Home > Perspective > Our Position
Evolving our Position on Evolution
REVISED AS OF 22 AUGUST 2007: Evolution, as it is used today, is a name given to the atheist theory that no life was created, but instead is a result of random chance, or the artefeact of a natural occurrence. At this point, academia generally accepts – and teaches as fact – the notion that life on this planet started with single-celled organisms and gradually evolved into more complex organisms. The end result is the present world, assumed to continually be evolving, with tens of millions of species of animals and plants operating together in a complex, yet precisely balanced, system.
"For the reasons stated herein, I submit that the zealots who ignore evidence are not the creationists but those who refuse to consider any alternative to their unproven theory."
Those who believe in creation, that we were designed and created by a being at a level transcendent to us are ridiculed as religious zealots who ignore mountains of evidence contrary to their position. For the reasons stated herein, I submit that the zealots who ignore evidence are not the creationists but those who refuse to consider any alternative to their unproven theory.
In the United States, the teaching of creationism, or of the non-deistic variant called “intelligent design” (I prefer creationism myself), even as one of many possible alternative explanations for the origin of life, is banned from publicly-funded schools, on the ground that such a teaching constitutes an “establishment” of religion by the government. Creationism is furthermore ridiculed by the academia as “unscientific.” Discussing the politics of what should and should not be taught in our schools is not within the scope of this article. What is within the scope is my declaration that the government is, based on the evidence before us, mandating the teaching of a lie to our school children.
So why is a non-thestic origin of life a lie? Over the years, the Church (mostly the Roman Catholic Church) has sternly punished scientists for discovering and noting things that have proven to be true. Examples: Copernicus and Galileo, and the subsequent punishments wreaked upon Galileo for sticking to the truthfulness of a doctrine we know now to be factually sound. Does this not merit extra scrutiny over any theistic explanation for the origins of life?
In and of itself, no. The actions of the Catholics and the Lutherans in the 1590’s do not rebut any of the premise of divine creation of all life. That premise was set forth in the Bible (Genesis 1:1, et seq) and the actions of others who misinterpreted parts of the Bible (which itself supports the Copernican astronomy that those clerics derided) do not have any connection. To make that connection is to engage in the ad hominem fallacy at its worst.
Analyzing the Origin of the First Life
"How did life originate? Here is the lynchpin of the atheists’ claims. If they cannot establish that it is at least possible that life could arise spontaneously, then their argument fails and further discussion is sophistry for its own sake."
How did life originate? Here is the lynchpin of the atheists’ claims. If they cannot establish that it is at least possible that life could arise spontaneously, then their argument fails and further discussion is sophistry for its own sake.
It is natural to assume that the first life in any atheistic origin of life would be the simplest life. In fact, the atheists indeed rely upon this very premise. The simplest form of life on Earth are the monerans – bacteria. Monerans are single-celled organisms that lack a nucleus. “Monerans are characterized by a single circular chromosome of DNA, a single cell membrane that controls the transport of substances into and out of the cell, and a process of asexual reproduction called binary fission that involves dividing into two identical clones” (source: sparknotes.com).
The DNA of a moneran works like the DNA of all other life: It controls the creation and life functions of the cell. Without DNA there is no life. There is no known organism that does not have a DNA sequence in at least one chromosome. Therefore, in order for life to spontaneously arise, one must have naturally occurring DNA.
There also must be an environment where there are materials for a cell wall to be made. “Some monerans have a cell wall made of a sugar-protein complex called peptidoglycan, which can be determined by Gram staining. A Gram-positive moneran has a thick peptidoglycan cell wall, while a Gram-negative moneran has a much thinner one” (source: sparknotes.com).
"There is no place on Earth I could, in my research, find, where there is DNA or RNA (Ribonucleic Acid, another genetic amino acid) occurring other than as manufactured by living things."
I have tried to find any place on Earth where there is a pool of DNA molecules mixed with peptidoglycan. It does not exist. Moreover, there are no pools of DNA lying around. There is no place on Earth I could, in my research, find, where there is DNA or RNA (Ribonucleic Acid, another genetic amino acid) occurring other than as manufactured by living things. If there is no DNA in nature, how did it arise to become the blueprint for life?
