Beware the Evolutionary Fairytale of Science
Have you ever noticed the ways the theory of evolution is like a fairytale? Have you ever noticed that while evolutionists make dogmatic statements about evolution being a “proven fact,” they never provide any hard evidence that proves their claims? The lack of evidence (much less proof) for evolution demonstrates that believing in it is religious faith rather than science. This post is the second in a series examining whether evolution is genuine science and how Christians should respond. This post compares the theory of evolution to the “Emperor’s New Clothes” fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen.
The first post in this series, “Is Evolution Science or Religion?”, defined science and religion and examined whether Evolution is true science. It demonstrated that evolution is a pseudoscientific religion rather than genuine science because it does not conform to the scientific method. Evolution is therefore just as religious as belief in Biblical Creation.
The final post in this series, God’s Answer to Atheists and “False Knowledge”, examines God’s answer to atheists, “false knowledge,” and the evolutionary worldview.
The Emperor’s New Clothes Fairytale
Most people are familiar with the story of the vain king who cared only about his wardrobe and new clothes. Two thieves, pretending they were weavers, offered to make the king splendid new clothes made of an extraordinary fabric that was invisible to anyone stupid or unfit for his job. The king ordered the clothes, but all the pseudo-weavers fabricated was a fabulous deception.
The imposters pretended to weave the exquisite material on an empty loom. Eventually they declared the new clothes ready and dressed the emperor in nothing but air and lies. No one could see the non-existent cloth, including the king and his ministers, but all were afraid to admit they could not see the fabric; because that would mean they were stupid or unfit for office. So, everyone admired the imaginary clothes they could not see.
The king then paraded down the street dressed only in his birthday suit and pride. Everyone praised his invisible clothes until an innocent child declared, “The emperor is naked!” The crowd then agreed with the child, but the king continued, parading on, wearing only his foolish dignity.
How Evolution is Like the Fairytale
This section describes how evolution is like the “Emperor’s New Clothes” fairytale.
Like the frauds in the story, evolutionists seek to scare people into professing faith in evolution by weaving tales about creationists being stupid and incompetent. Today Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye publicly proclaim that anyone who believes in creation rather than evolution is deluded and unfit to be a scientist, engineer, or medical doctor. But the bold bigotry of these claims is mere fabrication.
Many of the world’s greatest scientists believed in God and creation rather than evolution. The list includes Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, and Louis Pasteur to name just a few. Their Christian faith enabled these men to become “fathers of modern science” because they believed an all-knowing and all-powerful God created the universe in an orderly way, obeying natural laws that were observable, knowable, and testable.
In addition to creating vaccines, developing pasteurization, and advancing microbiology, Louis Pasteur performed experiments that disproved the theory of “Spontaneous Generation.” Pasteur summarized this in the Latin phrase, “Omne vivum ex vivo,” which means: “all life(is) from life.” This scientific principle is known as the law of “biogenesis.”
“all life is from life”
Being a good scientist, engineer or doctor requires understanding and applying the laws of nature as they exist in the present, on which both creationists and evolutionists agree. What one believes about the origin of life and the universe is irrelevant to one’s ability to use the scientific method, practice medicine or apply modern engineering principles.
In fact, the blind faith of evolutionists sometimes hinders their science. For example, because they believe that organisms evolved over millions of years through random chance and mutations, many evolutionists thought there would be left over junk in DNA. As a result, they initially only studied the genes that code for proteins falsely assuming the rest was junk.
Today it is known that the DNA they assumed was junk performs import regulatory functions, but the science that revealed this was delayed because of erroneous evolutionary thinking. DNA is incredibly complex and contains densely packed information. There is no junk. The facts support creation by an all-powerful, intelligent designer (God) rather than evolution by chance mutations.
Evolutionists deny the possibility of supernatural miracles, including creation by God. They accept only naturalism based on the laws of nature. But the universe could not have been made by the physical laws and natural processes we observe today. The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy. Albert Einstein said, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” This is expressed mathematically by his famous equation: E = mc2 (E is energy; m represents mass; c is the speed of light).
Einstein’s equation demonstrates that mass and energy are interrelated. The combination of mass and energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed. The origin of the universe could not have happened by the natural processes observed today because it involved creating an enormous amount of both mass and energy. Therefore, even if the big bang were true, it would be just as supernatural as an all-powerful God creating the universe.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy (disorder) of the universe (and in any closed system) is always increasing. We observe this every day; everything is running down and wearing out. Ordered energy must be put into a system to reverse the process and make it more ordered.
