In this Book Review, I share the core contents of the Creation Ministries International recent publication, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel. I then offer my personal story and a brief commentary to conclude.
In short, despite the desperate wishes of many to the contrary, no objective truth-seeker on the planet can deny that the problems associated with the concept of Evolution prove to be emphatically insurmountable. Belief in Evolution is entirely a religious activity in line with that of a cult.
This is a book with many strong statements on a vitally important subject. I like the book because it brings all the key issues into one place with experts all taking their best shots at showing the foolishness that continued belief in Evolution really is. These are all more than just body blows to Evolution – they are all lethal.
My summary includes my personal learning and awakening and is equally damning of the nonsense called Evolution, something so ludicrous that it has no right to even be called a Theory. Enjoy!
Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel is a killer book. For any thinker and especially anyone with a modicum of truthseeking, it will kill off any last residue of faith in the cult called Evolution.
Let’s stop talking BS, nonsense and guesswork and get the facts out there. If you’ve got it all worked out and believe that Evolution is a fact, then either go away now or be ready to have your worldview turned upside down. As I said, this book is a killer, containing what should be substantial challenges for any Evolutionist who claims to be a truthseeker!
Compiler and editor is Dr Carl Wieland. A long time ago I met and spoke with Carl. My take was that he was onto it, straight and had no axe to grind. He appeared to be a guy just like me who had a brain, was using it and had worked out that the biblical account made better sense than anything else dished up by those with hidden agendas and egos that matched their horrendously ‘significant’ scientific and academic income streams (if they played the game).
After reading his early work and listening to his explanations about the world around him, I dug a little deeper and asked him what as a Biblical Creationist he didn’t know or understand and would like to know the answers to. He answered straight with the things that bothered him personally when comparing the visible measureable world around us with the scriptural account. I could see integrity.
He’s been heading up the Australian Biblical Creation organisation CMI (formerly Answers In Genesis) since the year dot, and has a pretty impressive track record in the industry, if you can call it an industry! As with Carl, I have found CMI to be totally switched-on organisation with a very clear mandate, mission, focus and strong leadership in Kem Ham, an Aussie-made-good in the USA. They are a top organisation – very professional.*
I would also note that CMI talks up the quality of the writers as all recognised experts in their field all with PhDs, and that this is a common defence up front against the incessant attacks from people whose belief systems are threatened by Biblical Creationists. CMI is at the front of it all, very actively putting the message into the public arena. It’s a serious war out there, a war for the hearts and minds (and some would say souls) of the world.
In this Book Review, I leave the bulk of the ‘talking’ to the various authors who contribute a chapter on their areas of expertise and then who finish the chapter addressing the same question, “Where does this lead?” [most probably written by Carl] as a summarising and linking paragraph. As a literary technique, it works very well.
[Introduction] – Dr Carl Wieland
The opening salvo [Chapter 1], by biologist Dr Don Batten, is on the whole issue of natural selection (something both logical and observable) as a mechanism by which the animate world has supposedly made itself.
It is fitting that it should be the first [Chapter] in line, as it represents the central point of departure from reality for Darwin. The others follow in logical sequence, stretching back into imaginary evolutionary time.
If reason has not yet departed too extensively from this post-modern culture, it is not too much to expect that this book will open the eyes of many to how the Bible, not evolution, fits the facts of the real world.
Chapter 1. Natural Selection – Dr Don Batten
Natural Selection [is] the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution … Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense idea. Creatures with features (traits) suited to survival in a given environment tend to survive better than those that do not have those features.
What is evolution? Is it ‘change over time’ [STE] or ‘the common ancestry of all species’ [GTE]? While trying to combine these two ideas, Darwin’s theory entailed the formation of new species (speciation), although he did not really explain how new species formed (and how it happens is still somewhat controversial) … speciation simply involves the origin of, for example, a variety of rabbit that no longer breeds with its ancestor rabbits. This is quite different from seeing a new species as a step in turning microbes into mankind. Darwin assumed that the variation seen between species was limitless, so that natural selection could change a microbe into a mongoose over eons of time.
Natural selection is not evolution
Natural selection is not original to Darwin
Natural selection is not a refutation of creation
There are thousands of examples of ‘living fossils’ that look identical to modern species and yet they are almost always given a different genus name , not just a different species. This misnaming gives the false impression of organisms changing whereas the evidence is often that they have changed very little or not at all. It aptly demonstrates how one’s starting paradigm governs the interpretation of ‘facts’. Fossils found on different continents also tend to get different names, adding to the confusion.
The process of speciation does not support evolution No observed speciation event lends any support to the idea that speciation leads to brand new organisms – new kinds … referring to [guppy data discussed as an example], an evolutionary geneticist commented, “As far as I know, these are still guppies.”
Natural Selection, if it works at all, is a creationist position.
Where does this lead?
Mutations and natural selection are clearly inadequate as a mechanism for the GTE [General Theory of Evolution, i.e. macro-evolution, the idea that man evolved from monkeys and monkeys from molecules].
The modern explosion in molecular biology has only added to the case against evolution as a viable explanation for the diversity of life on earth
The next chapter will explore what lies behind evolutionary theory, the field of genetics, and how modern discoveries in genetics render the idea of evolution (GTE) quite untenable.
Chapter 2. Genetics and DNA – Dr Robert Carter
Because of the time in which he lived, Charles Darwin knew nothing of genetics.
throughout his entire life, Darwin was ignorant of the fundamental processes upon which evolutionary theory needed to operate. It turns out that the laws of genetics are not friendly to evolutionary theory.
