It says man is an animal,why? because man descended from animals(gorillas/chimpanzee/or whatever). Oh! we humans are pushed to animal status. That's why our society has become
like this??? So the stronger ones will eat others and the weaker ones will perish. That's called survival of fittest. It says man is a complex mechanism. So we are just machines.
We are not created for any purpose. We come and perish, that's it. No moral values or ethics. Don't care for anyone. Put yourself first. Oh! what kind of theory is this. So what happened to the strongest man of 21st century(the man who killed jews)? The strongest
man couldn't survive till his end. He killed himself. WOW! what a pity?And man has disovered how the solar system works, with sun in the centre, all planets and other heavenely objects revolve around this. It is going for years perfectly, accurately and in whatever math you say it is doing a good job. So do you think it goes by themselves? Isn't crazy? Here in our life if we want to move any object somebody got to do that. The whole theory of evolution is - just deny the existence of God. And you know the pathetic situation
of those nations which hold this theory? We are so lucky that God gave us HIS book
"THE HOLY BIBLE", which is more than enough to give good description of human
birth on this earth. It has enough proof for most of its incidents. And we all believe that, HE was so loving that HE came into this world fragile ,led a very simple and hard life and finally slaugtered for our sins. After HIS death, HE rose again and so far HE has visited so many humans. Even HIS earthly mother also has appeared to us in several places. But this world
won't believe. Let us atleast make our dear ones understand these things, so that they don't fall into traps. This is a trick of satan. He doesn't wan't humans to get connected with God.
His only job is to devour and put us shame. That's why we see all kinds of bad things in our life. But let's not worry, we will give ourselves to God and HE will lead us.
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." "If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world."
There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals.There are no links whatsoever. "All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ( , p.33)
"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present."
"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."
If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" (, p.33) Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." "The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)."
"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function."
"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."
Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.
"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time."
Background: The Creation-Evolution controversy is not just Christians debating with atheists. In our effort to determine what the truth is, we recognize that there are many different models for creation, even if it is based on a Biblical world-view. This is an simple outline of what these models are, and a statement of what our beliefs are.
Level 1. We are THEISTIC as opposed to atheistic or pagan.
Level 2. Being theistic, we are CHRISTIAN as opposed to any of a number of religions that reject Jesus Christ.
Level 3. Being Christian, we believe the BIBLE to be TRUSTWORTHY as opposed to theistic evolutionists who reject Genesis 1-11 as myth, or "higher critics" who pick apart the Bible for errors, the fruits of which lead to existentialism, modernism, liberalism, and so forth.
Level 4. Trusting the Bible, we believe in a 7 DAY CREATION WEEK and a WORLD WIDE FLOOD as opposed to the Day-Age theory, Progressive Creation, Local Flood theory, or other attempts to bend the scriptures to accommodate the millions of years assumed by evolution for the age of the earth. The cause for concern here is liberal use of scripture twisting to get the Bible to mean something it doesn't say in a straightforward manner.
Level 5. Believing in a 7 day creation week, we either believe there was a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 or that the GAP WAS NONEXISTENT. Believers in the Gap may try to accommodate the long ages of evolution or believe in a pre-Adamic race or believe there was a LITTLE GAP, but insignificant in comparison to long ages of evolution. Many of those who believe in the pre-Adamic race use it to justify racist attitudes, believing that other races were not of the lineage of Adam. In all of the above, compromise with evolution allows no opposition to the social problems belief in evolution causes. Darwin's theory directly influenced Marx, Engles, Nietzche, Hitler, and others who attempted to apply the idea of survival of the fittest as justification for their deeds.
Level 6. Believing that a gap doesn't exist or does not accommodate evolution and long ages, the rest are issues where we can debate to our hearts content.
This includes the following:
a. Ancient universe of indeterminate age, or a young universe. This includes debates on the decay of speed of light, expanding universe, and cosmologies.
b. The meaning of the "firmament:" did this mean an atmospheric water vapor canopy, and if so did it provide most of the source of the waters of the flood?
c. Did continental separation occur as a result of the flood, or at "Peleg's division" after the flood? If we accept the hydroplate theory proposed by Walt Brown, were magnetic anomalies found at the Mid Atlantic Ridge caused by reversals, or not?
d. Were deposits attributed to the Ice Age caused by a real post-flood Ice Age, or was there a quick freeze during the flood, or is there a diluvial explanation for these deposits without ice?
e. Creationists disagree on whether many strata can be attributed to post-flood catastrophes
(i.e. the European explanation).
If we get to Level 6, we have laid the foundation for our creationist beliefs. Ideas a. thru e. are interesting to debate but are less crucial to the overall effect upon our faith in Jesus Christ.
Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution
major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws.
In his “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, “If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.”
He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
“Evolution Has Never Been Observed”
Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”
Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak wants to believe simply because a population’s existing gene pool will yield a variety of genetic variations, that over time these organisms will therefore also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms. This is wishful thinking, a statement of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t agree with Isaak’s story.
Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies
Isaak continues: “The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild...” He then directs us to: the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky et al. (involving the deliberate, radiation-induced mutation of fruit flies in the laboratory), and the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the talk.origins archives. As for Dobzhansky’s fruit fly experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it involves genetic change— can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place
without the deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man.
In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies
with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.
Bold Claims vs. Empirical Science
Even so, Isaak insists that “it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.”
Isaak’s impressive confidence seems to be based in part on his inability to differentiate between “observing” an event and “interpreting evidence” to support a hypothesized event. Even so, the empirical data largely fails to support his claims. The fact is, evolution has NOT been observed, and its chief proponents don’t deny this. Furthermore, contrary to Isaak’s assertion, evolution’s predictions regarding the fossil record, anatomy, genetics, and biogeography have NOT been verified with “overwhelming” support, contrary to Isaak’s bold claims, but are more often challenged by the facts, as we shall see. And in fact, using Isaak’s own logic in fairness to the Creationists whom he wishes to discredit, one can just as easily (and much more accurately) state: “It would be wrong to say that creation hasn’t been
observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Creationism makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting Creationism is overwhelming.”
Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Isaak begins with the expected declaration, “This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution.” But we soon shall see who misunderstands both thermodynamics AND evolution...
Defining the Law
Isaak’s definition of the second law of thermodynamics begins with: “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” He then tells us that “confusion arises” when the 2nd law is phrased as: “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Anyone familiar with the 2nd law will recognize that both statements are true, and that the second statement is commonly used of the two axioms in defining the 2nd law as it pertains to Classical Thermodynamics—yet for Isaak, it seems to cause some “confusion.”
To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution in heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).
Isaak tells us that creationists “misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.” This writer knows of no creationist who has published this “misinterpretation,” and Isaak neglects to document the “creationists” to whom he would credit this quotation. However, it is commonly understood by not only by creationists, but by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to say:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”
Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist stating essentially what Isaak claims is a “creationist misinterpretation” of the 2nd law. Lest there be any doubts, a typical college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself with matters of origins and therefore may be considered neutral on the subject) says:
“Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of randomness in a system. The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or more randomness the system has. We could say that the direction of change in diffusion or evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy.” It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.” Please don’t let the fact escape your notice that Asimov applies this law to “the universe” which pretty much assures us that its application is ... universal (applying to all processes and systems).
Open vs. Closed Systems
Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has really become a classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists’ error is that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.” The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent violation” of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added). Isaak tells us “life [is] irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every living systems is an exception to the 2nd law. Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a “closed” (isolated) system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale.
This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory.
However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.
No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...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.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40] So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Raw Energy is Not Enough
The fact is, contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by evolutionists like Isaak, any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. The earth’s living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems.
This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the 2nd law) can break it down. Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets. So we can see that living things do not in fact “violate” the 2nd law, nor are they “excepted from” or “irrelevant to” the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the 2nd law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Every living organism itself is a highly complex and organized creation, able to live within the earth’s “open system” biosphere (the only place in the universe known to man that supports life), by means of a unique, inherent program (information, DNA), plus an inherent energy conversion & storage mechanism (photosynthesis, metabolism).
Order vs. Organized Complexity
Isaak argues that Creationists try to “get around” something by claiming that “the information
carried by living things lets them create order...but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.” What Isaak says here reveals some confusion on his part, between simple “order” and “organized complexity.” All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form. On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in
order to arrive at and maintain those levels.
Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex
structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though
they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself. To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be
exactly what Isaak has done.
Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way: “‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77
(April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life: “The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a acroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)] Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers my polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty: his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error
life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the elements involved).
The Missing Mechanism
Besides repeating his “misconception” claim, Isaak now goes on to say that “Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations ... Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five ... the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success ... maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws.”
In the first place, not all evolutionists continue to subscribe to the “small changes between generations” theories (e.g., Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism). There is a substantial number who now advocate the “punctuated equilibria,” “quantum speciation,” or “hopeful monster” scenarios, in which major morphological changes are believed to take place in rare, infrequent, and highly isolated events, separated by long periods of little or no change.
Secondly, such changes as Isaak’s example of “four or six fingers instead of five” are due to genetic errors (mutations), and contrary to Isaak’s claim, differential reproductive success serves better to weed-out these errors, rather than perpetuate them, which is good, because they are almost invariably harmful, or at the very least neutral, in effect.
