Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound true

Isaac Asimov

Premise 1: Evolutionist default to non-natural explanations to explain the gaps in the theory

The National Academy of Sciences is adamant that reliance upon naturalistic explanations is the most basic characteristic of science—it asserts that for a theory to qualify as being scientific it has to explain all phenomena by reference to purely physical or material causes and processes.

The National Association of Biology Teachers official position statement on the teaching of evolution states that :

Evolutionary biology rests on the same scientific methodologies the rest of science uses, appealing only to natural events and processes to describe and explain phenomena in the natural world. Science teachers must reject calls to account for the diversity of life or describe the mechanisms of evolution by invoking non-naturalistic or supernatural notions...Ideas such as these are outside the scope of science

NABT

It is mandated in this statement that Biology teachers “not allow or tolerate any theories of life’s origins that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural notions” Ironically, due to fact that modern advances in molecular science, genetics, biophysics, and paleontology have uncovered substantial “scientific gaps” in the theory of evolution— Evolutionists find themselves blurring lines between natural and non-natural explanations in order to resolve issues that pure science fails to explain.

Every major component of Evolutionary Theory is now supported by what many call “pseudo scientific explanations’ which means that they have the following corollaries:

1. They are not scientifically testable, repeatable or verifiable.
2. They contradict or violate at least one established law of physics.

Ironically—These two corollaries also describe what a Miracle is

Miracle

An event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural cause

Wikipedia

Evolutionist decry and renounce creationist scientist who infer that an eternal God created the Universe out of nothing and made life arise out of inanimate matter. Here are the ways Evolutionist do the exact same thing religion does:

Inferring Eternality to Matter and Energy

Historic Science: Law of Conservation and Mass: Matter can neither be created or destroyed

Georges Lamaitre, known as the “Father of the Big Bang Theory” first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back into an original single point which he called the “primeval atom.”

In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

This explanation attributes a non-scientific beginning or eternality to the primeval atom or energy that started the Big Bang.

Evolutionary Scientists believe that matter, energy, and/or the laws of physics are the entities from which everything else came and that those entities have existed from eternity past as the uncreated foundation of all that exists. Matter, energy, and physical laws are, therefore, viewed by materialists as self-existent.

Steven C. Meyer; Geophysicist; Co-founder Center for Science and Culture Discovery Institute

Evolutionists jettison pure science and the Law of First Causes when they describe energy, matter, and the Laws of Physics as causeless and without beginning. By attributing eternal characteristics to matter, energy, and laws of physics is a departure from physics to metaphysics.

Every theory must have a First Cause that is observable to make all the other causes after it possible—Evolution has no First Cause to start the causation process. If you think I am wrong, then name that First Cause

Issac Bourne

Does saying the Big Bang caused itself, or that the matter and energy which caused the Big Bang has always existed remove the Theory of Evolution from the realm of science and place it in the categories of philosophy and religion? This is exactly what the National Academy of Science says true science has to avoid at all costs in order to remain true to itself.

If matter is not eternal, its first emergence into being is a miracle beside which all other miracles dwindle into absolute insignificance

William Knight; Roman Philosopher

Attributing creative power to matter, time, chance, and energy.

Historic Science: The Law of Causality states that every effect must have a cause. There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.

Evolutionist continuously resort to concepts like spontaneous generation, life coming from non-living matter, or time and chance as creative agents—all of which have never been giving scientific standing until now.

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.

George Wald; Nobel Prize In Biology

Time is the hero of the plot…Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs miracles

George Wald; Noble Prize winning Physiologist on Evolution

It necessarily follows that chance alone is the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.

Jacques Monod; Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology

In explaining how spontaneous creation occurred Evolutionist attribute super-natural qualities to “Chance” by describing it as the force which has the “miraculous” ability to defy the Law of Biogenesis and bring life from non-living sources.

Chance + Nothing = Everything

Chance as defined be Merriam Webster is something that happens without a discernable or observable cause. Only in the case of the Theory of Evolution have scientist ever granted Chance creative power and attributed to it the similar prestige given to a Law of Physics.

When scientist attribute instrumental power to chance—they have left the domain of reason, they have left the domain of science; they have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats they have turned to fantasy.

John MacArthur; Creation Believe It or Not

Claiming life can emerge from non-living sources

Historic Science: Law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from a pre-existing life or other living things and not from non life. (Modern science has not been able to create life using chemicals, matter, or energy in countless attempts)

Mary Shelley in 1816 wrote her classic Frankenstein novel about a doctor who assembled non-living human body parts and artificially energized them to make a living being. There are lots of fantasies or fables like Pinocchio, or Frosty the Snowman where wood or snow are projected to come to life. Everyone knows it could never really happen.

