Evolutionists Admit It!

 

For decades, creationists have been saying that there is no observable scientific evidence for evolution, and that as in the list above, all evolutionary claims are based not on observation, but on the imaginary processes they think should have taken place. In other words, it is faith, not science. However, now evolutionists are being forced to think again, and while still clinging to their faith, they are admitting they don’t know how it happened. (Since first posting this page I have been coming across more and more pages demonstrating this, which have been included.) So:

 

University of Bath:

“Study suggests that most of our evolutionary trees could be wrong”

(see here emphasis mine)

 

The above quote comes from an evolutionary source that now realises the imaginary lines of transition previously claimed to be the way living things are related in their evolutionary past, which were based on superficial physical appearance, are proven wrong when looking at their molecular structure. So, unscientifically ignoring the fact that an intelligent designer would almost certainly use similar DNA coding for similar features, they are now trying to create new evolutionary trees based on that, thus contradicting earlier claims of evolutionary relationship that had been used as evidence for the theory.

 

Internet Archive:

“This book dares to challenge natural selection--not in the name of religion but in the name of good science. Most scientists are so terrified of religious attacks on the theory of evolution that it is never examined critically. There are significant scientific and philosophical problems with the theory of natural selection… In this provocative, enlightening, and very entertaining book, the authors argue that natural selection cannot explain how evolution occurs and then proceed to outline significant scientific and philosophical problems with the theory as well as suggesting new ways of thinking about evolution.”

(see here emphasis mine)

 

Note that in the above quote describing the book ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’, the bottom line of evolution is faith in atheism, but it is considered (quote) “good science” to challenge the limitations of natural selection, which is what creationists have been doing all along. Science is supposed to be about looking at all relevant theories and selecting the most likely from the visible evidence. Since evolutionists, as a matter of principle based on their faith in atheism, refuse to consider an Intelligent Designer, they are, by definition, not approaching the matter scientifically, as demonstrated by the statement “the theory of evolution… is never examined critically.” So even though it is now known that “natural selection cannot explain how evolution occurs,” evolution must still be true because an Intelligent Designer – God – does not exist. That is faith, not science.

​

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

(See here)

 

Over 1,000 Ph.D. scientists have signed the above statement, and the list of their names can be accessed from the link. On the same page is the following statement:

 

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."

(Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University)

​

The Guardian; science:

“Do we need a new theory of evolution? A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul… If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival… This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading… For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.””

(see here emphasis mine)

 

The above article, which is very long, explains the way many evolutionists refuse to look at the facts: facts that creationists have been describing for decades. However, those evolutionists who do look are now struggling to make them align with their faith in evolution. Notice that the examples given above are actually describing irreducible complexity, which is a system that will not function if any one of its parts is absent – like the first eye that is described. Yet ever since Michael Behe popularised the term, evolutionists have been pouring scorn on the concept, claiming irreducible complexity does not exist and all systems we can see in living things could have evolved one tiny step at a time. Now we can see that they are being forced to admit its reality, because (quote) “gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”

 

Science Direct; Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology:

“Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive… We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms… The central thesis of this perspective is that reasonable scientific challenges to evolutionary theories, like other theories in science, should be explored… Main-stream biology remains opposed to any opposition to the central concepts of evolution… Probability, like any scientific analysis, has limitations. Because evolution is generally accepted as scientifically established, probability assessment has largely been overlooked; it happened, we are here, so the probability is one… Microevolution is probabilistically realistic; macroevolution is not, and this is documented empirically.”

(see here emphasis mine)

 

Microevolution is what can be observed in natural selection: the shuffling or loss of pre-existing DNA coding, which is seen all around us. Macroevolution is new kinds of living things evolving through new coding appearing in the DNA, which has never been observed. Note that according to the above quote, random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms cannot – repeat, CANNOT – create macroevolution. So what can? No-one knows, but evolutionists know it was nothing to do with a Creator, so it must have happened. As it states above, “we are here, so the probability is one.” In other words evolution is the only possible explanation. That is the religious faith of atheism.

