We’ve got 2 more chapters to go through. In chapter 3, Dr. Ball took the opportunity to look at some evidence (that in the past) was presented to support a young earth. What happens when a scientist, who believes in evolution, views evidence through their lens of evolution? You guessed it, they see evolution and deep time everywhere. Let’s looks specifically at Dr. Ball’s statements about evidences for a young Earth. His comments are in red, with my reply following directly in the default black
At this point, it may appear to the reader that conspicuously missing from the list of scientific evidences are the evidences for a young Earth. I can assure you that it isn’t an oversight.
I addressed this kind of thinking in my article which scrutinized Dr. Ball’s work in Chapter 2. Essentially, there’s no “evidences for an old Earth” or “evidences for a young Earth”. There’s just evidence. Everyone interprets evidence in accordance with their worldview. For Dr. Ball, his worldview is that the Bible is pliable to whatever the latest conclusions from the modern academic paradigm tell him. For Young Earth Creationists, we hold the Bible to be the highest authority, and we view the evidence through the lens that what God has revealed in the Bible as true.
Short Period Comets
Short period comets appear to suggest that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, since comets actually burn away each time they pass close to the Sun, where they interact with the solar wind in producing the fiery tails we observe
Yes, I covered this in Chapter 2. And as expected, Dr. Ball proposes an unseen hypothesized ring of extra solar system objects. Unscientific.
Thickness of Lunar Dust
estimates (if billions of years old) of dust accumulation both on the Earth and on the Moon had been made as early as 1960, using mountain measurements of nickel dust fall [31], which suggested that there may well be an extensive layer of Moon dust, as much as 145 feet…In fact, only about two inches of Moon dust was found at the landing site…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon (since accumulation would have only been happening for about 6000 years)…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon
This argument has not been used by young Earth creationists in over 30 years. In 1993 (a decade BEFORE Dr. Ball wrote his book), the preeminent young Earth creation organization, Answers in Genesis, wrote an article telling Christians not to use this argument, as it is flawed. Since Dr. Ball considers himself a man of science, there’s no reason that in the next edition of his book, he will have been able to address the latest and most advanced arguments from AIG, Creation.com, and ICR.org rather than trying to defeat an argument that has not been used since before Al Gore invented the internet.
Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field
At the present rate of decay, the magnetic field may actually go to zero in a few tens of thousands of years from now…Since the field appears to dying, one can attempt to extrapolate backwards in time to some plausible upper limit to the field strength to calculate an age for the Earth. As expected, such estimates lead to an age for the Earth no more than 10,000 years
Dr. Ball cites the work from Paul Taylor, p50 in the Illustrated Origins Answer Book in 1992. Much work has been done regarding this field of research since 1992. This article from CMI directly addresses Dr. Ball’s objections and shows that rather than the conclusions to which Ball came to, the conclusions of a young Earth are more appropriate. Another from AIG shows that the problems of the old earth models persist given the assumptions that Dr. Ball takes. Dr. Ball’s primary objection to the conclusion of a young Earth with regards to the Magnetic decay relies on radiometric dating, which as we discussed in Chapter 2, are both filled with assumptions and are wildly inaccurate
The rock layers can also be radiometric dated, so that we can determine when the magnetic north pole was near which geographic pole
There’s no reason to accept the conclusions about magnetic decay from Dr. Ball as they are both discordant with the biblical timeline and the conclusions from scientific evidence
Radio Halos in Primordial Rock
Dr. Ball explains the reason why young Earth creationists think that the decay of Polonium in granite is evidence for YEC
The discovery of radio halos by Oak Ridge laboratory scientist Robert Gentry was touted as a clear counterexample to the claims of antiquity made for the oldest primordial rock layers in the Earth. Such halos were claimed be formed from the decays of Polonium-218, which has a halflife of only 3 minutes. They can only form in hardened or crystallized rock. If such halos were found in the oldest rock layers, which as we’ve discussed in the last chapter required a long period of time to cool off sufficiently before solidifying, then how did the Polonium-218 get inside of the rock after it formed? Young Earth proponents claim this is clear evidence that God instantly formed the rock layers of the Earth
Then Dr. Ball explains why he doesn’t like this evidence:
To examine this evidence properly is difficult, since the discovery of various types of halos in rock is still being investigated
Of course it is still being investigated. Those, like Ball, who hold to an old Earth belief, do not like the obvious implications of the rapid cooling of pre-Cambrian rock and the presence of halos from fast-decaying radioactive elements. In the same way that Dr. Mary Schweitzer did not like the implications of finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones, so she repeated the experiment SEVENTEEN times before finally accepting the results. To protect their worldview, they have to try to find a rescue device. Dr. Ball continues with the proposed rescue devices:
Geologist Jeffrey Richard Wakefield carefully examined the locations indicated by Gentry and concluded that each one was actually a younger infusion of igneous rock into the older primordial rock layers…At least one recently discovered mechanism involves a slow gradual process, favoring a much longer period of time in their development
The panic is real. Dr. Ball says that the location is particularly a problem and there might be other ways to explain the data…though he gives no details. Dr. Ball continues:
But the bigger problem I see here is the attempt at using some complex phenomena, without the benefit of a more thorough investigation into its mechanisms, to support a particular age of the Earth
I’ve been told that creationists aren’t REAL scientists, yet Dr. Ball says here that Dr. Gentry is examining “complex phenomena” to make conclusions. Dr. Ball may not like the conclusions, but the research is definitely being done my qualified scientists with qualified investigative methods. I also find it somewhat rich for an old Earther to criticize a scientist making conclusions about the age of the Earth based on the perceived lack of “thorough investigations” considering the failed evolutionary arguments from the last few decades given thorough investigations:
It is a common question of young Earth creationists: “how did light get to Earth in only 6000 years if the light source is billions of light years away?” Dr. Ball asks this question without a very careful investigation of the 1 possibility he critiques or the other possible solutions
Finally, we consider a recent cosmological model claiming support for a young Earth, a model proposed by Gerald Humphries in 1996 in his book, “Starlight and Time”
“Gerald Humphries”?!!?!? Perhaps he means Dr. Russell Humphreys, who wrote the book in question.
Dr. Ball was critical of Dr. Humphrey’s model, but he used arguments, that if applied consistently to his own Big Bang model, would have destroyed it. He didn’t mention how he solves the problems:
Obviously, Dr. Ball could not have known about the fulfilled YEC prediction that was confirmed by the James Webb Space Telescope in 2022 since Dr. Ball wrote his book in 2003. But I added it to the list a a further complication for his foundational assumptions for this article. Dr. Humphreys has been met with fierce opposition to his proposal and has answered many of his critics with technical papers. Dr. Ball may not have known that the answers to many objections have been forthcoming since he didn’t even know Dr. Humphrey’s name.
Neither did Dr. Ball address the many other solutions to the light time travel “problem” that have been proposed by creationists:
Again, I will note that Dr. Ball couldn’t have known about all of these proposals since many of them have emerged as valid solutions in the last few years. The point is that scientists, who hold the Bible as the highest authority, have done and continue to do real scientific work without compromising the fidelity of the specially-revealed Word of God
Here lies the problem with Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through application of basic laws and principles
This is not the problem, but the foundation. While the shifting conclusions from naturalistic assumptions will constantly change as new paradigms come and go, the eternal word of God will never change. It doesn’t need to change. Because God knows everything, his revelation cannot be overturned. The comment from Dr. Ball could be better said as: “Here lies the beauty of Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through the eyes of unbelievers, but by accepting the history of the universe that God revealed in his word, creation scientists employ the application of basic laws and principles to make discoveries and solve problems.” As this graphic the humorously represents this principle, the universe has aged faster than the “speed of light”. Notice that the believed age (according to the reigning paradigm of the time) of the universe has changed through the decades and most times, the changes have been outside the previous supposed “error bars”:
Looking through the lens of evolution and the modern academic paradigm, Dr. Ball and other old Earthers will always see old Earth. When we look at the world through the lens of the Bible, we will be able to make sense of what God intended. Reality makes sense and the evidence is fully affirming of the YEC view. There is no logical reason for Christians to think that the constantly-changing theories/stories from old Earthers need to be used as counterfeit authorities to redefine the clear teaching of the highest authority: the Bible.