Here is the answer of the atheists:
“In experiments, scientists have showed [sic] that the electrical discharges of lightning, radioactivity, and ultraviolet light caused the elements in the early Earth atmosphere to form the basic molecules of biological chemistry, such as nucleotides, simple proteins, and ATP. It seems likely, then, that the Earth was covered in a hot, thin soup of water and organic materials. Over time, the molecules became more complex and began to collaborate to run metabolic processes. Eventually, the first cells came into being. These cells were heterotrophs, which could not produce their own food and instead fed on the organic material from the primordial soup. (These heterotrophs give this theory its name.)” (source: sparknotes.com).
Aside from admitting in the text of this citation that this theory is indeed a theory ("It seems likely, then..."), there are issues that the theorists do not, and apparently cannot, resolve.
One such issue is the lack of evidence of the existence of these primordial heterotrophs. No known fossil primordial heterotrophs exist. Moreover, the description of a primordial heterotroph – a single cell that feeds upon organic material – is virtually identical to that of all monocellular fauna.
The next issue is the disappearance of these primordial heterotrophs. The atheists’ answer:
“The anaerobic metabolic processes of the heterotrophs released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which allowed for the evolution of photosynthetic autotrophs, which could use light and CO2 to produce their own food. The autotrophs released oxygen into the atmosphere. For most of the original anaerobic heterotrophs, oxygen proved poisonous. The few heterotrophs that survived the change in environment generally evolved the capacity to carry out aerobic respiration. Over the subsequent billions of years, the aerobic autotrophs and heterotrophs became the dominant life-forms on the planet and evolved into all of the diversity of life now visible on Earth” (source: sparknotes.com).
"This explanation requires magnificent leaps of faith that, in my opinion, exceed the faith required to believe in a creator."
This explanation requires magnificent, progressive leaps of faith that, in my opinion, vastly exceed the faith required to believe in a creator. If there are no primordial heterotrophs to examine, how does one know as a fact that they emitted carbon dioxide? Remember that the premises I am examining are taught as fact to our children! Why would primordial photosynthetic autotrophs (the first plants) evolve? Isn’t evolution supposed to be the result of natural selection? Without an exemplar of a primordial photosynthetic autotroph, how does one know that they, like the primordial heterotrophs, existed? How does one know, with no exemplar of a primordial heterotroph, that oxygen was fatal to them? If oxygen was indeed the excretion of primordial photosynthetic autotrophs, and it was indeed fatal to the primordial heterotrophs, why were there any survivors among them? Why would these primordial heterotrophs evolve the ability to respirate oxygen if they survived in it, and successfully made food from the primordial soup, without dying? If they consumed all of the primordial soup before they evolved the ability to respirate and eat, then why did they live past the depletion of their food supply?
The fossil record proves nothing in this respect. In fact, it is silent. The atheists answer:
“There are, however, limitations to the information fossils can supply. First of all, fossilization is an improbable event. Most often, remains and other traces of organisms are crushed or consumed before they can be fossilized. Additionally, fossils can only form in areas with sedimentary rock, such as ocean floors. Organisms that live in these environments are therefore more likely to become fossils. Finally, erosion of exposed surfaces or geological movements such as earthquakes can destroy already formed fossils. All of these conditions lead to large and numerous gaps in the fossil record” (source: sparknotes.com).
"How does one properly assume facts not in evidence, to borrow a phrase from our attorney friends, to prove the truth of their theory? ... The circumstantial evidence is weak indeed when it comes to the origin of life, and all of the evidence before us strongly supports the hypothesis that we’re created."
We have an admittedly-incomplete fossil record. The fossil record says nothing of the origin of life. Yet, on this paltry record, the "evolution" of life from literally nothing is presumed to be fact, and required by law to be taught as fact in American public schools. How does one properly assume facts not in evidence, to borrow a phrase from our attorney friends, to prove the truth of their theory? The circumstantial evidence is weak indeed when it comes to the origin of life, and all of the evidence before us strongly supports the hypothesis that we’re created. We’ll discuss such evidence later in this article.
We have no evidence that primordial heterotrophs, primordial photosynthetic autotrophs or primordial aerobic heterotrophs ever existed. They appear, without any supportive evidence, to be creations of the atheists to explain away the faults in their premise.
Moreover, there is no evidence that our atmosphere was ever composed mostly of hydrogen and methane. It has been assumed based on the atmosphere of other planets. However, these planets appear to have no life. Mars once had water; this is a fact established by observation of the planet by mechanical drones on its surface. However, there is no credible evidence of life on Mars. Venus is loaded with methane, yet it appears to be absolutely inhospitable to any kind of life whatsoever.
