Darwin’s Deception

posted in: Messages | 0
Welcome to week 2 of In The Beginning. I’ve titled this week “Darwin’s Deception” so you may be able to guess what I’m talking about.
Last week I explained how there are two major accounts of our origins: Biblical Creation and Big Bang / Evolution. I showed how these two models cannot both be true. They can both be false, but they cannot both be true. Last week I showed how our planet earth is indeed special and unique, just as one would expect from the biblical account. You can watch it online.
Last week I also reminded you that science is not a person or a thing but a process by which we determine truth, and that the scientific method is how that is done. We will be using it again today.
Today I want to examine another major difference between these two models.
First, the observation: There is life on this planet, and it exists in many different forms.
Second, the question: Why does life exist, and why does it exist as we currently see it?
Next comes the hypothesis. The possible explanation for what we observe.

First, the creation account:
Around 1400 BC, as Moses was leading the people out of Egypt into the promised land, he wrote the book of Genesis which contains this account for our beginnings:
Day 1 – Light
Day 2 – Sky
Day 3 – Land, Seas, and Plant
Day 4 – Sun, Moon, Stars
Genesis 1
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
So, the summary of the creation hypothesis is that God made all the living things according to their kind, including humans, though humans are special and not just a type of animal.

Now the Evolution hypothesis:
On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in England, which has become the prevailing “theory” in the world today. While it is a big book with a much more detailed explanation than we get in the Genesis account, the short version of his hypothesis can be found on page 7 of the introduction:
I am fully convinced that species are not immutable (unchanging); but that those belonging to what are called the same genera (or kind) are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification.
In less technical speak, he is saying that he is convinced that every kind of living thing we see today is descended from another kind of living thing that is probably extinct now, just as the various varieties of say the dog kind are descendants from the dog family in general. And the way this happened is through Natural Selection.

So there you have it.
Creation – All kinds of living things were created by God, fully formed, reproducing according to their kind.
Evolution – All kinds of living things evolved from one living thing through gradual modifications and Natural Selection.
And, of course, the creation model says it all happened in two days, whereas the evolution model requires billions of years.

So, which one is true?  What do we see today?
First an important definition:
What is a Kind?
Animals and plants of the same kind can mate and reproduce offspring. Scientific term is Genus.
Like the dog kind and the cat kind and such. Any two dogs of whatever variety can mate and produce a dog that shares traits of both. A dog and a cat together cannot produce offspring.

So, we have two hypotheses that try to explain why we have different kinds of living things on this planet.
In order to test a hypothesis, you need a testable prediction.
Evolution Testable Prediction #1
If evolution is true and all living things share a common ancestor, all living things should basically be made of the same stuff.
Observation: All living things made of the same stuff: Carbon, Cells, DNA, Proteins, etc.
So evolution must be true….but wait let’s see about the other hypothesis.
Creation Testable Prediction #1
If creation is true and all living things share a common designer, all living things should basically be made of the same stuff.
Observation: All living things made of the same stuff: Carbon, Cells, DNA, Proteins, etc.
This is one of those arguments you will see often in evolution literature, but it’s actually non-conclusive and ultimately equates to starting with the results and claiming your theory predicted it.