One of the giant problems for those who believe in evolution is the missing evidence for the transition of single-celled organisms into multicellularity. According to the story of evolution there was a single-celled Last Universal Common Ancestor LUCA from whom all biological life descended. No evidence for this supposed LUCA exists, but it is a philosophical place-holder for the theory of evolution to persist. If the theory of evolution is true, at the VERY LEAST, the evolutionists must have some kind of explanation for transition from single-celled creatures into the multi-cellular creatures that we see today
In an online interaction, an evolutionist made the claim that the problem was solved in 2019. Some researchers had their paper pass peer-review, and in they claim that multicellularity evolved in response to predation. At the time of this writing, their paper has been cited 181 times. Commonly, a case gets accepted simply by passing peer review. I’ve not found evidence that the experiments described in their paper have been duplicated anywhere, but it’s reasonable to cross-examine their claims to see how they stack up. This is a very biblical response to their claim:
So, let’s cross-examine, to see if there are any weaknesses in their claims and if their claims hold up to even the mildest of scrutiny:
According to the story of evolution, the algae in question has persisted unchanged for ~310 million years. That’s some pretty amazing longevity (if true). But the researchers from this paper claimed to have observed the evolution of this novel trait in the comparably instantaneous time of 50 weeks…less than 1 year. Despite it being one of the biggest problems for evolutionists, the emergence of multicellularity from single-celled organism, these scientists claim to have taken one of the most stable genotypes (having existed fixed for over 300 million years) and watched it evolve new traits in less time than it takes to complete a cricket tournament (I think…as I’ve never really understood those rules). It’s mind-numbingly absurd to believe that evolution can happen that fast considering the claims of evolutionists themselves and the well-known waiting-time problem. The biggest single leap in evolution from single to multiple cells happened right before the eyes of these researchers in under a year. I’m unpersuaded
They didn’t show that natural selection acting on random mutations (evolution) was able to produce this change, yet they use some form of “evolve” NINETY-SEVEN times in their article. I’ve been told that science is supposed to try to disprove a theory, but it’s clear that these biased researchers were good company-men…sticking with the party-line: evolution only all the time!
This is they key: The evolutionists said that predation was the selection pressure that forced single-cell algae populations into multicellularity, but they did not show that the algae developed new biological code via random mutation that produced this ‘novel’ ability. New code is needed, but evolution does not have that power
The experiments show instead that the ability to aggregate into multi-cellular clumps is a pre-existing trait. The algae were designed to cluster, and the expression of genes for multicellularity is turned off most of the time when not exposed to predation
There is no fossil evidence of unicellular-to-multicellular transition. It is an imagined transition, which evolutionists need for their theory. But it is not supported by any existing evidence.
As already noted, the evolutionists NEED this to imagined transition to be true for their theory to work. So, even though there is no fossil evidence that evolution produced this change, and there is no experimental evidence that natural selection acting on random mutations can build the cohesive interrelated interdependent functional code for transitioning single-celled organisms into multicellular organisms, they will continue to believe it
If you are interested, you can see a more robust examination of the claims of Herron’s paper here.
This is not the only time that I have scrutinized the supposed airtight arguments for evolution:
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are simply meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
But let’s walk through the peer-reviewed paper, which an anonymous internet philosopher claims was the ‘silver bullet’ in proving evolution. Here’s some of their musing in red, followed by my commentary in the default black
“The evolution of novel traits necessitates the evolution of novel gene regulatory architecture”
True! Evolution requires evolution of evolution within evolution…all the way down
“coevolve when duplicated genes evolve new regulatory control”
Not just evolution of evolution, but coevolve evolution.
“understanding the features that coordinate gene regulation is particularly challenging in eukaryotes because it involves the simultaneous action of cis- and trans-regulatory factors, chromatin state, and three-dimensional interactions of chromatin, including the precise coordination of enhancers and promoters”
Particularly challenging indeed! Simultaneous action? 3D interactions? Precise coordination? Simultaneous is not one of the expectations or predictions of evolution. Evolution is said to have occurred via numerous successive slight modifications…not simultaneous (undefined, ambiguous) action. Three-dimensional interactions sounds very mysterious…even supernatural. But evolutionists just accept these supernatural interactions as if they were somehow truly part of their theory. And that brings us to “precise coordination”. They claim that natural selection acting on random mutations (the mechanisms of evolution) are unguided and blind. There is again the assumption that nature can somehow provide “precise coordination” though blind, directionless, and purposeless
“most VGs are thought to have evolved through tandem duplication of genes with other physiological functions”
Thought to have evolved? Doesn’t sounds like science
“the evolutionary origins of their regulatory architecture remain poorly understood“
Poorly understood indeed! But I’m sure that won’t keep them from trying to educate us. All of these evolution stories are based on assumptions, and though the actual history (AS THEY CLEARLY ADMIT) remains poorly understood, they still demand complete obedience to their story. No dissent from their narrative allowed
“that may play”
May
“have remained largely unexplored“
Largely unexplored.
“provide an example of how multiple genomic mechanisms may together establish a novel regulatory system”
May. ‘May’ again. No science…just ‘may’
“likely contributed to the evolution of novel regulatory mechanisms”
Likely? I thought we were talking about science, but ‘likely’?
“makes foundational progress toward closing a long-standing gap in our understanding of snake venom systems and their origins”
They are making progress in closing the gap in their understanding. They have not solved the problem…they just claim to have closed the gap. No science. No evidence. Hopium is a powerful drug
If it’s evidence, we should expect to see explicit demonstrations of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce information for biological traits like venom. If it’s not evidence for evolution, we will see words of assumption like perhaps, possibly, may have, likely & suggest intermixed with some clever story-telling. God-deniers tend to make grand claims about the power of evolution, but when their claims have been scrutinized by simply reading the peer-reviewed articles, it’s clear that what they believe to be evidence is actually a collection of assumptions wrapped in the façade of scientific language. The origin is biological traits is a well-known problem for evolutionists, so we’ve seen how these authors tried to handle the problem. They left us with the admission that they made “progress toward closing the gap in their understanding”. Unfortunately for them, the gap is 100 miles wide, and they think they built a 3″ bridge.
This is not the only time I have scrutinized their supposed airtight arguments for evolution:
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are simply meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
As a reformed Christian, I hold to SOLA SCRIPTURA, which is the idea that the Bible is the highest (and only infallible) authority for matters of faith and practice. The words of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so they cannot fail to be true. My highest appeal in all matters will always be to the text of the Bible itself.
But is there some value in seeing what the church always believed about a topic? Of course. My authority structure is
Why are the historical fathers so low on the list? There’s some debate about who counts as a church father, and there’s some debate about which side of the sad schisms a church father might represent. Regardless, the reason why it’s worthwhile to see what the church has historically believed on a topic could help us find aberrations and cult-like teachings from trendy revisions. In my lifetime, I’ve seen several trendy ideas (Pentacostalism, faith healing, dispensationalism, prosperity gospel…) burn through Christendom, like a wildfire. Most of the time, they are short-lived and burn out quickly because there’s no root or truth to them. Sometimes, they cling like Texas-heated road tar…sticky and difficult to get rid of. So, there is every reason to see what has been the historic Christian position on topics of interest. Most theological heresies were dealt with early on and have been recorded in the confessions and the creeds. I expect old earthism will be a road-tar type of false teaching that becomes very difficult to cleanse from Christianity due to its strong ties to scientism, which has the appearance of authority even though it changes its position with nearly every new discovery.
Obviously, this is a 30,000 foot view, and does not address specific writings of specific authors. But we get the idea that in general, Christians prior to the writings of Darwin fully accepted the Biblical account that there was no death or suffering in the world until after Adam had sinned. NOTE: Any bold, italics or underline is my own addition. Let’s look at a few individual men, who are generally recognized as church fathers:
Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-202 AD): In his “Against Heresies”, Irenaeus argued that death was not part of the original creation, and that sin brought both physical and spiritual death to all of creation. The curse of sin introduced corruption and mortality into creation, and that the promises mentioned in Isa 11 would restore the harmony of animals to their pre-fall state.
Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD): In “Against Marcion”, Tertullian emphasizes that the Creator is good, and his creation was absent of death and corruption which entered creation through human sin. He describes death as an “intruder“. He understands Romans 8:19-21 to teach that futility and subjection to corruption for ALL of creation is due to the fall into sin. In “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” Tertullian describes the peace and harmony of animals in the future to be a renewal of the harmony that was once known before the fall.
Theophilus of Antioch (c. 168 AD): In his work “ad Autolycus” Theophilus says “And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first—for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,—but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them …. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.”
Athanasius (C. 296-373 AD): In “On the Incarnation” he emphasizes that the state of the creation today (death and corruption) was brought by human sin. Though animals are not specifically mentioned, the context of his broader theology and the deduction that animals are included within creation leaves little room to doubt that he understood that the fall into sin was the corrupting force that invaded God’s once-very-good creation
Augustine (354-430 AD): In “The City of God” Augustine says that death, including animal death, was not part of God’s original creation. It was an intruder into the creation that before sin was very good. In “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis” he says further that the predatory behaviors and mortality of animals started after human sin. Before sin the original creation was free from violence, corruption, and predation
Basil the Great (c. 330-379 AD): I’ll spend the most time on Basil of Caesarea. It was just recently that I was challenged by an internet personality to research to see whether Basil the Great taught (as the Bible says) that there was no death among animals prior to the fall. Basil is known mostly for his 9 Homilies, the Hexaemeron, which means “The Six Days of Creation”. Clearly, Basil agreed with the authors of scripture that Genesis was history of the works of God in creation. In Homily 5 Basil writes: “But then (pre-fall) the rose was without thorns; since then (post-fall) the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops.” Basil understood from the text of scripture that creation was changed after the fall. As Genesis 3 teaches, there were no thorns in creation prior to the fall. This is a serious problem for those, who deny YEC since fossil thorns have been found in layers that they think were formed millions of years prior to the sin of Adam. More relevant to this discussion, in his work:
“On the Origin of Humanity” Homily 2 section 6 Basil says: “God did not say: “I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.” It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise…To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) … We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with? Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits…after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods; “eat all that in the same was as edible plants”. By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them…Since then (post-flood) the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment (creation week) when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness…the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey,for they were not carnivores … But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow.” You can see from Basil’s writings that he was in agreement with the scriptures when he taught that there was no animal death prior to the fall. No carnivory behavior. No scavenging because there were no dead animals…no corruption. Sidebar: to learn how I was able to get the information from “On the Origin of Humanity” and the screenshots of the source material, see *** below
In his Homily on Fasting, Basil argued that the original diet of both humans and animals was limited ONLY to fruits, herbs, and plants.