A significant problem with the life-origin explanation I cited is the notion that the Earth was covered in organic materials before there was any life. But aren’t organic materials, created as the byproducts of life? RNA, nucleopeptides, DNA and peptidoglycan are amino acids, proteins and sugars. Did these chemicals spontaneously arise from minerals in water? Or did they require electricity, a different atmosphere, temperature variations and/or ultraviolet light to make them arise? Either way, one should be able to create an experiment to simulate nature’s alleged spontaneous manufacture of DNA and peptidoglycan from hot water, hydrogen, methane and minerals. Even manufacturing DNA alone would be a substantial proof of concept. However, such an experiment does not appear to have ever succeeded. Without establishing that such a transformation could occur, how can one authoritatively declare that such a thing did occur? Further, now then does one cause such things to be taught as fact, by operation of law?
But, let’s assume arguendo that the earth was exactly as the atheists have posited: Hydrogen and methane atmosphere; covered in a hot thin soup of water and organic materials. How does one make life arise from that soup? The atheists declare that “[o]ver time, the molecules became more complex and began to collaborate to run metabolic processes. Eventually, the first cells came into being.” (source: sparknotes.com).
"However, there is no evidence in the fossil record or in the modern day to show the collaboration of molecules to run metabolic processes. Why would this only occur in primordial times and not now? There is furthermore no evidence in the fossil record or the modern day to show that these alleged collaborative molecules were able to manufacture for themselves a DNA blueprint to describe their metabolic processes."
There is no evidence in the fossil record or in the modern day to show the collaboration of molecules to run metabolic processes. Put chemicals into a controlled environment, introduce stimuli, and view the result. It’s not life, it’s a pile of chemicals in a dish. Why would such collaboration only occur in primordial times and not now? There is furthermore no evidence in the fossil record or the modern day to show that these alleged collaborative molecules were able to manufacture for themselves a DNA blueprint to describe their metabolic processes. There is no evidence to show that these collaborative molecules were able to manufacture for themselves a membrane from peptidoglycan or any other substance in order to protect their innards from the whims of the environment in which they worked. There is no evidence that these chemicals possessed the intelligence to design or even posit a cell membrane. How can one declare these things factual? The only way to do so is to make a leap of faith for each fact declared, considering the absence of evidence.
Even the simplest moneran chromosome has thousands of genes. A break or change in its sequence results in a deadly mutation – the organism dies. So how does the simplest life form create for itself a precise blueprint with thousands of genes to control its operations and, more importantly, its reproduction? There is no evidence that this is possible. It appears, from the way that the atheists talk (“molecules became more complex and began to collaborate”), that they impute intelligence to non-intelligent and lifeless molecules.
Indeed, virtually all genetic mutations are fatal or extremely harmful to the organism. To date, no spontaneous mutation found in nature has shown to be beneficial. “Natural selection” is the answer provided by the atheists. Ironically, when one notes that there is no evidence of the transitional forms that are the necessary byproduct of natural selection, the atheists circle right back to the notion of spontaneous mutogenic evolution.
Natural selection lacks logical foundation. While it is true that, in 19th century England, spotted moths died off as soot killed off lichens and trees darkened, the dark moths that prevailed were not a different species or even variety of a species. They were the same species. Dark moths lived because predators could not see them; their lighter cousins became tasty snacks. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are also not probative of evolution. The bacteria that survive antibiotic treatments are not a new species or even a new variety. Natural selection has never been shown to create new species.
Natural selection as envisioned by Darwin would cause the Earth to be literally inundated with transitional forms of life. We should see them everywhere. The fossil record should also be replete with transitional forms. There should be examples of different life forms making the alleged evolutionary journey from one species to another. The fossil record and the present day are quite devoid of such transitional forms. Did evolution stop at the time that humanity allegedly evolved intelligence? Are "transitional forms" of life immune to being fossilized? While the atheists admit that the fossil record is not complete, the abundance of fossils, none of which are “transitional forms,” appears to stand for the premise that there have never been transitional life forms.
"The atheists submit that the dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds. So, then, how does a dinosaur become a bird? Did two dinosaurs get together one day and out hatched a bird? When has such a spontaneous beneficial mutation occurred? Why are they not occurring in the present day, especially considering that mankind has, according to the same scientists who advance their assumptions as fact, radically changed the environment via industry?"
