La Evolución es Religión—No Ciencia [Parte I]

[ EDITOR’S NOTE : The following article was written by one of the auxiliary scientific staff of AP . Dr. Houts holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He has received numerous awards, including a Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Leadership NASA . His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. The Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. Houts used for 11 years, where he worked in various positions including Branch Group Leadership. Currently he works as Director of Nuclear Research at Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA ].

One of the greatest deceptions perpetrated by atheists and humanists is to declare that the theory of evolution is somehow “science.” The reality is that evolution has nothing to do with science, but is simply a dogma of certain false religions that oppose God. It is important for Christians to realize that evolution is simply another erroneous belief, and that they should not be intimidated to the point of believing that true science supports this theory. It is also important that Christians not only mistrust of science because evolutionists and atheists falsely claim that this supports their views.

The science that sent men to the Moon and has produced great advances in computing, medicine and other fields, is observable, verifiable and repeatable. When a theory is developed, it can create experiments to determine if it is false. reference this true science as “operational science” is made. In recent years it has expanded the term “science” to include many areas that usually do not meet the criteria of operational science. These include social science, political science and others.

Even a more secluded area of ​​the operational science is the so-called “origins science.” The origins science is not observable, testable or repeatable. Commonly theories that relate to origins science are created so that, regardless of the evidence, his supporters can claim holding their viewpoint. In origins science, evidence relating to the origin of the universe (and everything in it) is interpreted within a framework of certain thought. For the atheist or humanist, explain everything without God. For the Christian, the story of creation in Genesis is the basis of his understanding. The evidence that Christians see is interpreted within the framework of the Bible.

Webster defines “religion” as “a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” ( Webster’s Ninth …, 1988, p. 995). Christianity fits into this category. Well the hundreds of false religions that have plagued mankind for millennia. Matthew 7: 13-14 indicated that most people will be deceived. Despite the ample evidence that God has given, they will choose to create their own religion or clinging to a false religion that their society promotes.

An event known something happened 3,000 years ago, when Elijah confronted 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah. These false prophets ate at the table of the queen (1 Kings 18:19), indicating that they were among the most respected and trusted people in society. Although they were obviously wrong, his position and power had so influenced the people that when Elijah said, “If the Lord is God, follow him; and if Baal, follow him “,” the people said nothing “(1 Kings 18:21). Many people (or most) certainly knew that Baal had been created by the imagination of men. However, the fact that so many “important” people in your society promoted Baal caused them questions about God, or intimidated them to the point of not being willing to strongly defend his belief in God.

A similar situation exists today. For decades it has made ​​efforts together to indoctrinate people into believing in evolution. However, polls still show that most Americans believe in God and believe that He created the universe and life (see Miller , 2007b, [10]: 37.40-R). Although this is good news, promotion of evolution that many “important” people exercise in our society has probably caused many of the respondents doubt God, or are intimidated to the point of not being willing to strongly defend his belief in God . For this main reason it is important that we realize that evolution is simply another false religion, and that temptation people face to this religion is nothing new.

Interpreting the Evidence

In origins science, interpretation of evidence depends greatly on the religious beliefs of a person. For example, consider the changes we see in life. It seems that in a few days populations of antibiotic resistant bacteria develop, routinely playing new “classes” of cats and dogs and wild animals adapt to changing environments. For the evolutionist and the creationist, these small changes show the “microevolution”. But for the evolutionist, the large amounts of microevolution, for a long period of time, lead to macroevolution is capable of turning dinosaurs into birds or an ape-like ancestor in a man. Evolutionists believe there is no need for the existence of God, because in his mind the diversity of life on Earth can be explained by macroevolution, starting with a form of “simple” life. In their religious system, genetic information needed to produce life we ​​see today was developed by macroevolution (Campbell, 1996, p. 454).

For the person who believes in the Bible, biological changes are the result of natural selection, mutations or selective breeding of the species that God originally created. The genetic information needed to produce the variety of life we ​​see today was present originally created species. God had included this information in the original and perfect creation.