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395 AD): In “On the Making of Man” Gregory says that the fall into sin introduced corruption and death not only humanity but also the created order, which includes animals
I could find NO church fathers who explicitly taught that there was human or animal death prior to the fall
When Did Christians Begin To Believe That Animals Died Before Sin?
The first Christian of note to write and teach definitively that animals died before the fall was George Frederick Wright in his 1906 book “Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History”. In that book he tried to bring the Bible into concordance with the modern academic paradigm. Sadly, in order to do so, he had to deny the Bible’s account of a global flood, which is the biblical explanation for the geologic layers. But at the time when Wright was writing, historic Christianity was under deep attack from the modern academic paradigm, which has come to be known as “the science”, even though it has little to do with actual science. Today, the view that Wright espoused has metastasized throughout Christendom. What was considered historic Christianity for 1900 years has been dismissed by modern mainstream thought as a cult.
So instead of Basil being an old earther, the evidence confirms that Saint Basil the Great was an outspoken advocate of young earth creation as were all of the church fathers because it’s just what the Bible says. Old earth creationism is a trendy fad that is brand new to Christendom first appearing about 1800 years after the Creator Himself walked the Earth. No church father held to a billions of years old earth. Until Darwin in 1859, nearly every Christian held to what we would today call young earth creation.
You might wonder: “What about the Roman Catholics? Today they believe evolution. What has been their traditional view of Genesis 1-11?” I’m glad you asked. The Roman Catholic Church for 1800 years accepted the strict young earth creation view, but today that branch of Christianity has almost completely capitulated to Darwin. Sadly, the RCC has capitulated to many other false teachings and worldliness as well.
You might also wonder: “What about the Eastern Orthodox Church? What has been their traditional view of Genesis 1-11?” In general, the EOC was pliable on the length of days, but they held strongly to the Genesis chronogenealogies on the age of the Earth. They have also accepted God’s revelation of a historical global flood in judgment for sin, and that death, disease, suffering, and corruption were a result of the sin of mankind. Sin affected all of creation as the Bible clearly teaches. Here is a book from one of their teachers
So all three principle branches of Christendom held to the truth of God’s word as authoritative until the modern paradigm stole the “throne” of magisterium from the Bible.
The Gospel of Jesus is: The Creator made a very good creation that was free of the curses for sin. But because of the universal effects of the curse of sin over all of creation, Jesus took on the human form as a descendant of Adam, was born of a virgin in accordance with scripture, and lived a perfect life by keeping the whole law. After He was crucified for the sins of those, who would repent, He defeated death by rising again and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Those, who repent and put their faith in Him will have abundant life
***
In my research for this blog post, I searched using the usual tools available to me on if Basil taught that animals died before the fall: Grok, Google, Brave search…Grok answered my question with the quotes that I used above, but the attribution was to the Hexaemeron by Basil. There are several links to English translations of the Hexaemeron, but the quotes did not appear in any of the text of the Hexaemeron itself. I kept digging and digging for any writings that show that Basil taught that animals died before the fall, because I had been ASSURED by The_Blind_Guide that Basil taught death before sin. A link from oldbelieving.wordpress.com attributed the quote to Basil’s work “On the Origin of Humanity”. There is NOT an English translation of Basil’s “On the Origin of Humanity” readily available on the internet…as far as I can find. My next step lead me to archive.org…the Internet Archive. I created a free account and began to search for the writings of Basil. There were all kinds of writings, duplicates, and writings ABOUT Basil. Filtering the Media search to “Text” and Author search results to “Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea” there were 36 results. Still no “On the Origin of Humanity”…except there was something called “Sur l’originè de l’homme”. Looks kinda Frenchy for the origin of hominids (humans). I checked it out and found that it was the French translation of the original Greek in which Basil wrote his works. I speak neither French nor Greek. It’s all Greek to me. But being the intrepid ApoloJedi that I am, I started working my way through the text with Google Translate. Homily 2 chapter 6 yielded the pot of gold. Basil cannot be considered anything other than a young earth creationist based on his own words as shown above. I did find all of this information from creation.com as well, but I know that scoffers and the Christians, who have been deceived by old earthism, refuse to listen to the scientists from creation organizations. Source materials are harder for them to ignore. Having completed my research, I began to imagine what it must have been like to be an investigator from as late as 1990. To get the information, that today I was able to get from my desk during my lunch break, might have taken months or years of deep investigative work and collaborations with multiple people. Technology has been a wonderful tool for searching and learning
ark:/13960/t0204f225 Property of archive.orgark:/13960/t0204f225 Property of archive.org
I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce every biological trait…including sex. I’ve put these claims to the test several times before each time with the same result…no evidence…just assumptions:
God-deniers believe that numerous successive slight modifications (random mutations)
when culled by the forces of natural selection can explain all biological traits. They do not like to be cross-examined as to how natural selection can preserve non-functioning irreducibly complex systems like biological sex, but they cope with fantastical stories of the mystical powers of evolution. Recently, a God-denier posted a link which he thought provided airtight evidence that evolution is responsible for producing sexual reproduction. Let’s put that article under some scrutiny. If it’s evidence, we should expect to see explicit demonstrations of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce information for sex. If it’s not evidence for evolution, we will see words of assumption like perhaps, possibly, may have, likely & suggest intermixed with some clever story-telling. The God-Denier in question, Finn, has before made grand claims about the power of evolution, but when his claims have been scrutinized by simply reading the peer-reviewed articles, it’s clear that what he believes to be evidence is actually a collection of assumptions wrapped in the façade of scientific language. The origin is sex is a well-known problem for evolutionists, so let’s see how these authors handle the problem. Do they deal with the problem using evidence or assumptions?
Here’s how this works: The quotes from the article are in red italics and then just below/after the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have added bold and underline to key words from the authors throughout, so this is just a note to say that neither the bold nor underline appear in the original article.
I’ll begin with the word count of caveat words. Goodenough and Heitman couch much of their story-telling with words that will give them a certain amount of ambiguity for escape:
“possible and possibly” – 6
“could” – 7
“might” – 16
“perhaps” – 2
“may” – 32
“likely” – 10
“hypothesis and hypothetical” – 5
“suggest, suggests and suggesting” – 16
“evolve” – 14
“evolution” – 82
This should tell you right away that we’re not dealing with any kind of evidentially-founded science here. This is a grand story wrapped in scientific jargon and ambiguous assumptions
“During the course of this evolutionary trajectory, the LECA became sexual“
It just “became sexual”. This is a post hoc fallacy: “sexual reproduction is observed, so evolution must have done it”. It’s absurd
“We propose that the transition to a sexual LECA entailed four innovations: (1) alternation of ploidy via cell–cell fusion and meiosis; (2) mating-type regulation of cell–cell fusion via differentiation of complementary haploid gametes (isogametic and then anisogametic), a prelude to species-isolation mechanisms; (3) mating-type-regulated coupling of the diploid/meiotic state to the formation of adaptive diploid resting spores; and (4) mating-type-regulated transmission of organelle genomes. Our working assumption is that the protoeukaryote → LECA era featured numerous sexual experiments, most of which failed but some of which were incorporated, integrated, and modified. Therefore, this list is not intended to suggest a sequence of events; rather, the four innovations most likely coevolvedin a parallel and disjointed fashion“
This is a long section that shows their proposal, their assumption and ultimately, not just the need for a single marvel of evolution, but multiple (coevolution) simultaneous marvels occurring in geographic proximity. Sometimes, a research (or science fiction writer) can get away with introducing a single unexpected/preposterous idea into a story. But the proposal becomes absurd when the reader is expected to believe numerous preposterous ideas (parallel coevolution of compatible corresponding functional interdependent sexual organs, systems, desires, abilities, and cascading offspring developmental solutions ALL at the same time and in the same place) in a “disjointed fashion”. It doesn’t just stretch incredulity, it mocks the readers as rubes.
