Evolution Impossible (28 page)

From whence, then, does linguistic information originate? In our human experience we immediately connect the language we create and process with our minds. But what is the ultimate nature of the human mind? If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately nonmaterial in its essential nature.

An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no nonmaterial reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.

The implications are immediate for the issue of evolution. The evolutionary assumption that the exceedingly complex linguistic structures which comprise the construction blueprints and operating manuals for all the complicated chemical nano-machinery and sophisticated feedback control mechanisms in even the simplest living organism — that these structures must have a materialistic explanation — is
fundamentally wrong
. But how then does one account for symbolic language as the crucial ingredient from which all living organisms develop and function and manifest such amazing capabilities? The answer should be obvious — an intelligent Creator is unmistakably required.

But what about macroevolution? Could physical processes in the realm of matter and energy at least modify an existing genetic language structure to yield another with some truly novel capability, as the evolutionists so desperately want to believe?

On this question Prof. Murray Eden, a specialist in information theory and formal languages at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out several years ago that random perturbations of formal language structures simply do not accomplish such magical feats. He said, “No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call ‘genetic grammaticality’ has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation.”

In a word, then, the answer is no. Random changes in the letters of the genetic alphabet have no more ability to produce useful new protein structures than could the generation of random strings of amino acids discussed in the earlier section. This is the glaring and fatal deficiency in any materialist mechanism for macroevolution. Life depends on complex nonmaterial language structures for its detailed specification. Material processes are utterly impotent to create such structures or to modify them to specify some novel function. If the task of creating the roughly 1,000 genes needed to specify the cellular machinery in a bacterium is unthinkable within a materialist framework, consider how much more unthinkable for the materialist is the task of obtaining the roughly 100,000 genes required to specify a mammal!

Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications — from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories — which assume and imply material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief. It is utter fantasy. Coded language structures are nonmaterial in nature and absolutely require a non-material explanation.
⁸

Dr. Ker C. Thomson is a former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory and holds a DSc in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines. He writes:

It should be apparent that evolution is capable of an immediate scientific test: Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity? Evolution absolutely requires this.
⁹

The answer to the posited question is “yes,” there is a relevant observable process. Dr. Ker continues:

Evolution fails the test. The test procedure is contained within the second law of thermodynamics. This law has turned out to be one of the surest and most fundamental principles in all of science. It is in fact used routinely in science to test postulated or existing concepts and machines (for instance, perpetual motion machines, or a proposed chemical reaction) for viability. Any process, procedure, or machine that would violate this principle is discarded as impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is a long-range decay process that ultimately and surely grips everything in the universe that we know about. That process produces a breakdown of complexity, not its increase. This is the exact opposite of what evolution requires.
¹⁰

Dr. Thomson goes on in his chapter to give further explanation of the thermodynamics problem for evolution.

These are just a small sample of the writings of a few of the 50 scientists who contributed a chapter to just one book discussing objections to the theory of evolution. Other scientists present their objections to evolution on their websites. For example, Dr. Robert Herrmann, a former professor of mathematics at the United States Naval Academy, posts some very detailed scientific arguments against evolution and in support of recent creation.
¹¹

Some scientists have taken the time to write whole books on the scientific evidence refuting evolution. The following are examples.

Dr. John Sanford holds a PhD in plant genetics from the University of Wisconsin in Madison and served as an associate professor at Cornell University for more than 20 years. In addition to coinventing a gene gun for facilitating genetic engineering, he authored the book
Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome
. In this work, Dr. Sanford argues that mutations consistently destroy genetic information and do not create information, as the theory of evolution requires. He provides compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes cannot evolve up the evolutionary tree, thereby refuting the evolutionary premise that the different life forms are merely a result of mutations and natural selection. He goes on to argue, on the basis of scientific studies and mathematical modeling, that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old.
¹²

Dr. Walter J. Veith, who holds a PhD in zoology from the University of Cape Town and served as professor and chairman of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa, authored the book
The Genesis Conflict: Putting the Pieces Together
. He explains how the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and how many modern discoveries in biology and zoology support creation, not evolution.
¹³

Dr. Duane T. Gish, who holds a PhD in biochemistry from the University of California in Berkeley, worked for many years in medical biochemistry research at both the University of California, Berkeley, and Cornell University. His books
Evolution: The Fossils Say No!
and
Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record
, argue that the lack of scientific evidence for evolutionary intermediate species provides strong evidence that evolution has not occurred.
¹⁴

