2008

Evolution

Facts, Fallacies and Implications

Part One –

Facts and Fallacies

Although nearly universal in its teaching, evolution stands upon many assumptions. Some in the scientific community question its validity. Others state it as fact. What are the facts—the truth—about this “science”?

The subject of the true origin of life has long been an unnecessarily complicated issue. To help you better understand this subject, this publication has been broken into three sections. Together, they form a conclusive statement about the theory of evolution—and address facts and fallacies that surround it.

The first section explains the assumptions that form the foundation for this theory. Next, four dramatic articles demonstrating solid proof for creation are presented. Finally, we will conclude with a brief section explaining the implications of what you have read—and the choice that now lies before you. It is recommended that you read these sections in order. Your thinking—and understanding—about the foundation of the world around you will never be the same!

Evolution has been called the foundation for many fields of scientific study. Be it biology, geology or biochemistry, the scientific world bases many of its concepts and ideas on the theory of evolution.

But how has evolution become so established when it is only a theory? Certainly, it must have a firm and proven foundation. But does it?

As you read, you may find that certain parts of this publication are confusing or difficult to understand. Make no mistake, the rationale invented to bring supposed support for evolution is bewildering and complicated—to the point of even being boring. The facts get left behind, and the tortured and tedious scholarly language used by evolutionists stops most from examining this subject in detail. Left frustrated, most people assume evolution to be true.

However, this subject defies true logic, so it is to be expected that you will periodically become lost.

We will demystify this subject. By the end of this brochure, you will know if evolution is fact or science fiction. You will see convoluted—and illogical—theories simplified in a way never presented before. While some parts are technical, the more you understand about evolution, the more you will begin to see through its “smoke and mirrors.” Although it may appear complicated, it easily breaks down in the face of simple logic.

Clarity will come from understanding what evolution is not. This opens the door to what disproving evolution truly points to—the real origin of the universe!

But before we can show what really happened, we must prove what did not happen.

Even a cursory review of this topic shows that it is still hotly contested! After many decades, much study has gone into it. The results are best summarized by a quote from the late Colin Patterson, once the world’s foremost fossil expert: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.”

He addressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?” Each time, he was met with nearly complete silence.

The only comment came from the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.”

This led Mr. Patterson to comment that “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

But what are the real facts about the theory of evolution? What do we actually know? What is the basis for its nearly universal acceptance? We will cover in detail the facts, myths and suppositions that make up the body of the theory of evolution. You will be amazed at what the evidence actually shows!

The Science of Logic

In the realm of science, logic is fundamental in interpreting data. Before delving into the raw data about evolution, it is important to understand some of the methods used to explain it. Rules of logic cannot be circumvented and, by extension, common logic fallacies should never be employed.

It is these fallacies that confuse data and leave the general public uncertain about what is being explained. Clear, simple logic should never leave one confused. Once you are aware of these logical fallacies, you will begin to notice how often they are employed in other fields—advertising, for instance. The following examples illustrate the logical fallacies commonly employed in science. Keep them in mind while reading this booklet.

Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all cars everywhere are red.

Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle, or circular logic. When an assumption or unproven conclusion is used to validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.

Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.

Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.

Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible to be verified or proven.

This is just a sampling of the many logic fallacies covered in A.J. Hoover’s book, Don’t You Believe It. They will be reiterated as we come to them throughout. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to explain the subject of evolution—a subject assumed, by many, to be proven!

Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law

There is a great law that governs the entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing. Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in business or in everyday life. It is the law of cause and effect.

If you drop a ball, it falls to the ground. The effect is the ball falling and hitting the ground; the cause is gravity. If you get wet after jumping into a pool, the effect is getting wet—the cause is jumping into the pool. As you can see, “cause and effect” is simply common sense.

This understanding is so universal that it has been granted the status of a scientific law. For something to be established as a scientific law, it must come under rigorous scientific scrutiny. This further shows the fundamental nature of cause and effect. Part of this law’s definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than its cause.

This aspect of cause and effect agrees with another law of science—thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the dynamics of thermals (heat). It is made up of three basic laws, on which ALL disciplines of science are based. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect. It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. Consider these examples:

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If you spin a top, it will, over time, stop spinning. The energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable to unusable during the process. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws cannot be broken, nor will they contradict each other. Scientifically speaking, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, every cause will create a lesser effect! How does a more advanced life form—the effect—stem from a simpler life form—the cause? So begins the quandary of evolution.

What Is Evolution?

The question of evolution, per se, comes in many shapes and definitions. In its most basic form, it is the brainchild of Charles Darwin. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previous, simpler substances. The example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes. It basically purports that life came about by accident—chance—and that there is no evidence of intelligent design.

But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.

Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.

Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.

Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.

Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.

The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

This may sound complicated—because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the lines of these particular disciplines start and stop. This has led to much confusion among the general public on which research and evidence is related to which particular discipline of evolution.

For instance, there is ample evidence to prove that micro-evolution is constantly happening around us. When a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is demonstrating micro-evolution. Often, this evidence is used to “prove” macro-evolution. Such a case would be a perfect example of a hasty generalization.

This has led to much confusion in the general public, and to heated debates among evolutionists. But the problems in evolution go even deeper. Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.

So, if any aspect of these evolutionary “pillars” can be shown as unprovable assumptions, no other conclusions can be based upon them. We will cover the basic pillars of the theory of evolution. Most are so important to the theory that disproving them causes the whole theory to collapse.

As we cover each point, the logical fallacy that it employs will also be pointed out. You will be amazed at the “science” used to substantiate this nearly universally believed theory.

Evolution: Neither Theory nor Fact?

The first assumption is the gradual transition to referring to the theory as a tested and proven scientific fact—in essence, assuming evolution to be fact. The certainty with which such statements are made would leave most feeling sure that these scientists must have the evidence to support their claims. One statement from Theodosius Dobzhansky’s book The Biological Basis of Human Freedom illustrates the point well: “Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”

Such certainty among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools in North America to teach evolution as a “historical fact.”

But not all evolutionists agree with this conclusion: “What was the ultimate origin of man?...Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural” (W. LeGros Clark, 1955, emphasis ours throughout).

Some evolutionists today make similar statements. Pierre-Paul Grassé, a world renowned zoologist and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated, “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977).

While these quotes speak loudly, in this first assumption, we are not trying to disprove evolution, but to show that it is not a tried and tested fact. A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From the quotes above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that evolutionists themselves have not accepted evolution as true.

How could such divergent opinions exist, yet some consider evolution to be fact? The answer is clear. Evolution has not been sufficiently proven in the scientific community to be considered fact!

Further, by true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”

What this means is that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false!

For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color.

If the same standards are applied to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.

Recall the logical fallacies discussed above. When something is dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to logical fallacies to validate their claims.

This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: “His [Darwin’s] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”

As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly is it scientific?

Survivors Survive

One of the most basic concepts in the theory of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature selects the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.

Sounding logical, this theory is taught throughout schools worldwide. By reading this series, you are beginning to see that we must always prove what is assumed to be true.

Notice: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up).