As Ross correctly observed, “there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.” Yet evolutionary theory demands precisely such violations every step of the way, as the expansion of the “big bang” acquires information, organization, and complexity, forming itself into galaxies, stars, planets, then highly complex amino acids, proteins, DNA—essentially generating greater and greater organization, complexity, and information all by itself, and all in complete contradiction of the best established natural law known to science.
While many evolutionists deny this problem, often dismissing it in the same fashion as Isaak has done (as a mere “creationist misunderstanding”), the fact is that there are evolutionist scientists who at least recognize the problem, and even attempt to deal with it. Consider (again) the words of Ilya Prigogine et al. (the Belgian scientist who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in thermodynamics):
“...The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” Charles J. Smith recognized the challenge posed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the most significant unanswered “how and why” of evolutionary theory:
“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]
George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck (both solid and respected evolutionists) also understood the problem, saying: “We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.” [G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck
(evolutionists), Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465] Angrist and Hepler reiterate the unlikely nature of life’s beginning according to evolutionary assumptions, stating:
“Life, the temporary reversal of a universal trend toward maximum disorder, was brought about by the production of information mechanisms. In order for such mechanisms to first arise it was necessary to have matter capable of forming itself into a self-reproducing structure that could extract energy from the environment for its first self-assembly. Directions for the reproduction of plans, for the extraction of energy and chemicals from the environment, for the growth of sequence and the mechanism for translating instructions into growth all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have come about.” [S.W. Angrist and L.G. Hepler (evolutionists), Order and Chaos, Basic Books, New York, 1967, pp. 203-204] Blum also sees the proposed scenario as more of a problem than a credible explanation:
“Since the reproduction of proteins could not have gone on without a means of energy mobilization, it might almost be necessary to assume that these two processes had their origin at the same time ... the problem of energy supply for the first organism seems fundamental ... There would seem to be no way of replenishing the supply of such compounds except by capturing energy of sunlight by means of some photosynthetic process ... we must admit that photosynthesis of some kind ... arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed it was not involved from the beginning.” [H.F. Blum (evolutionist), Time’s Arrow and evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 3rd Ed., 1968, pp. 160, 165 &166]
And Patterson also concedes that this issue poses a challenging question:
“Closely related to the apparent ‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.” [J.W. Patterson (evolutionist), Scientists Confront Creationism, L.R. Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]
The above statements—all by respected leaders in evolutionary thought—more than adequately document the fact that natural law stands in the way of a truly scientific explanation for any evolutionary process. While the 2nd law of thermodynamics in its classical application may “permit” the necessary isolated reductions in thermal entropy required for—and theorized in—evolution, the generalized second law effectively prohibits the existence of a scientifically observable biological mechanism(s) required for beginning and/or perpetuating the necessary—and sustained— reductions in both informational entropy and statistical entropy. The above (evolutionist) authors seem able and willing to recognize this problem, Isaak’s failure to do so notwithstanding.
Here, the best offered to us by the leading evolutionary thinkers and scientists (at least the ones who acknowledge the problem) is: “The probability...is vanishingly small; the explanation...is not...satisfying, because it still leaves open ... one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology; the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization... the work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed; this combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have come about; the problem of energy supply for the first organism seems fundamental ...we must admit that photosynthesis of some kind ... arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed it was not involved from the beginning; ...how did the
required internal organization come about in the first place? ...the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one...”
Denial is Neither Scientific Nor Honest
The bottom line here is that evolutionary theory does indeed violate the principle of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Neither Isaak nor any evolutionist authority has succeeded in proving the theory a practical possibility (let alone a reality), and only a few are objective (and/or honest) enough to acknowledge the problem, which is so confounding that no one seems to have even come up with a credible subsidiary theory to deal with it, or it surely would have been well documented by now! Using natural processes alone, there’s just no explaining how the complex, information-intense organization of even single-celled life and its uniquely inherent and complex processes could have emerged from non-life in the first place, and then could continue to fly in the face of natural law with untold increases in information, complexity and organization to yield all the flora and fauna varieties known to have existed.
Rather than face the challenge, Isaak has invoked the popular evolutionist claim that evolution is “irrelevant to” the 2nd law on the grounds of an imaginary “open system clause.” The leading authorities in evolutionary theory aren’t so simplistic in their treatment of the problem. Clearly, the “misunderstanding” of thermodynamics (and evolutionary theory itself) lies with Isaak, not with creationists, who rightly point out this serious challenge posed by nature to the evolutionary faith.