Darwin invented his own theory called Pangenesis. … There was no physical or experimental basis for this view [which] appealed directly to an older theory called Lamarckian inheritance [i.e.] “the inheritance of acquired characteristics”. Darwin certainly ascribed to [this theory] but he was wrong.
DNA fragility is one of many Achilles’ heels of evolutionary genetics, but it is an important one. In order for DNA to be useful, it needs a huge complement of repair enzymes to maintain it. There are many different ways DNA can be damaged and there are specific enzyme complexes that deal with each type of damage, but what is even more challenging to the evolutionary model is that those enzymes are also coded in the DNA, yet DNA cannot be sustained in the cell without them. This is a chicken-and-egg problem par excellence! … DNA is the last thing one would ever expect early life to start using for information storage.
Information maintenance is another Achilles’ heel of evolutionary genetics, for it does not work without a near-perfect information maintenance system.
‘Junk’ DNA is (mostly) functional
There is a grave problem with the one gene, one enzyme hypothesis, however, for like Darwin’s idea of Pangenesis and the existence of junk DNA, it is also wrong … From the results of the ENCODE project specifically, the world has been given a glimpse inside the most sophisticated computer operating system in the known universe— the human genome. But it is not a protein computer. Actually, the genome is more like an RNA supercomputer that outputs protein.
[In regards to the] Hyper-complexity of a four-dimensional genome … This is all extremely complicated, but it underscores the next Achilles’ heel of evolutionary genetics. Darwinism needs life to be simple. Natural selection needs the ability to take the little tweaks caused by mutation and select the best from a herd or group of animals. Once a species is in existence, perhaps natural selection could work in limited ways, but can this process explain how the species came into existence in the first place? Hardly, for a simple process of error accumulation and selection could not create a complex, interleaved, four-dimensional system with an amazing amount of data compression and flexibility. And, once that system is in place, it will be seriously threatened by future random changes through mutation. That is the situation we are in today. It is fine to imagine small changes to an already-existing, complex system. To use those small changes as an explanation for the origin of that system itself, however, is tantamount to saying there was no intelligence involved in the production of the latest computer operating systems. Yet the genome far surpasses in complexity and efficiency any operating system in the world today.
Where does this lead?
It should be plain by now that genetics is no friend of Darwin. His ignorance of the complexity of life, the means by which species reproduce, and the fragility of complicated systems, allowed him to theorize his way around insurmountable obstacles. [Darwin lived in an age pre-genetics thus created his own (incorrect) theory of genetics]
Darwinism should be appraised in the light of modern knowledge. Modern genetics supports the biblical account quite well. There is abundant evidence in the genes of modern man for the creation of two original people (Adam and Eve), a population bottleneck a few thousand years later (during Noah’s Flood), and a subdivision of the population a few generations after that (at Babel), with the subsequent single dispersal of humanity across the globe.
Not only that, but the rate of mutation, the distribution of mutations, and the fragility of the ultra-complex computer operating system called the human genome all testify to the youth of that system. One wonders if Darwin would have been able to come to the same conclusions if he were alive today (and if he openly and honestly dealt with the relevant data).
But it is not just the existence of genetics that is a threat to evolution, for the origin of life is no friend of evolutionary theory either. In the next chapter, we will look into this, for all evolutionary origin of life scenarios defy known laws of chemistry, physics and probability.
Chapter 3. The Origin of Life – Dr Jonathan Sarfati
Randomness is the antithesis of information. So is precise regularity (as in crystals). For information, which is neither random nor infinitely repeating, to arise naturalistically, in the absence of mind or programmed machinery, would require overcoming such huge probabilistic barriers as to be rightly called ‘impossible’.
the origin of first life is a glaring Achilles’ heel for materialists. Even the simplest living single-celled organism is extremely complex, including numerous, complex machines and the instructions to build them , all stored in a way that can be both decoded for use by the organism and passed on to offspring. The simplest theorized reproducing organism would require numerous proteins and molecular machines and a way to code and store the information needed to manufacture them. 1 Is it possible for such a cell to evolve from chemical precursors? In every known self-reproducing organism on earth today, DNA stores biological information , but that information can’t be read without decoding machinery. The instructions to build this decoding machinery are themselves stored on the DNA.Is it possible to solve this vicious chicken-and-egg problem? Furthermore, most of these processes use energy, supplied by ATP, produced by the nano-motor ATP synthase. But the ATP synthase motor can’t be produced without instructions in the DNA, read by decoding machinery using ATP – a three-way circle, or perhaps an egg-nymph-grasshopper problem (i.e. it is even worse than a chicken-and-egg problem). Is there a solution to this perplexing conundrum, or does it signal to us that the origin of life as we know it is impossible? Some propose to solve these problems by having one type of molecule function as both the information storage/ retrieval system and the decoding machinery. But how does the most common candidate, RNA, measure up to the requirements of first life?
Darwinian processes can’t explain first life
information, rather than chemistry, is the main problem for the origin of life. Even the simplest imagined life would have enormous information content … No origin-of-life simulation approaches this bare minimum in the slightest.
Natural selection can’t operate without a self-sustaining, reproducing system. Therefore, it can’t be invoked to explain this minimum level of complexity. All evolutionists have is chance. This is amenable to fairly simple probability calculations.
one could calculate the probability of obtaining the DNA sequences for each of these proteins at random … 20 amino acids … 387 proteins for the simplest possible life … 10 conserved amino acids on average … This is one chance in one followed by over 5,000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5,000-digit PIN on the first go! Yet, without this entirely fortuitous assemblage, life is not possible. This is not a matter of slowly building up pre-living chemicals, for this is the simplest form of life according to those who believe the origin of life is possible from a chemical soup.