A century ago, it would have been difficult to continue this discussion. But advances in science and technology now confirm that physical and analytical evidence greatly favors the Christian system. For example, any event is plotted observable development of bacterial antibiotic resistance to one of the following three mechanisms (Campbell, p 340.):

1. Some bacteria in the population are already resistant to antibiotics, and become the dominant race through natural selection (neutral information);
2. The genetic information needed to resist antibiotic is obtained through the transfer plasmid from another bacterium (neutral information); or
3. Antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation neutral information or loss of information (information neutral or negative information).

In each case, the genetic information is preserved or lost. In any case we find that New- information is generated which is required for at least theoretically possible Macroevolution .

Our scientific knowledge as to the bacteria is completely consistent with the Genesis. (God provided the genetic information during the creative week). Scientific knowledge in no way supports the search for evolutionists to explain the generation of large amounts of new genetic information through random mutations. It has not been observed mutations that increase information. None of the examples provided in the most popular books of biology holds the premise that the evolution of life occurs through increased information. On the contrary, many of the examples actually show the opposite of evolution-information decrease (Patterson, 2006, pp. 59-61).

“New” Races

When new breeds of dogs and cats developed, mostly genetic information is lost or, at best, it is preserved. For example, through selective breeding, you can commonly use a pair of wild dogs race to develop a very large breed dogs or very small (or both) in dogs only a few decades. However, developing these new breeds, genetic information is lost. Although the original pair of wild dogs had the genetic information to produce large dogs and small dogs, new breeds have less genetic information or variability. You can not reproduce dogs Great Danes from Chihuahuas, and can not produce Chihuahuas dogs Great Danes; It has lost the genetic information required. In less extreme cases, you can keep more information, but in no event information is added. Again, the evidence is seen in the selective reproduction is consistent with the Christian system, and is inconsistent with evolving system and / or atheist.

Changes in wild populations

You can also examine in great detail the changes in wild populations. Two popular species in biology textbooks (eg, Johnson, 1998) are Darwin’s finches and peppered moths. In both cases, simply genetic information is kept and no new genetic information is developed. For example, the story of the peppered moth states that there are two types of peppered moths: light and dark. The moths live among birches. In a clean, light-colored moths were better camouflaged on the bark of birch dark moths. Birds readily eat more dark moths, resulting in a population consisting of 95% of light moths and 5% dark moths. However, during the industrial revolution, the birch trees were covered with soot, and then the dark moths were better camouflaged than clear moths. The population distribution was reversed, with 95% of dark moths and 5% light moths.

It has been noted that the story of the peppered moth biology books that record may have been invented (Wieland, 1999, 21 [3]: 56). But even if true, this story proves macroevolution. At all times, there was the genetic information to produce light and dark moths. New genetic information that macroevolution need is never generated. Again, the evidence is consistent with the Christian system, and does not contribute at all to the evolutionary system.

Homologous and Analogous Structures

Another issue that personal religion greatly influences the interpretation of the evidence is homologous and analogous structures. Homologous and analogous structures are structures in different species that are similar. A typical example is the similarity in the structure of the bird’s wing, fin dolphin and the man’s arm.

Given the biblical approach, one would expect that similar structures exist. God created all life, and it would be surprising if there were no physical similarities between species. Wings, fins and arms support the tension, and be expected to have similarities in design to perform that function. Bicycles, cars and planes have wheels. Although your tires are different, they have obvious similarities and similar functions. Bicycles, cars and planes have wheels as they have a common designer (humans). Humans choose the tires to achieve certain functions.

For the Christian, homologous structures are structures in different species that are similar because God created all life . However, for the evolutionary homologous structures in different species they are similar due to common ancestry (Johnson, 1998, p. 178). For the evolutionist, wings, fins and arms are not similar because God designed the three structures, but because they share a common marine ancestor (Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 405). Extending the previous analogy, for the evolutionist, bicycles, cars and planes have wheels, not because of a common designer, but because all began as tricycles.

Both the Christian interpretation of homologous structures and evolutionary interpretation of homologous structures end with a statement of faith. No statement (ie, “like because God created all life” or “similar because of common ancestry”) has a scientific basis; These are beliefs based on personal perspective. However, only the atheistic interpretation is presented in the five biology textbooks that I have reviewed (Campbell, 1996; Johnson, 1998; Kaskel, et.al., 1999; Miller and Levine, 1998; Starr and Taggart, 1984) . [ NOTE : For a discussion of biblical faith is based on knowledge and evidence, see Miller , 2007a; Sztanyo, 1996; Thompson, 1994].

There are many known cases where homologous structures could not have shared a common ancestor (as an evolutionary approach). For example, on a surface level, fingers frog seem like human fingers. But now we know that these were developed in a completely different way, and they could have shared a common ancestor (Sadler, 1995, pp. 154-157). Even most biology textbooks recognize that there are numerous instances of apparent similarities to which there is no plausible explanation for relationship. A typical example is the similarity between the sharks and dolphins (Johnson, p. 320).

To fit these cases, evolutionists have created another term: “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is defined as “independent development of similarities between species as a result of having similar ecological roles and selection pressures (Campbell, p. G-6). Evolutionists often refer to these similarities as “analogous structures” (Starr and Taggart, p. 497).

This illustrates another key (non-scientific) of the theory of evolution. It has created the theory of evolution so that, despite the evidence, evolutionists can say that religion holds. If a bird has bright colors, then it evolved their colorful feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s feathers are gray, then the bird evolved that color to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar genetic sequences, then the reason is that the two species share a common ancestor. If similarities are found in species that are genetically very different, then this is due to the “convergent evolution”. Regardless of the evidence, in the eyes of the believer, evolution is true.

A criterion for determining whether a theory is scientific is whether the theory is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be developed in such a way that it could create an experiment that proved false. On the issue of the similarities between agencies, it has developed the theory of evolution in order that no experiment proves false.

Although the issue is not scientific, articles promoting evolution often use similarities between organisms to try to convince readers that the theory is true. A recent example is the article of National Geographic , “Was Darwin Wrong?” (“Was Darwin Wrong?”) [Quammen, 2004, 206 [5]: 31]. Examples abound in biology textbooks.

The Origin of Life

Another area where you can see the religious nature of the theory of evolution is the controversy of the origin of life. From a Christian perspective, the Bible tells us how life was created during Creation week. Life is evidence of God’s work. In contrast, humanistic and atheistic religions require that somehow explain the existence of life without God. In the century XXI , most humanists and atheists have chosen to put their faith in the theory of evolution.

When the theory of evolution began to be popular in the late 1800s, it was easy to speculate as “simple” life forms that emerged in warm ponds filled with chemicals, or in similar places (Darwin, 1887, p. 202). The main evolutionary speculated freely and even invented “evidence” in support of their religion (Grigg, 1996, 18 [2]: 33-36). But advances in science have shown that these speculations and inventions are nonsense.

For example, we now know that the simplest form of life is much more complex than anything humans have ever created. It is much more reasonable to declare that a spacecraft can be put together at random and off you declare a simple way of life can arise spontaneously from random chemical interactions.

It has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in biotechnology. Biotechnology employs some of the most brilliant scientists, who work incredibly sophisticated laboratories. However, despite this large investment of money, talent and equipment, no one has been even close to creating life from inanimate. A relatively simple techniques like cloning (which basically involves the transfer of DNA from one organism existing on the other) are given international significance, but for objective observer it shows how impressive is really complex life (see Butt and Lyons , 2005 for numerous other examples).

In response, many evolutionists (and the textbooks they write) state experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment to show that what they call “building blocks” of life could potentially form a spontaneously. But these so-called “building blocks” are far from a living organism, and the atoms are.

You can summarize the discussion of a typical textbook (eg, Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 405) on the Miller-Urey experiment follows.

1. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey recreated the original by mixing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water atmosphere.
2. By passing an electric spark through the mixture, they showed that organic compounds could form spontaneously.
3. The results of this experiment were spectacular and exceeded the wildest dreams of Miller and Urey.