Logically, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that the beginning of creation would have to be when the universe was the most ordered. Biblically, things would have been the most ordered on day-7 after God rested from creating the heavens and the earth, the sea and all life within them during the first 6-days.
If the Big Bang were true, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would mean that the initial explosion of nothing into everything created all the order in the universe, and everything has been running down ever since (about 13.7 billion years). When was the last time you saw an explosion make things more ordered or bring order out of chaos?
Like the charlatans in the fable, evolution would have us believe in that which cannot be seen.
Since comets lose mass every time they circle the sun, their existence is evidence against our solar system originating billions of years ago. To counter this argument, evolutionary astronomers have invented the existence of an “Oort Cloud,” containing icy objects that occasionally leave the cloud and head toward the sun as new comets. Most evolutionists believe in this hypothetical “Oort Cloud” and teach it as fact even though no one has ever seen it, there is no evidence of its existence, and there is no explanation of what would cause objects to leave it. Evolutionists only believe in this fictitious cloud because the observable facts (the existence of short period comets) contradict their faith in evolution.
Evolutionary cosmologists have a problem with the amount of mass in the universe. The current “Big Bang” theory does not work with the amount of “luminous” mass (e.g.: stars, nebula, etc.) that can be observed in the universe. To make the “Big Bang” theory work, they need somewhere on the order of 70 – 99 percent more mass. Since they reject God in their thinking, these cosmologists are committed to making their model work. So, they hypothesize that well over half of the mass in the universe is “dark matter” that cannot be seen or detected in any way.
When Charles Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species,” he knew that no intermediate links had been found in the fossil record. He recognized this as a problem for his theory of gradual evolution of one form into another. He thought the reason no transitional forms had been found was due to the limited number of fossils that had been found. He stated in his book that if no transitional forms were found after the fossil record had been expanded; it would prove his theory false.
It has been over 150 years since Darwin published his world changing book. Millions more fossils have been found. The fossil record is much more complete, but no conclusive transitional forms have ever been found. The “missing links” are still missing. By his own words, this should prove Darwin’s theory of evolution false. Instead, his theory of evolution has become a religion based on faith rather than a true science based on hard evidence.
The origin of life is just assumed without proof or even any theory of how it could have happened.
Modern theories of biological evolution are based on gradual change through random genetic mutations and natural selection. This assumes a pre-existing, living organism with a genome subject to mutation. The origin of life is just assumed without proof or even any theory of how it could have happened.
There have been “Primordial Soup” experiments (most notably that of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953) over the years that have demonstrated that some amino acids and small proteins might form temporarily under the right environmental conditions. But it takes much more than amino acids to form a living cell. Most functional proteins contain hundreds of amino acids that must be strung together in just the right order and folded with just the right geometry to be functional. This is very complex and takes the cellular machinery of a living organism to accomplish.
Even the simplest single cell organism requires a way to remain separate from its environment, a way of absorbing nutrients, a source of energy, a way to use that energy, multiple functioning proteins to do the cellular work, a method of reproducing itself, and DNA or RNA to provide the instructions on how to do it all. It is all or nothing. If anything is missing or damaged, there is no life.
The odds of this all being in place simultaneously by chance are zero. As Louis Pasteur and other scientists have demonstrated, “All life (is) from life.”
The irreducible complexity of the living cell is perhaps the greatest hurdle which evolution does not even attempt to explain. Evolutionists just dogmatically proclaim it somehow happened by chance, and say you are a fool if you do not believe it. This is not science; it is fervent religious faith.
This post has discussed how the theory of evolution resembles “The Emperor’s New Clothes” fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen. Proponents of evolution proclaim the theory as proven fact and declare that anyone who does not believe it is unfit to be a scientist, engineer, or medical doctor. But these claims have no substance. One’s beliefs about the origin of the universe and life have no bearing on the ability to understand and use the laws of nature as they exist in the present.
When describing the results of their scientific research, scientists will often suggest how some biological trait could have evolved because it would have provided a selective advantage. But this is mere story telling because they provide no evidence of that evolution occurring. In every case, one could also say that an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator designed that trait because of the benefit it would bestow on the organism.
There is no hard evidence for evolution; the “missing links” are still missing. There are no working explanations of how stars or our solar system could form. “Big Bang” cosmology violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and would therefore be as supernatural as Biblical creation by God.
Our schools and the media are silent about any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution or supports creation. People don’t know what they are not told, so they buy into the lie. Have you?
If you have not already done so, you might like to read the first article in this series, “Is Evolution Science or Religion?“
Or you might like to read the next article in this series, “God’s Answer to Atheists and “False Knowledge”“
If you found this helpful, Please SHARE it
If you liked this post, you might also like: