THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION by Adrian Rogers (Part 1 of series on Evolution)

THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION by Adrian Rogers (Part 1 of series on Evolution)

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 1 of 6

Uploaded by  on Aug 30, 2010

http://www.icr.org/
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2
http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASG
http://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog

_____________________________________

I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution:

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”

Do you think the theory of evolution is true? Check out this short article by Adrian Rogers:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen” (1 Tim. 6:20-21).

One of the most important questions to face our generation is this: “Are human beings simply the product of millions of years of mindless, evolutionary mutations and adaptations, or are we the creation of an infinitely wise, powerful, and loving God?”

The answer to that question is critical. Why? Because it determines your attitude toward God in heaven and mankind on earth. The debate over human origin is one of the most critical issues of our times.

THE DAMAGE OF EVOLTION

It’s hard to measure the enormous damage inflicted by Darwinian evolution, the teaching that life arose from a spontaneous spark in a pond of primordial ooze. The amazing thing is that influential scientists themselves are now denying Darwin’s theory as impossible. Yet its destructive effects remain.

For instance, if man is an accident of nature, then there is no fixed standard of right and wrong. So what the Bible calls sexual perversion is now a “lifestyle.” And a human life can be readily destroyed, whether in the womb or partially delivered.

Worst of all, evolution has helped destroy belief in God for millions. Denying biblical creation, evolutionists have “changed the truth of God into a lie” (Romans 1:25).

Should we be surprised that euthanasia is gaining widespread acceptance in our society or that the tide of abortion cannot be turned? Is it any wonder that sexual perversion is received as a valid alternative lifestyle? We have taught our children that they are just another species of animal – and they are finally beginning to act like animals! And our children and grandchildren are still being fed this lie today.

THE DECEIT OF EVOLUTION

What is behind this whole idea of evolution? Why is it such an emotional issue? Why can’t the world simply agree that there is no creation without a Creator, and out of nothing, nothing comes?

Humanist Aldous Huxley expressed the answer to those questions in his book, Ends and Means. Huxley said he and his contemporaries did not want government or morality. So they chose evolution in order to shut the mouths of those who believe in special creation.

For more than 100 years, the evolutionists have succeeded in convincing people that evolution is the only logical, scientific, and intelligent theory of human origin.

But this campaign has been carried out amid deceit and slight of hand on the part of many evolutionists. We’ve all seen the creative drawings of supposed ancestors of mankind, built on a few teeth or a piece of a skull. And the fossil hoaxes perpetrated over the last century are well known.

No wonder in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish embryologist, Soren Lovtrup, suggests that he believes that some day Darwinism “will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

THE DEFEAT OF EVOLUTION

Despite its lack of credible evidence, evolution holds sway in our schools, the courts, and the public mind. What can we do?

We can preach, teach and defend the truth! We can set our children free from the devil’s lies by giving them the Truth of God’s Word (John 8:32) And we can point lost, confused and dying souls to Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life!

With the steadfast support of friends like you, Love Worth Finding will continue to hold high the banner of Jesus Christ.

THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION

1. The fossil record. Not only is the so-called missing link still missing, all of the transitional life forms so crucial to evolutionary theory are missing from the fossil record. There are thousands of missing links, not one!
2. The second law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy is winding down and that matter left to itself tends toward chaos and randomness, not greater organization and complexity. Evolution demands exactly the opposite process, which is observed nowhere in nature.
3. The origin of life. Evolution offers no answers to the origin of life. It simply pushes the question farther back in time, back to some primordial event in space or an act of spontaneous generation in which life simply sprang from nothing.

_______________________________

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Rodri  On April 26, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    On the argument against evolution from the second law of thermodynamics, the following website is enlightening:
    http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/evolution-and-the-second-law

    • Everette Hatcher III  On April 26, 2017 at 3:13 pm

      How about this article by Henry Morris who I corresponded with and heard speak at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in 1995. Here is the link: http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution

      Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
      by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. *
      Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Physical Sciences › The Universe Is Stable › Available Energy Decreases Over Time

      The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:

      There is a factor called “entropy” in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1
      As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

      How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question – because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2
      This, indeed, is a good question, and one for which evolutionists so far have no answer. Some have tried to imagine exceptions to the Second Law at some time or times in the past, which allowed evolution to proceed in spite of entropy, but such ideas are nothing but wishful thinking.