Let’s look at a testable prediction that doesn’t work backwards.
Testable Prediction #2 – Fossils – evidence of the past.
Fossils are basically the bones or imprints of dead plants or animals that have turned into rock through the known process of fossilization (which doesn’t take as long as you might believe, but more on that next week).
If the Evolution model is correct – we should see “innumerable transitional forms…embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth” (quote from Darwin’s Book).
If the Creation account is correct – all fossils should be of distinct plants and animals completely formed, with no transitions in between.
What do we find?
The fossil record is full of distinct plants and animals completely formed with no transitions in between. To date, of the millions of fossils collected all over the world – not a single undisputed transitional form has been found. Yes, there are a handful of “claimed” transitional forms – which I’ll talk more about in a minute – but even if all the ones they claim are transitional actually are legitimate, it’s still a ridiculously insignificant percentage of all the fossils found so far. If Darwin’s theory was correct, the majority of fossils should be the transitional ones.
Darwin even recognized this as a challenge to his theory. His explanation, back in 1859 was basically that not enough fossils had been collected to falsify his claim and that he was certain that in the years to come as we found more fossils that we would find the transitions.
150 years and millions of fossils later, still nothing.
It would seem that this piece of evidence would be conclusive in favor of creation, but unfortunately it actually never will bebecause until we can assuredly say that we have collected ALL of the fossils in existence, we can never say there are NO fossils of transitional forms. And it is that hope that the evolutionists hold on to – just like those looking for extraterrestrial life.
This is called a non-falsifiable. It is a question that can never actually be conclusively answered because we will never exhaust the possibilities- in fact, most of the questions surrounding this topic are that way, which means that what we are dealing with is less about science and more about faith.
For something to be a scientific (rather than philosophical)  hypotheses or theory – it has to be falsifiable – meaning there has to be a way to prove it false. If there is no way to prove it false, then you will never actually know if it is fully true. Here’s an example. You cannot conclusively say there is no such thing as a naturally purple cow. The only way you can do that scientifically is to actually look at every single cow that exists, has existed, or will exist and see if any of them are purple. Since you can’t do that, it is a non-falsifiable statement and then becomes a belief based on the cows you HAVE observed. The more cows you see that are not purple may increase the probability of your theory being correct, but it does not erase the possibility of there being a purple cow.
So, when it comes to these two origins accounts. Both are are non-falsifiable because we are unable to observe all of time and all of the fossils in existence to conclusively show whether transitional forms actually exist or not. So, on both sides of this argument – we are going on faith. But it is not BLIND FAITH.
We believe in creation based off of faith in God’s Word and the observable fossil record that backs it up so far.
Evolutionists believe that everything evolved from bacteria, and the fossil record will some day show that.
Really, any belief comes down to probabilities.
How probabilities work: As the sample size from a fixed source increase without the desired result, the probability of the desired result decreases.
A simple example. Say you have a box full of coins, but you can’t look in the box or feel around. You know that there are a finite number of coins in the box, but you don’t know what types of coins are in there. Let’s say you guess that it’s made up of a pretty equal mixture of pennies, quarter, dimes, and nickels  As you start pulling coins out and notice that so far only pennies have come out, the probability of there being other types of coins decreases slightly with each penny you pull out. Let’s say there are approximately a few hundred coins in the box. Pulling out a few pennies isn’t really conclusive, but let’s say you’ve now pulled out two hundred pennies straight. Yes, it’s still possible that there are other coins in there – but the chances are getting pretty small, and even if there are – there aren’t that many.
That’s basically what we see in the fossil record. Initially in Darwins day, there werent that many fossils – so it was not unreasonable to assume that we simply hadn’t found the transitional forms yet. But now that millions of fossils have been found all over the world and still no transitional forms found…the probability is significantly low that there even are any transitional forms to find. Assuming that they are still out there to find is like assuming you managed to pull all the pennies out first and all that is left are everything else. Maybe you should play the lottery with that kind of luck!
Speaking of probabilities – What do you think the probability is that this gradual modification from one kind of animal into another is actually even physically possible?
For that, we will look into into the cell.
In Darwin’s day, the concept of the cell was a
structure of “exaggerated importance” with “mysterious powers” surrounded by the “simplest form of organic life,” which is a “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance” that is “destitute of texture” and “destitute of organs” with “no trace of organization.”
Basically nothing more than a mysterious blob of goo that somehow was the makeup of all living things, kind of like little pieces of play dough. With that concept, it would be easy to see how one might think a fin could eventually turn into a leg. Just squish the play dough around enough and there you have it. But what we have found in the years since is a world he and most of us could never imagine or grasp.
I’m not going to get into how life actually originated from nothing today because I don’t have time (Darwin never addressed it either), but just looking at what a “SIMPLE” cell is comprised of, you can come to your own conclusion about whether that came together by accident or design.