These numbers are so large as to be meaningless. The point is to illustrate the statistical impossibility (beyond ‘improbability’) of the origin of life from non-living chemicals.
Chemistry [is] the mortal enemy of the spontaneous origin of life
few seem aware that there is not the slightest evidence that [chemical evolutionary has] ever existed.
The origin of life from non-living chemicals has been an article of blind faith, not science, and this has been true since the time of Darwin. The main problem with much chemical evolutionary theorizing is that the theorists consider life as an assembly of chemicals rather than an information-processing machine, and they never answer the question, “How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?” Natural selection can’t explain origin of first life. Machines are required to process this information. But this information includes instructions to build these machines. Thus, chicken-and-egg problems abound. These machines need energy, and this comes from the ATP synthase motor. But the motor can’t be built without the instructions and reading machinery coded into DNA, and the assembly machinery needs ATP to be assembled. This constitutes an egg-nymph-grasshopper problem … Finally, there is no evidence in the ‘earliest’ rocks for the early and necessary stages of chemical pre-life. In essence, the laws of physics, chemistry and probability disagree with the abiotic origin of life hypothesis. It is not biblical creationists who are appealing to a god-of-the-gaps argument here! In fact, our contention is that an intelligent, creator God who exists outside the universe and is the cause of the universe is the only reasonable conclusion when faced with what we have learned through centuries of experimental science.
Where does this lead?
This book started with an analysis of Darwin’s main engine for evolution, natural selection, and found it wanting
We then dealt with genetics, of which Darwin was totally ignorant, even though it was necessary for a full understanding of evolution, and saw that evolution failed here as well. Those two chapters make a nice couplet, as the topics are central to his theory.
The present chapter on the origin of life can be paired with the next chapter by Dr Emil Silvestru on the fossil record. These are two topics that Darwin needed to be true, but he had to assume they would support his theory eventually, for the science was in its infancy.
We saw that Darwin attempted to avoid discussing the ultimate origin of life, and for good reason! It turns out that he also avoided detailed discussion of the fossil record, for he knew that it did not support his ideas, according to the knowledge of the day.
If evolution is true, first, it should be possible on chemical and statistical grounds (it is not), and second, we should see evidence for it in the fossil record. Was Darwin right to assume future discoveries would demonstrate slow change over millions of years? It turns out that the reality of the fossil record is yet another Achilles’ heel of evolution.
Chapter 4. The Fossil Record – Dr Emil Silvestru
… the general picture of the fossil record is not what Darwin and Darwinists since Darwin want it to be.
… it is absurd and outright unscientific to claim that absence cannot be used as argument against the very concept of transitional forms, especially since the story that the fossil record presents is far from satisfying to evolutionary paleontologists:
Can you see that, if evolution, on the one hand, claims to explain radical changes over time while, on the other hand, also claims to explain radical stasis over time, there is no evidence one can submit as a test of evolutionary theory? Truly, it is more philosophy than science.
If the biological diversity of life today is the result of nearly 4 billion years of descent with modification through natural selection, the fossil record should provide the ultimate evidence for it. It turns out that one can hardly find a more factual example for the weaknesses of such a naturalistic view, making the fossil record a true Achilles’ heel of evolution. Darwin knew it, and modern paleontologists know it.
It almost appears that the fossil record has been turned today into an icon, a sacred image that is worshipped by a crowd of disciplined followers.
It became impossible to build a tree because of too many branches, and sections of the trunk are entirely missing. Instead, cladograms are now used.
the general picture of the fossil record is not what Darwin and Darwinists since Darwin want it to be. Offset fossils and a lack of natural explanations (other than Noah’s Flood) for fossil accumulation are a serious challenge to evolution.
Darwin was well aware of something strange in the Cambrian: a number of fossils found in Cambrian strata seemed to pop into the fossil record with nothing more primitive to connect to in the Precambrian layers below … Darwin’s ultimate solution was an escape to the future, when the fossil record will yield evidence to prove him right.
we must understand that the vast majority of fossils used as evidence for evolutionary transitions display small-scale variation only, what can be described as variation within a basic kind. Thus, they fit into the common creationist idea that God created multiple, independent kinds of animals, each with a rich genetic diversity and the capacity to moderately change in order to adapt and survive in different environments.
the creationist diluvial interpretation has been marginalized for over two centuries. For the last half-century it has become a target for incessant, well-orchestrated and aggressive attacks. Given the absolute dominance of the evolutionary media, the general public is not usually presented with any real creationist argument, just alarm that creationists still exist. If arguments are mentioned, they are usually distorted and outdated, or in terms of logical fallacies, they are called ‘straw man’ arguments.
These are just a few of the many cases that could be cited. It makes us wonder why the need for so much fraud if the evolution of humans is certain? The answer is obvious : fossils do not support the evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor. It is this absence of evidence that forces frustrated anthropologists to explore every possible way to compensate for the lack of fossils. The frauds themselves are not an Achilles’ heel for evolution, but they do highlight an interesting problem: all the data used historically to support human evolution has since been rejected.
Where does this lead?
The first two chapters worked together and dealt with the centerpiece of Darwinism: natural selection, and its corollary, genetics.