In other words, the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! Evolutionists have assumed that just because something survived, it is the fittest of the species. You may now begin to understand why properly understanding logical fallacies becomes so important. Evolution is rampant with them!

The theory of “survival of the fittest” is what is called a “tautology,” a way of saying something redundant. For instance, “survivors survive”; “water is wet”; “matter is material”; and so on. Such a statement does not prove anything, because it is nothing more than a truism.

Yet, even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder... simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring.”

“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (G.A. Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection).

But some scientists may argue, “We have seen natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. This theory is provable!” But is it? These scientists point to natural selection removing the unfit. But this does not create new attributes in a species or, for that matter, create a new species! For evolution to be valid, better, more advanced creatures would have to survive, lending to the creation of new species.

A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation).

Since all systems in nature are well balanced, there must be a mechanism that keeps those systems balanced. Therefore, natural selection is very effective for removing the unfit from a species. This can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The zebra herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed.

Interestingly, the idea of natural selection did not form in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, natural selection was documented 20 years earlier, by creationist zoologist/chemist Edward Blyth. Darwin changed the concept from the “natural process of selection” to the “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!

Like all such truisms, the concept of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, it explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this aspect of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement.

An Eternal Universe

No matter how science tries to simplify the theory of evolution, there is always the problem of explaining how and when the universe began. What is its origin?

There are only two possibilities: (1) It appeared at a certain point in time, or (2) it has always existed.

Both of these ideas require some investigation. Is the universe eternal? Did it form? And is this possible to prove either way?

Since we are unable to travel back in time, you may quickly think that it is impossible to know if the universe had a beginning. Matter has an amazing property. It decays! In fact, everything is moving into a further state of decay. You see this principle at work all around you. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if you are not living there, dust will form and its general state will decay. Your body also evidences this concept. Keeping yourself in shape is work. If you stop exercising or eating properly, you will quickly get out of shape.

These are just everyday examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But how does this prove that the universe is not eternal?

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with Madame Curie’s discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has an atomic weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until the end product eventually becomes the inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time.

But, what does this mean? It means that there was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It always breaks down. This also means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, none of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have existed forever.

This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work! As Henry Moore stated, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (Scientific Creationism). And it represents absolute proof that the universe came into existence—or, in other words, that the universe is not eternal! That leaves only one possibility. At one point in time, something—or someone—caused the universe to come into existence.

This brings us back to the concept of cause and effect. In this case, the universe is the effect—but what is the cause? We have seen that every effect must be less than the cause. So, as vast as our universe is, something greater must have caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws we have already discussed.

Of course, scientists have also come to similar conclusions—the universe is not eternal and there needs to be a “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, they attempt to explain the universe in many other ways. The most common is often referred to as the “Big Bang Theory.”

Big Bang—or Big Hoax?

At its very core, the Big Bang Theory states that a particular event caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial event. After the big bang, another theory takes over. The “inflationary model” was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.

However, both concepts break laws of science. As we saw with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state—with less usable energy—not into a larger, more complex universe. How ridiculous that this FACT is ignored!

But an even bigger problem is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is memorized by high school students, and is a basic fundamental law of science. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change its form.

This too flies in the face of the big bang theory! If energy cannot be created, then something certainly cannot appear from nothing. Evolutionary scientists also understand this problem. Often, attention is taken away from the lack of explanation of the creation of matter by asserting explanations on how the universe “grew.” By lumping the initial creation of matter with the expansion of the universe, scientists have created a series of “smoke and mirrors,” which, as we have seen before, is often the only way to explain various aspects of evolution.

Many scientists, such as Alan Guth, have also raised this point: “First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God). Such deceit is taught as fact in schools!

One of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world closed the door on the inflationary model: “The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have not heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time).

Like so many aspects of evolution, even when it has been proven to be inaccurate, it is still taught as fact. The smoke and mirrors continue!

Changing the Rules?

Since we have seen that the universe could not have come from “nothing,” is it possible to explain its existence? Must the creation of the universe follow the rules of science?

Any parent is responsible for creating the rules for their household. At any time, they can change those rules. It is in their power to modify, adjust or even discard these rules. The child in that house must continue to live within the confines of those rules, no matter how they are changed.

So it is with the universe. As the Creator of the universe, God established its rules and has the power to modify them. When He created the universe and matter, He then established the laws of science.

Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God has always existed. Remember that this law means something could not come from nothing. Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God’s existence, while at the same time disproving evolution!

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Louis Neel stated, “The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe”—and, it should be added, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people. Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, deceit and suppositions. But now you can see through two more of these evolutionary illusions!

A Breathing Rock?

Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? While such questions seem silly, this is, in essence, what the theory of evolution teaches. Evolution stands or falls on whether non-living matter can be transformed, through a series of random events, into organic—living—matter. This concept is called by many names and explained by many theories, but most of the time, it is referred to as “spontaneous generation,” “chemical evolution,” “abiogenesis” or “biopoiesis.”

(But even to evolutionists, the topic of life’s origin remains a sticky one. Many even go so far as to assert that the origin of life is not related to the evolution of living matter.)

Renowned evolutionist Stephan Jay Gould stated: “Evolution is not the study of life’s ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life’s origin on our earth lies outside its domain... Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life” (“Justice Scalia’s Misunderstanding,” Natural History, October 1987).

But is this really the case? Is evolution only restricted to the study of organic—living—matter? Allow geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer: “Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life” (“Changing Man,” Science, January 1963).

While the argument put forth by Mr. Gould sounds logical, if we attempt to limit evolution to biology, one is being “gratuitous”—and perhaps deceitful. If evolutionists separate biological evolution from the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe, it opens a big and completely unanswered door: How did events cause the universe and then life, if evolution applies only to life? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must completely encompass the whole process—from that beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life on earth today. No amount of scientific “spin” can change this.

Consider: Why would such a prominent evolutionist blur the facts and separate this popular theory from the matter of life’s origins?

Unbreakable Laws

At the absolute heart of the “origins of life” debate lies a fundamental scientific law—the Law of Biogenesis. It states that life can only come from life—that is, only living matter produces living matter. Are you beginning to see the inherent problem with the theory of evolution?

This law is so fundamental that Simpson and Beck’s biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology states, “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.”

Also, Martin A. Moe, a writer for Science Digest, recently wrote, “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological science has taught us that life arises only from life...” (“Genes on Ice,” December 1981).

Perhaps the most powerful statement is found as a footnote in Moore and Slusher’s biology textbook: “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization” (Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, 1974).

These are three conclusive and irrefutable statements about the force and power of this scientific law. How then did evolutionists seem to bypass this law when trying to prove evolution? Are you beginning to understand why they attempt to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process?

Recently, there has been much ado about scientists being able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Some would say that, at last, it appears that man has been able to produce life from non-living synthetic products. But is this true?

This is just smoke and mirrors as evolutionists freely admit that viruses of any kind are non-living organisms, because they must have a living host in order to reproduce. Not to mention that it took careful and deliberate design to produce even these!

So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?