 

Indeed, if the author was being honest, it would actually say, “we are here and we don’t believe an Intelligent Designer exists, so the probability is one.” The only way that statement can be genuinely logical is if there is no God: but what if there is? It is actually circular reasoning: God doesn’t exist therefore evolution must be true. Evolution is true, therefore God does not exist. If the belief that God exists is religious faith, then the belief that God does not exist must also be religious faith where there is no observable scientific evidence to prove otherwise: and as we are seeing, all claimed ‘scientific evidence’ has proved to be false.

 

C14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology:

“If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.”

 

K-Ar Ages of Biotites from Tuffs…:

“In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained.”

 

Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest:

“If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, “good” dates are those that agree with the field data [fossils in the strata].”

 

A common criticism  of creation is that carbon dating, along with other dating methods, proves the earth is billions of years old; but the above three quotes (taken from here) show that far from radiometric dating being considered an infallible means of finding the age of things as evolutionists claim, when it disagrees with their own theories it is ignored. Since the depleting magnetic field around the earth plus debris in the earth’s lower atmosphere for years after the flood from the resulting volcanoes, etc., decreases the amount of sun rays reaching the earth, then this will give a greater appearance of age, as it reduces the amount of C14 produced by those rays. Also, we have no idea what would be the effect of the instant creation of the world. While it is obviously stupid and ridiculous to claim that God would deliberately make things look older than they are, it is obvious that it will be different to what would happen during the natural processes we can now observe. Therefore it is perfectly understandable why radiometric dating will not give accurate readings when using the uniformitarian (everything always changes at the same rate and never alters) viewpoint of evolutionists.

​

Dr Ron Neller B.A. (Hons), and Ph.D. in fluvial geomorphology:

(Quotes from here)

"He was appointed director of a research institute aligned with over 40 researchers. He set up a field research station on Fraser Island near Brisbane, Australia. It’s the world’s largest sand island, with an area of 1,840 km² (710 sq. miles), and is World Heritage listed. With his wide experience, Ron began to see that the geological evidence collected during his research did not fit the slow-and-gradual thinking that permeates his profession. He tells a story: “I was once researching in the Amazon jungle and my colleagues back home were theorizing how a changing climate formed the landscape over millions of years. But when I looked at the evidence I did not see that. What we saw were very mobile river systems rapidly changing their courses, and creating new landscapes that do not need eons of time. Why do we need to say it took many years? But, of course, I was told in no uncertain terms by some colleagues to think more ‘logically’.”

 

"Sometime later, Ron, not yet a Christian, was with a research team examining continental shelf sediments off Hong Kong. He says, “After we had analyzed the sediments in the laboratories, I looked at the data and said to university colleagues, ‘I see evidence in these ocean sediments for one flood, one enormous flood.’ Of course, I was again told to be ‘logical’, otherwise I could lose research grants.” A related issue Ron mentioned concerns how most people think that scientists accept the results of radioactive dating without question. “They do not,” Ron said. “Large numbers of dates are rejected as being ‘contaminated’. Why? Because the dates do not match the age they already believe about that particular environment. But they do not report it that way.” He gave one example from his experience when he was a research director at a camp on Fraser Island. Ron explained that there had been at least six dates obtained using carbon dating, but four of them were rejected as being ‘contaminated’. Ron argues, however, that they were rejected because they were too young—they indicated that the island was only thousands of years old.

 

"Ron indicated that he had no problem with the biblical date of 6,000 years for the earth and universe, and 4,500 years for the date of Noah’s Flood."

​

It is clear from the above statement that when scientific observation does not fit the evolutionary narrative, it is ignored. It was observations like these that persuaded Ron Nellor, at a time when he was neither a Christian nor a creationist, that evolutionary explanations of the origin of everything are contrary to science.

​

Premier Christianity:

“Popular science commentator Paul Davis has been researching the serendipitous nature of our universe that has allowed conscious human life to develop within it. Contra the atheist view that life is a cosmic accident, he has been showing why a life principle (a Logos, to use the Greek word) seems to be at work in nature.