The third chapter, on the chemical and statistical constraints that apply to all origin-of-life models, worked hand-in-hand with this one on the fossil record. Not only is the origin of life from non-living matter conceptually difficult, and not only is it chemically and physically impossible, but its diversification through time is not reflected in the fossil record!
Even after that initial spark of life supposedly occurred, there is no record of the vast experiments that would have been required for life to have evolved to its current state. And, according to the first chapters on natural selection and genetics, there is also no mechanism in the physical world that could have led to the vast diversity and complexity of life on earth today.
The first two chapters dealt with what Darwin thought was true. The second two dealt with what Darwin assumed was true and thought future discoveries would prove. From here, we will look at what Darwin needed to be true, specifically long ages. From the fossil record, we move to a discussion on the rock record and whether or not it gives Darwinism the time he knew he needed.
Chapter 5. The Geologic Record – Dr Tasman Walker
rocks and fossils cannot be read like a book . The so-called ‘histories’ that are derived from this evidence are based upon preexisting assumptions that are brought to bear when interpreting the layers. It may come as a surprise to some, but the rocks are often described as ambiguous, because they can support multiple interpretations.
contrary to popular belief, the eons of time provided by geology are not based upon discoveries that geologists make, but flow out of assumptions that were accepted within the discipline over 150 years ago. In Darwin’s time, these assumptions seemed plausible … However, our geological understanding of the earth has increased a thousand fold and more since then. It is rapidly becoming apparent that uniformitarian assumptions do not match the geological observations.
[Influential geologist Lyell changed the accepted biblical basis for geology of the time. His] philosophy dismisses biblical history from consideration because the Bible describes two significant catastrophic events that we do not see happening today. No one alive today observed the global Flood; neither did anyone alive today witness the original Creation events. With a wave of the hand, Lyell dismissed these key events of biblical history , allowing them no place at the table of ideas. According to Lyell, we cannot use the biblical Flood as an explanation for anything, no matter what geological evidence we observe.
Lyell gave geologists a technique [uniformitarianism] by which they could invent their own ‘history’ solely from observing rocks in the present.
The preservation of fossils of soft-bodied creatures [like jellyfish] is a huge problem for all uniformitarian views
The fossils being recovered from around the world are providing a growing body of evidence that uniformitarianism does not work. The philosophy popularized more than 150 years ago, does not predict or explain much about fossils discovered since that time.
contrary to the long-age assumptions, finely layered rock does not need long periods of time to form but can form very rapidly.
Tas gives many examples of assumptions of long ages that are now being proven invalid – diamonds, opals etc created in weeks; Stalactites, stalagmites and petrification within years; coal, sedimentary layering immediately with the right conditions. His conclusion: Geological features do not demand millions of years.
Slow-and-gradual interpretations do not work
Lyell [claimed] that causes, or processes, now in operation would be sufficient to explain all geologic evidence. However, geological exploration is revealing a picture of massive catastrophism on all continents, as we will see. As this picture emerges, geologists are losing faith in uniformitarianism and are working to find an alternative interpretive philosophy.
[Regarding theoretical swamp-like conditions for forming coal] Geologists won’t say the vegetation washed into place, because that would require a flood of biblical proportions, which is far too catastrophic. So, unable to appeal to a large flood, they are only left with a large swamp. However, we have no modern examples of coal forming in any of the many swamps across the world, even though we know it can form quickly.
With a string of examples around the world that all point to catastrophic global flood (coal deposits, polystrate fossils, vast sedimentary blankets on the continents, flat gaps, thick sandstone formations, large igneous provinces, fast granite formation and boulder deposits transported vast distances), Tas summarises:
Since Lyell, geologists have carefully documented the geological features of our planet and also applied themselves to explaining those features without invoking catastrophe. Now, one hundred and fifty years down the track, with the exploration of vast areas of the earth and the publication of geological libraries of books, maps and reports, the old paradigm is stretched to breaking under the weight of contrary evidence. It has not been possible to explain things as Lyell imagined and we have only scratched the surface. The list of problems could be greatly expanded.
Turning to the biblical sources of history, Tas says:
But the Bible connects with reality because it records history, and understanding history can help us interpret the evidence we see today. Some events, such as the global Flood, are highly relevant to the geology of the globe.
Geologically speaking, I found that, by starting with the Bible, one can make sense of the evidence … Biblical geology solves uniformitarian puzzles … Biblical geology explains geomorphology (the physical features of the surface of the earth) … Biblical geology explains the Ice Age.
The biblical [model with involved an enormous tectonic upheaval of the crust and mantle during the global flood] undoes uniformitarianism
Over the last fifty years , there has been a wealth of research carried out by biblical geologists who have published a growing body of literature. It is showing that models constructed from biblical history do explain the evidence [which] challenge[s] uniformitarianism. [It] prove[s] that the Bible does indeed have a powerful connection with reality.
Where does this lead?
Strategically, the strict uniformitarianism of Lyell and his contemporaries was essential to establish an old age for the earth. To allow even the tiniest grain of catastrophism into the mix would threaten it. Thus, every geological problem became a work in progress— how to explain evidence using slow-and-gradual processes when it looked like it was produced by catastrophe.
The measure of scientific competence was the ability to explain catastrophic evidence in terms of uniformitarian processes. Some of the explanations were immensely creative and are still clung to, even to this day, such as the uniformitarian explanations for coal and massive water-laid sand deposits discussed earlier.