A Land Far, Far Away!

We have seen that it is impossible for life to have formed from non-living matter. Even many evolutionists will admit that this process is “wrapped in a mystery.” However, in an effort to propel a dying theory, they have had to change the focus of the argument: If biogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space. Take note of the divergence from standard science in this postulate. Generally, when a theory is disproven (spontaneous generation), it is dispelled and another theory is put forward. But in this case, a new hypothesis is created because of the lack of evidence to support the old theories! And such is the case with so many aspects of evolution—a theory made of straw!

This new hypothesis states that the precursor chemicals for life came from space. Astonishingly, this theory is gaining popularity in the scientific community. For such a theory to be valid, not only would these chemicals or simple amino acids have to be able to endure space travel, they would also have to be able to survive entry into the earth’s atmosphere!

A fact that is seldom mentioned in such discussions is that simple forms of life, as well as all living matter, are highly unstable. You see this all around you. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.

So, these highly unstable, simple forms of life would have to survive being ejected from a faraway planet, travel through space (all while being bombarded by high levels of deadly cosmic radiation), withstand the extreme heat of penetrating the earth’s atmosphere and, finally, survive the intense surface impact. How ridiculous! One does not need a degree in science to see how far-fetched such a theory is—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!

This whole hypothesis is nothing more than side-stepping the original issue. This is called a “bait and switch.” Instead of addressing the Law of Biogenesis, which they cannot get around, evolutionists attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer (bait), thus avoiding the original problem (switch).

Biogenesis is a UNIVERSAL law. Just as it applies on earth, so does it apply throughout the universe. Moving the problem to outer space does not make it disappear!

So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who do admit to these issues? They simply apply the argument to future logical fallacy (as covered in Part One of this series). They claim it is going to take further advances in science to be able to figure out the cause for life on earth.

This answer is really a “non-answer.” Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer, because they have none. Meanwhile, evolution is taught as fact in schools. Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reason why Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated that “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.”

Open or Closed—It Is Still Impossible

For the next assumption, we can use the game of “let’s suppose.” Suppose that the previous assumption was not false, and that at some future time, we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into existence.

Obviously, with the proof above, this is quite a supposition. But for the sake of argument, assume there was a time when only very simple organic compounds, such as amino acids, existed. We can even extend our game of “let’s suppose” a few steps further and suppose that these amino acids had already formed into enzymes. Of course, we are being overly generous to evolution, but it will serve to prove a point.

Now we are ready to shatter this concept by once again bringing in the most fundamental and important law of science in existence today—the Law of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Arthur Eddington stated that if “your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation” (The Nature of the Physical World).

These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more you work with these laws, the more respect you gain for them. Obviously, the Laws of Thermodynamics are absolutely immutable.

The importance of the Laws of Thermodynamics to all disciplines of science is obvious from the quotes above. Therefore, to be true, evolution must fall within the constraints of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, evolution must fall within the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Rewinding the Top?

Thermodynamics comes from two Greek words, therme, meaning “heat,” and dynamis, meaning “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The Second Law of Thermodynamics states three basic concepts: (1) Systems gravitate to the most probable (likely) state, (2) systems will gravitate to the most random state, and (3) systems will increase in entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.”

It is best explained by world-famous science writer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “Another way of stating the Second Law then is ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about” (“In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970).

Perhaps you are already beginning to see where this law contradicts the theory of evolution.

But evolutionists have not given up yet! In an attempt to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems has arisen. The difference between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the Second Law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disordered over time strictly in line with the Second Law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system, external sources of energy allow a product to have more sustained energy—or increase in useable energy.

In the case of evolution, it is stated that because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy to the earth, this allows for systems to become more complex because they have the necessary energy to do so. And since the sun is winding down, the overall Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the universe) are being met.

Basically, the extra energy from the sun supposedly allows evolution to take place on earth.

But is this true? As we have seen, clever arguments can sometimes be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Energy Alone Doth Not Evolution Make

Can simply applying energy to a system allow it to move to a lower level of entropy? Is that all that is required for evolution to take place? There have been mathematical constructs to show how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does apply in an open system. Does evolution fall within these constructs?

While many evolutionists try to hide under the concept of an open system, there are some who do not. For instance, Charles J. Smith stated, “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology” (“Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, 1975).

As you can see, it was understood decades ago that there are “fundamental unsolved problems” with this concept. Yet, even recently published articles fall back on it.

Raw energy alone is not enough to lower entropy! In fact, for this to happen, multiple conditions must be met. Two are summarized in the following quote from renowned scientists George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck’s textbook Life: An Introduction to Biology: “But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed” (emphasis ours).

“Particular work” requires more than just raw energy. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always destroys! This is exactly the reason you should not leave photographs in direct sunlight. Over time, this undirected, raw energy will destroy them.

There is still another condition that must be met for energy to be “useable.” There must be a mechanism to convert one type of energy into another for a specific application. Without fulfilling these conditions, you have nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that will do nothing but destroy.

There are natural examples of energy—sunlight in particular—channeled into useful work. The most remarkable—photosynthesis in plants—also serves as the best illustration. Photosynthesis, an energy conversion system, is the process in which plants convert sunlight into the usable energy needed to make plants grow. Because this process is biological, we are dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed specification for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in usable energy.

There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory system, etc. Yet in all cases, the conditions described above are satisfied.

To perform specific work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those instructions to be carried out. As we have seen, this happens in the leaves of plants, as well as the systems in our bodies.

But you CANNOT perform the highly specific work of evolution by simply supplying energy from the sun and “hoping for the best.” No matter the argument, no matter how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent these fundamental laws of science.

Some scientists will admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Henry Moore, The Twilight of Evolution, p. 35).

Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this or any other planet. Dishonest, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.

The fundaments of science are based on these laws. They are SURE! They are absolute and have existed since the beginning of our universe. These laws are immutable—and, as such, make evolution impossible!

Mutations for Improvement?

At the heart of improving a species or organism is the assumption that mutations will produce more and better traits or characteristics. This requires new information.

The source of all information, as discussed, is in the DNA. For new information to form, there would have to be the injection of said information by a mutation. However, the introduction of “positive” new information is fraught with problems.

For one, most all mutations are negative in effect. (As discussed earlier, inferior organisms [mutations] are removed by the process of natural selection.) This is also true of what are termed “neutral” mutations. Natural processes remove these defects from the genetic map of the creature. In the light of proper natural selection, consider the following from the head of the international Human Genome Diversity Project, evolutionist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza:

“Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one. Natural selection makes it possible to accept the good ones and eliminate the bad ones” (Genes, Peoples, and Languages, p. 176).

Of course, we have already proven that natural selection does “eliminate the bad ones.” Yet is it true that positive mutations can not only form new information, but cause the formation of new species as well? It is in this hope that evolution must put its trust. Proving that positive, sustainable mutations happen is critical for this assumption.

An often cited example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It is stated that bacteria, through mutations, adapt to antibiotics. But as the following quote shows, what actually occurs is an information loss, not a gain: “In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance” (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution).

