.  That is what the facts of his discovery indicated. So, why didn’t he say so?

Hubble was an avowed atheist.  To admit that the Earth was at or near the center of the universe was anathema to him.  That would almost be an endorsement of the Biblical narrative of the creation of the universe.  Rather than just report the facts and let them direct the science, he injected his own opinion. He insisted that the universe was isotropic.

Using this approach he hypothesized that no matter your location the redshifts would appear the same for distant starlight.  This was contrary to the facts, but it fit his particular worldview. His worldview was based on secular humanism and evolution.


Results of isotropic approach

If Hubble had not inserted isotropism into the equation, astronomy would have continued to advance.  However, with the unscientific application, things began to get very complicated. Two of the results of defending materialism and evolution are dark matter and dark energy.  These two entities are supposedly necessary for our universe to be able to exist. 

Why are dark matter and dark energy necessary?  They are necessary because Hubble refused to accept the facts of his findings.

What Hubble wrote

Hubble wrote:  “The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.


You can find the complete essay on this subject Here.

It is evident that Hubble was biased in the publishing of his findings.  Because of such biases as these should not only question cosmology but all sciences.  Among those should be evolution revisited. 


Cellular Biology-Evolution Revisited

A cell is not so simple

Has the science of cellular biology been influenced by evolution?  Let’s see.

When Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, very little was known of the living cell.  It was thought to be a glob of some type of plasm made up of minerals and nutrients. Surely, it could have easily assembled given the right environment!  Well, it seemed so back then.

Since then, much more has been revealed about the living cell.  The simplest living cell is not so simple after all. The simplest living cell must have over 400 proteins to carry on its existence.  These proteins must be constructed from a pool of 20 different types of amino acids. These 20 amino acids must be chosen from over a hundred existing amino acids.  Then, only the left-handed versions may be used to build the proteins.  

How proteins are formed

The amino acids must be assembled in a given structure to form a protein.  The protein must then be folded into a precise shape to perform its given job.  It is then joined with the other 400 plus other proteins to make the cell a living cell.

But, along with this must be the information and plan by which all this must be accomplished.  That information and plan is found in the DNA which is located in the nucleus of every living cell.  The conundrum is that the DNA is constructed of proteins which need the instructions in the DNA to be constructed.  


Probability of life developing from non-life

There are mathematicians who study the area of probability, that is the likelihood of a specific action to occur.  It is not a science that says whether something can or cannot happen. But there are limits beyond which they will conclude that it will never happen in this universe.

We mentioned above that the “simplest” life form known has over 400 proteins in its genome.  That is not simple at all if you understand the process that builds those proteins. The process to build one protein follows as such and must happen by chance accident.

Of over 100 amino acids to choose from only 20 will qualify for use in building a protein.  Out of those 20, only the left-handed ones will function in a living cell. Working with these generous parameters, running a billion checks a second, the universe would not be old enough to create one protein.

Evolutionists read and weep


This proves the need that evolution be revisited?


All you need is water

If you have read any evolutionary literature you have heard this statement many times.  It is a known fact that NASA’s main search is for water on other worlds. Why is that? Their reason is that if water is there, then there must be some form of life.

Evolutionary worldview is what drives this agenda.  Water is a necessary ingredient in biological life as we know it.  After all, water is necessary in every living cell as a transport medium. 

But water can also be a hindrance to the forming of a living cell.  If it is not inherent in the building process information as to the proper input, it will fail.  So, even though water is a necessary ingredient, so are many other elements. Should NASA be looking for those hundreds of other elements also?

Why evolution is not scientific

In the website, Talkorigins.org, Ian Musgraves writes:

Secondly, the entire premise of statistics is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first “living things” would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.


Seeks to discredit probability with stories

In his effort to discredit the findings of statistical probabilities does not use facts but rather “stories”. 

No science, just stories

He merely states that “the first living things would be much simpler”. Then,he does not define those living things or how he would know they were living.  He says what they probably “were not” but not what they were. He states what they “probably” might have been. Then, without any proof, they “slowly evolved”.  The term “slowly evolved” is not a scientific description. He gives no observational evidence of how they finally evolved to self-replicating simple organisms.

What Mr. Musgraves is writing about is a fairytale.  Just because he wrote something down on paper does not mean it actually happened. True science should conform to the known laws of science.  Evolution revisited should be standard in every area of science.  The truth about the lie should be exposed.


True science

The instances cited above are typical of evolutionary promotions taught in our public schools.  It is not true science but agenda-driven science. This science is not grounded in logic or sound scientific principles.  True science should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Real science will stand no matter the questions asked or denials of facts.


Evolution Revisited

This is going to be a standard theme as we continue to explore the myth of evolution.  I would look forward to any input you may have or any question you may ask.

We have had to endure the lies and false science of evolution for too long.  The detriment it has done to our society is immeasurable. It is time to stand up for truth.


I hope you will join me in this endeavor.

Share the knowledge

Leave a Reply