By invoking emotion (“wildest dreams”) and selectively present only a very small part of the relevant information, you get to effectively deceive the student. What most textbooks do not mention is more revealing. Consider some examples:

1. Even most evolutionists now agree that the atmosphere simulated Miller and Urey could not have existed. Ultraviolet light would destroy ammonia and methane. Hydrogen had existed only in small amounts because it can escape the Earth’s gravity. According to the current view of evolutionists, it has always existed carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Despite this evidence, the textbook boldly declares, “Stanley Miller and Harold Urey recreated the primitive atmosphere”.
2. In an aqueous environment, the amino acids are joined in long chains but separated. In an aqueous environment, it may only be one in 10 ²⁰⁰ (one followed by 200 zeros) in a chain of 100 amino acids, about the length of the shorter protein. Biology textbooks tend to completely avoid this fatal flaw in scenarios similar to a “primordial soup”. However, evolutionists recognize the problem and have made ​​numerous attempts to address it. These include proposing the presence of condensing agents (which is an inadequate explanation even optimistic considering some conditions that are impossible because of other evolutionary assumptions), proposing a heat source to dry the water (which destroys some of the amino acids cause as vital and highly randomized) and other polymers result. All attempts have failed to demonstrate a realistic spontaneously assembling the long chain of amino acids needed to form even a single protein useful way. [ NOTE : An excellent summary of attempts (failed) is provided evolutionists explain this in Sarfati, 1998a, 12 [3]: 281-284].
3. Amino acids are found in forms left and right, and life uses only the left. Types Miller-Urey experiments result in a uniform mixture (racemic) amino acids of left and right, unable to form proteins. In the incredibly unlikely event that could form an amino acid chain (see previous paragraph), the probability that all of these amino acids were left is ~ one in 10 ³⁰ . For more typical protein sizes (400 amino acids), the probability is ~ 10 ¹²⁰ . The biology textbooks also overlook this fatal flaw, although the authors obviously know it exists. For example, Campbell discussed racemization (the slow conversion of pure L-amino acids in proteins to a mixture of L and D-amino acids) as a means of determining how long an organism has been dead (1996, p. 457) . However, throughout the extensive discussion of the theory of evolution, even the topic is mentioned. As in the case of the issue of polymerization it has desperately tried to explain the issue of chirality (molecular handedness). Attempts include polarization by quartz optically active ultraviolet light or other light sources, the weak force, clay and many other scenarios that, when analyzed or tested, it becomes clear that they are too inefficient to significantly improve the likelihood that spontaneously form a left-amino acid. [ NOTE : Sarfati provides an excellent summary of these failed attempts (1998b, 12 [3]: 263-266)].
4. Less than two percent of the products formed in the Miller-Urey experiment were amino acids. The major products were carboxylic acids and tar, which are toxic to life and also more likely to join the amino acids (thus breaking any development chain) amino acids that join between them.
5. To form a chain of amino acids, functional monomers is required. If a non-functional monomer is attached to the string, the string is broken. The type of Miller-Urey experiments produce at least three times as many non-functional monomers as bifunctional monomers. This also causes the arm casually chances of a long chain of amino acids are impossibly low.
6. Many famous evolutionists have calculated the probability that a cell or even just the proteins in cells meet by chance. This probability (calculated even by evolutionists themselves) discredits the theory while typically not mentioned in discussions on the subject. The famous atheistic astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the probability that even the proteins of an amoeba arising by chance at one in 10 ^40,000 , ie, one followed by 40,000 zeroes (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 130). Harold Morowitz, a former professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, calculated the probability that a single-celled organism is organized casually existing structures as one in 10 ^{100,000,000,000} , ie, a one followed by 100 billion zeroes (Morowitz, 1968 , p. 98). Carl Sagan and other famous evolutionists (including Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA ) have reached similar conclusions (Sagan, et al, 1973, pp. 45-46). Calculations such as these were the foundation of the famous quote from Sir Fred Hoyle that the probability of spontaneous generation “is almost the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents” (Hoyle, 1981 , 294 [5837]: 105). Hoyle also said he could not understand “the vast obligation biologists deny what seems obvious to me” (294 [5837]: 105).

Concealing evidence against the theory of evolution is not limited to discussions of the types of Miller-Urey experiments, but those discussions are revealing.

The objective scientist obtains and considers all available evidence. The obvious desire that evolutionists have to suppress or ignore evidence that contradicts the atheistic point of view is another example that evolution is a religion, not science. This cover is not unique, but it is obvious and widespread in most textbooks of secondary and university level.

True science is the enemy of atheists and evolutionists. In recent years, many evolutionists have sought to shift the debate on the origin of life to areas where it is more difficult to apply operational science. An example is the theory that life somehow arose elsewhere in the universe and was transported to Earth. While proposing events “elsewhere in the universe” does not change the fundamental reasons why evolution can not happen, the proposal complicates matters enough to comfort those who are engaged in seeking a atheistic explanation for the origin of life.