But evolution cannot sustain itself with loss of information. Over time, the result would be no information. The only way higher life-forms could be created, would be with more—in fact, MUCH more—information. For instance, imagine a fish “evolving” into a bird. While this may sound amazing, and actually be ludicrous, it is considered a valid theory in evolution. How could all the necessary new organs and limbs develop without new information? They simply could not!

A simple analogy may explain it best: Imagine all the parts involved in making a light switch work. There are electricity, wires, devices controlling electricity flow, a switch and finally a light. These were all designed to function in a certain way. If the device controlling the amount of electricity were removed from the system, the light would get much brighter. This may seem like an improvement. The room appears better lit and it seems like the entire system has improved with the loss of a device (information).

But the one who designed the system would know that this is not the case. The wires and the light were designed to handle a certain amount of electricity. While it may not appear to be a problem at first, over time, the circuit will overload and stop functioning. And so is the case with mutations. Even though something may appear to be an improvement (as in the case with antibiotic-resistant bacteria), the overall “health” of the organism is diminished.

Regardless of your belief concerning life’s origin, new information is required for more advanced life forms. And, conversely, any information already present is required to remain—either by evolution or being put there by a Designer. Ultimately, the continued loss of genetic information will result in the destruction of the life form—not an improvement!

Finally, regarding the formation of new forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward stated, “Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life” (Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).

Yet each and every day, millions of children are taught that mutations—defects—have resulted in the millions of plants and animals and ultimately human beings. Not only is this plain wrong, it demeans the unique and special status that has been given to mankind.

The Real Record of the Rocks

Often the news media runs stories about discoveries of ancient artifacts. This could be fossils that are dated to be millions—or even hundreds of millions—of years old. Usually, these announcements are accompanied by colorful renderings of the creature as it “appeared” millions of years ago.

But how do scientists, newscasters and reporters develop such intricate drawings? Surely, it must be based on mountains of evidence and research, which is then cross-checked with past discoveries. Do not be so sure! At this point, you may have begun to develop a bit of cynicism toward modern science. If so, you will not be surprised that the “facts” used to prove and draw these “ancient” creatures is based on little more than bone shavings, bad science and invalid assumptions.

Despite all the splash and splendor that accompany such discoveries, the science behind them is more artistic and creative than scientific and factual.

To understand why evolutionists have become so creative with the fossil record, you must first understand the “gaps” in this record. What was once hoped to be the glue that bound all aspects of evolution together, has begun to tear it apart.

The two primary problems with the fossil record, when used for evolution, are somewhat interrelated. The first are the gaps in the fossil record. The fossil record is separated into certain eras—or strata. Each of these eras contain a certain type of creature, and is thought to be specific to a particular period of time. For instance, the Cambrian strata are dated to about 530 million years ago (according to evolutionist dating methods).

The problem lies in the fact that, out of nowhere, fully formed creatures appeared. The Cambrian era, for example, contains the oldest known vertebrates. But as stated by evolutionist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, “We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolution history” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229).

Indeed, “just planted there”—or, better phrased, they were created! The fossil record does not show the formation of any creature; they all appear to be “just planted there.” However, this is only the first problem encountered by evolutionists.

The second problem is related to the first. Because many creatures just suddenly appear, the fossil record does not show creatures slowly evolving. If the theory of evolution is correct, there should be a very well-documented account of simple creatures slowly evolving into the more advanced ones.

This is just not the case!

The world famous evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Gaylord Simpson freely stated, “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals...and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants” (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105).

Just five years later, Dr. Simpson was forced to admit, “It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist” (The Meaning of Evolution, p. 231).

Some may try to assert that they do not exist yet, stating that these transitional fossils will eventually be found. This can be best addressed by an analogy: Imagine that you have a jar full of hundreds of marbles. Slowly, one-by-one, you remove each marble, checking its color and texture. At first, the likelihood would be that different kinds of marbles would be removed from the jar. If, over time, the vast majority of marbles removed from the jar were only red, a natural conclusion could be that red is the only color left in the jar. Of course, a new color could be removed from the jar, but it is likely that you have removed every other color from the jar.

This is the state of the fossil record. Well over a century of discoveries keep showing that there are only “red marbles” left. There will be no magic fossil that will change this. This has not stopped some scientists from trying to create “magic fossils” from bone fragments.

One such “discovery” is worth reviewing. It received television coverage and was featured in National Geographic. Scientists believed they had found a “walking whale.” This was supposed to be the missing link between land mammals and whales. This amazing discovery led paleontologist Daryl Domning to state, “We essentially have every stage now from the terrestrial animal to one that is fully aquatic.” Surely such an assertion would have sweeping effects through evolution sciences.

The following month, in the November 2001 issue of National Geographic, incredibly impressive renderings of this “walking whale” appeared in the article “Evolution of Whales.” It was now settled—the whale’s evolutionary path had been established, and the theory had been proven true.

Or had it?

All the hoopla came from the discovery of only a jaw and some skull fragments. And nothing else! From only parts of an ear bone and teeth, amazing rendering presented in National Geographic were derived. This could be compared to finding a scrap of metal, and then asserting that you can render the exact replica of the building from which it came. This is beyond ridiculous!

Later, a skeleton of this same creature was discovered. With all the facts in place, it was obvious that this creature did not swim—it was a running land animal. Of course, no correction was offered!

This is not the only example of data misused to fit within the theory of evolution. The vast number of misrepresentations has led to statements such as: “What the ‘record’ shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as a very visible, ever-present reminder of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution” (Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, p. 125).

So the next logical step by evolutionists would be to admit their mistakes and retire this rag-tag theory. Correct? This is far from what happened! Instead of admitting the mistake of gradual evolution, scientists proposed an even more ludicrous idea: Punctuated equilibrium.

This highly complicated-sounding theory has gained some traction within the evolutionary community. The theory states that global catastrophes accounted for the sudden leap in evolution. These events would cause sudden and drastic “systemic mutations.” What the theory fails to address is that such mutations would devastate an organism. Also, as we have already covered, these earth-shaking events would not provide the new information needed for the complexity of life to increase.

The concept of punctuated equilibrium has also been called “hopeful monsters.” For something complex to appear—and not be destroyed—from enormous volcanic eruptions or asteroid impacts is definitely hopeful!

Finally, geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s statements on hopeful monsters bury this fanciful notion: “...these theories amount only to giving more or less fancy names to imaginary phenomena; no one has ever observed the occurrence of a ‘systemic mutation’ for instance” (Plant Life).

This is further supported by the writings of two evolutionists: “The occurrence of systemic mutation, yielding hopeful monsters, can be excluded in view of current genetic knowledge” (Stebbins and Ayala, “Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?”, Science, August 1981).

So how do evolutionists explain the fact that neither gradual evolution nor punctuated equilibrium is consistent with the geological record? And how do they account for the sudden explosion of life in the first place?

They do not, because they cannot!

Such evidence, among other things, is why geologist William Dawson wrote, “The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists” (Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, pp. 216-218).

As you can now see, geology is not a field of science in which evolutionists can find refuge or hope to repair their crumbling theory.