Clearly, the geologic record does not support the grand-scale evolutionary timeline. It has become a significant Achilles’ heel for evolutionary theory. However, with the development of radiometric dating and the establishment of ‘absolute’ dates on the global stratigraphic column, the need to hold to a strict uniformitarianism diminished. Geologists felt secure enough with the geologic time scale to allow catastrophe without destroying their worldview.
Yet, the situation is not as secure as is imagined because of problems being uncovered with radioactive dating, and that leads to the next Achilles’ heel of evolution.
Chapter 6. Radiometric Dating – Dr Jim Mason
This is the most technical chapter of the book.
The concept of evolution has been shown in the first five chapters to have serious credibility problems with biology, genetics, paleontology and geology all conspiring to unravel the myth. Jim Mason tackles the assumptions about long-ages from radiometric dating.
This is important for . . .
Evolution relies on long ages as an enabling prerequisite to allow enough time for the accumulation of the many changes needed to give rise to higher species. While the Bible clearly teaches through its chronological data that the earth is around 6,000 years old, radiometric dating is alleged to provide conclusive proof that the world is 4.54 billion years old (the currently accepted value). Even in an age when many question evolutionary theory, its corollary of millions and billions of years often remains an unchallenged icon in the debate about origins. The average layperson thinks that ‘science’ can prove such things as the age of a rock, a fossil, or even the earth. Consequently, radiometric dating is of paramount importance to evolutionists. As other areas of science increasingly give evidence that evolution is flawed, increasingly radiometric dating is called on to provide the long ages that seemingly discredit the Bible. Alas for evolution! Radiometric dating does not yield the support evolution needs.
Radiometric dating is a relatively straightforward science … While the theory of radiometric dating and the associated calculations are pretty straightforward, they are based on a number of assumptions. [which of course are based on ‘possibly/probably’ wrong preconceptions] These all relate to things that have happened in the past, so there is no way of knowing whether they are true … The fact that the radiometric ages for the above rocks of known ages turn out to be so seriously inaccurate is a strong suggestion that one or more of these assumptions is incorrect.
In relation just one of these assumptions (the starting point for measurements), Jim gives an example in relation to flawed radio-metric dating techniques:
To understand how this works, consider a hypothetical wristwatch that can measure time to one one-millionth of a second … If it is not set to the correct time, it will measure the time very precisely but always incorrectly. It, too, will be precisely wrong.
Evolution needs millions/ billions of years. Radiometric dating is alleged to provide unequivocal proof that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. However, as has been shown, radiometric ages are unreliable.
In summary, radiometric dating does not provide the unequivocal support for the millions and billions of years required by evolution. In fact, radiometric dating provides evidence for a much younger earth, in line with the history recorded in the Bible.
Where does this lead?
If radiometric dating exposes yet another Achilles’ heel of evolution, what is left? The last remaining hope for evolution’s millions/ billions of years is a universe that is billions of light-years in size and, allegedly, also billions of years old.
However, in the next chapter, it is explained how the universe can be billions of light years in size and yet we can see starlight from these distant galaxies on an earth that is only about 6,000 years old, just as the Bible says.
Chapter 7. Cosmology and the Big Bang – Dr John Hartnett
John shows that there are two widely accepted fallacies – first that the big bang theory is widely accepted as fact, when it is actually simply a concept and can never be proven, because (and secondly that) cosmology is a philosophy, not a science.
Even though he derided the idea of a big bang, Hoyle was an atheist and believed in an eternal universe without beginning or end. The model that now bears his label, the ‘big bang’, has an origin in time and has become the dominant worldview of the majority of the scientific community. Here is a very important and crucial point: the big bang theory is accepted a priori as the correct description for the origin and structure of the universe.
many big bang believers have sought to find a naturalistic cause to the universe. Once one understands the philosophical nature of the issue, however, all objections raised to date against the cosmogony described in the first chapters of Genesis cannot be sustained
‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey [currently the biggest large-scale survey of millions of galaxies— JH].
‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’ ‘The goal of physics is to understand the basic dynamics of the universe,’ [Michael] Turner says. ‘Cosmology is a little different. The goal is to reconstruct the history of the universe.’ Cosmology is more akin to evolutionary biology or geology, he says, in which researchers must simply accept some facts as given.
cosmology is what we call historical science , because it tries to reconstruct the past history of the universe from observations we make today.
It was the presupposition of denial of biblical authority, particularly regarding the Creation and Flood accounts, which led to long-age beliefs about the earth. It then followed that geological evolution led to biological evolution. Cosmic evolution’ is the application of the same sorts of naturalistic (no Creator) assumptions to the origin of the earth and all heavenly bodies, the universe itself. Despite heroic efforts to portray it as ‘God’s way of creating’, the big bang in fact epitomizes the currently fashionable model: a fully materialistic system of cosmic evolution. So, you see, cosmology is not so much about empirical science but about a philosophy— a worldview.
Cosmologist George F. R. Ellis candidly explained, “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations … What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
A ‘tricky’ practice (well known in the circles of deception) is to invent something to explain something unknown, then claim it as fact. John refers to the past intention of a planet behind the sun to explain Mercury’s orbit, abandoned when Einstein’s Theory of Relativity explained it. Cosmologists do this of necessity:
Lieu lists five evidences where cosmologists use ‘unknowns’ to explain ‘unknowns’, and hence he says they are not really astrophysicists. Yet these evidences are claimed to be all explained … by the big bang ΛCDM inflation model. None of them are based on laboratory experiments and they are unlikely ever to be explained this way. They are:
- Galaxy redshifts, explained by expansion of space,
- CMB radiation, explained as the afterglow of the big bang,
- Rotation curves of spiral galaxies, explained by dark matter,
- Distant supernovae dimmer than expected, hence an accelerating universe, explained by dark energy,
- Flatness and isotropy, explained by inflation.
The fatal flaw of the big bang model of cosmic evolution is that it is based on unverifiable assumptions, primarily the cosmological principle. After that, key evidences are explained by ‘unknowns’ that cannot be experimentally verified. The big bang must be believed by faith because it falls outside our normal concepts of experimental science. We have only one universe and so we cannot test models for the universe by comparing it against other universes. This is cosmology’s Achilles’ heel. The fact is that one cannot determine the history of the universe from a model which cannot be independently tested. The big bang cosmology is only verified in the minds of those who already hold to that belief that billions of years ago the universe created itself ex nihilo.
Where does this lead?
Thus far, we have examined seven major Achilles ’ heels of naturalistic evolutionary theory. We began with Darwin’s main thesis, that natural selection can explain the common ancestry of all species. We then looked at the mechanisms behind natural selection, genetics. From there, we began to dissect the main idea behind biological evolution— deep time— including the fossil record, the rock record, radiometric dating and, now, cosmology.
In all of these areas we found major problems with both the theory and its fit to the evidence. And, occasionally, we have given counter examples to show how biblical history fits the evidence better.
What follows next is the final Achilles’ heel of them all: human nature. In order to truly understand these issues, we have to look at the universe through the lens of both naturalistic philosophy and its alternatives. We need to look into the scientific process itself. For that, we turn to two Ph.D. scientists who have thought long and deep on these issues.
Chapter 8. Ethics and Morality – Dr David Catchpoole & Dr Mark Harwood
ethics and morality [are] where the rubber hits the road for every man, woman and child living on the earth today
acceptance of evolutionary theory has strong societal implications. While some people actively dodge, or are blithely ignorant of, the issues addressed by the first seven chapters of this book (covering biology, chemistry, geology, and astronomy), a person’s ethics is an undeniable reflection of their belief system and is pivotal to how they live (or try to live) their daily lives. And how a person lives their daily life is profoundly influenced by their belief about where they think they came from. Either we are the result of a giant cosmic accident, and therefore there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to life and no objective basis to morality, or we are created by a transcendent God, for a purpose, and will ultimately be held to account for how we have lived our lives.
That the evolutionary worldview is belief based, and is therefore religious in nature, is underscored by the atheist Professor of Zoology of Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, who admitted, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In essence , the materialist is obliged to reject the supernatural because of their a priori assumption that there is no God. Atheistic materialism is therefore an active religious belief system although this is vehemently denied by its adherents who seek to maintain the myth that it is a neutral position. Morality and evolution
If random molecular rearrangements led to the first cellular life, which, purely by time and chance, eventually became people, then there is no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion.
With an evolutionary worldview, there can be no such thing as absolute morality, objective good or evil, or free will. That is the clear conclusion from evolutionary teaching,
Richard Dawkins, today’s most vociferous advocate for evolution, admits to divided thinking when he claims, “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” But such a position reveals the atheist is without an objective basis for his morality. And that leaves him subject to arbitrary changes in moral code in response to changing external pressures such as drifting societal values. It is surely disingenuous to borrow the moral code of Christianity while rejecting its roots. Furthermore, it is naïve to expect people who believe in evolution not to apply it in everyday life.
There is no doubt that most people believe they are capable of logical reasoning. But, if evolution were true, reasoning (indeed, any thought) is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes. But that raises some very awkward, indeed self-contradictory, thoughts.
In reality, if evolutionists were right about evolution, they can’t help what they believe (including their belief in evolution!). Yet they often call themselves “freethinkers”, overlooking the glaring irony. Genuine initiation of thought is an insuperable problem for someone who believes in evolutionary origins. So is consciousness itself.
Ultimately, if evolution is true, there is no reason to trust our own thoughts as rational. We can only respond to stimuli according to the chemical reactions in our brain that are, in turn, controlled by the genes we inherited from our early ancestors. What’s more, we have no way of even knowing what we are missing!
Richard Dawkins said, “The universe we observe has … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
evolutionary psychologist Dr Susan Blackmore affirmed, “In the end nothing matters … If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all.”But evolutionists are not acting consistently with their nihilistic belief system. If evolution really were true, there is absolutely no reason to care about it— yet leading evolutionists such as Dawkins and Blackmore are passionate in their enthusiasm for evolution. What gives?
The ‘truth’ that Dawkins is so passionate about is an atheistic, religious belief that rejects out of hand any notions of the supernatural – matter and energy is all there is. It also emphatically denies the Truth of God in Scripture, shoehorning its adherents into searching for some kind of meaning and purpose in the blind, wasteful, cruel forces of nature.
The debate between creation and evolution is acted out in the public arena of science. Interestingly, modern science was born in Western civilizations based on the assumption that there is a God who has created an ordered universe based on predictable laws and principles which, in turn, have engendered investigation to understand how the universe operates.
When a society embraces the evolutionary paradigm and rejects the Creator God of the universe, plunging its roots deep into atheistic soil, the fruit is tragically predictable.
The authors discuss a string of human disasters associating them with specific evolutionary (as opposed to biblical) thought. While there is another side to this subject in that there has also been religious adherents who have acted outside the biblical norms, their examples are clear and their case is strong that Evolutionary thinking is not conducive to encouraging biblical love for our fellow mankind.