“Once these core sexual-cycle themes were in place“
As if these themes could just be assumed to jump into place. It’s not persuasive at all
“That said, the ability to toggle from haploid to diploid and back again is dependent on a mechanism for ploidy reduction, which, in modern eukaryotes, entails meiotic or parasexual processes“
They have identified a NEED for sexual reproduction, but that’s a far cry from showing that numerous successive slight modifications over time can meet that need. Let’s see of either of their proposed processes parasexual or meiotic processes can do the job
“we use as examples modern organisms whose mating-type-based sexual differentiation is already established. In subsequent sections we will consider how sexual differentiation itself might have originated and evolved“
Already established?!?!?? That’s like taking an existing nut & bolt and explaining how an ratcheting wrench evolved by random mutations. If it’s already established, how are you demonstrating how it came about my an accumulation of random mutations?
“One interpretation is that the functions of Spo11 have been reconfigured to play a mitotic, parasexual role. Alternatively, the parasexual cycle of C. albicans could involve some aspects of meiosis (such as Spo11-dependent chiasmata), but given the high rate of aneuploidy (e.g., 2N + 1, 2N + 2) that is generated, it does not produce accurate outcomes, and might be considered something akin to a “parameiosis”“
One interpretation indeed. In a peer-reviewed paper, we’re looking for actual evidence rather than “could have”. Parasexual processes didn’t result in the solid ground they were looking for. What about Meiosis?
“An alternative view is that meiosis arose early, without prior parasexual experimentation, as a means to generate haploid progeny from a diploid progenitor. Early meiosis was likely messy and inaccurate—perhaps only somewhat better than parasexual changes in ploidy—with more accurate mechanisms evolving subsequently“
These are clearly guesses, not evidence. Remember in the definition of natural selection, we noted that only those traits deemed most fit would be preserved. How can natural selection preserve messy and inaccurate processes as more fit than something (asexual reproduction) that works very well? Broken unformed traits cannot be preserved if they do not increase fitness according to the teachings of natural selection
“In either view, the enzymes and machinery for meiosis presumably evolved from a core set of DNA-manipulating enzymes brought in and modified as needed from prokaryotic forebears“
We were looking for evidence in this paper, but we’ve been given “presumably”. But the real focus should be on their claim that evolution can “modify as needed”. This is a wild claim, which it completely opposed to the theory of evolution. Evolution is supposed to be completely unguided with no purpose and no foresight. But they’ve tried to smuggle in the idea that evolution can solve problems with foresight by converting hammers into wrenches. It’s not science. It’s hope in the mystical forces of nature
“Recognition of self is not, of course, a eukaryotic novelty. The widespread occurrence of biofilm formation and quorum sensing in modern bacteria (Vlamakis et al. 2013) and archaea (Koerdt et al. 2010; Frols 2013) suggests that the forebears of protoeukaryotes likely engaged in such self-recognition behaviors as well. Modern prokaryotic systems feature the secretion of lineage-specific extracellular matrix materials and small molecules; their receptor-mediated perception then triggers signal-transduction cascades that modulate growth and metabolism. Hence self-recognition modules presumably existed in the protoeukaryotic gene pool that, with evolutionary tinkering, allowed like-like haploid cell adherence to trigger intracellular signals that elicited the conditions for cell–cell fusion“
Notice all of the assumptions of matter and events from a supposed billion years ago! My favorite line from that paragraph is the reification fallacy -> “with evolutionary tinkering”, as if there’s a little cobbler called Mr. Utionary..Evol Utionary. This ingenious engineer tinkers with mutations and existing proteins to construct cohesive interdependent interrelated complimentary systems of male sexuality and female sexuality from spare parts and a pinch of imagination (evolutionary tinkering). Evolution is supposed to be a “force” without foresight or goals, and yet, when described in these peer-reviewed papers, the evolutionists can’t help themselves but give evolution human-like powers
It’s wildly overstating their case to say that it’s like someone trying to construct an engine for a 2025 BMW M5 with parts available only from 100 AD…without an engineer overseeing the parts manufacturing, the assembly, the planning, or the testing
“Exciting recent studies report adaptive changes that occur in the genomes of such cross-species hybrid yeasts isolated and passaged under laboratory conditions; genome rearrangements arise repeatedly and independently“
Notice their euphoric claims that sex simply arose by chance because they observed the injection of code for an existing trait in one yeast not killing a different yeast. That’s their explanation for the origin of cohesive interdependent interrelated complimentary systems of male sexuality and female sexuality. It’s absurdly optimistic and completely unobserved
“The original self-recognition molecules in protoeukaryotic gametes might have engaged in homotypic interactions, like present-day cadherins that adhere to one another“
Might have?!!?? That’s not very scientific
Their “just-so” stories about how a DNA repair system could simply be repurposed as sexual organs is not science…it’s fiction. Their story lacked any reason to believe the nonsense, but since it is wrapped in a thin veneer of peer-review, it will be swallowed as evidence. Those reading past the headline should be able to clearly see the emptiness of the contents in the article as I’ve shown
Objections
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are simply meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
In my recent discussion with Adam about whether young earth creation (YEC) is a cult, we came to agreement that YEC is NOT a cult. This conversation happened in response to Adam’s poorly titled video where he inferred that many who believe YEC are in a cult.
You can see that with the definitions, his entire case was reliant upon anecdotal experience, and not any actual evidence. The definition of Mere Young Earth Creation (YEC) is:
Days of Gen 1 were 24hr days – in accordance with scripture
God directly created all creatures as fixed kinds – in accordance with scripture
Adam/Eve were the parents of the human race – in accordance with scripture
Creation was created good free of sin’s effects – in accordance with scripture
Order of events in days 1-6 is chronological – in accordance with scripture
Universe is 6000-10000 years old – in accordance with scripture
Flood covered the entire earth – in accordance with scripture
If you get nothing else from this discussion, the following quote is the KEY point in this whole debate: At base, the denial of young earth creation is the failure to uphold scripture’s primacy in the face of competing authorities. These competing authorities were (and are) the modern academic paradigm (which some conflate as science itself), culture, and human reasoning. Nothing changed in the Bible. What changed was competing authorities.
YEC upholds the Bible as written to be the magisterial authority. From the reading of the text and for the first one thousand eight hundred years within Christendom, there was no competing authority for influence. In the renaissance era there was a reformation of Christianity, art, and the birth of the scientific revolution. Unfortunately, the scientists of the 19th century craved exemption from the historical boundaries of the Genesis account. It didn’t fit their naturalistic theories of self-development. Their naturalistic ideology began to be conflated as science, and has persisted today as dogmatically authoritative. This new authority began to systematically crush all dissenters…especially those who held to historical biblical creation…as unscientific. Yet the scientific revolution was literally catalyzed by young earth creationists. There’s no conflict between science the YEC. The disagreement is between this modern academic paradigm and historical Christianity to the point now that the modern academic paradigm has been regarded as science and historical Christianity is now regarded as a cult.
I can’t emphasize this enough: YEC is the historical Christian understanding of the Bible prior to the Holy Advent Of Darwin’s Cherished Theory. Here are the answers from Christian history:
Notice how in ALL of these examples Christianity was FORCIBLY changed by the modern paradigm of evolution and its cascading beliefs. Sadly, Christians capitulated to a competing authority. While Adam does not hold to biological evolution, his views have been the result of the 20th and 21st century propaganda of scientific materialism making its way into biblical interpretation…looking for ways to bring the Bible into concordance with modern sensibilities.
In the section of the debate that centered on Adam’s claim that “there’s not a single Bible verse to support that interpretation (there was a change at the fall)” starting about 1:13:00, he doesn’t argue against the verses that I brought up. He figuratively waves his hands as if they don’t exist. It reminds me of the meme of the guy in the chair, and once shot, there are no more arguments against the shooter. If you ignore all of the Bible verses about significant changes to creation (including animals) because of the fall, then there are none.
As I mentioned in the conversation with Adam, the modern academic paradigm (MAP) is being treated as if it is the science itself. Rather than revelation from God, MAP is viewed as the dominant authority. If MAP is “science”, it’s the same “science” that says:
Boys can be girls
The earth has only 10 years remaining due to either an ice age or global warming
The earth is billions of years old
Evolution is true
Science has disproved the Bible
The most deadliest virus in all of history can be stopped with a cloth mask
Eat more carbs and avoid animal proteins
Christians should reject this tactic of redefining the scientific method into some political touchstone to which everyone must bow and give unquestioning allegiance.
As Adam admitted under cross examination, when you deny YEC the only course that one can believe is that death, suffering, misery, cancer, starvation, parasites, and predation are very good. It’s a sad state to declare the curses of sin to be good
Back to the title of my post. YEC is definitely historic Christianity and has been maligned as if it is a cult…even if Adam is walking back somewhat on the title of his video. Now to MY claim:
ANE is a cult
What is a cult? From my conversation with Adam, these were the definitions we came up this:
Adam: “Authoritarian leadership. We know better, and everyone just needs to listen to us. 2. Discourage other people from questioning their teachings. 3. Us vs them mentality. 4. Controlling, manipulating emotional tactics.”