The Dating Dilemma

One of the most notable problems with the fossil record is related to how fossils are dated. Like many “sciences” dealing with evolution, there are sweeping generalizations and assumptions applied. Archeologists typically use two different types of dating—radiocarbon and associative.

The first, and most known, is called radiocarbon dating. In this form of dating, researchers measure the ratio of non-radioactive carbon (carbon-12) to radioactive carbon (carbon-14) to determine the age of the object.

In nature, scientists have discovered that when cosmic rays come into contact with the earth’s atmosphere, they react with nitrogen-14 and create carbon-14. In turn, carbon-14 then reacts with oxygen, producing carbon dioxide. Plants then take in carbon dioxide. Animals will then eat plants, allowing them to also ingest carbon dioxide. When plants and animals die, the decaying process produces nitrogen-14. And hence, the cycle continues.

For example, you could take a sample of petrified wood. When it was alive, the wood would have had a similar ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as the air surrounding it. However, when it died, the decomposition would slowly release carbon-14 into the air, while the carbon-12 remained constant.

If the scientist knew the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air, and the rate at which carbon-14 was released from the sample, he could theoretically calculate its age. Scientists have generally assumed that the ratio of these isotopes has remained constant in the atmosphere. But there is one major problem with this assumption—it has not!

Notice: “Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent ‘isochrons’ and their derived ‘ages’ are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb radiometric system used to yield ‘ages’ can be valid” (A.A. Snelling, “U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’: An example of False ‘Isochrons’,” Third International Conference on Creationism).

No matter how loud the confusing and misguided attempts to explain away the variations of these isotopes, variations exist. This is why scientists cross-reference their finds, with items that have already been dated. This would allow them to declare the radiocarbon date “reasonable,” based on other finds.

This is problematic because many of the items used for comparison were also dated using radiocarbon! Remembering the logical fallacies we have already covered, this is a perfect example of Begging the Question. Basing a conclusion on an assumption is not only unscientific, it is dishonest!

For the last century, archeologists have used radiocarbon analysis to create a variable chart on which to compare other finds. When a new fossil is discovered, it is compared to existing fossils at that depth of ground—called the strata. It is assumed that millennia of time compressed each layer of strata and, therefore, all fossils found at a particular layer are of similar age. If a radiocarbon test then shows a similar date, the sample’s date is established as fact.

Can you see how such a system allows samples to be placed within a wide age range? Furthering this is the fact that small samples can become contaminated by the surrounding environment. Further still, different parts of larger samples have also been shown to vary by hundreds of thousands of years.

Much more could be said about these dating methods. But as you can see, they are far from reliable. In fact, it is puzzling that such a system is used at all!

From the Horse’s Mouth

It has been said that evolutionists are their own worst enemies. The bitter disagreements between scientists of competing or disagreeing disciplines of evolution often provide many of the proofs cited by those disagreeing with the overall theory.

In fact, evolutionists questioning evolution is more significant than many would suggest. Imagine that a new archeological find were to reveal that the first-century apostles expressed doubt regarding the miracles and events proving that Jesus Christ was actually God in the flesh. Such a discovery would rattle the foundations of Christianity. These “experts”—the apostles—hold a lot of authority and, therefore, such a discovery would completely undermine Christianity.

Why should statements from evolutionary experts be viewed in a different light? Their statements show a growing and deepening chasm in the theory of evolution—one that the tenets of evolution are no longer able to bridge.

Even though we have already thoroughly disproven the concept of evolution, some concluding quotes will leave you certain about its fallacy. The Bible states, “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver” (Prov. 25:11). It also states that “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:25).

Allow the following quotes from evolutionists to “fitly” close the subject of evolution in their own words and suppositions. They will show how divided this house is against itself, and why, through their words—and the proofs provided throughout—it cannot any longer stand:

“The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations... We are condemned to believe in evolution...Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1850 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted” (French evolutionist Jen Rostand).

While we have covered many assumptions, there are others that drive home the weaknesses of evolution. They are so strong and discomforting that University of Southampton (England) evolutionist and zoologist G. A. Kerkut wrote the following conclusion to his book Implications of Evolution (keep in mind that the term biogenesis in the quote refers to “origin [genesis] of life [bio],” and not the Law of Biogenesis, as covered earlier): “The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption...There is, however, little evidence in favor of biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed...It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur...

“The second assumption was that biogenesis occurred only once. This again is matter for belief rather than proof...

“The third assumption was that Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated... We have as of yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated.

“The fourth assumption was that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa... Here again nothing definite is known...

“The fifth assumption was that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated...The evidence, then for the affinities of the majority of the invertebrates is tenuous and circumstantial; not the type of evidence that would allow one to form a verdict of definite relationships.

“The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates...As Berrill states, ‘in a sense this account is science fiction.’

“We are on somewhat stronger ground with the seventh assumption that the fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals are interrelated. There is the fossil evidence to help us here, though many of the key transitions are not well-documented and we have as yet to obtain a satisfactory objective method of dating the fossils...The evidence that we have at present is insufficient to allow us to decide the answer to these problems.”

Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” (The Double Helix, p. 14).

An editor of Science once remarked, “One of the most astonishing characteristics of scientists is that some of them are plain, old-fashioned bigots. Their zeal has a fanatical, egocentric quality characterized by disdain and intolerance for anyone or any value not associated with a special area of intellectual activity” (Phillip Abelson, “Bigotry in Science,” Science, April 1964).

What fanatical, egocentric intolerance it truly is!

Unanswered, Unproven and Untrue

Thus far, we have covered many of the assumptions, myths and fallacies regarding evolution. It was once said that it is much harder to unlearn error than it is to learn truth. You should be able to easily disprove the dishonest assertions made by evolutionary scientists. And you should be able to see past the logical fallacies that they employ. The theory of evolution can now be clearly seen for what it is—ridiculous and absurd.

The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

But we have seen that things have not evolved! Will science continue to blindly try to prove this impossible theory? If so, they are doomed to failure, as stated by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert A. Millikan: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove” (Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud..., p. 216-218).

No longer will confusing arguments blur your thinking from the truth of the matter. Each assumption has been systematically broken down, point by point. At the beginning of this publication, it was stated that you were about to read something unlike anything you have read before. And as you walk away from the ruins of evolution, you should now see why this is true.

But clearing the slate—and your thinking—of this ludicrous theory is only the beginning. The Bible states, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into...birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:20-23, 25).

Evolutionists have corrupted the truth of life’s origins. Even when presented with the facts, they ignore them—always forcing the idea that “what they see was not designed but rather evolved.” Because of their actions, God has closed their minds to life’s true origins.

But you need not be ignorant of what so many have never been shown.

You have unlearned many false concepts. Your slate has been cleaned—your cup emptied—now you are ready to examine some of the proofs of life’s true origin. Through the articles in the next section, the Source of the universe and all life in it will be “clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

You can understand what so many “learned” men choose to ignore!

Part Two –

Accident or Design?

