April 15, 2018

In this issue: Evidence Eviscerating Evolution by Morris Fraser

PDF Bulletins Index Home
Eviscerating Evolution Graphic

Do you recall the classic image of supposed advances in evolution of man? At the side of the drawing is a fish, which comes onto land and grows legs, then becomes a bent-over apelike creature, eventually turning into an upright Homo sapien?

This fabricated time-line represents the supposed biologic evolution of man, starting with a small, simple creature and advancing in complexity to an alleged highest form of animal. It is accepted in scientific circles as a graphical representation, if not accurate in minor details, and is presented as scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

In fact, this is someone’s guess as to how evolution proceeded. In the same fashion, physical recreations of what animals looked like are largely based on guesses. We have valid evidence via fossilized bones of some portions of various creatures and with care experts can assemble those fossils (or casts of the fossils) into a partial representation of creatures. But skin, hair and other visual aspects of external features are even more guesswork than that drawing we spoke of earlier.

No scientist can prove how much hair or color of skin or other attributes not directly connected to specific fossils to the point that they can definitively say “This is what our ancestor looked like.” Honest people who still favor evolution as a science will admit such features are no more than an educated guess.

This is a major failing of evolutionary science – instead of admitting the historical record is incomplete, evolutionists dogmatically assert “this is the way it was” with no evidence to back up their ideas.

Creationists, who rely on faith for their idea that God created all creatures independently, point to accounts in Genesis that detail the fact of God making the earth, the stars, moon, sun and various plants and animals, as well as mankind. They don’t know all the details of how God did it, but they accept that God indeed created the world and everything in it. That may not satisfy our natural curiosity, but it is enough for those of us who rely on faith in God to accept the result, even if we don’t understand the procedure.

One of the difficulties evolutionists have in explaining their theory is defending the details they can’t prove. Take, for instance, the changes required for a fish to crawl out of water, grow legs and begin to walk on dry land. Since no intermediate fossils exist that demonstrate those small changes, they must assume that over great periods of time the changes occurred. Those changes include moving from fins to rudimentary legs capable of walking, all the while changing from gills that allow breathing underwater to lungs that breathe air directly.

Now, those who study and argue all facets of biologic evolution, including our fish-out-of-water example, understand that not only great periods of time would be required to develop these changes, but that they happened without outside influence. No scientist worked in a laboratory with attendant trial and error experiments to achieve their goal of air-breathing, land-walking creatures. If evolutionary changes happened at all, they happened sporadically, independently and by happenstance. No other explanation is reasonable.

Let’s now move forward, into the 21st Century. Most people accept evolution as a fact. They have been taught that theory since childhood, their parents have been taught the same thing, as did their grandparents. They have not been urged to question their education, so they accept evolution just as they accept the sun rising and setting, rain falling from the skies, automobiles travelling at speed and distance, heavier-than-air craft flying above them, handheld computers/phones connecting them around the world – and, most recently, robots using artificial intelligence to perform many tasks that man once reserved for himself.

And here, amazingly, we come upon the opportunity to show the fallacy of biologic evolution through evidence produced by new and intriguing science.

Even a decade ago, anyone wanting to create a self-driving car was faced with the dilemma that roads would require road-imbedded electronic rails or exterior devices to guide vehicles. That would be a difficult, if not insurmountable, construction project. Today, self-driving vehicles are a reality, if not a commonplace item, and the technology continues at a rapid pace without any imbedded rails. Another method has been created to let vehicles move quickly and close to one another with only rare accidents.

The concept of robots – machines created to do certain tasks done by humans and animals – has existed for centuries. Within the last few years, however, the study and implementation of robots has gained ground. Robots are commonly used in auto manufacturing plants to assemble vehicles. They are being used to assemble much smaller products and are frequently used to perform delicate surgeries on humans.

With the extreme variety and skills available with modern robots comes another factor – artificial intelligence, the ability of robots to “learn” from their previous actions and improve upon them. It has reached the point that robots are beginning to build other robots. It may be thought of as a strange sort of “giving birth.”

And at this point evolutionists must fear the progress that science – true science – has brought to the table.

Remember that evolutionists demand millions of years for changes in form to produce a different species, because they cannot prove the intermediate steps between known forms. They can’t deliver that proof because they don’t have the evidence of change; they must assume change in order to support their theory.

Opponents of evolutionary theory term these intermediate changes “missing links,” a valid if derogatory way of saying that there is no proof of the theory. If evolutionists can’t show gradual stages of development, they can’t prove their theory.

But the rapid advance of robotics shows conclusively that evolution is false. And we have the “missing links” to support the evidence. Here is why:

1. Robotics has advanced rapidly within the last 20 years, even more rapidly in many cases. Anyone who can vote has seen these changes begin and develop, and slightly younger folk have come to think of them as commonplace. That includes the study of artificial intelligence.

2. The skills which robots have today are like the complexities which evolutionists assign to various stages of development. Within years, not millennia, complex robotic behavior has become a reality. And we can see these changes, if only through real-time videos and photographs.

3. Those skills did not happen by chance – it took mind, thought and reason apart from the robots to improve on each successive generation of mechanical creation. The robots did not improve themselves and, as yet, they have not done so. A superior mind was required to invent the first robot and to improve each level of succession.

4. Increasingly, robots are being given human-like features – skin, hair, voice. But all of this is dependent on humans developing processes for such ingredients. They happened almost overnight – not in a gradual multi-millennial span of time, and they didn’t happen apart from action from outside the robots.

If I were an evolutionist, I would be afraid of the rapid advance of science today as opposed to the alleged slow process of the even more complex and indisputable facts of our natural universe. How about you? ~

Morris Fraser

Bulletins Index