The atheists submit that the dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds. So, then, how does a dinosaur become a bird? Did two dinosaurs get together one day and out hatched a bird? When has such a spontaneous beneficial mutation occurred? Why are they not occurring in the present day, especially considering that mankind has, according to the same scientists who advance their assumptions as fact, radically changed the environment via industry? How would any animal or plant know to spontaneously mutate in such a way as to adapt into a changing environment? With what would such a mutated animal mate to continue the new species? These questions are not intended to be ad hominem; but they remain unanswered by the atheists. However, they are crucial as to proof of the atheists’ concept. We cannot sanely treat their dogma as fact without competent proofs -- or for that matter, any proofs.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? All vertebrates reproduce sexually. Would two separate but identical mutations occur and the new species then propagate? If one even dabbles in probability and statics, one knows that for such a thing to happen once is improbable to a breathtaking degree. It appears impossible for this to happen the tens of millions of times required to place the current set of life on Earth. Even at the simplest level, the spontaneous commencement of life does not appear to be possible.
Observation of the complexity of a moneran’s DNA, and its cell structure, which is itself complex, leads an impartial researcher to conclude that it is not possible for such a thing to arise spontaneously. Remember that the moneran is the simplest known form of life on the planet. Some use statistics to conclude that it is possible for life to spontaneously arise. Others use those statistics to prove the absurdity of the premise, showing odds that are close to one in a googol (it is not spelled "google’; it is the number one followed by one hundred zeroes). However, the statistics are a logical fallacy.
"Statistics are fallible because there is no statistic to account for the likelihood of the impossible."
Statistics are fallible because there is no statistic to account for the likelihood of the impossible. As it stands, those who advocate the notion of non-theistic evolution have to make so many leaps of faith that the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle comes into play. In order for life to arise, you must assume environment A, stimulus B, chemicals C, co-operation of lifeless molecules D, unproven life form E, and so forth. Each individual premise is assumed without evidence, and then these unproven premises are then used as bases for an even larger hypothesis that creates for itself an universe of “facts,” none of which are backed by any evidence.
Instead of having to believe that many unproven – and perhaps unprovable – things had to happen, in sequence, in order for life to arise, it is simpler and easier to believe the single premise that life was created. However, just because it is in and of itself simpler to believe in creation does not make it fact. Therefore, let us observe life as it is, and see if it tends to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.
Evidence for Creation
We who believe that there is a creator have one thing we have to conclude: An intelligent transcendent being created life. The complexity of DNA, even in the simplest moneran, cries out that it was created. DNA is efficient at what it does, and in a space that can only be effectively examined at the molecular level, carries an enormous amount of information. This is an inherent and observable indicator that life is created.
Atheistic evolutionists argue that similarities in DNA between different forms of life point to a common ancestor, but refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the "common ancestor" could be a designer. In the same way that one vacuum cleaner resembles another, reflecting both functionality and the philosophies of the designer, one life form may, at the DNA level, closely resemble another because a good engineer will not “re-invent the wheel” every time he or she wishes to improve a design. Starting with a tried-and-true design simplifies things and is an indicator of intelligence and efficiency.
"The fact that nature is in precise balance, with plants that take the carbon dioxide exhaled by animals, and exhale the oxygen that the animals need, also militates in favor of a creator. The acquisition of environmental balance via natural selection, assuming that natural selection were even able to generate a new species from another, requires too much time; there would be a mass extinction, even a total extinction, before balance could be achieved."
The fact that nature is in precise balance, with plants that take the carbon dioxide exhaled by animals, and exhale the oxygen that the animals need, also militates in favor of a creator. The acquisition of environmental balance via natural selection, assuming that natural selection were even able to generate a new species from another, requires too much time; there would be a mass extinction, even a total extinction, before balance could be achieved. Furthermore, treating as fact the acquisition of environmental balance by natural selection requires a massive leap of faith, since there is no proof of one species ever evolving into a different species.
I repeat, the fact that our environment is precisely balanced, complete with backups that make the balance quite resilient, militates in favor of an intelligent design. Plants are generally consumed by animals; plant-eating animals are kept in check by predators; predator populations are kept in check by variable populations of plant-eating animals; who are generally more agile than the predators that pursue them. Most plants require the assistance of insects so that they may reproduce (pollination); these insects are fed by the plants’ nectar. In order to believe that natural selection created all of this, one must make tens of thousands of assumptions without evidence – and all these assumptions are based on faith. One must close his or her mind to the possibility of creation in order to accept and believe in atheistic evolution.