It has also been exaggerated or distorted the significance of “discoveries” in space to mislead the reader. For example, in the article, “Are we Martians? Research says, perhaps “(” Are We Martians? Maybe, Study Says “, 2000), several professors and researchers discuss organic molecules found in space. Throughout the article, terms like “primitive life forms,” ​​”ancestral cells” and “microbes” spread. Only at the end of the article it gives the reader some clues as to what has actually been found. It states: “Among the chemicals detected was acetylene, a structure for benzene and other aromatic molecules that, in turn, can form complex hydrocarbons, the chemical stuff of life.” In other words, since we detected C ₂ H ₂ in space (which can be easily predicted by a chemistry course first level), we are supposed to have confidence that we can be Martians. Indeed, the C ₂ H ₂ is not obviously closer to a live carbon or hydrogen organism.

An article in the magazine Sky & Telescope concerning the Galileo probe to Jupiter, provides a more honest representation. Besides giving quantitative results measured by the survey, a paragraph in Article states:

Another blow to scientists’ expectations was the paucity of complex organic molecules, which laboratory studies have suggested that there should be. Some researchers have even suggested that there may be pre-biotic compounds in the Jovian atmosphere. But the mass spectrometer found nothing fancier than simple carbon-based species, such as ethane ( C ₂ H ₆ ). Niemann concludes, “There is no bug floating in the clouds” (Beatty, 1996, 91 [4]: 21). [ NOTE : “Niemann” refers to Hasso B. Niemann of the Goddard Space Center NASA , who led one of the teams analyzing the survey results].

Vestigial structures

A typical definition of “vestigial structure” is a “structure which is the rest of the evolutionary past of an organism and have no function; It comes from the Latin vestigium , meaning footprint “(Johnson, 1998, p. 868). In talking about vestigial structures, Charles Darwin declared that “rather than presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, might even have been expected in harmony with these points of view [evolution- MH ] explained here “(Darwin, 1859, p. 350).

The idea of ​​vestigial structures was further promoted by the German anatomist Robert Wiedersheim (Wiedersheim, 1895), who claimed to have identified 186 vestigial structures in the human body. As Darwin, Wiedersheim also attributed religious significance to vestigial structures, stating that vestigial organs “that the doctrine of special creation or any other theological hypothesis fails to explain, can be explained satisfactorily by the theory of selection” (p. 3).

Again, true science has proven to be the enemy of the evolutionist. As scientific knowledge increased, more structures list Weidersheim took off. Today, we have found 186 functions for all “vestigial” Wiedersheim structures. Instead of providing support for evolution, the vestigial structures are just one example of scientific ignorance (and atheistic arrogance) that is used to promote false religion.

Perhaps the best known “vestigial” structure was the vermiform appendix. Until the end of century XX , there were no clearly identified functions for the appendix. In addition, it was established long ago that a ruptured appendix could cause a lethally dangerous infection. The combination of ignorance as to the function and severity of acute appendicitis led many considered the appendix as worse than useless. Evolutionists took advantage of this review to declare that the appendix was a vestigial organ, evidence (in his opinion) that his theory was true.

However, recent advances in biology have identified many functions for the vermiform appendix, especially in early childhood. For example, the magazine New Scientist quotes the words of some researchers:

Although it used to believe that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, and it is not believed that this is true. Its major importance is the immune function that provides the embryo develops, but continues to operate even in the adult …. The function of the appendix seems to expose circulating immune cells to antigens of bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to distinguish friend from foe and stop damaging attacks causing bacteria coexist happily with you. By the time he is an adult, it seems that your immune system has learned to cope with the strange substance in the intestinal tract, so your appendix is ​​no longer important. But the flaws in the appendix and other immune test areas may be involved in autoimmune diseases and inflammation of the bowel (“The Last Word”, 2003, 177 [2381]: 65).

The same article notes that during fetal development, appear endocrine cells (hormone-producing) in the appendix. These cells produce peptide hormones which control various biological mechanisms (177 [2381]: 65).