Dr. George Javor, professor of biochemistry at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine (famous for carrying out the first successful child heart transplant) and who holds a PhD in biochemistry from Columbia University, authored the book
Evidences for Creation: Natural Mysteries Evolution Cannot Explain
. In this work, Dr. Javor explains how, from a biochemical perspective, evolution is impossible.
¹⁵

Dr. Colin W. Mitchell, who holds a PhD in geography from Cambridge University and served as a specialist consultant on arid land development for the governments of 16 countries, authored the book
The Case for Creationism
. This very well-researched treatise against evolution reviews the scientific evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, and radiometric dating.
¹⁶

Dr. Lee M. Spetner, who holds a PhD in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and taught information and communication theory at the Johns Hopkins University for ten years, authored
Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
. Like Dr. Sanford, Dr. Spetner explains the evidence that powerfully refutes the evolutionary concept that random mutations can produce new genetic information.
¹⁷

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, a research geologist who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney, has recently authored a comprehensively footnoted 1,100-page two-volume work titled
Earth’s Catastrophic Past; Geology, Creation, and the Flood
. This scholarly work outlines the detailed geological evidence of recent global flood-type catastrophic events. It also gives a detailed explanation of the major problems with radiometric dating and the evidence from alternative scientific dating methods that date the earth as only thousands of years old.
¹⁸

Dr. Ariel A. Roth, who holds a PhD in zoology from the University of Michigan and served as chairman and professor of biology at Loma Linda University in California for many years, authored a scholarly treatise titled
Origins: Linking Science and Scripture
. This work provided a comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence supporting the recent creation and global flood as opposed to evolution.
¹⁹

Dr. Werner Gitt, who holds a DrEng in engineering from the technical University of Aachen and served as a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics for many years, is an authority on information theory. In his book
In the Beginning Was Information
Dr. Gitt argues that information theory refutes evolution. He presents powerful arguments explaining why the biological information encoded in molecules such as DNA cannot arise by chance processes and requires an intelligent Creator.
²⁰

Dr. Andy McIntosh holds a DSc in mathematics from the University of Wales and served as professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds. He is an expert on the unique defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle and also the intricacies of the mechanisms of flight in organisms, the latter stemming from his association with the design of jet engines for aircraft. In his book
Genesis for Today
, Dr. McIntosh presents fundamental evidence for order and design in our world and argues that there is very strong scientific evidence for creation and a global Flood.
²¹
More recently in 2009, Dr. McIntosh published a ground-breaking research paper in the
International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics
, in which he showed that biological structures contain coded instructions that are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Therefore, the genetic information required to code for complex structures like proteins requires information to come from external sources of information and cannot arise from natural environmental forces. That is, information has a distinct, not material, nature and cannot arise as a result of some input of random energy.
²²
This research paper provides very powerful support for the concept of an external super intelligent designer being responsible for the complex information contained in each type of living organism.

Dr. John Hartnett holds a PhD in physics from the University of Western Australia where he currently serves as research professor of physics. Dr. Hartnett has authored a book offering a detailed scientific explanation of the paradox of starlight and time in a young universe.
²³
He has also coauthored a book explaining major problems and shortcomings of the big-bang theory.
²⁴
University of Indiana–educated astronomer Dr. Danny R. Faulkner, who serves as professor of astronomy and physics at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster, authored the book
Universe by Design,
which explains arguments for a created universe.
²⁵
Some scientists, such as Noble Prize–winning chemist Dr. Richard E. Smalley (PhD, Princeton University) state their rejection of evolution and support of the Genesis account in public lectures.
²⁶

Many other scientists have explained their reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution in personal interviews, for example, Dr. Matti Leisola, dean of the Faculty of Chemical and Material Sciences, Aalto University, Finland; Dr. David King, former New South Wales government astronomer; Dr. Larry Thaete, cellular biology research scientist at Northwestern University in Chicago; Dr. Ross Pettigrew, senior lecturer in the School of Medicine at the University of Otago, New Zealand; and Dr. Stuart Burgess, professor of Engineering Design at the University of Bristol.
²⁷

I could keep going with this list — but the point is that these highly educated scientists have spelled out in detail in public the reasons that they reject evolution. Their reasons are based on scientific findings reported in scientific literature. In particular, they are all experienced researchers who are accustomed to evaluating scientific data and have devoted much time to studying and checking the supposed evidence for evolution. They have all concluded that the scientific evidence does not support the concept of random mutations and natural selection producing new life forms.