The atheists argue that vestigial organs in humans and other animals militate in favor of their evolution theory. The human appendix is highly similar to an organ in the digestive tract of cows that’s used to digest cellulose. Early-stage unborn babies have what appears to be a tail. Many snakes have vestigial legs that are too small to use. Evolutionists argue that this proves that there is no creator; why, after all, would a creator leave an inefficient vestige behind?
"The atheists impute their definition of ’efficiency’ onto life. Human appendixes and vestigial snake legs do not kill the host. Moreover, there is no proof that the appendix has no function. The creator may simply have been aiming for efficiency of design time instead of a pristine design."
The atheists impute their definition of “efficiency” onto life. Human appendixes and vestigial snake legs do not kill the host. Moreover, there is no proof that the appendix has no function. The creator may simply have been aiming for efficiency of design time instead of a pristine design. The choice to leave a vestigial organ that is not innately harmful, rather than wasting time to remove it, is understandable. It’s a choice that human engineers make when they design machines. Do we spend a month engineering out this extra tab or flap that makes no difference, or do we go to production with the tab and get going with a working machine?
As to the human embryonic “tail,” the obvious design explanation is left out. That “tail” becomes part of the human spine. In order to gestate a human being in time, the spine simply needs to grow more than the surrounding tissue. So the spine grows long at first, the rest of the body “catches up.” In fact, rather than being probative of evolution, gestation, complete with the so-called “tail” that ends up being a properly formed human spine, militates in favor of creation.
Gestation and Creation
The entire process of gestation speaks strongly in support of creation. In the case of humans, a multi-million gene egg and sperm unite, and evenly split their DNA. Then the new cell cluster divides, and then the cells specialize into organs, bones, nerves, skin, etc. The cells install blockers into sequences of genes in order to specialize into what they need to do. This requires a staggeringly precise program to occur; hiccups in this program result in the death or disfiguration of the unborn person. The statistical likelihood of natural selection or spontaneous mutation creating a successful gestation is astronomical and has yet to be observed.
Nonetheless, the proponents of evolution are ready to make the tens of thousands of evidence-devoid leaps of faith to account for the complexity of life. The one thing, however, that they refuse to accept is the possibility of a supernatural creator. Those who espouse creation are called “unscientific” and “backwards.” Nonetheless, we who believe in creation make but one small leap of faith, and even that faith is backed by strong evidence. To believe that life arose from nothing, with no evidence at all to support the proposition, requires several orders of magnitude more faith than to believe in a creator.
There is also Entropy. Entropy is defined, in part, as: “4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. 5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.” (source: thefreedictionary.com). Entropy is present in all systems. For example, place a society of specialized pure-bred dogs into isolation and let them interbreed. The mix of breeds is irrelevant. After a few generations, the specialized breeding will disappear, and all of the offspring will devolve into the wild dogs from whence these animals all sprang.
Entropy is strong and compelling evidence against evolution, and even stronger evidence against the spontaneous origin of life. Even where men have designed specialized breeds (Dachshunds go into rat holes; Labrador Retrievers are excellent swimmers), the design fails without the intelligence of man propping it up. To make it more interesting, and create an environment where natural selection ought to prevail, one may introduce rat holes for the Dachshunds to eat from, sheep for the Collies to herd, waterfowl food for the Labs, and with all of this intelligent intervention to produce a natural selection, there will still be a devolution from specialized breeding to the common ancestral form. The only way to prevent the devolution is to force the animals to breed with only their own breed. Even however, if this were done, the dogs would still be the same species and interbreeding will still cause the specialization of the individual breeds to fall apart.
"Entropy is a constant in the universe. It’s arguably the supreme law of the universe. Evolution, however, flouts the law of Entropy."
This is Entropy from the life-origin perspective. The complex tends to decay into the simple. Entropy is a constant in the universe. It’s arguably the supreme law of the universe. Evolution, however, flouts the law of Entropy. Evolution assumes that life forms naturally get more, not less, complex. Evolution assumes that beneficial mutations caused life to get more complex. However, all observed mutations to date have been detrimental.
The various forms of cancer are mutogenetic diseases. A cell mutates and then divides uncontrollably, eventually consuming so much of the host’s resources that the host dies. AIDS is a mutogenetic disease, where a virus causes a cell to become a virus factory, using DNA mutation. Sickle-cell anemia is a mutogenetic disease. So is Down’s syndrome. The list of diseases produced by genetic mutation numbs the mind.