The following is a series of articles that appeared in The REAL TRUTH magazine. Ranging from the microscopic to the intergalactic, they are four powerful proofs of a Designer—a Creator.

When framed against the backdrop of Part One, the answer to life’s origin and the Source of creation are clearly explained. Like the clarity brought to the clouded subject of evolution, these proofs will touch on aspects of creation in a way you have never seen before. Each is complete in itself, but all should be read to grasp the scope and complexity of the design of the universe and life.

Be prepared to learn things you may have never read or understood before.

Seeing Clearly
The Story of the Human Eye

What allows you to read the words in this booklet? Obviously, at a more complex level, you have to understand the English language. But before you even begin to decipher what is written, you must see it. In fact, an amazingly complex series of actions takes place between your eyes and your brain in order for you to see what is written on the page.

Your eyes are responsible for 80% of the information your brain receives. This makes it by far the most vital of your sensory inputs. Imagine trying to live without your vision.

From how the inner eye functions, to how light becomes a picture in your mind, science has studied the human eye in such detail that it will astound you.

But while the function of the eye is crystal clear, its origin seems clouded in mystery. As mentioned, what is really only the theory of evolution is assumed to be fact. Children are taught it in school and most scientists subscribe to its tenets. Surely, evolution at least attempts to open the window into the origin of the eye. If so, there must be creatures from whom our eyes have evolved.

The story of this fascinating organ is both inspiring and, pardon the pun, eye-opening! The absence of evolutionary evidence reveals the real origin of the eye and the design that has gone into it.

How Does It Work?

Before we can begin to look at the eye in the light of evolution, we must first understand how the eye functions and what systems are in place to allow photons to become an image. But you may wonder: What is a photon?

The whole universe is made up of tiny, microscopic (or even smaller) particles. The combination of these particles is what constitutes matter—the universe in which we live. One of these basic “particles” is a photon. Photons originate in the sun and are what we perceive as light. Without photons, there is no light!

You are constantly bombarded with these particles. The way different objects reflect photons determines how colors, textures and surfaces are perceived. Everything we see is based on how substances absorb and reflect photons.

An easy example of this process is to look at two extremes: (1) A mirror and (2) a black surface. If you shine a light into a mirror you will reflect the light back at you. On the other hand, if you shine a light at a black surface, very little will reflect back at you. How the surface reacts with light determines if you see color. While this is a very simplified explanation of how photons react to produce differences in what we see, it serves our purpose to explain how the eye plays a part in this procedure.

So when light reflects off an object, it changes the makeup of that light, which then enters your eye. Imagine photons as the tiny ammunition in pellet guns; this will help you visualize their path through your eye and into your brain.

The Complex Details

The graphic “Inside the Eye” is what could be called the 30,000-foot view of the eye. We have not yet addressed how the brain interacts with the eye, or any of the corrective measures the eye undertakes when it detects a problem. But before going into that, the following is the detailed representation of what really happens when a “pellet” comes in contact with the surface of your retina.

This may seem highly detailed, but such amazing detail is one of the reasons the eye is a working miracle:

“When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of [11-cis-] retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

“GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

“Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision” (“Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry,” Michael Behe, Aug. 10, 1996).

It is not necessary to fully understand what takes place to cause those electrical impulses to fire into your brain, but it is necessary to identify the extreme complexity required for the process to take place. Are you beginning to understand why the concept of evolution becomes so ridiculous when applied to your eyes?

Hardware Requires Software

The makeup of your eye—lens, iris, retina, etc.—are the “nuts and bolts” that send the electrical pulse into your brain. But how does your brain know what to do with those signals when they are received?

Imagine a computer, with all its parts and pieces, many of which are too complicated for most people to understand. No matter how intricate and complicated this equipment is—without software, it can do nothing. Your computer will not even turn on without some form of software, telling that hardware what to do.

It is the same with the eye. All the movements that take place in the eye are controlled by your brain. The brain moves your eye to center on something, adjusts the lens to focus, and opens or closes the iris to allow the right amount of focused light on the retina.

Now that you understand the basics of how your eye operates, try this simple experiment to witness how much interaction actually takes place between your brain and your eye. While you are reading these words, look at something far away. While you do this, visualize that you had to move the muscles in your eye, change the iris and adjust your lens to get the object farther away in focus.

This leads to the final part in understanding how your eyes work. How does the brain “know” how to transform the over one hundred million impulses into what we see? If your brain did not know how to put together the photon “pellets” and then balance what each eye sees, there would be no comprehensible picture defined as vision.

Another amazing process takes place in regard to this. In any single lens system (such as our eyes), the image received is inverted. So, not only does your brain put together those millions of photons, it also knows to invert the image!

Like computer software, the brain has to be programmed with all the information needed to interpret this data. It has to know what colors are represented by what type of light, and how the whole “picture” fits together. If you really think about it, what you see with your eyes is nothing more than a picture that your mind has created. Put another way, it is the vivid version of what you can visualize with your eyes closed.

The human brain truly is the most amazing organ ever created.

Without this software appearing at the same time as your eyes, they are completely useless!

Again, while it sounds impossible for the eye to have evolved, what are the odds of both the software and hardware appearing at the same time?

Do you see why evolutionists avoid conversations about the eye?

Simply Impossible!

Even in this short article, you have begun to see the amazing complexity required for the human eye. Think for a moment on the complexity required to form the first eye. Or what caused a cell to become sensitive to light. Or why trilobites and their eyes disappeared. (See “The Trilobite’s Eye: Evolution Reversed?” inset.)

Such questions are never addressed!

And even more amazing, there has never been any attempt to explain the process by which an eye could have possibly evolved from a simpler form.

But is it really that amazing? When you cannot explain the process by evolution, there is only one other option—it was designed! And that is an option that most scientists would refuse to entertain.

King David stated, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). The human eye is a perfect example of something wonderfully made.

In light of the complexity displayed in the human eye—just one organ of one living creature, you can see why God states, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1).

God understands that physical people need physical proof. We need to see evidence of the Creator:

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:20).

This is just another proof pointing to the REAL origin behind the eye—and the whole universe—the God of the Bible! The proofs have always been there, if people would only clearly look!

Mapping the Universe

In 1986, a significant leap in the science of astronomy and astrophysics occurred, introducing a new frontier: Positions of galaxy clusters were represented on a computer model. Although dozens of surveys had already been conducted to chart the distribution of galaxies in particular segments of the universe, none attempted to cover so broad an expanse.

For the very first time, scientists were able to obtain a visual concept of what the universe looks like. According to the Big Bang Theory, accepted by the majority in the scientific community, a vast explosion supposedly propelled matter hurling in all directions away from this creative nucleus. As this theory would have it, the larger structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters would necessarily be distributed in random fashion.

What did this new vista of the broad expanse of the universe reveal? Anything but random fashion!

Upon confirming the shape these galaxies and galaxy clusters formed, the scientific world was shocked! This new panorama revealed a particular structure consisting of over 1,000 galaxies, reflecting the shape of a man. Not only was the theory of random distribution discredited, but to add insult to injury, the evolutionary-minded scientists beheld that the galaxies in the universe formed in the shape of a man!

