Darwinism is 99% myth and 1%...myth. We have NEVER observed any instance of one kind of organism evolving into another. Because of the way organisms reproduce, we never will! Darwinism is utterly hopeless, a refuge for atheists to pretend there is no God but it is a very temporary and specious refuge indeed. The claims of Darwinists have been the equivalent of "the check is in the mail" ever since the beginning of Darwinism. But no check has arrived. Is it not time to evict the squatter from the place we call Science and let him go back to Mythology where he belongs?
"pantheismnoun (Concise Encyclopedia)
As the late, great Dr. Henry Morris wrote several years ago:
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
In fact, the belief that life had its origins in a single basic substance is so widespread among the various peoples of the world, primitive or civilized, that it can be considered one of the few universal themes in the history of ideas.
But these deities are . . . actually personifications of Nature and their activities, predictable and unpredictable, determine what life will be like on Earth.
All of these ancients were pagan. The essence of paganism, old and new, is that the universe is eternal, that its motions are without beginning and without end. Belief in creation out of nothing is the very opposite of paganism.
How did we reach our present secular humanist world? In times that are ancient by human measure, as far back as the earliest artifacts can be found, it seems that the Earth was worshipped as a goddess and believed to be alive. The myth of the great Mother is part of most early religions.Return to Gaia
The evolution of the species and the evolution of their environment are rightly coupled together as a single and inseparable process.
But today, with the rise of the green movement, Mother Nature is reasserting herself, whether we like it or not. In particular, the acknowledgment that our planet is a living organisms, Gaia, Mother Earth, strikes a responsive chord in millions of people.
Lovelock's musings have had two consequences. They have inspired a quasi-political movement based in London, complete with a publishing arm, that now includes thousands of adherents throughout the U.S. and Western Europe. Indeed, Gaia has almost become the official ideology of "Green" parties in Europe: it appeals naturally to scientifically innocent individuals who worry about the environment.
In recent years, more scientists have come to recognize that matter and energy possess an innate ability to self-organize.
...the astonishing ability of an embryo to develop from a single strand of DNA, via an exquisitely well-organized sequence of formative steps, into an exceedingly complex organism.
All nature is evolutionary. The cosmos is like a great developing organism, and evolutionary creativity is inherent in nature herself.
The universe as a whole is a developing organism, and so are the galaxies, solar systems, and biospheres within it, including the earth.
The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim.... Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb.Evolution in the Last Days
I believe the most fundamental thing we can do today is to believe in evolution.
Ernest L. Abel, Ancient Views on the Origin of Life (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1973), p. 15.
Stanley L. Jaki, "Science: Western or What?" Intercollegiate Review (Vol. 26, Fall 1990), p. 8.
- James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1988), p. 208.
- Op. cit., p. 12.
- Rupert Sheldrake, "The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and of God" (New York: Bantam Books, 1991), p. 10.
- Tim Beardsley, "Gaia," Scientific American (Vol. 261, December 1989), p. 35.
- Paul Davies, "The Creative Cosmos," New Scientist (Vol. 116, December 17, 1987), p. 42.
- Rupert Sheldrake, op. cit., p. 95.
- Op. cit., p. 151.
- II Peter 1:16; I Timothy 6:20.
- Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1988), p. 242.
- Genesis 10:8-12, 11:1-9.
- Robert Muller, as cited in "United Nations' Robert Muller - A Vision of Global Spirituality," by Kristin Murphy, The Movement Newspaper, September 1983, p. 10.
Guess what? God knows when and how the world will end, and He will judge all things and all people with righteous judgment. All who have been born again by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior and thereby receiving atonement from sins and sanctification have already been judged as righteous by the shed Blood of Christ. All who have not will come before God and all who have sinned will be judged and punished for those sins. We all have sin...some of us are forgiven, not by our own goodness but only because we have believed in and accepted the free gift offered to all of mankind. God wants to bring all of mankind back to fellowship with Him. It is up to you.
So we see that it is belief versus belief. Does belief in uncaused chance making time, existence, natural laws, organisms and everything make more sense than a Supernatural God outside of time and space creating all of time, existence, natural laws, organisms and everything AND also giving mankind a Bible that allows us to understand and know Him? It is either *poof* or God. Frankly, when you investigate the evidence OR when you consider the question as a philosophical issue, the God side wins either way!
Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change
January 25, 2012
Click here for a PDF of the full article.
The TalkOrigins Speciation FAQ, titled "Observed Instances of Speciation"1 (herein "FAQ"), claims it "discusses several instances where speciation has been observed." For years, this FAQ has been cited by pro-Darwin internet debaters as allegedly demonstrating that neo-Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change. However, an analysis of the technical literature regarding many of the examples discussed in the FAQ2 reveal that such claims are clearly incorrect. This assessment finds:
- NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change.
- The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined according to the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population." Only one single example shows the production of a new species of plants via hybridization and polyploidy, but this example does not entail significant biological change.
- Only one of the examples purports to document the production of a reproductively isolated population of animals--however this example is overturned by a later study not mentioned in the FAQ.
- Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals--e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population--is given in the FAQ.
While most of the FAQ's discussions of the papers it cites are reasonably accurate, these papers amount to citation bluffs if one is claiming to "discus[s] several instances where speciation has been observed." People who believe this FAQ demonstrates that Darwinian processes can produce large-scale biological change have been badly misled. The examples in the FAQ are ultimately used to make inaccurate claims, and the FAQ's title, "Observed Instances of Speciation," is unwarranted.
Click here for a PDF of the full article.
[1.] See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (downloaded July 27, 2011).
[2.] This response responds to as many examples in the FAQ as possible where the original papers cited in the FAQ could be downloaded at a local university library. Some of the examples cited in the FAQ refer to very old papers that were not easily accessible. This rebuttal thus responds to 21 out of 30 total sections in the FAQ.
The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members. Click here to donate.