Even non-disease mutations, like albinism, are harmful. What mutations are beneficial? I cannot locate one single genetic mutation in any life form that is beneficial. The fact that genetic mutations are all detrimental to the host obeys the law of entropy and strongly militates against the notion that evolutionary mutations caused newer and more complex species to arise.
Entropy by its nature states a strong case in favor of intelligent design. It strongly argues against the idea that species became more complex as time went on. Evolutionists tend to anthropomorphize the progress of life, and impute human intelligence to natural processes. It’s natural; life as we see it requires intelligence. When one immediately discounts the possibility of an intelligent creator, the intelligence that is innately evident in the design of life as we see it has to go somewhere.
Assumptions vs. Facts
There is no observed instance of lifeless molecules co-operating to create metabolic processes. So how can one declare this to be a fact? Why is this unobserved? Why is this unobservable? The atheists declare that the conditions on primordial Earth differ from the present day. Very well, then, what were those conditions? When you duplicate them, do you see the behavior that you say happened? If the atheists do not know the conditions that caused lifeless molecules to spontaneously co-operate to produce life, then how do they know these conditions ever existed? The mere existence of life is not evidence; to assume that would be the same as saying that if, John can swim and a fish can swim, John is a fish. The assumption of the conditions is, without evidence, a leap of faith.
If one knows and re-creates the conditions for lifeless molecules to co-operate to begin metabolic processes, and the anticipated co-operation fails to materialize, then it is a leap of faith to declare the co-operation to be a fact. That is my point; you have to assume as fact these many conditions and occurrences, notwithstanding the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever. You then have to string these assumptions together into progressively larger ones, turning your entire life-origin theory into a house of cards in a hurricane.
"On the other hand, the concept of an intelligent designer requires one leap of faith: The existence of the intelligent designer. Atheists refuse to accept this possibility because their ideology precludes God. Any intelligent designer would certainly be a strong candidate to be God ..."
On the other hand, the concept of an intelligent designer requires one leap of faith: The existence of the intelligent designer. Atheists refuse to accept this possibility because their ideology precludes God. Any intelligent designer would certainly be a strong candidate to be God (it is not the purpose of this article to argue that God, as depicted in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, is the Intelligent Designer that this article theorizes). However, unless the atheist can produce evidence to disprove an intelligent creator, then the atheist has eliminated a possible theory for no valid scientific reason.
Evolutionists among the scientific community, academia and government all practice lousy science when they declare their theory to be fact and Creation to be “unscientific.” They do nothing to disprove creation except to argue their assumptions as proven fact. However, as shown above, it’s much easier to believe creation than evolution.
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" -- Ockham’s razor. "Do not unnecessarily multiply the entities." Translated to English and boiled to its essence, the maxim means that the simplest solutions tends to be the best one. In order to support the spontaneous origin of life, you muse, as I have noted, assume a certain environment, not even knowing what exactly it is, and on that assumption, a certain stimulus, and on that assumption, organic chemicals produced solely from minerals, and on that assumption, spontaneous chemical co-operation, and on that assumption, spontaneous generation of DNA, and on that assumption, beneficial mutations, and on that assumption, mutations that successfully make more complex life forms, continuing on for alleged billions of years, resulting in a precisely balanced worldwide ecosystem. Although none of these assumptions are made upon evidence, they are all taught to our children as fact! These assumptions are a theory, based on the assumption that a Creator (God) is impossible. At best, this progressive assumptive Ponzi scheme is a theory, in competiton with Creation and Intelligent design.
"So, why then do the evolutionists actively suppress the theories of creation and Intelligent design? Why do they actively attempt to use the United States Constitution to silence this theory on the grounds of ’state support of religion?’ Isn’t atheism a religion?"
So, why then do the evolutionists actively suppress the theories of creation and Intelligent design? Why do they actively attempt to use the United States Constitution to silence this theory on the grounds of “state support of religion?” Isn’t atheism a religion? The apparent reason is that the atheists are not secure in their religion of the random instantiation of the universe and all life herein. They therefore apparently seek to gag those who disagree with them, a common leftist / atheist / communist / socialist trait.
Let us hope that science trumps the manifest leaps of faith that atheistic evolution demands of all of us. We need to see education evolve past the teaching of issues of faith as fact. Right now, with evolution being taught as fact, and all alternate theories suppressed by the courts, in a supposedly “free” country, we’ve a long, long, way to go.