      Being a generalization of experience, the second law could only be invalidated by an actual engine. In other words, the question,. “Can the second law of thermodynamics be circumvented?” is not well-worded and could be answered only if the model incorporated every feature of the real world. But an answer can readily be given to the question, “Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?” Not yet.3
      Of course, the fact that no exception to the law of increasing entropy has ever been observed does not prove such a thing never happened. It simply shows that such ideas are outside the scope of science. Evolutionists are free to believe in such “singularities” by faith, if they wish (e.g., the inflationary universe, hopeful monsters, etc.) but they have no right impose them on unsuspecting young minds in the name of science. The more common rejoinder to the apparent creation/evolution conflict, however, is simply to dismiss it as “irrelevant” on the basis of the naive and incorrect belief that entropy only increases in so-called “isolated systems” – that is, systems closed to any external organizing energy or information. Lewin expresses this curious idea:

      One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order. One legitimate response to this challenge is that life on earth is an open system with respect to energy and therefore the process of evolution sidesteps the law’s demands for increasing disorder with time.4
      It is amazing how many anti-creationist debaters and writers try to “sidestep” this serious problem with such a simplistic cliché as this. Creationists who cite the entropy principle against the evolutionary philosophy are, time and again, dismissed as either ignorant of thermodynamics or dishonest in their use of the second law. Such charges are inappropriate, to say the least.

      In the first place, the entropy principle applies at least as much to open systems as to closed systems. In an isolated real system, shut off from external energy, the entropy (or disorganization) will always increase. In an open system (such as the earth receiving an influx of heat energy from the sun), the entropy always tends to increase, and, as a matter of fact, will usually increase more rapidly than if the system remained closed! An example would be a tornado sweeping through a decaying ghost town or a cast iron wrecking ball imposed on an abandoned building. Anyone familiar with the actual equations of heat flow will know that a simple influx of heat energy into a system increases the entropy of that system; it does not decrease it, as evolution would demand. Opening a system to external energy does not resolve the entropy problem at all, but rather makes it worse!

      The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not.5
      Thus entropy in an open system always at least tends to increase, no matter how much external energy is available to it from the sun or any other source. To offset this tendency, the external energy must somehow be supplied to it, not as raw energy (like a bull in a china shop) but as organizing information. If the energy of the sun somehow is going to transform the non-living molecules of the primeval soup into intricately complex, highly organized, replicating living cells, and then to transmute populations of simple organisms like worms into complex, thinking human beings, then that energy has to be stored and converted into an intricate array of sophisticated machinery by an intricate array of complex codes and programs. If such codes and mechanisms are not available on the earth, then the incoming heat energy will simply disintegrate any organized systems that might accidentally have shown up there.

      Evolutionists have hardly even addressed this problem as yet, let alone solved it. There are, to their credit, a few theorists who have at least recognized the problem and offered certain speculations as to possible directions in which to search for a solution. The one man whose speculations have received the most attention (even acquiring for him a Nobel Prize in 1977) is Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine, who advanced the strange idea of “dissipative structures” as a possible source of new complexity in nature. He postulated that when systems somehow are “perturbed” to a “far-from-equilibrium” condition, as a result of a large influx of external energy which produces an inordinate amount of internal energy dissipation, then certain “structures” might be generated. An example would be the generation of storm cells in the earth’s atmosphere by incoming solar heat.

      How such “dissipative structures” could possibly produce organic evolution is completely unknown and seems quite impossible to imagine. Such systems in no way contradict the principle of entropy but rather are illustrations of entropy working overtime! The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:

      …there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6
      Nevertheless, this bizarre notion of generating organization through chaos has achieved a remarkable following in recent years, not only among evolutionists anxious for a solution to the entropy problem but also among radicals desiring a scientific justification for social revolutions. For example, UNESCO scientist Ervin Laszlo has said:

      What I see Prigogine doing is giving legitimization to the process of evolution – self-organization under conditions of change. …Its analogy to social systems and evolution should be very fruitful.7
      Space precludes discussion here of the melange of speculative applications that have been related to Prigogine’s suggestion since he “gave legitimization to evolution,” as Laszlo put it (thus admitting by inference that evolution was illegitimate until Prigogine came along with this unique remedy for entropy). Typical of these is a paper by two leading evolutionary biologists8 who speculate (without proof, either biological or mathematical) that evolution is inevitably produced in a biosphere increasing in entropy, through the mechanisms suggested by Prigogine’s non-equilibrium thermodynamics. However, evolutionist Roger Lewin, reviewing their paper, calls their speculations mere “heuristic formulations” and then cites Prigogine himself as being mystified by it.

      “I see how you can do this with molecules,” he told Brooks, “but I don’t see how you can do it with species. I don’t understand the extrapolation.”‘
      And neither does anyone else! If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science – especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy – support it.

      REFERENCES

      1. Sydney Harris, “Second Law of Thermodynamics” Field Enterprise Syndicate, as appearing in San Francisco Examiner, January 27, 1984).
      2. Ibid.
      3. Frank A. Grew, “On the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” American Laboratory (October 1982), p.88.
      4. Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science (Volume 217, Septernber 24, 1982) p. 1239.
      5. Arnold Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (New York Academic Press, 1956), p. 155.
      6. John Ross, Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Enqineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.
      7. Ervin Laszlo as quoted by Wil Lepkowski in “The Social Thermodynamics of Ilya Prigogine.”, Chemical and Engineering News (Volume 57, April 16, 1979), p.30.
      8. Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, “Victims of History – a Non-Equilibrium Approach to Evolution,” Systematic Zoology (Volume 31, No.1, 1982).
      9. Roger Lewin, op cit.

      *Dr. Henry M. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: