Study Companion
Ask
Browse
Listen
＋
Install
←
Back
Podcast
Evolution Part 1
Open original on relationalconcepts.org ↗
Your browser does not support audio.
↺ Start from beginning
0% listened
Transcript
0:00
Hi, I'm Dave DeWitt.
0:05
A few years ago, I wrote a book called An Evaluation of the Atheist Religion Known as
0:12
Evolution.
0:13
I also wrote a brief overview of that book, and I'm going to cover that overview in three
0:19
podcasts.
0:20
For the sake of time, the references and notes will be removed.
0:26
They're all included in the Relational Concepts Study Book by that name.
0:32
In this podcast, I'm going to be talking about evolution as a religion, the heresy known
0:41
as theistic evolution, that evolution is not observable, and that evolution requires chance
0:49
and chance eliminates evolution.
0:53
So first, evolution is religion, not science.
0:58
The reason evolution has been around since the 1840s and will not pass away in spite
1:04
of the multitude of controversy and contradictory evidence is because it's a world religion.
1:14
Religions are held dogmatically, not scientifically.
1:18
Evolution is a world religion whose God is natural selection, whose savior is time, whose
1:26
faith is a blind leap, whose church is the academy, whose assembly is the classroom,
1:33
whose priest is the professors, and whose creed is intolerance for the Bible.
1:41
Ken Ham included this discussion, which he had with a student during one of his presentations.
1:48
I answered, the reason science theories have changed is because we don't know everything,
1:54
isn't it?
1:56
We don't have all the evidence.
1:58
Yes, that's right, he said.
2:02
I replied, but we'll never know everything.
2:06
That's true, he answered.
2:08
Did I state it will always continue to find new evidence?
2:13
Quite correct, he said.
2:15
I replied, that means we can't be sure about anything, right?
2:20
That's right, he said.
2:22
That means we can't be sure about evolution.
2:24
Oh, no, evolution is a fact, he blurted out.
2:28
Now, that's religion.
2:31
Evolution is the religion of atheism.
2:34
Not everyone who claims to believe in evolution is an atheist.
2:39
But one would be hard-pressed to find an atheist who does not believe in evolution.
2:44
If you do know someone who believes in evolution and is not an atheist, then the evolution
2:52
they believe in is not the evolution of the academy or the media or high school teachers
2:58
or college professors, paleontologists, or those who write brochures for tourism museums
3:04
and national parks.
3:07
Heroin did not create the theory of evolution in a vacuum.
3:12
The mood of the day in the 1800s was formed by the Industrial Revolution, which saw the
3:19
future in the hands of man and not God.
3:23
The secularism of Voltaire, who influenced the French Revolution, against Christianity.
3:30
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, whose Communist Manifesto opposed Christianity.
3:37
Immanuel Kant, who claimed man's reason, not God, into existence as the center of the universe.
3:45
A blind leap faith of Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared God is dead,
3:52
and Julius Wellhausen, whose documentary hypothesis denied biblical inerrancy, and Charles Lyell,
4:01
named the father of geology, who saw it as his mission to, quote, free the science from Moses.
4:12
Now, all of these died in the 1800s, except Voltaire died, I think, in 1700s.
4:20
So the next thing I want to talk about is the heresy known as theistic evolution.
4:26
Theistic evolution says both creation and evolution are true.
4:32
It's like the Israelites of the Old Testament worshipping in the high places.
4:38
Theistic evolution mixes the creation taught in the Bible with the atheistic religion of evolution.
4:46
The result is what always happens when Christians try to accommodate the world's philosophies.
4:52
The clear teaching of scripture is warped in the direction of the world.
5:01
Judges 2.13, so they forsake the Lord and serve Baal and Ashtoreth.
5:08
Luke 17.1 and 2, Jesus said to his disciples,
5:12
it's inevitable as stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come.
5:17
Theistic evolution ignores the fact that evolution directly contradicts the Bible.
5:26
For example, if evolution is what God used for creation, the definition of theistic evolution,
5:34
then animals do not reproduce after their kind. God's creating work was not complete,
5:42
and he did not form man from the dust. If theistic evolution is true, then there's no basis
5:48
for Sabbath keeping in the Mosaic law, because God did not make the heavens and the earth, the sea,
5:55
and all that's in them in six days. If evolution is true, then God did not create them from the
6:02
beginning as male and female. And it's not true that Adam was first created and then Eve.
