The Theory of Evolution (Part 1)

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
PART 1

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 2, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The public has been told for many years that evolution is a scientific fact. NASA even issued a report, “Earth System Science: A Program for Global Change,” which repeatedly presents this view. For example, on page 14 is included the assertion that some 3.5 billion years ago, primitive living cells evolved the process of photosynthesis and transformed the earth’s atmosphere into one dominated by free oxygen. The problem with this type of pronouncement is that even evolutionists Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham have acknowledged in Geology (March 1982) that there was oxygen in the pre-Cambrian atmosphere, which would have made it impossible for amino acids, life’s basic elements, to bind together!

Evolution is supposed to have begun by chance, but the statistical odds against one protein molecule forming by chance would be 100160 to one against that happening. Moreover, Cambridge University’s Sir Fred Hoyle (originator of the Steady-State Theory of the Universe) has remarked: “The notion that not only biopolymers but the operation programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” Dr. Paul LeMoine, who was an editor of L’Encyclopedie Francais, has concluded that “evolution is a fairy tale for adults.”

There is simply no evidence that simple forms of life developed from dead matter, or that complex forms of life developed from simple forms. The problem that evolutionists face in this regard is one of “required immediate functionality of specialized organs” (a term I coined several decades ago). They propose that land plants simply evolved from marine plants, for example, ignoring the fact that land plants immediately need a vascular system not needed by aquatic plants. And if life evolved from the simple (e.g., a frog) to the complex (e.g., humans), why do frogs have more genetic material than humans? The scientific fact of the matter is that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says natural processes always tend toward disorder, and the simple will never produce the more complex.

Another problem evolutionists face is that the fossil record does not provide us with transitional forms of life, which must be evidenced if life has evolved slowly supposedly over tens of millions of years (Darwinian evolution). The Smithsonian Institution has displayed a characterization of Archaeopteryx, which evolutionists have claimed is the transition from reptile to bird (but which actually has been proven to be clearly a warm-blooded bird with perfect feathers). This bothered the late Luther Sunderland, author of Darwin’s Enigma, who gave me a copy of a letter he had received from evolutionist Colin Patterson, Curator of the British Museum of Natural History (which has perhaps the greatest collection of fossils in the world), who admitted there is no scientific evidence of transitional life forms.

In Algeny, Jeremy Rifkin noted that in a November 5, 1981 speech before a group of experts on evolutionary theory at the American Museum of Natural History, Patterson revealed: “Last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night; and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That’s quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled so long…. So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people…. Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?… All I got… was silence…. The absence of answers seems to suggest that… evolution does not convey any knowledge, or, if so, I haven’t yet heard it…. I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that it’s true of me and I think it is true of a good many of you here…. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey antiknowledge.”

Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis206.htm