They detail mis-treatment of Indigenous Australians based on evolutionary teaching of the time; Herero Genocide in Africa; the impact of Eugenics; Francis Galton and forced sterilisation; the philosophies of lesser nations that fueled World War I; World War II and Hitler; Stalin’s murder of tens of millions; Mao Zedong in China along the same lines; Cambodia & Pol Pot, the Columbine Tragedy; Pekka-Eric Auvinen in Finland and more. It makes for sombre reading.
Clearly, the creation/ evolution controversy is not merely ‘of academic interest’ … Of course, holding an evolutionary worldview does not necessarily lead to such extreme actions as mass murders. In a myriad of minor ways our daily lives reflect our worldview.
It is interesting to note the recent increasing trend in fraud in scientific reporting. There have been some very well documented past frauds and blunders in the field of evolution, such as Haeckel’s embryos, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man but the trend is markedly upward and is posing a significant challenge for the scientific community.
In summary, the fruit that emanates from people whose roots are embedded deeply into atheistic evolution are all too easily seen in Western society today. On the other hand, the fruit that emanates from those whose roots are embedded deeply into biblical Christianity are a great blessing to their nation and to others. As Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, “I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.”
The authors finish with a concern to present the issue of ethics and morality in light of a restored relationship with the Creator and personal advice
There is a danger in discussing the topic of ethics and morality that the reader is left with the mistaken impression that Christianity is just another code of ethics, albeit a very high one. The Bible clearly teaches that this is not so. No amount of keeping the rules will ever reform the heart of man so that he can once again be in relationship with his Creator.
God Himself offers the only way to be truly guilt free— through faith in Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of God.
I have found that the concept of Evolution is not credible; that the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible and thus concur.
Where does this lead?
The first seven chapters in this book have provided the foundation for understanding that the basis for evolutionary ‘ethics’ is false. Germane to Darwin’s theory of biological evolution is the idea of an ‘old earth’, which gave Darwin the millions of years that his theory needed. Ultimately, belief in a vast antiquity of the earth and in random processes of biological evolution served to do away with God as the creator. This has had a significant effect on his, and now our society’s, perception of morality.
One particular geologist helped to sow the idea of ‘long eras of time’ in Darwin’s mind , Adam Sedgwick. Darwin worked as an assistant to Sedgwick prior to his famous around-the-world voyage on the Beagle. Although Sedgwick did not support Lyell’s uniformitarianism, he was also no biblical creationist, being instrumental in the development of the idea of long geological eras (e.g. the Devonian and Cambrian eras). Indeed, Darwin pays tribute to Sedgwick, writing of Sedgwick’s lectures, “What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!”
And time, of course, is what Darwin needed. But Sedgwick was horrified to read Origin, telling his former apprentice:
If I did not think you a good tempered & truth loving man I should not tell you that … I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous—You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth— the true method of induction … There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro ’ final cause, link material to moral … You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.
Sedgwick did nothing less than predict the history of the 20 th century , where millions of people were killed under regimes guided by an evolutionary worldview. If only Sedgwick had realized that , like Lyell, it was his own long-age teaching that opened the way for humanity to be thus brutalized, perhaps Sedgwick would have had cause to ponder his own distorting of the Bible’s account of origins. Sadly, many in the church today still compromise the Word of God with the pronouncements of historical science— pronouncements based on an atheistic ideology about the unobserved untestable events of our origins.
That’s why this topic of ethics is really the linchpin to bringing people to a point of engagement in the debate. That’s why the previous seven chapters have led naturally to this final one.
And now, we draw this book to a close. We hope that you have been open to testing the claims of evolution and deciding how you might respond. The eight pillars of evolutionary theory have been analyzed and found wanting. Our conclusion is that evolution is a house of cards built upon the faulty assumption of naturalism. When one learns to question the evolutionary assumptions, the house comes tumbling down.
In contrast, the biblical account of creation is logical, consistent, workable, and, we believe, correct, especially since it derives directly from the infallible Word of God. And so it’s now up to you, dear reader, to pass on the crucial information in this book to those who don’t yet realize that evolution has many Achilles’ Heels, weaknesses that not only render it lame, but dead in the water. For those who challenge you, or who want to dig deeper, direct them to creation.com —an ever-growing resource of information affirming the truth of the Bible.
My Story ~ My Comments
In 1987, and a Christian of 9 years standing, I was stunned when I found that there were thousands of scientists across the globe who interpreted the physical evidence around us through the eyes of a literal translation of the creation verses within the Bible.
- They viewed the complexity of life as evidence of Intelligent Design, which of course a Christian ascribes to the Lord God.
- They viewed the masses of sedimentary rock across the globe as clear evidence of a global flood – enter the Noah’s Flood story.
- They analysed genetics and came to see the various people groups that could easily match the dispersion at the Tower of Babel.
- They questioned the underlying premises, interpretations and supposed evidences for Evolution and identified a naturalistic [and therefore anti-biblical] agenda.
- They called themselves Biblical Creationists.
I had been taught that evolution was a fact and had been fully proven, thus never having given the matter much more than a passing thought, I had just assumed that God had simply used evolution to create and that one day equalled a thousand [or if a day wasn’t a day then (what the hell), a billion (or two would didn’t make much difference!) years in God’s economy. Of course this would mean that the six days of creation were figurative, not literal which in 1987 was the issue I found myself facing. I was, by default at that stage best described as a Theistic Evolutionist i.e. I assumed that God did it through evolution, a position more ludicrous than outright Naturalistic Evolutionism for it compromised both extremes and gained a little for taking on a credibility destroying compromise.