Of course, none of the scientists attached any significance to the shape of this structure. However, it prompted some scientists to seriously question the Big Bang Theory, which was put firmly on the defensive by this new evidence.

Visualizing the Grand Scale

Astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts had innovated this new technique of visualizing data and reducing it in scope to a computer model. Yet the representation was relatively accurate, given such vast distances!

For the first time, man was able to visualize structures of the universe spanning a spectrum of 500 million light years. He was able to view on the largest scale, structures in the universe consisting of great wall-like formations of galaxies surrounded by voids or areas of empty space. The very first formation discovered in the near universe was an image resembling a human. Because of its long torso, scientists named this grand figure “the stick man.” It was grand not only in dimension, but also in the sense that it literally changed man’s understanding of the universe.

Some scientists reluctantly acknowledged that the Big Bang Theory had lost some credibility and possibly needed serious revision. However, most were not yet ready to loosen their embrace on what was fashionable to believe—although their faith in the Big Bang came to be, admittedly, somewhat in disarray.

Smithsonian astronomer Dr. Margaret Geller acknowledged that the stick man “constituted compelling evidence that galaxies were congregating on two-dimensional structures, as though they had condensed out of cosmic nothingness on the surfaces of invisible bubbles. Indeed, when Geller later wrote up the results of the CFA [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics] galaxy survey, she described the distribution of galaxies in the universe as looking like a slice through suds in the kitchen sink. Her metaphor implied that astronomers were mightily confused about how the universe had formed” (“Beyond the Soapsuds Universe,” Gary Taubes, Discover, emphasis ours).

Terms used in Geller’s frank admission pertaining to these galaxy structures appearing to have “condensed out of cosmic nothingness” sound as if scientific evidence is giving more weight to creation as research advances.

A few facts about the stick man stand out as unusually fascinating. Some of its 1,000-plus galaxies are as near as 30 million light years, while others are as far away as 650 million light years. The survey that contained the stick man covered the northern sky as viewed from earth. The torso of the stick man is in the center and closely aligned with true north—in line with the axis of the earth’s rotation.

A commonly held observation among various open-minded astronomers and cosmologists was well expressed by Dr. Craig Tyler, at Fort Lewis College in Colorado: “The ‘stick man’ – this first survey result made it look like there was a message here for us, galaxies arranged in the shape of a human. But other slices of the sky have no such feature, and different scale plots of the same slice show no such feature. These features are interesting, because they seem to suggest that we occupy a central position in the cosmos.”

Pertaining to the distortions of this image that led Geller’s team to label it the “stick man,” Dr. Tyler continued, “In fact, the linear arrangements of galaxies appear to be artificial—based on our flawed way of computing their distances. This effect would make the stick man’s torso look taller than it really is, and it would exaggerate the walls that appear to surround us” (faculty.fortlewis.edu).

Understand that we are not endorsing this discovery as a “divine message” for all mankind. But it is interesting that it is causing some few scientists and evolutionists to re-examine their preconceived ideas. It is fascinating that the Creator has left a trail throughout the heavens for those who will look. After all, the Bible says that only “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 53:1).

Redshifts and the Far Universe

The distance of specific galaxies from our location in the universe can be precisely determined by measuring the degree of “redshift” in the light spectrum. Once the optical light from given galaxies are run through a spectrograph (the instrument used to separate light into its component colors), the bright and dark lines of these separated colors are the signatures of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, potassium, sodium and the other elements. Analysis using spectroscopy can easily identify all the elements and resulting compounds involved, whether in the turbulent state of combustion or quiet equilibrium.

In analyzing the spectra of galaxies, the patterns of the colors are stretched to longer wavelengths. The stretching is simply called redshift. The further away the galaxies, the greater the redshift. Thus the redshift represents a relatively accurate measure of the distance of any galaxy from our vantage point.

With technology to instantly evaluate redshifts, efforts to explore beyond the near universe become greatly accelerated. When Geller and her colleagues mapped the universe (a few hundred million light years away) and discovered the stick man, they were only able to view in the range of a single galaxy in every square degree of the sky. (A square degree is about 5 times the area of the moon.)

Shifting the focus 5 billion light years out into the universe, you will see more than 1,000 galaxies in that same square degree of sky. This demonstrates how vast the universe actually is!

Greatly improved instrumentation has made it possible to simultaneously plot hundreds of these galaxies. Using newly developed multiplexing instruments, astronomers are now well along in their goal of mapping all the known galaxies in the universe, including, as much as possible, the far universe. Even with this instrumentation, it is expected to take about a century to complete this ambitious project.

Incredible as it sounds, man is now well along in his quest to understand the geometry of the universe. With each passing decade, the process of mapping the universe is improved by quantum leaps—literally. The three-dimensional pattern of the universe is analogous to bubbles or foam, as mentioned earlier. Galaxies collect in a two-dimensional pattern near the rim of these bubble-structures in repeating patterns.

Spotting and recording the billions of galaxies in the universe is greatly expedited by use of the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) at Mt. Hopkins, Arizona. This telescope covers a relatively large portion of the sky. The new instrumentation greatly accelerates the recording process, mapping (using fiber optics technology) many millions of distant galaxies well beyond the near universe.

Milestones in Understanding the Universe

Consider how far science has progressed in the past century. It was 1929 when Edwin Hubble demonstrated the extent of our expanding universe. He was able to prove that galaxies were moving away from us and that their relative speed increased in proportion to their distance. Hubble’s findings fully agreed with Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity that took into account the vast space separating the galaxies.

In the 1960s, Fritz Zwicky and his colleagues plotted many hundreds of sky survey plates, which identified over 30,000 galaxies. Our understanding of the universe continued to expand.

We now understand that the galaxies plotted by Zwicky and others were within a billion light years of our sun—our own neighborhood in the near universe. We also understand that this known universe extends about 15 billion light years in all directions.

By the 1970s, the Zwicky catalog of galaxy surveys was looked upon as the pioneering project deserving much credit. But one major drawback was that it was merely two-dimensional—containing latitude and longitude, but lacking depth. The missing quality was provided by the measurement of redshift in the light upon its passing through a spectrograph, as discussed earlier. Redshift supplied this missing third dimension. Although redshift was understood during the time of Hubble (about 1929), it was a long and tedious task to analyze and measure this phenomenon. Today, that process is automatic and far more accurate.

Made in the 1980s, the first three-dimensional visualization of the near universe was chosen from the northern sky. Although that survey covered a spectrum of over 500 million light years, Geller likened this panorama to trying to visualize the structure of the continents and oceans of the earth by examining a map the size of Rhode Island—hardly enough area to make generalizations of the overview. Yet, there is reason to believe that this first slice of the universe was typical of the universe observed to a far greater depth into space more recently.

By 1989, the view was over four times deeper than the initial survey in 1986. Astronomers Geller and Huchra were able to map the Great Wall spanning the northern sky over a stretch of 800 million light years. By other mappings throughout the 1990s, it is understood that such structures are a common feature of the universe.

