|A. What the theory of evolution proposes
1. In some ancient puddle, lake or ocean, life began when chance chemical reactions produced the first single-celled organism, some kind of self-reproducing bacterium.
2. These bacteria were able to reproduce themselves by cell division, but with occasional very slight changes from generation to generation.
3. Very gradually, very slowly, this process of change was able to "create" new complex biological designs.
4. In some 3 billion years the original organisms were able to change step-by-step as follows:
many-celled worm without a backbone
worm with a backbone
reptile with scales
mammal with hair
5. This process obviously had to "create," one after the other, thousands of new, complex designs, in order to change a bacterium into a university professor.
B. What is required to prove the evolution case to you and to me?
1. Show us thousands of series of fossils which prove that a slow process of evolution "created", one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, there should be a series of fossils to show the slow, gradual evolution of a backbone. There should be a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into bird feathers.
2. Devise an experimentally testable theory of genetics to explain how evolution "created" a backbone or changed reptile scales into bird feathers.
3. Discover the mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which are able to "create" complex new biological designs.
4. Show us the evolution of complex new biological designs happening in nature today.
C. Have the requirements of Section B above been achieved by evolutionary science? NO!
1. The beginning of life has been neither explained theoretically nor demonstrated experimentally.1
2. Not even one sequence of fossils has been found which demonstrates that slow, gradual evolutionary change ever "created" a single new complex biological design.2,3,4
3. There is no experimentally testable theory to explain the "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution.5
4. The required mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which "create" new biological designs have not been discovered and demonstrated experimentally.6
5. The "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution has not been observed in nature. All that is observed is limited variations of what already exists.7
D. Conclusions: Let the students think for themselves!
1. The scientific case for evolution has not been proved.
2. Therefore, belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific conclusion. The same may be said of belief in creation.
3. No scientific evidence exists which makes it "unscientific" for any scientist, student or teacher of science to believe that God designed and created the complex designs of life.
4. The California State Board of Education is frightening and forcing teachers to make science education into propaganda against God the Creator. The State Board mandates science books which teach evolution as a fact when they cannot prove that it is a fact. The science books make science into the irreligious faith of evolution. Without proof they teach it dogmatically, protect it from criticism, make it the only way students can think and be "scientific." This is science education?! Give me a break. Hey, do they fear you students might start thinking for yourselves?
5. Science education in public schools violates the constitutional rights of all students. All are taught to accept the evolution dogma by faith, just as religion is taught in a church. Do not students deserve to have all pertinent facts and be free to criticize theories? Instead, believers in creation by God are denied their right to the free exercise of their religious faith, which is guaranteed to them by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The State does not want either students or teachers to criticize evolution in the science classroom.8,9,10 Is this science education or is it evolutionary religion being substituted for science?
Footnotes (emphases added)
1. John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 116-125. Subtitle: "Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and--most important--how life first emerged on the earth." On p. 125 Prof. Stanley Miller of U.C. San Diego expresses a hope that he or some other scientist will some day repeat life's origin in the laboratory:
2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J. M. Dent, London, 1972), p. 441.
3. Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.
4. Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39.
5. Jean Marx, "Homeobox Genes Go Evolutionary," Science, 24 Jan. 1992, p. 399.
6. Ibid, p. 401. "While the final marriage of developmental biology and evolutionary theory is clearly some way off, perhaps one day it will produce an offspring that can explain, in satisfying molecular detail, how new species evolved."
7. No example exists in nature or in the laboratory of a new complex biological structure or organ appearing in any species by a spontaneous evolutionary process. Neither is there in any species an example of a biological structure which can be understood as a partly evolved structure which is on the way to becoming a new complex biological structure. Some plants are highly variable, and intelligent humans have selectively bred and cross-bred plants to produce strikingly different varieties and forms. It is probable that ancient wild teosinte and modern corn varieties are an example of this.
8. Science Framework for Calif. Public Schools (Calif.Dept. of Ed., 1990), pp. xi, xii.
9. Ibid, p. 134.
10. Ibid, p.123.
Table of Contents / Previous Essay / For Further Study