(GYM Lessons) De-Evolving Evolution

This particular document was written by Wayne Jackson, was published by the Apologetics Press, and is called "Evolution-Fact Or Theory". I was impressed by how well and how simply the author stated the matter as well as the truth of the matter within it's fifteen pages. The author actually began the paper by quoting many scientists of the past who had made comments regarding the "fact" of evolution which is widely held by today's masses to be the truth, that evolution is a fact. Later on the author quotes those very same people as they counter their original statements which is quite funny I thought. Honestly, it doesn't take much digging however to find out that what the masses choose to believe (by word of mouth or trusting in a strangers comments simply because he has extra letters after his name) is quite far from the fact they claim. In fact, as I have learned long ago, it is no more than an unproven theory. Anyway, I'd love to go into the overall of this paper, but their are too many topics I need to hit to do a true summary.

*Some sub-topics or themes within this document that I thought were worth meditation or reflection are;

1. Defining the terms
Here we have a series of terms that need to be understood properly (but don't seem to be) by the whole of our society. First is Evolution itself is defined as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift", while most people understand the very same term to mean "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form". They are close no? Yea of course they are and no doubt that is why we had all been so confused. The catch if you look closely is the "...and usually more complex..." which is an outright lie. One so well agreed upon that it has made its way into the dictionary as a secondary definition. What would have been a better definition of true evolution is the term adaptation, "any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment" as it agrees with true evolution and yet does not share the same name. Too little, too late. The next terms are Science and scientific fact. Science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" and I'll note is to be done unbiased. Scientific fact is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Ok so going on these last two definitions, we would make the assumption that when a person (especially a scientist) makes the claim that "evolution is a fact" we should take it to be a proven fact because (as stated in the dictionary) this information had to be gained "through observation and experimentation" and since it is "fact" it must be unwavering in its truth as no partial truths exist. Yet, this is the problem, evolution in terms of origins (being utterly unproven through scientific means) is NOT a fact nor is it very scientific to be claiming such. Quite a predicament the scientific community is in if only we weren't so quick to accept their word as true. If only we'd think things through a bit more. The confusion knows no limit in this department it seems. Even throughout the paper as I read their were multiple statements from scientists accusing other scientists of cheating, falsifying findings, and getting away with it. What's more, as I read these statements and logical assertions of the very scientists who seek the "evolution truth" I can't help but notice they are excluding, by definition, what they will find through true scientific methods. Essentially I'm saying that they have proven that they cannot in fact prove evolution as a theory of origins. It is simply out of their realm to do so. Anyway, enough definitions, lets move on.

2. Four broken links
The author moves through the four major pitfalls of the "evolution" of things. A set of topics that, again, the everyman does not really have a grasp on while making the decision whether he things evolution is real or not. These are as follows, stated briefly;

2a. Uniformitarianism: This was once the golden child of geology and has bled over into other fields of science. Boiled down to the core it states that the processes of the past are the same as they are now. y now, though it is still widely accepted, it is loosing ground against new data. Its very proponents are discrediting it as they seek data and new information. Of course if it WERE true it would mean that nothing has changed and that their is no particular reason that a reproduction of an evolutionary event is impossible as scientists can duplicate the process under controlled conditions. Yet they haven't.

2b. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Contrary to Uniformitarianism is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It states that energy loses efficiency as it passes from one form to another through use. So that at no point can the same energy(material) be used to do the same amount of work that it had previously done. Why is this important? Well, it's important because evolution as popularly thought of requires just the opposite. An increase not a decrease in complexity, information, size, etc. The two ideas do not mix well and while evolution is called "fact" the 2nd law of thermodynamics is much more grounded and quite sound.

2c. Mathematical Probability: It has been calculated many times by many people just how utterly unlikely, even logically impossible, it is that life would find and manage the elements it needed to even effect a minor adaptation. The one mentioned in this paper was by Harold Morowitz who factored it to be "10 to the 340,000,000th power. This means one chance in the number formed by one followed by 340 million zeros". I'd say that along with many many other estimates says a lot and that is with making the assumption that creating genetic information is possible without an external source, which is impossible as noted previously.

2d. Time: When scientists discovered that they could not reproduce or even find to record a moment of spontaneous evolution as was one time the preferred theory, they moved to the opposite extreme, that of the "millions of years" per evolution event. This is an issue in that time itself does not make miracles. Whether a day or a billion days evolution in the way they propose is still utterly impossible by natural laws. Beyond that, this also takes the science out of the process as it removes all possibility of using the scientific method to verify it. Placing faith in this factor, time, is equivalent to philosophy or faith as apposed to science.

3. Evo-truth
In truth evolution as it is in reality has never been successfully tested, documented, or recreated by scientists. This is not to be confused with genetic modification or manipulation be it through breeding or other forms of tampering. I am only saying that in nature, as nature does, evolution does not occur like they would have you believe. Aren't their changes in creatures though? Sure, and yea they count for something, but all these changes are simply shifting through information already available not creating new things. While the goal of "evolution" is to trump the God card in terms of origins this merely states that things adapt or mutate. Genetically it is a sideways movement (or a backwards one if information is lost), not a forward one which adds new information to the DNA. So if you have been confused how God can exist and yet evolution is a so called "fact" have no fear, God is still in control here. You've just been lied to.

4. Mixed signals
And so the author spends a great deal of time throughout the paper, quoting both sides of the argument equally (almost entirely from scientists), in an effort to make clear the point that we have been confused, tricked, and on several occasions lied to by leaders of the scientific community. In all honestly not all the quotes were outright lies. Many, most even, were just misleading. The kind of misleading like stated above. Making comments of evolution as fact referring to the adaptation of a species while the populace assumes that they are referring to the gradual process of what is often taught as an original of life. Even though these are infact two different things altogether, the terminology for both is the same. And so whether on purpose of not, much of it is trickery.

Anyway, I've read so very much of the generally unseen counter to evolution. It bothers me to no end that a general assumption on the parts of careless masses has made this myth to a reality or at the very least into a societal truth. Am I spouting some anti-science agenda or am I backing my beliefs out of fear of truth? Proponents of evolution would say yes on both counts, but no I am not. Look for yourselves. Dig around and find out what they aren't telling us. The truth will only be visible to those who seek it.

(I 'really' wanted to go on, but space does not permit. Feel free to email or post here with questions or comments, they are always welcome.)