Merriam Webster: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
Britannica: a religious movement that exists in some degree of tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society
Dictionary.com: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
What is ANE? Ancient Near East hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible. This is a fashionable method for interpreting the Bible based on what some archeological finds from ancient near east dig sites that scholars have proposed is MORE basic than the Bible. In their view, these cultural findings demand that the Bible must not mean what it says. The text of scripture is now subject to whatever these pagan cultures (that God marked for destruction) meant in their writings. These pagan cultures wrote about certain themes and archetypes, so in the view of these guru scholars, the authors of scripture must have meant the exact same things with their types and symbols. With that hermeneutic, they presume that there was no material creation, no historic fall into sin, no worldwide flood, no historical ages for patriarchs, no tower of Babel…The Pentateuch (particularly Genesis) is barren of history but is instead full of polemics and poetry in accordance with pagan near eastern cultures. Why do I call it a cult?
According to the definition of a cult, there is a (or multiple) authoritarian leadership (gurus). Prior to John Walton and Michael Heiser circa 1990, this idea that the Bible must conform to pagan writings was unheard of within Christianity. For nearly 2000 years no Christian scholar accepted this type of thinking, but with Walton’s and Heiser’s writing we hear: “trust us, we’re scholars”. It’s no longer SOLA SCRIPTURA…it’s Sola Scholara.
Secondly, ANE exists in tension to mainstream Christianity. Unfortunately, their controlling tactics have been persuasive to many Christians and the pendulum is swinging left in a hurry
Thirdly, these gurus are discouraging people from trusting the Christian fathers of the last 2000 years and your very own eyes. You can read what the Bible says for yourself, but these gurus propose that your ignorant eyes can’t see the deeper meanings in the text. You have to incorporate their special interpretive lens. The trendy scholars have secret knowledge that they are sharing with the masses. This secret knowledge is available for those, who will buy their books and watch their content.
Fourthly, the ideas that they espouse do NOT come from the Bible itself. It comes from the gurus. They found some pagan writings, and they want their special views to be brought into scripture. It’s the opposite of traditional hermeneutical methods, which would instead teach us that only scripture interprets scripture. We should get our understanding from the scriptures themselves, but these ANE gurus tell us that their ANE views must be brought INTO the text
YEC is not a cult, but ANE is
Correction: At about 1:12:00 I should have said theodicy not theophany
Fitting evolution into Christianity is like forcing a square peg in a round hole
Although much ink and digital pixels have been spilled on a possible answer to this question, what follows will be the definitive answer to the question. No need for anymore searching or endless debate: THIS is it!
Well, perhaps not. Long after I’m gone, I’m sure theistic evolutionists will still be trying to syncretize worldliness into the Bible, but there’s really no need: the Bible is clear – evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Let’s investigate
Definitions
First we need some definitions. What is Christianity? In my personal definition, Christianity is the logical understanding and application of what God has revealed in the Bible. Wikipedia defines Christianity as
This definition will do as there is plenty of overlap between the 2.
Now for the more difficult one. What is evolution? From the various atheists and theistic evolutionists online definition 1 might be something like:
“Evolution means you’re not the same as your parents”
“Evolution is science. No theory has more evidence to support it than evolution”
Who could argue with the idea that biological creatures change? No one. Creationists and evolutionists agree that creatures change. Who could argue with the idea that allele frequencies change within a population over time? No one. Creationists and evolutionists agree that allele frequencies change. Who could argue with the idea that you’re not the same as your parents? No one.
Regarding the claim that “evolution is science“, I heartily disagree. Science is the “system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.” Creationists agree with this definition of science…in fact it was young earth creationists like Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Joule, Lister, Pascal and Kepler that helped kick start their respective branches of science. A common pejorative from theistic evolutionists to their creationist brothers is “science-denier” as if to impugn a denial of physics, zoology, mathematics, chemistry, magnetology, geology and the like simply because we reject biological evolution. It’s an ad hominem fallacy aimed at discrediting arguments from Christians, who uphold the Bible as the magisterial authority, so that theistic evolutionists can escape from dealing with the arguments themselves. Now, there are *scientists* who believe the whole theory of evolution (defined below), but the scientific method cannot duplicate a dinosaur becoming a bird via natural selection acting on random mutations or a land vertibrate changing into a whale with numerous successive slight modifications. That is all assumed, and since the scientific method cannot repeat this process, evolution (as shown below in Definition 2) is not science. It is an ideology, and as we all well know, it is a tyrannical ideology that suffers no dissent.
Alleles
Sidebar: What is an allele? Wikipedia defines it as “a variant of the sequence of nucleotides at a particular location on a DNA molecule.” An example of an allele would be eye color or blood type. There is variability in the DNA that can produce different eye colors, but not every variant is expressed in each phenotype. Genetics has shown that changes in allele frequency produce different eye colors in different generations due to the existing variability stored within the alleles. Evolutionists love to say that “evolution is simply the change in allele frequency within a population over time.” And creationists agree with this. So what’s the big deal about alleles? Evolutionists believe that alleles have been constructed by an accumulation of random mutations. It’s very much akin to the belief that the operating system that controls the hardware on a phone was aggregated by random keystrokes. Creationists do not grant this origins story of alleles to the evolutionists. Yes, alleles exist. Yes, alleles contain variability, but this variability has existed from the beginning. It has not been cobbled together randomly. Yes, we see the variability of eye colors, hair colors, and blood types because that information ALREADY EXISTS in the genome. Natural selection is a descriptive process of the selecting of existing information for preservation, but this results in a LOSS of information…not the creation of it. Since there is no evidence for the construction of alleles via natural selection acting on random mutations, we (creationists) do not grant the use of alleles to evolutionists. They cannot account for alleles.
So that my detractors do not think I have misrepresented evolution in my shortened definition, here is Wikipedia’s definition of evolution. They too recognize the key elements of
single common ancestor of all life (hypothetical as evidence for LUCA is missing)
natural selection acting on random mutations is the mechanism
billions of years are necessary
all biological life including mankind are the result of the natural processes that require no intelligent intervention
If we want to determine by Darwin’s own metric of what makes his theory possible (“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 break down”), then all biology must be able to be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations (even though Darwin was unaware of the specifics of mutations, his theory includes the modifications which we now know is mutations)
THIS (definition 2) is what Christians, who accept the Bible, are arguing against when we say that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Definition 2 focuses on the historical nature of biological life on earth, and has nothing to do with what’s measured/repeatable in the laboratory. Many times, theistic evolutionists join their God-denying colleagues in claiming that evolution is science, but this is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. When Christians rightly voice that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, both theistic evolutionists and their comrades declare with mockery “Evolution is just change! How can you deny change? Are you the same are your parents? You’re driving people away from Christianity if you tell them that they can’t trust science!” Notice below how theistic evolutionist, Bishop, decries the idea that me, a Christian, would question evolution when he defines evolution as science itself…and the atheist ankle-biters snuggle in warmly to those who embrace evolution.
Definition 1 is the motte: an easily defensible position that is uncontroversial. They retreat to the motte and throw rhetorical stones at the Christian “heretics” for denying something obvious. When in reality the Christians, who accept the Bible, are using Definition 2 of evolution, (in this case, the bailey) which is completely at odds with the Bible. Since everyone agrees that change happens, we will no longer consider Definition 1 as part of this article. Henceforth, Definition 2 is the only idea that is considered when referencing evolution.
To elucidate just a bit more about the theory of evolution, we should talk about natural selection, which is a description of the survival of the fittest…or more recently “the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype”. Essentially, natural selection is the idea that the those creatures, who are less fit, are removed from the population. Those creatures with the greatest number of offspring are said to have higher fitness. The culling of the less fit is central to the theory. Richard Dawkins employed the phrase “red in tooth and claw” (which arose in Darwin’s day to describe the pitiless indifference of nature) to summarize the cruel behaviors of the doctrine of survival of the fittest. For the fittest to pass on the traits that make them the most fit, the death of their lesser peers must take place, and it takes a great deal of time to get fixation within a species. Death and time are the heroes of evolution
Compatibility
Let’s look at what the Bible says about the past as opposed to what advocates of evolution teach. The chart below shows some of the differences:
1 Cor 15:45 and Gen 3:20 confirm that Adam and Eve were the original human pair from whom all humans descended
Between 250K and 350K years ago a population of between 1000 and 10,000 (depending on which theory you believe) anatomically modern humans were mostly isolated from populations of erectus and habilis…although there was some interbreeding between the non-human homo populations
Acts 17:26 confirms that all humans are descended from one man, Noah
About 600K years ago, Homo Heidelbergensis emerged. From this stock along with some cross-breeding with other pre-human hominins produced a population of homo sapiens
Caveats
As a Christian, who accepts the Bible in its literary context and genre to mean that God created the universe in 6 calendar days about 6000 years ago, I recognize that there are Christian brothers and sisters, who disagree strongly with me. They have worked hard to bring into concordance with the Bible, the teachings of evolutionists. So, my caveat is that while theistic evolutionists laboriously strive to harmonize Christianity with evolution, it does not mean that they are not Christians. One is not saved by the quantity of correct information that one believes. One is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Redeemer alone! This article is intended to show their inconsistencies and failed attempts to ‘put a square peg in a round hole’.