However, Evolution and the Big Bang theory are predicated on non-living matter (primordial dust) and energy merging randomly to (POOF) make all the planets, stars, suns and moons of the universe. The same dust and energy also supposedly merged randomly to make the first living cell.

Renowned scientists like Richard Dawkins firmly believe that inanimate cosmic dust, rocks and gases gave birth to life when energized during the Big Bang.

On one planet (Earth), and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing —

Richard Dawkins; Author of the Blind Watchmaker

Scientist have spared no expense in time or money trying to harness technology in order to replicate life emerging non-living chemicals, matter, and energy to no avail. Not once in the history of science has life coming from non-life ever been observed. Wouldn’t saying it happened only once in history and just in the case of the Big Bang deem it a miraculous occurrence?

Claiming that complexity and information can arise randomly and spontaneously

Historic Science: Laws of information show that information is non-material and cannot be reduced to the interaction of matter and energy. All living organisms have molecular information called DNA which could not have arisen randomly through the interaction of matter and energy.

The DNA of every living organism contains a veritable library of specialized, instructional information used in the organism’s formation, growth, and survival.

This information is more sophisticated than anything else known to man, including the information used to assemble nuclear weapons, supercomputers, and space stations. Never in the history of mankind to modern day has instructional information used in the assembly of functional and complex systems been observed to originate mindlessly.

If anyone walking on the beach came across the word “Life” written in the sand—they would immediately attribute even that small bit of information to an intelligent source. The human genome consists of about 3 billion bases in precise order , each of which can be represented by a letter G,A,T, or C. Evolutionist believe this information arose strictly from mindless matter and purposeless natural processes.

In every case, without exception, instructional information of this nature has originated from knowledge and that knowledge from intelligence.

If evolutionist cannot use science and it’s laws to bring about the Universe, then he has , in reality given up on naturalism and become a believer in supernaturalism.

Jeff Miller; PhD Biomechanical Engineering, Auburn University

Challenge Question: The National Association of Biology Teachers mandate states that science teachers must reject calls to account for the diversity of life by invoking non-naturalistic or supernatural notions…that ideas such as these are outside of the scope of science. After reviewing the hypothesis of chance as a creative force, matter and energy as self-existing, life emerging spontaneously from non-life etc —do you believe Evolutionists are violating their own mandate?

Premise 2: Does Evolution require “faith” in the unprovable?

Naturalism is the belief that the existence of the Universe can be explained solely through some sort of natural evolutionary process. Creationism is the belief that God is the cause of the complexity, laws, design and diversity seen in science and nature.

Whereas Creationist do not apologize for invoking the words “faith” or “super-natural” in explaining the origin of the Universe—Evolutionists and modern science forbids invoking faith or the supernatural when explaining creation or the origin of the Universe—they have even litigated before the Supreme Court to make sure it doesn’t happen in the public square.

Careful analysis of the major tenets of the Theory of Evolution are not provable nor have they been observed.

This raises the question—Are they fact based or are they faith based?

Faith


Firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Merriam Webster

Here are the things you must “believe” or have “faith in to be a Evolutionist

• Faith that the design observed in nature needs no designer
• Faith that nothing can create the Universe
• Faith that matter is eternal
• Faith that physical laws need no law giver
• Faith that fine-tuning requires no fine-tuner
• Faith that non-living matter can produce life
• Faith that complex codes can emerge randomly
• Faith that instructional information emerged by chance
• Faith that cellular machines can self-assemble
• Faith that molecular and cellular machines can self-assemble
• Faith that matter can produce consciousness
• Faith that man is the ancestor of bacteria
• Faith that plants and animals are ancestors

If any of these things did occur even once in the past or in a laboratory today it would be considered a “front page” miracle—because none of these things has ever been observed or proven, and all of them violate the Laws of Physics and Logic.

Read the following explanations offered by today’s most respected evolutionist and ask the following question:

1. Do they require belief in something for which there is no proof ?

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started…by some process as yet unknown

Richard Dawkins

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Stephen Hawking; The Grand Design

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice

Richard Dawkins; Author of The Blind Watchmaker

It is not uncommon for leading evolutionary scientist to give speeches, write books, or create videos where broad and unprovable explanations are offered and readers, listeners or watchers are accused of being intellectually un-scientific if they refuse to accept on faith the major tenets of regardless of the fact they haven’t been observed or that they violate fixed laws of physics.

Similarities of Evolution to religion is not going noticed:

With the failure of these many efforts to explain the origin of life, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science has found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own

Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey (New York; Random House)

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof

Matthews L. Harrison; British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society

Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology—professors and textbook writers included—have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it…

George Kocan; Evolution Isn’t Faith But theory, Chicago Tribune

Challenge Question: Based on your analysis to this point would you say the Theory of Evolution is based on fact or on faith?

Premise 3: Is science pointing to a super-natural cause?

The major advances in science over the last half century has led to a massive re-evaluation of the Theory of Evolution by young scientist worldwide. This re-evaluation is not just being done by staunch evolutionists that recognize the holes in the theory need serious patching up—but by a new generation of young scientist that are beginning to believe that the explanations of the Universe’s existence may not be rooted in strictly natural processes after all.

In his book “Science at the Doorstep to God” Robert Spitzer documents scientific discovery is no longer is pushing young scientists to drift away from religion—but that many are becoming increasingly drawn to God as the “primary cause” of the Universe and life on earth.

Here are the two main reasons why up and coming scientists are increasingly open to belief in God

1. Among young physicists there is considerable awareness of the need for something like transcendent intelligence to explain the occurrence of the finely-tuned initial conditions and constants being perfectly in place when life first developed
2. Quantum physics, the correlation of physical laws and other non-reduction evidence imply that a “mindlike” dimension of our universe is fundamental than strictly physical processes in structure.

Here are the two main reasons up and coming scientist are becoming less confident in evolution

1. They do not like the way evolutionist scientist continually default to pseudo-scientific explanations to explain things that the pure Laws of Science do not support
2. Resistance to peer pressure that forces them to agree and promote pseudo-scientific explanations to explain things that the pure Laws of Science do not support

Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish … It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction … In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process …

After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then Let’s cut the umbilical cord that ties us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back … Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.” 

I L Cohen; New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America

Many of the greatest scientist believe science leads you to God and not away from Him

Most people don’t realize that the majority of the most renowned scientists in the history of modern discovery were outspoken theists that believed the universe and life were the result of a higher power.

Seventeen of the “Top 20 Scientist of All Time” are self-proclaimed theist that believed God created the universe. Seventy-Five percent of all the Noble Prize Winners in science have been self-proclaimed theist that also believe that God created the Universe. Every founder of every major discipline of science believed in God as creator.

Scientist	Founder Of:	About Science and God
Isaac Newton	Father of Theoretical Physics	“The universe could only have come from the plan of an omniscient being”
Carl Linnaeus	Father of Systematic Botany	“God created, Linnaeus ordered them”
Robert Boyle	Father of Modern Chemistry	“God is the author of the Universe”
Johannes Kepler	Father of Laws of Motion	“The rational order and harmony has been revealed by God in the language of mathematics”
Albert Einstein	Father of Modern Physics	“In all the laws of the universe manifest a spirit vastly superior to man”
Max Planck	Father of Quantum Physics	“For the believer God stands at the beginning of their speeches; for the physicist at the end”
Robert Mayer	Father of Law of Conservation	“True science can not be anything but an introduction to the Christian religion”
Louis Pasteur	Father of Pasteurization	“Too little science leads away from God, while much science leads back to them”
Gregor Mendel	Founder of Genetics
Gottfried Leibniz	Father of Calculus	The knowledge of God is no less the beginning of Science

More comments from Nobel Prize Winners

Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about…I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a creator, of God represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem

Werner Arber Ph.D; Microbiologist and Geneticist; Shared 1978 Nobel Prize Physiology

Science may explain the world, but we still have to explain science. The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us

Paul Davies; English physicist, Winner of Templeton, Kelvin, and Faraday Prizes

Challenge Questions: Are the advancements of science revealing that the reason the following questions can’t be answered or proven scientifically is because the answers lie outside of nature?

1. How did the universe burst into existence on it’s own and where did the matter that caused the Big Bang come from?
2. Why does life only exists on earth- Even though other celestial bodies were created out of the same energy and matter of the Big Bang
3. How can their be precision without a precisionist-The universe shows fine tuning and obeys fixed laws which do not orginate through random processes
4. How can the programmed information in DNA organize itself randomly?
5. How could the first complex cell assemble itself randomly from a prebiotic soup?
6. Why do the world’s major fossil beds reveal the sudden appearance of every type of animal on the taxonomic tree all together?
7. How did the fixed Laws of Physics and the 26 essential constants required for life on earth just occur randomly and precisely the moment the Universe came into existence?

ThinkCubed Truth Veracity Grid

Have I considered the issue carefully and honestly with an open mind?

Does what I think conform to the rules of logic and avoid contradictions?

Are my conclusions free from bias or presuppositions?