The View From 1776

Teaching Evolution: Addendum

More reasons why students must be informed that Darwinism is only a hypothetical speculation that has never been proved.

Disagreeing with the prior post, a reader points out that, “Taxonomy is only a minor field within biology, in terms of people, research, or funding.  Much larger (in both the plant and animal fields) are anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, and the applied fields of veterinary and medical science.”

He is, of course, correct.  I was using biology in much too narrow a sense, as referring only to classification of life forms.

However, the reader’s reference to biochemistry is surprising, as he also says that, “All of these fields use evolutionary ideas to more efficiently guide their research.” 

Biochemistry has all but demolished Darwinism at its core by demonstrating that the simplest forms of life have interdependent systems of irreducible complexity.  That means that even the simplest forms of life could not have evolved their internal systems over the millennia postulated by Darwin.

Darwinians supposed that the earliest forms of life were just a cell membrane filled with a primordial liquid, rather like a balloon filled with water.  From that presumed life form all the complicated organs and systems we see now in life forms supposedly evolved in infinitely tiny steps over millions of years. 

Biochemists have demonstrated that this is impossible.  From the word go, the simplest of life forms had to have fully functioning, separate systems to find food, capture food, ingest and digest food, transport waste products away from the digestion system, and then to expel it to prevent the toxicity of food waste from poisoning the cell. 

If any one of these complex systems is not present in these simplest of all life forms, the life form cannot survive.  This means that it would be completely impossible, as envisioned in Darwinism, for these simple forms of life to have evolved from some less complicated life forms.

Each of these systems has a large number of complex amino acids, with different acids in each system.  No Darwinian or other scientist has ever been able to duplicate, or even credibly postulate, purely material conditions, unaided by a Creator God, that could have produced these amino acids, let alone create living tissue. 

Richard Dawkins, one of the present-day leading lights of Darwinism, believes that DNA and RNA are the secret mechanisms that carry the information for Darwinian evolution.  When pushed to explain how DNA and RNA came into existence, he theorizes that inorganic chemicals in mud crystals, when washed along in streams, managed to coagulate into crystalline patterns that became proto-DNA, which in turn somehow managed to become living tissue.

This is a more credible theory than Intelligent Design?

Visit MoveOff Network Members