Objections
Let’s now analyze the differences from the table above and the attempted rescue devices that theistic evolutionists employ.
Difference 1: The order of creation in the Bible is different than the order taught by advocates of evolution. The theistic evolutionist is left with 2 choices:
“The Bible is not a science textbook. It wasn’t intending to tell us a specific order of creation. It’s just a theological treatise telling us that God is the Creator.“
“Since Moses didn’t know about modern science, he could only write from what he knew. And since God’s revelation in the book of nature in evolution is right, we can correct Moses’s ignorance. Moses is just writing poetically as a polemic against pagan creation narratives.“
The 1st attempt at a resolution is both a category error and shows a low view of scripture. I agree that the Bible is NOT a science textbook…it is mostly a history book (although it is so MUCH MORE than a history book), but in questions of history, historical documentation is the better tool for answering than forensics (extrapolation). The assumption exists that science must answer questions about the past, but when we want to know the age of the statue of liberty, Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, or the founding of Jerusalem, historical documentation trumps scientific extrapolation every time. The theistic evolutionist might counter with “But those are all examples that exist in human history. What about pre-human history?” And the answer is that there were only 5 calendar days prior to human history according to the Bible, and Jesus confirms that mankind was created at the beginning of creation. Why disagree with Jesus?
The 2nd attempt at a resolution (very much like the 1st attempt) takes a very low view of scripture. As Christians, the Bible is our magisterial authority, but theistic evolutionists would rather take what modern academics are saying and redefine the Bible to bring it into concordance with the modern paradigm. Genesis is written as history. It does not resemble the Hebrew poetry of the Psalms. All of the biblical authors regarded Genesis as history.
Difference 2: The Bible says that the original human pair, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the entire human race. Theistic evolutionists (for the most part) do not accept this and are left with 2 choices:
“Adam and Eve are just figurative archetypes. Because the science tells us that the genetics requires a population of about 10,000, there’s no way that an original pair could produce all of the variance we see today.“
Dr. Swamidass “It’s just a genealogical ancestry…not a genetic one. In this scenario, Adam and Eve are created de novo by God (from dust and a rib, as per Genesis) in a distinct act, separate from the evolved population. Their offspring then intermarry with this outside group, and over time, their genealogical lineage spreads universally.“
In the 1st attempt, we see again the idea that the modern academic paradigm is superior to the biblical text itself. It is a low view of scripture. They ignore what God has said in favor of what the loudest of the lab coats have assumed about the origins of humanity. If you’re interested in what Christian geneticists have said about the claims of the evolutionists, see Dr. Robert Carter’s research and Nathaniel Jeanson’s research.
While a clever attempt, Dr. Swamidass does not take into account the theological problem of death of humans prior to sin or the importance of the Kinsman Redeemer being able to atone for the sins of those to whom He is related. If there were pre-Adamite humans, they would not be eligible for redemption. It’s a low view of scripture and bad theology
Difference 3: The Bible says that the heavens, the Earth, the seas and all that is in them was created in 6 days and that mankind was formed at the beginning of creation. The theistic evolutionist, who vehemently disagrees with what the text says, would say
“Science has determined the age of the universe and the Earth to be 13.8 billion and 4.5 billion years old respectively, so the Bible needs to be interpreted in light of what the science says.“
To argue that this view is NOT a low view of scripture is illogical. Because the theistic evolutionist chooses to uphold the modern paradigm as preeminent as the interpretive authority shows clearly that although scientific paradigms have failed over and over, they’ve been deceived into believing that THIS time, the naturalistic view is correct. Scientific paradigms have been shown to be false time and again. From when the scientific consensus believed in geocentrism, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in phlogiston, to when the scientific consensus believed that blood-letting helped sick patients, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in spontaneous generation, to the time when the scientific consensus believed in an impending ice age in the 1970s, and when the scientific consensus believed that everyone should eat more carbohydrates according to the food pyramid, to the time when the scientific consensus believed that a cloth mask would protect everyone from the most deadly virus in human history…all falsified. But maybe the current tyrannical scientific consensus of evolution with work
The Bible could not be MORE clear that the days of Genesis 1 are clear 24hr calendar days. While there is flexibility in the Hebrew word for day (yom), we can look at the context of Gen 1 to find the boundaries of the word. Since the context bounds yom by ordinal sequentials and evening/morning (and all biblical examples where both of those exist require the text to be understood as a calendar day) we know that the days of Genesis 1 are calendar days. We also see from Ex 20:9-11 that God expected his people to work for the same amount of time that He did during his creative works before sabbath. Since God’s people were not expected to work for 6 epochs (as would be necessary for evolution), we have confirmation from the Bible itself that God created in six calendar days. Sometimes, the theistic evolutionists want to say that it’s just a pattern, but for that to be true, they have to interpret the same word from the same author to the same audience in the same context be interpreted completely different. It’s bad hermeneutics.
Even John Walton, who is no friend to young earth creationists, open admits on pg 90-91 of his book that the text of Genesis 1 demands that yom must be interpreted as 24hr days.
Difference 4: While the Bible says that prior to sin animals were to be vegetarian only, advocates of theistic evolution would propose the incompatible idea that evolution would never restricted animals to eating only plants.
“Creatures today consume meat, and the fossils recovered in the geologic layers have sharp teeth. So, according to evolution, animals had no dietary boundaries. The Bible must have been talking about something else. It’s not a command. It’s just saying that plants are important to the life cycle.”
Again, their attempt at a reconciliation between the theory of evolution and the Bible takes a low view of scripture. Evolution is their highest authority, so that Bible must be changed to accommodate this view of continual violence, death, misery, and predation prior to the fall into sin. The full refutation of this idea is shown here, but is essentially: since God commanded man not to consume meat in Gen 1:28-30, God gave the same command to animals. We know it was a command because God gave a clear rescinding of his vegetarian command to Noah in Gen 9:2. The theory of evolution remains incompatible with Christianity
Difference 5: The Bible says that animals are to reproduce after their kind. Typically theistic evolutionists and God-deniers have the same lazy responses (although they are not arguments) “Kind isn’t a scientific word” and “kind is just species“. If they attempt to make an argument to reconcile evolution to the Bible, it is only that the men who wrote the Bible were middle eastern goat-herders or some similar pejorative that dismisses the biblical authors as unlearned.
Again, the theistic evolutionary view takes a low view of scripture. In order to try to reconcile their view with the Bible, they intentionally subject the Bible to the modern paradigm of evolution.
Difference 6: The Bible says that the sin of mankind brought death into creation. The Bible also refers to death as “the last enemy to be destroyed”, so it is not a benign cohabiter with life in a “very good” creation. In the story of evolution, death of the unfit for millions or billions of generations brought about mankind. In their view, death is the hero. Theistic evolutionists have a few options in trying to deal with this obvious difference
“The sin of mankind only brought about the death of humans. The Bible says NOTHING about the death of animals“
“Death is not bad. We have to die to get to heaven“
“Physical death has always been a part of creation. Adam’s sin only brought spiritual death“
In bullet point 1, the evolutionist tries to belittle the bloodshed, misery, and death of animals as simply part of the circle of life. This disparagement of God’s creation isn’t as much a low view of scripture but is a low view of animals, animal suffering, creation, and the catastrophic effects of sin itself. Romans 8:20-22 paints a completely different picture than evolutionists would sketch
The effects of sin changed all of creation from one of freedom, peace, and abundant fruitfulness to subjection to futility, groaning, and corruption. Evolution dismisses the curse and effects of sin as merely spiritual. You can see and even more comprehensive rebuttal of this point here.
In the 2nd bullet point, the evolutionist argues that death is not that bad. But this is the exact opposite of what the Bible says. In 1 Cor 15:26 Paul describes death as the “last enemy to be destroyed.” Death (as a curse for sin) is an enemy. The belief of the evolutionist requires them to have a low view of scripture.
In the 3rd bullet point, the evolutionist argues that sin brought only a spiritual death, but this is naive to the fact that Jesus died the most horrendous PHYSICAL death in crucifixion. Theologically, it was his physical death and resurrection that paid for the sins of humanity. Notice the curses for sin: death, suffering, and thorns from Genesis 3. At the crucifixion, Jesus took upon Himself all of these curses to atone for the sins of his people (Isa 53). The Bible rejects the idea that Adam’s sin brought only physical death only to humans
Difference 7: The Bible says that thorns are a curse of the sin of mankind. But according to the evolutionary story, thorns were produced naturally by plants in the ever-escalating warfare between plant reproduction and herbivores. Since thorns are found in geologic layers, which evolutionists believe were buried prior to mankind, evolutionists have to try to resolve the difference. Creationists, who accept the teachings of the Bible, know that thorns are a curse for sin, and that the thorns buried deep are a result of the judgment of the global flood. How do evolutionists try to resolve the difference?
