Evolutionen/Udviklingslæren

Udviklingsteorien som dogme.
Læs om de vigtigste argumenter for at udviklingsteorien er mangelfuld og i værste fald forkert.
Den vestlige/materialistiske trosbekendelse.
De vigtigste argumenter mod udviklingslæren
Tror du på evolution - læs dette

Udviklingsteorien som dogme.

I Danmark og i Europa generelt er big bang-teorien og evolutionsteorien regnet som urokkelige facts med hensyn til henholdsvis universets og livets udvikling.

I dansk offentlighed skelner man ikke mellem udviklingsteorien som teori og som livsanskuelse. Hvis man betragter evolutionsteorien som en videnskabelig teori skal der argumenteres for den og man skal kunne dokumentere hvilke data eller facts som ligger til grund, og som henholdsvis støtter og ikke støtter teorien.

De vigtigste data er fossilmateriale. Man har faktisk fundet mere end en million fossiler. Der er imidlertid store problemer i fossilmaterialet, hvis man betragter det fra et udviklingsteoretisk synspunkt.

 Faktisk taler fossilmateriet mere for en anden teori - kreationismen, som antager at der er sket en skabelse. Du kan læse om kreationisternes istiske synspunker på deres homepage.  Du kan læse mere på dansk om kreationistiske synspunkter på tidsskriftet Origos homepage - den er god og seriøs. Du kan også læse en opsummering af disse synspunkter på dansk ved at læse et indlæg jeg fant i nyhedsgruppen dk.livssyn den 16.11.96. Forfatteren betegnede sig som "Rich" (E-mail rado@post1.tele.dk)

DEN VESTLIGE-ATEISTISKE  TROSBEKJENNELSE

Denne trosbekendelse er skrevet af en norsk student - Bård Aune- og er fundet i nyhedsgruppen livssyn.dk
Formålet med at præsentere denne her er at tydeliggøre hvilke grundlæggende antagelser (worldview) som kan udledes af tilhængere af en ateistisk syn på livet: Denne trosbekendelse er skrevet på norsk

"De innebygde og skjulte antakelser den vestlige sivilitation og «scientismen» har lagt inn i oss, og som er det egentlige utgangspunkt for enhver etableret videnskabelig forskning:
Jeg tror på det materielle univers - som den eneste og endelige virkelighet - et univers styrt av faste fysiske lover - og blind tilfeldighet.
Jeg bekrefter at universet ikke har noen skaper - ingen objektiv hensikt - og ingen objektiv mening eller skjebne. Jeg hevder at alle ideer om Gud eller guder - opplyste vesener profeter og frelsere - eller andre ikke - fysiske vesener eller krefter er overtro og selvbedrag. Liv og bevissthet er helt identiske med fysiske prosesser - og oppstår fra tilfeldig interaksjon mellom blinde fysiske krefter. Som resten av livet, har mitt liv - og min bevissthet - ingen objektiv hensikt, mening eller skjebne.

Jeg tror at alle vurderinger, verdier og all moral - det være seg mine egne eller andres - er subjektive og oppstår kun fra biologiske faktorer, personlig historie og tilfeldigheter. Fri vilje er en illusjon. Derfor må de mest rasjonelle verdiene som jeg kan leve etter, være basert på kunnskapen om at det som behager meg er Godt, og det som smerter meg er Ondt. De som behager meg og hjelper meg til å unngå smerte, er mine venner - de som plager meg eller holder meg unna mine gleder, er mine fiender. Fornuften krever at venner og fiender må brukes på slike måter at de maksimerer mitt velvære og minimaliserer mine plager.
Jeg bekrefter at kirken ikke er til annen nytte enn sosial støtte - at det ikke er noen objektive synder man kan begå eller tilgis for - at det ikke er noen guddommelig eller overnaturlig straff for synd eller belønning for dyd, selv om det kan være sosiale konsekvenser av handliner. Dyd er for meg å få det jeg vil ha - uten å bli tatt eller straffet av andre.
Jeg hevder at kroppens død er sinnets død. Der er intet liv etter døden - og alt håp om det er nonsens.

Kommentarer? Med vennlig hilsen

Bård Aune
Grandeveien 4 B
0286 OSLO
NORWAY
Tlf 2256 2521
 

En kristen trosbekendelse

Henning Makholm - math and CS student - University of Copenhagen. Svarer på Bård Aunes trosbekendelse på følgende måde:

Jeg hævder at det materielle univers eksisterer, og at det i det mindste til en vis grad opfører sig kausalt efter love som vi kan formulere eller approksimere.
Resten af din "bekendelse" har ikke noget at gøre som udgangspunkt for videnskabelighed, i det mindste ikke naturvidenskab.
Min egen version af resten ville lyde noget i retning af:
Jeg hævder at objektiv sandhed eksisterer uafhængigt af vore muligheder for at erkende den.
Jeg tror at universet har en med vilje udstyret skaber, som måske endda har et mål med at have skabt det.
Jeg tror at ovennævnte skaber er i stand til at udøve indflydelse på begivenhederne i det.
Jeg tror at bevidsthed som jeg oplever den er andet og mere end resultatet af mekanistiske processer i mit fysiske legeme. Jeg ser ingen grund til at udelukke at dette 'andet' (som jeg kalder sjæl) kan vedblive at eksistere efter det fysiske legemes død.
Jeg tror at fri vilje eksisterer.
Jeg hævder at den egentlige baggrund for ethvert værdisystem, herunder etik og moral, ligger hinsides den rationelle fornuft. Jeg hævder at ethvert forsøg på at udlede et værdisystem udelukkende ud fra ren fornuft nødvendigvis må mislykkes.
Jeg forsøger alvorligt at tro på at en række (ikke her gengivne) påstande om universets skabers [punkt 3] nøjere motiver og egenskaber i øvrigt er sande [punkt 2] (men jeg kan ikke påstå at jeg er fuldstændig overbevist).
Jeg mener at kirken har en værdi som fælleskab af mennesker der tror [punkt 8] på nogenlunde sammenfaldende påstande, som i kirken gensidigt kan hjælpe hinanden til at opnå erkendelse om deres tro.

Læsevejledning: "Jeg hævder" er aksiomer. Jeg er ikke i stand til at forestille mig at de ikke gjaldt. "Jeg tror" er påstande jeg personligt er overbevist om rigtigheden af, men som jeg i øvrigt ikke kan begrunde logisk. Jeg respekterer andres ret til at have andre overbevisninger på disse punkter, og forventer samme respekt af mine debatpartnere.

Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution


by Doug LaPointe

Calvary Academy
East County Line Road
Lakewood, NJ

 


Evidence #1

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.

Evidence #2

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Bias Towards Evolution

Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred. (And other final considerations.)

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Last revised: Dec 29, 1995

Do You Believe that Evolution is True?

If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
  1. Something from nothing?
    The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?

We know from common experience that explosions are destructiveand lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

  1. Physical laws an accident?
    We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
  2. Order from disorder?
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

  1. Information from Randomness?
    Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
  2. Life from dead chemicals?
    Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
  3. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
    The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
  4. Life is complex.
    We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
  5. Where are the transitional fossils?
    If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

  1. Could an intermediate even survive?
    Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

  1. Reproduction without reproduction?
    A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

  1. Plants without photosynthesis?
    The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
  2. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
    There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
  3. It's no good unless it's complete.
    We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

  1. Explain metamorphosis!
    How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
  2. It should be easy to show evolution.
    If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increasedshould be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

  1. Complex things require intelligent design folks!
    People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?