Note some of the amazing capabilities that now exist: “Teams of scientists based in Australia and in the United States have undertaken ambitious mapping projects that rely on the new technology. The Australian project goes by the name of the instrument that enables it, the 2DF, for a 2-degree field. The 2DF on the 4-meter Anglo-Australian telescope returns nearly 400 redshifts [terms used for distant galaxies with distinct redshift characteristics] at a time for galaxies distributed across a 2-square degree region of the sky...The patterns in these impressive maps are similar to the ones we [Geller and colleagues] discovered. Because the maps are more extensive than ours, they contain many dark voids, along with a multitude of thin walls and filamentary structures where galaxies are.”

The publication continues, “A consortium of universities in the United States has undertaken an even more audacious project; they plan to image a quarter of the sky digitally and to acquire spectra for one million galaxies. The first slices of these large surveys give the same message as the ones before them: Dark voids, thin walls, and filaments define the bubble- or sponge-like tapestry of our neighborhood in the universe” (“Beyond Earth,” National Geographic, p. 180).

Dark Matter

Enough evidence has surfaced to better understand the general nature and distribution of matter in the universe. The observations noted thus far pertain to matter that emits light. This summary of man’s quest to understand the universe would be incomplete without noting the mysterious element of dark matter. As interesting as the visible universe of light-emitting galaxies has become, this visible matter comprises only 10 percent of the universe. More than 90 percent of the universe is composed of dark matter!

Exactly what is dark matter? Dr. Geller’s answer gives the best assessment of our understanding of that issue: “This conundrum [puzzling, unknown] has been with us, unresolved, for nearly 70 years. Knowing the nature of the dark matter is crucial for a complete understanding of the formation of galaxies. The cosmic microwave background radiation... that pervades the universe carries our earliest glimpse of the clumping of matter in the universe...In remarkable agreement with the analysis of redshift surveys, study of the miniscule fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation tells us that only about 10 percent of the matter in the universe is the normal baryonic stuff that makes up the objects we observe: stars, planets, and human beings. The other 90 percent is something still mysterious and dark” (Ibid., pp. 180-181).

The Continuing Quest

Man’s desire to better understand the universe continues. In the year 2009, the ability to see farther and deeper into space will be realized by the launch of the Next Generation Space Telescope. By the year 2100, scientists plan for the entire known universe to be digitally mapped. The detailed geometry of the universe is expected to be understood by that time.

Man’s achievement of simulated computer models of the visual structures of the universe may be accurate to the degree that a map represents a territory. But Dr. Geller expresses the inadequacy of such simulations as true representations of what they picture: “From an aesthetic point of view, for me, at least, there is exquisite beauty in the natural world that simulations cannot match” (Ibid., p. 184).

The beauty of the heavens is greatly magnified by the powerful telescopes far beyond what the naked eye can fathom. The wider and deeper the field of vision, the more breathtaking this creation appears. In the physical universe, we find convincing proof that only a Supreme Creator could have fashioned it all together in such a wondrously unified whole. This is precisely why most senior astronomers such as Dr. James Van Allen have rejected evolutionary philosophy (ingrained into them in their youth), to become creationists.

We challenge you to prove this for yourself as well. Our free booklet Does God Exist? provides ample proof of the existence of a Creator God.

One of the foremost scientists of the first half of the twentieth century—Albert Einstein—made this keen observation about the order, laws and forethought that God put into His creation. Einstein expressed the following (condensed and paraphrased here): He was fully confident of the existence of a superior intelligence that he perceived to be at work in the universe. He expressed belief in a God who revealed Himself in the orderly harmony of what existed. His perception of religion as a scientist took on a “rapturous amazement” at the harmony of natural laws, which revealed an intelligence of such superiority that all the collective systematic thinking of human beings was an utterly insignificant reflection (Out of My Later Years).

It would be interesting if we were to someday find that God has left many messages within the universe, leaving mankind utterly without excuse in rejecting the existence of God.

From the forces that bind atomic nuclei to the principles that run these great galaxies, we find the signature of the same Creator. From the existence of law to the law of existence, from the fullness of the earth to the vastness of space, that Creator is known by His handiwork. From the breathtaking beauty of the creation to a mind that can comprehend it—all these things testify to the majesty of a supreme, all-wise Creator God and His boundless creative forethought!

The Universe
Six Requirements of Life

Evolutionists’ assumptions of a creation without a Creator should not go unchallenged. Mathematical probabilities alone disprove the mere existence of matter coming about by random chance. Even the existence of a universe containing biological life prohibits any possibility of countless intricate balances occurring by chance.

Yet, evolution ignores the overwhelming probabilities prohibiting the existence of this creation by random chance.

This article will focus only upon six of the numerous, very specific conditions required in order for matter to exist in a form that is favorable to sustain life. Once we proceed beyond the rudimentary existence of matter, numerous other hurdles would still have to be accounted for.

Thus, this article will not begin to address such remaining factors as the orbits of the earth and moon, the precise tilt of the earth, issues of temperature, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and its filtration of radiation, the continuous water cycle and numerous other requirements for biological life to thrive.

The following six requirements are usually expressed in highly technical terms. While diligent effort has been made to relay this information in more understandable terms, the concepts may be relatively complicated. Where a technical term appears, it is because no equivalent term exists that could be substituted without missing the point.

Requirement 1:
Neutron Mass ~ Proton Mass

The sun is made up mostly of hydrogen and helium. At the sun’s core, hydrogen is converted to helium through a nuclear reaction, releasing energy. In this process, when two protons collide, one of the protons changes into a neutron. The two bond together, forming a new particle, known as a deuteron, consisting of one proton and one neutron.

The instantaneous change of a proton into a neutron is possible because the mass of both particles are nearly the same. The particle of greater mass will generally transform into a particle of lesser mass by giving up a tiny percentage of its mass during the collision. A neutron is about one part in 1,000 greater in mass than a proton—nearly identical. Thus, the formation of deuterons in the sun’s core would never take place if the neutron mass was significantly greater or less than the proton. In short, deuterons would not form unless the relative mass of each particle was within 0.1 percent of the other.

Stars are able to produce nuclear energy through the formation of deuterons. Without this critical process, no star would produce enough sustained energy to support life on any planet orbiting around it. Deuterons are vital to sustaining the sun’s thermonuclear reaction, which provides sufficient energy to sustain life on earth.

The lifetime of a neutron, when outside of the nucleus, is about 15 minutes, in which it decays into a proton and an electron. If a neutron were only 0.998 of its actual size, free protons (particles that are not part of a nucleus) would then decay into neutrons—and atoms simply would not exist! In such a case, free protons would decay into neutrons, and—since the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is simply a free proton—hydrogen could not exist!

Thus, a relative mass change of even the slightest proportions between neutrons and protons would eliminate hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. Consider: Without hydrogen, water (H2O)—the basic solvent for all biological life—would not exist. In short, if the relative mass of protons vs. neutrons deviated beyond 0.001 percent—life could not exist!

Is it logical to believe that suc