“Thorns aren’t a curse of sin. It’s just an allegory“
Again, evolutionists take a low view of scripture, because they take naturalistic interpretations from today, ignore the effects of the Genesis 6-9 worldwide flood, and redefine the biblical text.
Difference 8: The Bible clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were created directly from God via the dust and Adam’s side respectively. Evolution teaches that a small population (about 10k) of humans evolved traits to become human. To be fair, there are some theistic evolutionists, who hold to the standard evolutionary model for all biological life except humans and believe that God did specially create humanity in Adam and Eve. While they choose to uphold the Bible in this case, it is now destructive to their theory of evolution as the standard (current) model is taught as if it can account for all human traits in the same way that it can supposedly account for all other biological traits. The group that denies special creation of mankind, who accept the theory of evolution in its entirety, have to resolve this difference somehow
“The Bible isn’t a science textbook. It’s just a theological treatise about God being the Creator. He didn’t say *how* He did his creative works. We’re only supposed to know from the Bible that He started everything. There was no initial human pair Adam or Eve. That’s a myth.“
That is a low view of scripture. They mythologize a historical text simply to accommodate the teachings of the modern paradigm. It ignites serious theological problems with who is eligible for salvation through the blood sacrifice of the Kinsman Redeemer, and it incinerates the authority of scripture that teaches an unbroken royal lineage from Adam to Jesus.
Difference 9: The Bible says that there was a global flood and from Noah (the 1 man) and his family of 8, who got off the ark, God created all the nations of mankind (Genesis 10-11). Theistic evolutionists deny the global flood and much like they say in both Differences 2 and 8, they choose to believe the assumptions of evolution at the expense of the Bible. How do they resolve the difference?
“There is absolutely NO evidence for a global flood. Human lineage cannot be traced back to a single man or woman. You misinterpret the text. You think that your interpretation is the same as the Bible itself.“
Denying the global flood of Noah’s day puts theistic evolutionists as allies with the scoffers, who Peter claims will deny that “the world was deluged and destroyed”. It’s less than a low view of scripture; it’s willful ignorance…another term Peter uses. The resolution of difference 9 is much like all of the other differences: take well-understood words and redefine them in accordance with modern sensibilities rather than how the words are used in the text of scripture itself: a low view of scripture
Conclusion
Some theistic evolutionists even declare that “there are no differences between the Bible and the theory of evolution“, but as you can see: the differences are stark, and the attempts to bring resolution destroys the Bible, the theory of evolution, or language itself. THIS is what makes the theory of evolution and Christianity incompatible. Anyone, who might be unfamiliar with the theory of evolution, wouldn’t read the Bible and think “It’s clear in the Bible that God was completely absent from creation and had no interaction with material. Instead He allowed a process of gradual formation over billions of years of death and suffering to produce both the extinct and extant creatures including humans.”
In the same way, no one reads the writings of the evolutionists and concludes, “Clearly there is intricate and purposeful design from the interference of a supreme intelligence seen in every creature. We can see from nature that the supreme intelligence loves humanity and wants humanity to have dominion over the things that he/she made.”
These two opposing stories don’t fit; they are incompatible. Any attempt to bring them into concordance fundamentally changes either the biblical account or the evolutionary account or both. If a theistic evolutionist wants to bring concordance, they must redefine the biblical text, change the order of creation, and change the evolutionary story to say “God-dun-it-differently-than-He-said-but-just-like-evolution-says”. The most common practice among theistic evolutionists is the marginalize the Genesis account by declaring it to be allegory. In much the same way that Michael Scott from the Office shouts out “I declare BANKRUPTCY!!!”, shouting that “Genesis is ALLEGORY!!!” is nothing more than bluster. In fact, it is detrimental to the authority of scripture.
If one can marginalize parts of the Bible as simply allegorical just because it does not comport with modern sensibilities like evolution, then the Bible loses its authority. By the same interpretive principles that theistic evolutionists change the Bible to accommodate evolution, LGBTQ+ people change the Bible to accommodate THEIR perversions. The progressive woke “Christians” also change the Bible to accommodate their racist teachings. Paul warns Christians over and over not to allow trendy worldly philosophies to influence the gospel of Jesus found in His Eternal Word.
So, is evolution compatible with Christianity? Most definitely not
Post Script
With regards to the claim that “there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood“, there is ubiquitous evidence of a global flood. It is true that for over 100 years almost every university has taught that there was no global flood, so it’s no surprise that almost all academics would believe what they’ve been taught. But when one starts with the truth of scripture, which says that there was a flood that covered “all the high mountains under the entire heavens”, the evidence is impossible to ignore. The evidence is literally everywhere!
I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce every biological trait…including eyes. I’ve put these claims to the test several times before each time with the same result…no evidence…just assumptions:
God-deniers believe that numerous successive slight modifications (random mutations)
when culled by the forces of natural selection can explain all biological traits. They do not like to be cross-examined as to how natural selection can preserve non-functioning irreducibly complex systems like biological sight, but they cope with fantastical stories of the mystical powers of evolution. Recently, a God-denier posted a link which he thought provided airtight evidence that evolution is responsible for producing eyes. Let’s put that article under some scrutiny. If it’s evidence, we should expect to see explicit demonstrations of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce information for eyes. If it’s not evidence for evolution, we will see words of assumption like perhaps, possibly, may have, likely & suggest intermixed with some clever story-telling. The God-Denier in question, Alf, has before made grand claims about the power of evolution, but when his claims have been scrutinized by simply reading the articles, it’s clear that what he believes to be evidence is actually a collection of assumptions wrapped in the façade of scientific language
Here’s how this works: The quotes from the article are in red italics and then just below/after the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have added bold and underline to key words from the authors throughout, so this is just a note to say that neither the bold nor underline appear in the original article.
“I do not expect to cover all the details” “I will present some concepts“ “In the prebiotic soup” – HUGE assumption “Sight is an evolutionary gift” – Mysticism “Life probably first appeared” “was likely the first organism” “probably became the first” “probably evolved” – Not 1 but 2 ambiguous guesses “probably came from a common ancestor” “Certainly” – ?!?!? Whence comes your certainty? “gradually evolved” – Just a guess. No evidence “perhaps“ “these compounds came together in an eyespot” – Guess at best “evolution co-opted the molecule for sight” – another guess and a reification fallacy “an organism discovered” – more reification fallacy “perhaps“ “could proceed” “Crystalline lenses were added later” – as if evolution could just order crystalline lenses on Amazon and plug them right into the eyespot “could form” “would likely have been” “vast spans of time permitted the tinkering necessary to fashion all manner of eyes” “Eukaryotes appeared and evolved“ “appeared “ “little is known about its genetics or visual mechanisms” “believed to have originated” “or perhaps“ “presumably“ “probably“ “This suggests“ “could be“ “might be considered” “suggesting that an eye is relatively easy for evolution to produce and that a true brain may not be necessary to its function” “likely“ “may have arisen” “may have been” “probably“ “we currently accept“ “This would suggest“ “he compound eye began, possibly in a worm-like creature” “There are at least six different models of compound eyes and it would appear that the most likely explanation is that the apposition-style eye came first and radiated into the other forms although this explanation is not completely satisfactory“ “may“ “Perhaps“ “The octopus evolved later” – Evolutionists can’t find evidence for octopus evolution, so they propose that cephalopods arrived on Earth from comets “Perhaps“ “probably“ “we must rely upon them to help us understand the development of eyes in the early vertebrate lineage” “Although controversy swirls around the question of whether the hagfish or lamprey is the oldest extant vertebrate” “has evolved and developed in many ways” “it evolved from the stock that did come ashore during that period” “probably represents the transitional form” “were perhaps the ancestors of all terrestrial animals” “evolution found a different manner of accommodation” – More reification fallacy “Although our knowledge of dinosaurian vision is limited, we can make some assumptions“ “would continue to evolve“ “It is not known for certain” – what is known for certain? “The story of color vision in the marsupials is, as of yet, not fully told” “probably“ “We know from computer models” – not evidence! “Eyes may have evolved as many as 40 times”
I hope by this point that you’re seeing the pattern: “may have been” followed by a “probably” and the ever present ambiguous phrase: “it evolved”. Not evidence. Just caveats built on assumptions believed because of the story of evolution.
Yet another article that when you read the headline: “The evolution of eyes”, you are lead to believe it will be packed with evidence for evolution. But when you read the contents of the article, it’s the story that some hard-working scientists conjured up through extrapolation based on their faith in common ancestry. No evidence was actually presented that evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) could produce eyes or spots or anything else.
Objections
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
Hold your breath! How long before are forced to breathe deeply of the amazing mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon and a trace amounts of a few other gasses?…that is unless you live in Mexico City where the other gasses are not so trace. Taking that air and converting the oxygen into usable metabolic portions for your cells are your lungs. Lungs are incredible organs that function as part of our remarkable respiratory systems.