However it got there, now that it is we can see how it works – and that video showed you the oh-so-important process by which the DNA acts as the blueprint for all the parts in a cell and subsequently an organism.
I did some research on this to understand how it works, and I don’t have time to go into great detail but here is a quick breakdown of the different parts illustrated in the video.
  • TWO Nucleotides = 1 DNA pair
  • THREE pairs of DNA = a Codon
  • ONE Codon = 1 of 21 Amino Acids
  • HUNDREDS of SPECIFICALLY ORDERED Amino Acids = a Protein
  • THOUSANDS of SPECIFIED Proteins = a Cell
  • TRILLIONS of SPECIFIED Cells = Living Organism
To try to understand this better – let’s compare this to a library of books.
  • English Letters (26) = Amino Acids (21)
While Darwin didn’t know about DNA – modern scientists do and have created the theory called NEO-DARWINISM – which basically says that the mechanism for the gradual changes comes in the form of copy errors and mutations at the DNA level. That if given enough time and enough copy errors and mutations, that a fin can change into a jointed leg.
Basically, that’s analogous to saying that given enough random typos and enough time that the Lord of the Rings series could change into the Harry Potter series. But the catch is that each typo would have to be an improvement on the series as a whole or it will not make it through Natural Selection. That means that every single typo would have to result in a book series that still makes complete sense at every level – all the way down to the individual letters.
To put it into even more perspective – some scientists have done tests to see how likely it is for a random mutation to create just a single functioning protein. Or in our library analogy, the chances that a random letter replaced in a long word would create a new word with meaning instead of gibberish. It turns out that just like not all combinations of letters make a meaningful word, not all combinations of amino acids make a functioning protein. In fact, of all the possible combinations of amino acids, only a very small percentage of those combinations make functional proteins. Similar to letters and words.
Given a protein of only 150 amino acids (a very small protein) scientists have experimented and calculated that the chance that a random error at the DNA level will produce just one functioning protein is
1 in 10^74.
Back to our analogy. If those are the chances that a single typo will even make a single intelligible word – what do you think the chances are of changing all the books by Joel Osteen into all the books by John Grisham?  Pretty slim.
Anyway, you get the picture. Obviously we can’t prove that this never happened, but just for perspective – they also calculate there only being a total of 10^65 atoms in the universe. Which means you have a better chance of accidentally picking the needle atom in the hay stack universe than producing a single functional protein from a random mutation or error in the DNA.
Reminds me of that scene in Dumb and Dumber….“So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”
And that’s just for one protein – not the millions needed to make new body parts.
You can draw your own conclusions.
Now, if you ever quote that analogy to an evolution believer they will likely retort with something about observed natural selection, like Darwin’s finches, or Beetle Radiation or something. And it’s true, in nature we observe changes in living organisms…WITHIN SPECIES. It’s called MICROEVOLUTION and does not require changes in DNA. This is what we see with the many kinds of dogs. Yes you can even selectively breed them to design your own dog…but it’s still a dog. You can’t breed a dog into being a horse or a cat or a beetle or anything else but a dog. MICROEVOLUTION adds no new information to the DNA which would be required to produce a new kind of animal.  That is called MACROEVOLUTION – a process that evolutionists believe happens, but there is no observational evidence for it or even a good theory to explain how it happens.
I actually did some research on some pro-evolution sites to try to see what their explanation was. The best I could fine was on the University of California at Berkley site – which is totally devoted to evolution. After several pages of explaining the known and testable phenomenon of microevolution, this is how they say macroevolution happens.
Here’s a quote right under this picture:
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it’s not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
If that’s not an “I BELIEVE” button – I don’t know what is.
It’s basically the same thing Darwin did in his book. If you’ve ever looked into this stuff, you’ve probably heard about this quote from his book:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
It would seem that science has proven just that, but this is what he said right after that.
But I can find out no such case.
In other words, I doubt that will ever happen and I’m sticking to it.  Same thing they do today. You know the saying: As the probability approaches zero, just hold on tighter!
I could go on and on with more things like this:
  • irreducible complexity,
  • the origin of the first life,
  • the myth of DNA similarities,
  • the Lie of Junk DNA,
  • the lie of whale evolution (they think whales evolved from something like a bear),
  • the lie of horse evolution,
  • Vestigial Organs,
  • Embryology
  • and so much more,
but I simply don’t have time. But what I do want to show you briefly is the perpetuated lie of ape to man evolution and then something you probably won’t believe.
Here’s a quick history of the “missing link”
Nebraska Man – Evidence used in the Skopes Monkey Trial of 1925 – Drawing depicts Nebraska Man and his wife. The actual fossil this picture was derived from was a single tooth that turned out to be from a pig.
Slide56 Slide57
Piltdown Man – Found in 1912 and used to teach evolution for over 50 years in grade school and college – was actually an intentional fraud. Someone combined a human skull with part of an ape’s jaw – filed down the teeth and treated it with acid to fake age. 500 people even wrote phD dissertations on this and received doctorates.
Slide58 Slide59
Neanderthal Man – This one even made it into GIECO commercials. Turns out his features were due to old age and rickets – but totally human. Still taught as one of our ancestors in school.