Other structures were considered “vestigial” include previously semilunares escrow , human hair, the tonsils, the coccyx, the thymus gland, the pineal gland and others. It has also been identified important roles for these structures. Although many evolutionists have abandoned the argument that the structures “vestigial” provide evidence for evolution, they are still mentioned in many textbooks and in popular media (eg, Selim, 2004, 25 [6]: 42-46 ). A similar argument arose in the late 1990s, when evolutionists claimed that significant parts of the DNA that were human “trash” left in our evolutionary past. When our knowledge of DNA increased, that argument quickly faded. While we still have much to learn about the functions of DNA , we now know that several sections called “junk” only a few years ago have many important functions.

Ironically, even if they had been real, vestigial structures would have been consistent with the story of creation. more than 6,000 years of natural selection and genetic degradation has passed since Adam sinned. You should expect that many of our organs do not work as well as working on the original perfect Creation. It is also possible that some of the functions are completely lost. [ NOTE : (.. 1990, pp 1ff) Bergman and Howe provide a good summary of the plot of the “Vestigial Structures”].

Evolution as a State Religion

Bound to promote evolution goes beyond prejudice or use deception techniques effort. The following quote from The Humanist provides a more general idea.

I am convinced that the battle for the future of humanity must be earned in the classroom school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians They called divine in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication of the most fanatical fundamentalist preachers, for they shall be different ministers, using the classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values ​​in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level-preschool , daycare or state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new-the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evil and misery, and the new faith of humanism (Dunphy, 1983, 43 [1] : 26).

Many parents would rebel against a public school system that openly declares the goal of indoctrinating their children with humanism. But in schools where the humanist agenda is promoted more subtle means used. Since evolution under the guise of science is taught, it has become a useful tool for promoting humanism and other forms of atheism tool.

Many school textbooks contain revealing quotations. For example, Campbell says, “Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than supernatural creation” (1996, p. 413). The author makes it clear that in his view, science is incompatible with the Bible. He said that he had not proven that the two foundational assertions are false Darwin. There is no such thing as a “simple cell” that may arise by chance from a “warm pool” and there is no evidence that mutations add genetic information to life that already exists. A more accurate statement is: “Darwin attempted to give Biology an atheistic basis by attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than supernatural creation.”

Miller and Levine attempt to support evolution by creating a weak and then refuting creationist argument. They state:

The vast majority of Europeans in the time of Darwin believed that the Earth and all life forms were divine creations, produced a few thousand years ago during the period of one week. It was thought that this original creation, the Earth and its living species remained fixed and unchanged. By the time Darwin sailed on the Beagle, he had made numerous discoveries-for example, fossils of extinct animals-that this traditional approach could not explain (1998, p. 223).

This statement provides two cases of misinformation. First, the types of changes Darwin observed (variation within a species) were documented over 3,000 years before Darwin in Genesis 30: 32-42. However, introducing a mistaken belief to the Bible (although there is no evidence presented that the “vast majority of Europeans” really believed that statement), you try to discredit the Bible. Second, the Genesis Flood (and the climate changes that are likely produced) provides an excellent explanation for the fossil record, the Ice Age and the extinction of animals. Rather than the “traditional approach” can not explain these things, the Bible explains better the fossil record and other observations we make in the present.

There are numerous other examples. Editions of textbooks designed for the educator encourage teachers to mislead students by comparing the changes resulting from the application of intelligence to the random changes that supposedly produced evolution. Examples include comparing improvements in athletic shoes (Miller and Levine, 1998, p. 216) and changes in the designs of cars (Kaskel, et.al., 1999, p. 616) with evolution. If a student can achieve link the theory of evolution with something he knows to be true, then it is more likely to accept the theory-even if the link is completely illogical. In the edition of educator Biology: Visualizing Life it ( Biology: Visualizing Life ), it is urging teachers to “emphasize that believes that evolution is a scientific fact” (Johnson, 1998, p 175.).

Evolution is promoted with taxpayer taxes and in many other ways. Public natural history museums often have multimillion exhibitions on evolution, typically with the same religious prejudice and unscientific that plagues textbooks. The National Academy of Sciences (whose members, according to a recent survey in the journal Nature , are 72.2% 20.8% atheists and agnostics [Larson and Witham, 1998, 394 [6691]: ​​313]) recently received a grant to develop a guide study, entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science ( Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science ) to indoctrinate students with evolution. Tips include encouraging religious students to believe that “God used evolution,” or that evolution is somehow compatible with the Bible (National Academy of Sciences, 1998, p. 58). Attempts to encourage students to worship multiple “gods” resemble those of Jeremiah 11:13.

