The world is quickly changing in favor of creation and design. Science and technology is on our side not on the side of evolution.
To support this claim consider the predictions of evolution. The theory predicts that life began as a primitive “simple” cell and evolved into more complex organisms on up to humans. Darwin called it descent with modification. Evolutionists do not have a coherent explanation for the chemical origin of life. On the other side, the law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life, for example, puppies come from dogs – we see this everyday. It is interesting to note that biogenesis is a law but it is seldom discussed in text books while abiogenesis is speculative and is frequently discussed in basic biology text books.
Another prediction of evolution was that the universe was eternal, it was always there. Then Edwin Hubble messed things up using a telescope he revealed red shift. Even Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning. Einstein himself did not want to believe it because the universe with a beginning is a very big problem for naturalists. Where did the universe or singularity come from? Physics tells us every cause must have an effect.
The universe having a beginning is exactly what the Bible says in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So again reality did not conform to evolutionary ideas while it fits perfectly with the prediction of creation. God being eternal and all powerful is outside of time and space. He created the laws of the universe so He is not bound by the laws. God created it all.
Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. If you were a biologist living in the age of Charles Darwin you would have believed that the simple cell was indeed “simple”. That is what chemical evolution predicts — it is the notion that chemicals in nature have the capability to combine naturally to form life. But with better scientific instruments the simple cell idea is now extinct. So there is another prediction of evolution that has failed and is again a massive problem for evolutionists. How do you get the first proteins made (by natural causes) when numerous protein machines are required in order to make proteins? It appears that life does not just look designed — it was designed.
Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. For decades evolutionists touted the human genome was made up of 98.5% junk. Why was it there according to evolutionists? It was the evolutionary leftovers from evolutions’ trial and error. DNA is the best evidence for evolution, evolutionists claimed. Richard Dawkins wrote about Junk DNA in his best-selling book, The selfish Gene. But in recent years through the ENCODE project it was revealed to the world that Junk DNA is not junk but treasure troves of codes yet to be understood. But the damage from evolutionary thinking was done. As written in Scientific American Feb. 12, 2007 What is Junk DNA and What is it Worth? “Although very catchy, the term “junk DNA” repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years.” Here is an example where the evolution prediction is not only wrong it prevented important medical research.
Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. But this article is getting too long. I would like to discuss the topic of Mitochondrial Eve using mitochondrial DNA and how it too was wrong. I would like to discuss the so-called 1% difference between humans and chimps. Not only have the results been wrong the means for getting their results are ultra-extremely biased for finding similarity. I would like to discuss the hyper complexity of the DNA structure. I would like to discuss the nature of the code within DNA which is expressed in five ever more complex levels.
As I stated in the beginning, the evidence for creation and design is growing and is very exciting for those who believe in God.
It was once thought that the cell was simple. No longer. Now scientists can peer into the cell and see incredible complexity they had not dreamed of before. Evolution was based on the idea that biological systems evolved through naturally forming chemicals but now we are learning that does not hold up. The chemicals do not naturally bond into complex proteins and organelles.
In this lecture Dr. Kevin Anderson reviews three forms of evidence which were such powerful expressions of evolution that they were icons of evolution. They were used as irrefutable evidence that evolution is indisputable. However, as we learn of the details we discover a new story, that these evidences do not support evolution, but rather design and creation. Watch to learn about the 1 or 2 percent proximity between humans and chimps, Junk DNA and Mitochondrial Eve.
Evolutionary scientists were wrong about the universe being eternal. We now know the universe had a beginning. They were wrong about the cell being simple. We now know it is anything but simple. They were wrong about the functions in the cell forming from natural chemistry. We now know the information in DNA provides the assembly instructions for the proteins and much more. From modern observable evidence we now know they were wrong about the 1 or 2 percent proximity between humans and chimps, Junk DNA and Mitochondrial Eve. Watch this video to see the evidence for yourself.
For another perspective and more evidence purchase Testing Evolution: Exposing Flaws. It is a series of interviews between Jim Bendewald and Dr. Anderson. See the trailer here.
The library mall at the University of Wisconsin in Madison is a great place to meet and interview students. These two guys were very friendly while discussing evolution. Even so the discussion did get a little feisty, at least from my side.
The discussion of evolution and creation is challenging as can be seen in this video. I have included a number of graphics and animations to make the points more clear.