- Real Truth Magazine Articles
- SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
From the smallest of cells to the largest of planets, evolution tries to prove everything, yet proves nothing. More holes are revealed.
Subscribe to the Real Truth for FREE news and analysis.Subscribe Now
This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a chicken grow from a lump of coal? Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether non-living matter can transform, 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.”
Do not allow evolutionists to dodge the “origin of matter” question. Many assert that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter.
Renowned evolutionist Stephen 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,” Bully for Brontosaurus).
Should evolution be restricted to the study of organic matter? Allow noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist 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 1967).
If evolutionists try to separate biological evolution from the origin of life (or even the origin of the universe), a towering question remains: If evolution applies only to plants and animals, what caused the appearance of the universe and life on earth? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must encompass the whole process—from the beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life today. No amount of scientific “spin” can change this.
Why would such a prominent evolutionist blur the facts?
At the heart of the “origin of life” debate is the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis. It is the process that new life can come only from existing life—that is, only living organisms produce other living organisms.
Simpson and Beck’s biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology is clear: “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, 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 the biology textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity: “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization” (1974).
These are three plain, conclusive and irrefutable statements. How then do evolutionists bypass a linchpin of biology? Again, tossing aside the obvious, they are forced to separate the origin of life from the evolutionary process.
Do not be fooled by discussions of scientists being able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Every honest and even basically trained biologist knows that viruses are non-living organisms, because they must have a living host to reproduce. Any biologist who says otherwise is either untrained or dishonest.
Even if it were true, it took decades of scientific research and advancement to facilitate a carefully planned process in order to create synthetic polio. Random, mindless events did not create it!
So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?
When one tries to prop up a shaky assertion, he must quickly change focus from obvious holes or weaknesses. So, the thinking goes, if abiogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space.
What should be seen as illogical insanity is entertained as a valid postulate. This does not follow the scientific process. When a theory is disproven, it should be dispelled and another theory put forward. In this case, a new hypothesis is developed under the assumption that the original was true! Imagine if someone stated that the sky was purple. All those around could clearly look up and see the sky is not purple and disprove the theory. It would be preposterous for the theorist to retort, “Well, the sky is purple if you look at it from space.” It would be seen as a desperate attempt to credit an obvious fallacy and would be quickly dismissed.
Evolution seems immune from basic logic. The hypothesis that the precursor chemicals for life came from space is gaining popularity in the scientific community. Note that all forms of living matter, but especially simple forms of life, are highly unstable. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.
These highly unstable, simple forms of life must survive being ejected from a faraway planet (usually by a catastrophic event or explosion), travel through the rigors of space (radiation, bitter cold, extreme heat, a vacuum, etc.), withstand the tremendous heat of penetrating earth’s atmosphere and, finally, survive the severe surface impact. How ridiculous! One does not need a degree in science to see ludicrous nature of such a theory—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!
Remember. This hypothesis is not meant to be a real theory. The attention had to be taken away from biogenesis. It is nothing more than a scientific “bait and switch.” Instead of addressing the law of biogenesis, which evolutionists cannot get around, they attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer, thus avoiding the original problem.
Biogenesis is a UNIVERSAL law. Just as it applies on earth, it must apply throughout the universe. Moving the problem to outer space is silly—and dishonest!
So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who are at least honest enough to admit no answer to biogenesis? They simply parrot a non-answer, and apply the argument to future logical fallacy (as covered in Part One of this series), claiming further scientific advances will reveal the origin for life on earth.
Evolutionists avoid the question and give no real answer—because they have no answer! Such fallacies and lack of evidence are the reasons Dr. Louis Bounoure, former Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
For the next assumption, we can play the game of “let’s suppose.” Suppose 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, logic and statements above, this is quite the 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 the game a few steps further and suppose these amino acids had already formed into enzymes. This is an overly generous leap, but it will serve to prove a point.
With this in mind, the most bedrock, central laws of science come into play—the Laws of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Arthur Eddington stated, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature…If it [a theory] is found to be contradicted by an observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But 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 one works with these laws, the more respect he gains for them.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are immutable and apply to all disciplines of science. To even be considered, evolution must function within the constraints of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, it must follow the second law of thermodynamics.
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 that, in a system, all processes will result in increased entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.”
The second law expresses that, over time, and ignoring certain variables, things tend to even out in an isolated system. And entropy is a measure of how stabilized—or evened out—a system has progressed.
Another way to look at 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).
This poses quite a challenge for a theory based on an increase of order, complexity and intricacy. But evolutionists have not given up!
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 disorderly, entropic and stable 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 process to have more sustained energy—increase in useable energy.
In the case of evolution, because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy, earth is no longer a closed system and can become less entropic (have more usable energy). And, since the sun is winding down, effectively transferring energy, all of the Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the universe) are satisfied.
Can simply applying raw, undirected energy to a system allow a lower level of entropy? Can it really be that simple? There are parameters to address the application of an external energy source on a closed system. Also, there are mathematical constructs demonstrating that the second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system.
While many evolutionists try to blur the correct application of an open thermodynamics system, there are some that are more honest. 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, Volume 1, 1975).
Decades ago it was understood there are “fundamental unsolved problems.” Nothing has changed today.
Raw energy alone is not enough to reduce entropy! For this to happen, multiple conditions must be met. Three are summarized in another quote from 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” is more than just raw energy; it is focused. 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 and only destroys! The simple example of photographs left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and destroys. There must also be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a specific application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that destroys.
Consider the process at work in plants, photosynthesis. The parallel is most interesting because the energy source is sunlight—the same energy source to which evolutionists point. This complex energy conversion system is the process used by plants to change sunlight into usable energy needed to grow. Because this 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 information-rich 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, etc. Yet in all cases, the three conditions 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. This happens in the leaves of plants, as well as with the systems in the human body.
Highly specific work—evolution—is impossible by supplying energy from the sun and “hoping for the best.” The work must be specific, there must be a conversion process and this must be supplemented with detailed instruction. No matter the argument, no matter how loud voices get or how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent thermodynamics.
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 Morris, 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!