Now I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce everything in biology…including lungs. I’ve put these claims to the test several times before each time with the same result…no evidence…just assumptions:
Here’s how this works: The quotes from the article in red italics and then just below the quote, I’ll post my analysis in the default black font. I have added bold and underline to key words from the authors throughout, so this is just a note to say that neither the bold nor underline appear in the original article.
Right from the start in the abstract we get the first caveat:
the origin and early evolution of vertebrate lungs remain highly controversial, particularly whether the ancestral state was paired or unpaired. Due to the rarity of fossil soft tissue preservation, lung evolution can only be traced based on the extant phylogenetic bracket
That’s quite a lot to overcome, but I’m sure they will try. Of note: Their admission that since there is no fossil evidence of lung evolution, they rely “only” on creatures that are alive today to extrapolate backwards in time with a collection of assumptions. Their words…not mine.
After giving the proper obeisance to the evolutionary story, the authors get right into it:
How this important organ (lungs) first evolved is a hotly debated topic. This is largely because lung tissue does not preserve well in fossils, making it difficult to trace how the lungs of vertebrates changed over the course of evolution
It will indeed be difficult to trace given the narrative of evolution, but because it is the dominant paradigm, it MUST try to provide an explanation – difficult or not
Lungs, the most important organ of the pulmonary complex, are rarely preserved in fossils, hindering direct evidence of how the earliest air-breathing vertebrates breathed air
I’ll take that as an admission that direct evidence is absent. We will proceed knowing that what follows from them is a collection of assumptions and story-telling
Yet, lung affinities for such structures remain elusive (Janvier et al., 2007) and could not be confirmed by anatomical, phylogenetic, or biological data (Goujet, 2011; Béchard et al., 2014). Here, we follow Janvier et al., 2007, Goujet, 2011 and Béchard et al., 2014, and consider that observable evidences are elusive and do not support the interpretation of these paired masses as a lung
Indeed, the evidence is elusive and cannot be confirmed. The available evidence consists of assumptions and unsupported interpretations. Got it
Our knowledge about the morphological and genetic development of the lung is, however, highly biased towards amniotes, and consequently the original form of this evolutionary novelty among osteichthyans remains largely elusive
Elusive = missing
One hypothesis, formed and supported by studies on tetrapods (particularly mammals and birds), assumes that the lung evolved through a modification of the pharyngeal pouch
Assumptions abound
Curiously, some living vertebrates display an unpaired organ, leaving the ancestral condition equivocal
The origin of lungs is a curiosity for evolutionists since they are forced to make up stories of their origin. And they use words like “equivocal” to hide the fact that they are left clueless as to the origin.
The so-called left lung of L. paradoxa is most likely a diverticulum or a modified lateral lobe, which might have evolved secondarily, an advantage for enlarging the surface area for oxygen-uptake, eventually enabling the obligatory air-breathing performance in the linage towards L. paradoxa
Most likely? Might have evolved? Are we talking about “the mountains of evidence for evolution” or a story? Most internet evolutionists are VERY good at searching through the headlines of articles on Google Scholar or Nature or Wikipedia for “evolution of _______” fill in the blank. But 9/10 have never read the contents of the article. If they had, they would see over and over phrases like: most likely, might have, could have, probably, perhaps, feasibly, presumably, conceivably…just like in this article
There are some very interesting charts and figures. Notice from the chart below
I modified the chart with the red/green boxes arrows and text. The upper part of the figure in green is science. The lower part in red is the part where they try to “prove” evolution, but it’s in the assumption category because there is no evidence for their claim
From this evolutionary point of view, our results lead to a new definition of the vertebrate lung: either an unpaired or paired respiratory organ developing ventrally from the foregut. Vestigial forms secondarily released from the respiratory function should be also designated as lungs (e.g. the lung of coelacanths). Some criteria previously used for discriminating lungs from gas bladders are no longer supported, including: paired/unpaired organization, position ventral to the alimentary tract (Marcus, 1937; Funk et al., 2020; Lambertz et al., 2015; Graham, 1997), as well as its function. The dorsal position of the majority of osteichthyans lungs described here may be related to its dual and secondary functionality of respiration and buoyancy control (Thomson, 1968). Actually, the only morphological characteristic that can be used to distinguish lungs and gas bladders is the ventral and dorsal origins from the foregut, respectively (Funk et al., 2020; Cass et al., 2013). This phenotypic differentiation into true paired lungs in tetrapods may be related to differential gene expressions (Funk et al., 2020; Bi et al., 2021). Nevertheless, at a level of developmental mechanism, the possibility of co-options of gene regulatory networks of the pharyngeal pouch morphogenesis cannot be excluded, as both the lung bud and pharyngeal pouch develop through the invagination of the foregut endoderm. Our results open the door for future molecular analyses to trace possible regulatory elements for the evolutionary transition from unpaired lungs to true paired lungs in tetrapods.
A long quote indeed, but it was interesting to note that they did not want to restrict anything from being a lung that might look like or was assumed to previously be like or might have once acted like or could be a vestigial form of – a lung. The organs that previously weren’t lungs are now being defined as lungs…possibly
Based on the extant phylogenetic bracket, we infer that the bilaterally paired nature of the lung evolved only in the lineage towards fossil and extant tetrapods, as a synapomorphy of this clade
Inference is not a bad thing to do. Just be sure that your worldview can justify inference due to the principle of induction (uniformity in nature). But again, inference is not evidence
Paired lungs may have been present also in early tetrapods and were probably essential to raise lung surface area and volume capacity during the evolution of vertebrate respiratory system and the air-breathing intensification at the water-to-land transition
I hope by this point that you’re seeing the pattern: “may have been” followed by a “probably” and the ever present ambiguous word: evolution. Not evidence. Just caveats built on assumptions believed because of the story of evolution.
Yet another article that when you read the headline: “Lung evolution in vertebrates and the water-to-land transition”, you are lead to believe it will be packed with evidence for evolution. But when you read the contents of the article, it’s the story that some hard-working scientists conjured up through extrapolation based on their faith in common ancestry. No evidence was actually presented that evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) could produce lungs or vestigial lungs or air bladders or ventral respiratory organs or anything else.
Objections
After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”
To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.
There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.
Not an actual photo of the original Astroctopus arriving on Earth. A.I. Artist’s rendition
If you’ve read my blog very long, you know that I’m highly skeptical of the claimed powers of evolution to explain biodiversity. All of the government schools for the last hundred years or so have taught that natural selection acting on random mutations has the power to create all sorts of traits and features in living organisms. None of that has ever been observed, but the theory has avoided extinction due to massive government funding, exclusion of dissenting views, and a desire to avoid the obvious moral implications of the Sovereign Creator.
To be clear, I lack faith in the powers of evolution 1) because the theory of evolution is in conflict with the Bible & 2) what’s been presented as evidence is highly suspect and flush with unwarranted assumptions, so I accept that evolution has no power to produce any of the biodiversity on earth. But when biologists admit that there’s no evidence for the gradual development for cephalopods they do not choose the obvious fact that God created these wonderful creatures. They instead propose the impossible: octopus eggs arrived on a comet about 300 million years ago.
I’ve linked the whole article above, so you can enjoy the whole peer-reviewed foolishness, but below are some of the quotes that I found particularly adept at producing the “best medicine” (Bold italics and underline are not in original)
“some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking“
“Evidence of the role of extraterrestrial viruses in affecting terrestrial evolution has recently been plausibly implied in the gene and transcriptome sequencing of Cephalopods”
“Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing“
“The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris, Fig. 5) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form – it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant “future” in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. Such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm”
“This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking“
“Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change (Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017). This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage – a type of sudden “great leap forward”.”
“Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed. One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth – most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs”
“Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted (below) as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus’ sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago”
” Indeed this principle applies to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of pretty well all major life forms, covered in the prescient concept of “punctuated equilibrium” by Eldridge and Gould advanced in the early 1970s“
“therefore, similar living features like this “as if the genes were derived from some type of pre-existence” (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981) apply to many other biological ensembles when closely examined“
“Virion/gene exchanges thus appear to be inevitable over such short cosmic distances. The many features of biology that are not optimised to local conditions on the Earth may be readily understood in this wider perspective”
“Given that the complex sets of new genes in the Octopus may have not come solely from horizontal gene transfers or simple random mutations of existing genes or by simple duplicative expansions, it is then logical to surmise, given our current knowledge of the biology of comets and their debris, the new genes and their viral drivers most likely came from space“
“general evolutionary molecular processes, now shifts to the Cosmos and beyond our immediate solar system”
It’s sCienCe people!!!!
Notice too about halfway through the quotes (I underlined and bolded the whole quote), the admission that ALL life forms on Earth appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of transitional species. This is EXACTLY what Christians have been saying because the global flood of Noah’s day is the explanation they are looking for. But they will reject the revelation of God at the expense of their own reason
ApoloJedi 