Slide60 Slide61
Java Man – Only found a skull cap, three teeth, and a femur. Discoverer later admitted he had combined human skull parts with the femoral bone of a giant gibbon.
Slide62 Slide63
Ramapithecus – Included in millions of textbooks. All that it’s based on is some teeth and jaw remnants. Fossil findings in 1980 and 1982 proved they were from an extinct kind of orangutan.
Slide64 Slide65
Lucy – Probably the most famous and widely accepted. Partial skeleton discovered in 1974 and presented as our ancestor. Turns out after a spectrograph the bones were that of a chimpanzee. Also the bones were not found together but scattered all over the place. One knee more than a mile away. In the display at the St. Louis zoo they put human feet on her, but no foot bones were found.
Slide66 Slide67 Slide68
And there are several more. Many of these proven false or otherwise fraudulent “missing links” are still taught to your children in school and still used to prove evolution.
But if you think that is bad, take a look at this video:
Printed in National Geographic. No way! Couldn’t be. Do you think that’s the only one?
My friends, I called this talk today “Darwin’s Deception” because we are not dealing with a simple mistake. Today I just touched on it. You will see more in the next few weeks. But this is not just a case of misunderstanding the evidence. If we were dealing with real science, with the real scientific method – then Darwin’s hypothesis should have been abandoned long ago, yet it persists and is even called a theory – which is supposed to be backed up by more than just speculation. What I showed you today is just a small fraction of the efforts of many to perpetuate this known lie, and they are not afraid to publish outright forgeries to maintain the myth.
Are all these scientists just evil? Are they just blind? Or stupid?
Why would so many intelligent people hold on to this belief in the face of so much proof against it and such lack of observable proof for it? And why would so many people intentionally lie to keep it alive?
Jesus answered this question 2,000 years ago.
John 3
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
The light is the truth. The truth of God’s word. Jesus is the truth himself. But people do not want to know the truth. In fact, they HATE the truth.
Have you ever noticed when debating this or reading stuff written by those who believe in it, that they generally don’t have the same kind of respect for us as we do for them. In fact more often than not, I have found that they are quite demeaning and even call us childish names. Half the time if you read the comments where the debates happen, it’s less about the facts and evidence and more about how stupid and ignorant we are. When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham, Bill Nye actually got a lot of flack for even engaging in the conversation because it would lend credence to our argument.
It’s the same reason I said last week, people would prefer to believe in the big bang/evolution model because the end result of that may be that your life is meaningless, has no purpose, or value, but at least you are not accountable to almighty God.
If you repeat a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough it may just become the truth.
This is exactly what Paul was talking about in the passage of Ephesians we covered throughout the WE series:
If you recall, it says that my responsibility as your pastor is to equip you and build you up for this purpose:
Ephesians 4
14 Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.
Later in this letter, Paul reminds us that our battle is not against flesh and blood. We are in a spiritual battle and our enemy is known as the father of lies who deceives the whole world. Is it any surprise that something so obviously untrue as goo-to-you evolution has made its way into the hearts and minds of seemingly everyone and is being taught to our children as fact?
So what do we do?
Don’t drink the cool-aid. Do your own research. Read from both sides of the debate and decide for yourself whether the creation account in the Bible stacks up, or if this evolution thing is not as bad as I made it out to be. I just encourage you to look for observable evidence rather than cartoons drawn from a tooth.
You may think that Darwin himself was just an honest scientist looking for the truth, and this is what he came up with – it’s not his fault he was wrong. Let me read to you what he said in his book immediately before the sentence I quoted at the beginning of this talk.
Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained – namely, that each species has been independently created – is erroneous.
He wasn’t just looking for a solution. He was looking for an alternative to the one already given…in the bible.
Whatever you conclude from this talk or your research there is one thing you cannot avoid, and that is the conclusion we came to last week.
If this evolution thing is true and you are not specially created, then your life has no meaning, purpose, or value. You are an accident and don’t even have free will. Your whole life is an illusion caused by chemical reactions, and will have no significance…ever.
And not only that, but if this really is true – NO HUMAN LIFE HAS VALUE. In fact, it is the belief in evolution and survival of the fittest that Adolf Hitler based his attempt at exterminating the Jews on. He saw them as the lowest form of humanity and was trying to create a master race by manufacturing a little natural selection.
Oh, but that’s in the past. No one thinks that way anymore.
Say that to the 57 million unborn babies murdered in the United States since 1973. Why do you think people can actually straight faced believe that a human is not a human until it’s outside of the mother so it’s ok to kill it? Embryology. Look it up. The proven false belief that we go through our evolutionary stages in the womb so we really aren’t all the way human until birth.
But if the creation account is correct, then you were made on purpose for a purpose by a God who loves you enough to send his son to die for you. And all he asks for is your trust – not indentured servitude. Not following a bunch of rules so you never have any fun. Just your trust, and he’ll take care of the rest.
You decide what to believe.
Let’s Pray.