There’s also the renowned psychiatrist and neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist, whose influential books such as The Master and His Emissary (Yale University Press) show how our brains are wired to be religious and why a divine mind is required as a foundation for consciousness.

The list goes on. It’s noteworthy that none of the people above are conventionally religious. Their conclusions are wrought from secular research and reflection, not a pre-commitment to Christianity. Yet these are now the voices that intellectual seekers are turning towards to make sense of life.”

(Taken from Is Atheism Dead? by Justin Brierly in the October 2023 issue of Premier Christianity, page 40)

 

The above follows mention of several other notable people saying similar things. More and more people, who in many cases still refuse to accept the idea of any kind of God or divine being, nevertheless now realise from their own research and observations that atheistic naturalism simply does not equate to reality.

​

Live Science.com: Einstein must be wrong: How general relativity fails to explain the universe:

“Dark energy was introduced ad hoc by astronomers to explain the acceleration of the cosmic expansion. Despite fitting cosmological data extremely well until recently, the Λ-Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) is spectacularly incomplete and unsatisfactory from the theoretical point of view…Dark energy was introduced ad hoc by astronomers to explain the acceleration of the cosmic expansion. Despite fitting cosmological data extremely well until recently, the ΛCDM model is spectacularly incomplete and unsatisfactory from the theoretical point of view. In the past five years, it has also faced severe observational tensions…Problem is, this dark energy has no physical justification. Its nature is completely unknown, although a plethora of models has been proposed. The proposed alternative to dark energy is a cosmological constant Λ which, according to quantum-mechanical back-of-the-envelope (but questionable) calculations, should be huge. However, Λ must instead be incredibly fine-tuned to a tiny value to fit the cosmological observations. If dark energy exists, our ignorance of its nature is deeply troubling."

(See here)

​

In other words, scientific observation does not align with ‘dark energy’ that is an essential rescuing device for the Big Bang theory as an explanation of how the universe appeared.

​

Science (see here):

"The universe’s puzzlingly fast expansion may defy explanation, cosmologists fret...

Discovered less than a century ago, the expansion of the universe causes galaxies to rush away from Earth, stretching their light to longer, redder wavelengths. That observation spawned the idea of the big bang—and decades of bickering over the rate at which the universe is expanding, the Hubble constant. After a brief rapprochement, cosmologists are arguing again. Working from our cosmic neighborhood outward to more distant galaxies, one group has measured a rate significantly higher than the one derived by colleagues studying the cosmos’ farthest fringe and the afterglow of the big bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."

 

In other words, there is no Big Bang theory that fits scientific observation!

​

The Third Way:

“The third way of evolution… The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation… We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.”

(see here emphasis mine)

 

The above quote is from a website put together by scientists who are struggling to give a rational, scientific explanation for everything around us without a Creator. Note they consider Creationism unscientific and insist any form of Intelligent Design is impossible; but give a completely irrational reason for doing so: “it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process.” Arbitrary means:

 

“Based on chance rather than being planned or based on reason”

Cambridge Dictionary

 

Creationism is certainly not based on chance, but on the vast amount of evidence around us for the existence of the Intelligent Designer. Science is about how things work and how they first appeared, and if it took an Intelligent Designer to make it all appear, then genuine science will show this and, as we saw earlier, all alternative explanations will always be falsified sooner or later. Indeed modern science is founded on the work of scientists like Isaac Newton, for example, who were Christians and believed that an unchangeable God would create a universe that functions by unchangeable laws and as such could be investigated, described and relied upon.

 

Therefore, their claim that Creation is unscientific actually proves how unscientific evolutionists are being because they have already decided before looking at the evidence that evolution is true, and whatever evidence they do observe they will twist it to make it fit their preconceived ideas. This is nothing to do with science and everything to do with their religious faith in atheism. Genuine science looks at all the evidence and then reaches the most obvious explanation for it. The fact that, as we have seen, evolution has been built on fabricated claims that have proved to be false is evidence that they have no genuine scientific observation to support it: otherwise they would not have been forced to rely on fake proofs.

 

As we will now see, the same scientific observations will confirm or falsify both Intelligent Design and naturalistic processes.

​

INDEX

​