6:10
If theistic evolution is true, then sin evolved as part of God's work. Therefore, it's not true
6:16
that through one man sin entered into the world. And it's not true that what is seen was not made
6:23
out of things which are visible. If theistic evolution is true, then the Bible's false.
6:31
Neither evolution nor theistic evolution came about from a study of Scripture.
6:37
The clear conclusion is the Bible and theistic evolution cannot both be true.
6:44
The third thing I'd like to make clear is that evolution is not observable. No one has ever
6:51
observed evolution anywhere. For example, no one has ever observed any creature becoming a
6:58
different kind of creature. No one has ever observed strata layers being developed over
7:04
millions of years. No one has ever observed life generating itself from chemicals or anything.
7:12
No one has ever observed a fossil carbon dated to be a million years old. There's no observation
7:22
transition in the fossil record. And the evolution dates are all unobservable.
7:29
When I was an undergraduate student at Michigan State University, I asked both a biology and
7:34
chemistry professor why evolution could not be observed in nature and why the survival of the
7:41
fittest could not be observed in all the missing links between apes and man. The only answer I got
7:48
was it takes a long time. Most evolution sites tell us that about 99.9% of all the species
7:59
have gone extinct. What is observable is that the species have died out,
8:06
that there is zero observation that new species are evolving into existence.
8:12
If it took millions of years to evolve from, say, a fish to an amphibian, and we have countless
8:17
fossils of fish and amphibians, then it's certainly reasonable to expect that we would find
8:24
fossil records full of transitional fossils between fish and amphibians. No such fossil links exist
8:33
by observation. The next thing I'd like to observe is that evolution requires chance and
8:41
chance eliminates evolution. In the evolution religion, time plus chance equals anything you
8:48
wanted to. Nobel Prize winning scientist George Wald wrote this, however improbable we regard this
8:58
event, he's talking about evolution, or any of the steps it involves, given enough time it will
9:06
almost certainly happen at least once. Time is the hero of the plot. Given so much time,
9:15
the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually
9:22
certain. One only has to wait. Time itself performs miracles. Here's a few statistics.
9:34
This from Mike Riddell. To assemble just 100 left-hand amino acids, far shorter than the
9:43
average protein, and the proteins have only left-handed amino acids, would be the same
9:50
probability as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. This is such an astoundingly
9:58
improbable that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe,
10:06
even according to evolutionary time frames, for this to happen. According to the laws of
10:12
probability, if the chance of an event occurring is smaller than 1 in 10 to the minus 50, that's
10:21
1 over 10 to the 50, then the event will never happen. Walter Bradley, PhD in material sciences,
10:33
and Charles Saxton, PhD in chemistry, calculated that the probability of amino acids forming
10:41
into a protein is 4.9 times 10 to the minus 191 power. This is well beyond the law of probability,
10:53
1 to the 10 times 10 to the minus 50. And a protein is not even close to becoming a complete
11:00
living cell. Sir Frederick Hoyle, PhD in astronomy, and Chandra, and I'm not sure I'm saying this name
11:09
right, Wickramasinghe, I think it is, professor of applied math and astronomy, calculated that the
11:17
probability of getting a cell by natural processes is 1 times 10 to the minus 40,000 powers.
11:26
Harold Mauerwitsch, a Yale University scientist, calculated the odds of a single bacterium arising
11:34
from basic chemicals by random forces. He concluded that the chances of such an event
11:42
were 1 in 10 to the 100 billion power. This number is so large it would take
11:50
100,000 average-sized books filling every page with numbers just to write it out.
11:57
Or we could say it's almost infinitely more likely that you would win the lottery
12:03
every week for 80 years in a row than a single bacterium arose by pure chance.
12:11
Sir Frederick Hoyle said the chance of that higher life forms might have emerged through
12:20
the evolutionary process is comparable to the chance of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard
12:28
and assembling a Boeing 747 from the material therein.
12:35
Let's go back to explain the explanation of the Nobel Prize-winning scientist George Wald.
12:43
He said, quote, given so much time, the impossible becomes probable,
12:48
probable becomes virtually certain. We only have to wait. Time itself performs the miracles, he says.
12:56
Well, this is a blind faith, irrational religious statement about miracles performed by a savior
13:02
called time. Could any sane person come to such a conclusion? Is it not insanity to expect that
13:12
the doing the same thing repeatedly will yield different results? If something is statistically
13:20
and realistically impossible one time, does that become more possible the next time or any succeeding
13:28
time? Thanks for listening. The material I've been using is available with footnotes and references
13:37
under evolution in our website relationalconcepts.org.