I am a truth-seeker first and foremost, Christian second, so, stunned as I was with the realisation that there were people of note who actually believed that the evidence fitted a relatively short-age, literal six days of creation. Incredible! I then launched into one of the first and what has been THE most serious and longest-running investigations of my life. I purchased every book I could lay my hands on and studied, researched, thought, questioned and learned about evolution vs creationism. I’ve been doing it actively ever since. It still has me spell-bound learning about the intricacies of an incredible world clearly designed but more than just designed, designed to a level of detail and complexity that the mortal human mind simply cannot comprehend.
That the most powerful super-computer on the plant can not even process information equal to that of one human brain cell . . . that tens of thousands of incredible miniature machines populate just one living cell . . . that self-reproduction, self-repairing and intricate information storage and processing . . . all occurred without design beggared belief.
I’d been hoodwinked. I am a proud man and I DEFINITELY don’t like being made a fool of!
The blinkers of indoctrination fell off as I found that:
- there could be no reasonable explanation for our existence other than Intelligent Design;
- in the Hebrew language it could not be a clearer that the first Chapter of the book of Genesis was a literal statement of actual history;
- ‘Historical Science” (the art of examining the past) required scientists to have assumptions and that those assumptions included ones that didn’t always ‘pass muster’;
- there was a history of deception, hidden agendas and stuff behind the scenes that conspired to influence me unreasonably.
The result of my investigations was that I too became a solid Biblical Creationist.
Now nobody alive actually saw the biblically claimed creation event nor was anyone there to observe the claimed evolution, therefore . . . nobody knows, but my take was that the evidence when looked at objectively better fitted the ‘literal biblical creation story’ than the ‘evolutionary story’. Far better. Completely in fact!
It was not a vote in my mind. It was a slam-dunk; clear as can be; fact vs. fiction. Not 50/50 and leaning to the bible because I was a Christian. Not even, ‘not enough evidence to make a claim’. Not even 80/20 nor even 99:1.
When one has an open mind and does the research it is 100/0 as Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel shows – Evolution [defined as GTE, or macro-evolutions] is a really dumb idea and is totally impossible. I believe that it’s promoted and believed because in the main people WANT it to be true. It HAS to be true for those that want to avoid the possibility that there is a Designer, particularly the possibility that there is a Designer to whom we will eventually be accountable! Particularly obnoxious to the proud human spirit is of course the Christian faith, thus belief in evolution helps validate the religion of ABC, Anything But Christ.
But this was only the beginning! Since then I have watched, sometimes in hysterics, as a raft of serious believers in Evolution have strutted their stuff in front of the media, day after day, month after month, year after year, and now decade after decade and the pattern is always the same . . . a grand announcement with the essence of the message, “We’ve got it! This is the proof we’ve been looking for! See evolution is a fact! This [tooth, bone fragment, fossil, whatever] is the missing link that we’ve been searching for and it’s really exciting [because of ABC] blah blah blah!”
What I wait for, and in many cases actively search for, is the biblical creationists’ responses that always come in due course, pouring cold water onto the religion of ABC, “No, they haven’t found a missing link, they’ve actually just found a [enter common sense here] and this ‘proves’ nothing of the sort!”
The inevitable retractions, corrections and exposure of foolishness is of course never talked about in the same manner as the announcement, but more than a century now, it ALWAYS comes . . . always! Identifying such patterns is important for a truthseeker for it highlights the hidden agendas. In most cases the ‘scientists’ will be well meaning of course, but blinded, with a priori assumptions and to my way of thinking, totally deluded.
A purely naturalistic agenda, with the pre-condition that there is no God; that our existence MUST therefore be explained by Evolution; that the evidence must be made to fit this conclusion, is not science, nor is it worthy of consideration by a genuine truthseeker.
The core ideas contained in Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel existed in 1987 but only in a simple form. The Biblical Creation movement was in its earliest days too and has matured and developed enormously since. The Intelligent Design movement had yet to get started but has now arrived and gone mainstream (meaning that many non-religious acknowledge that there has to be a Designer). Scientific knowledge has progressed enormously with more data, knowledge and understanding of how living things work.
Yet, the subjects raised in Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel have never been addressed satisfactorily – the reason is because they simply can’t be!
We can interpret the physical evidence however we so choose but belief in something that has not been seen, cannot be tested or measured; the details that are not even agreed upon by the main proponents; that has been explained, justified and validated by a string of different ideas that have all been later proven to be misguided, biased, deceptive, false and in many cases downright fraudulent is not science . . . the promotion of Evolution is nothing less than a religious cult.
Truthseekers, grab a copy of the book** and take note!
* While New Zealand (my country of birth) for many decades has been a lot less ‘religious’ that the USA where they are based, I personally don’t like the CMI style to hammer the bible and God’s word FIRST and then show how science supports it because I don’t think that is where the modern Western culture is at, even the American culture that is naturally more ‘religious’. I think that people have switched off the preaching thing and want it the other way round, “Show me something that is real and that makes sense and if it is for real and does make sense (to me), then I’ll get involved” is more the way I think the Western-mind is at, but I really respect their stance and integrity. They are one of only a few places I’d donate money to, if I had any, and there’s not many I would say that about!
** I bought mine on Kindle for $10.00USD.