You can learn a lot from the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). False religions had greatly deceived the Israelites, and his leadership was fully committed to these false religions. The reaction of Queen Jezebel when Elijah proved that it was false religion is very revealing. Instead of thanking Elijah and to return to their country (and herself) the right course, she swore to kill him. A similar situation exists today. The evidence for the existence of God is clear. However, instead of giving thanks for the evidence, many people go to extremes to defend the false religion they have chosen to follow. The methods that were used to promote the theory of evolution are examples of extremism.

False religions have opposed God throughout recorded history, and will continue until Christ returns. Romans 1: 20-22 declares:

For the invisible things of him, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Denying the existence of God is inexcusable. Although evolutionists profess to be wise, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a fundamental trend of atheistic religion. It has nothing to do with real science.

“Are We Martians? Maybe, Study Says “(2000), The Associated Press, [On-line], URL: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/01/13/mars.life.ap/index.html .

Beatty, J. Kelly (1996), “Into the Giant” Sky & Telescope , 91 [4]: 20-22.

Bergman, Jerry and George F. Howe (1990), “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Kansas City, MO: Creation Research Society).

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2005), Truth Be Told: Exposing the Myth of Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Campbell, Neil A. (1996) Biology (Menloe Park, CA: Benjamin / Cummings Publishing).

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1998 reprint).

Darwin, Francis (1887), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: D. Appleton).

Dunphy, J. (1983), “A Religion for a New Age”, The Humanist , 43 [1]: 26, January-February.

Grigg, Russell (1996), “Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit” Creation , 18 [2]: 33-36, March.

Hoyle, Fred (1981), “Hoyle on Evolution”, Nature , 294 [5837]: 105, 12 November.

Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe Fred (1981), Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Johnson, George B. (1998), Biology: Visualizing Life (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Kaskel, Albert, Paul J. Hummer, Lucy and Daniel Jr. (1999), Biology: An Everyday Experience (Westerville, OH: Glencoe / McGraw-Hill).

Larson and L. Witham EJ (1998), “Leading Scientists Still Reject God”, Nature , 394 [6691]: ​​313, July 23.

“The Last Word” (2003), New Scientist , 177 [2381]: 65, February 8th.

Miller, Dave (2007a), “Christianity is rational” [On-line], URL: /espanol/articulos/3445 .

Miller, Dave (2007b), “Most Americans Still Reject Evolution,” Reason & Revelation , 6 [10]: 37, 40-R, October.

Miller, Kenneth Joseph R. and Levine (1998), Biology, the Living Science (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Morowitz, Harold (1968), Energy Flow in Biology (New York: Academic Press).

National Academy of Sciences (1998), Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Patterson, Roger (2006), Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis).

Quammen, David (2004), “Was Darwin Wrong?” National Geographic , 206 [5]: 31 November.

Sadler, TW (1995), Langman’s Medical Embryology (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins), seventh edition.

Sagan, Carl, FHC Crick and LM Mukhin (1973), Carl Sagan, ed. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence ( CETI ) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Sarfati, JD (1998a), “Origin of Life: The Problem Polymerization”, Technical Journal , 12 [3]: 281-284, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj /v12/i3/polymerization.asp.

Sarfati, JD (1998b), “Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem”, Technical Journal , 12 [3]: 263-266, December, [On-line], URL : http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj /v12/i3/chirality.asp.

Selim, Jocelyn (2004), “Useless Body Parts” Discover Magazine , 25 [6]: 42-46, 26 June.

Starr and Ralph Taggart CECIE (1984), Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).

Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason , [On-line], URL : /pdfs/e-books_pdf/far.pdf.

Thompson, Bert (1994), “Faith and Knowledge” Reason & Revelation , 14 [4]: 25-27,29-31, April.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988) (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).

Wiedersheim, Robert (1895), The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History , trans. H. and M. Bernard (London: Macmillan).

Wieland, Carl (1999), “Goodbye, Peppered Moths” Creation , 21 [3]: 56 June.

Published December 16, 2007

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→