Origin of the Specious

October 2, 2016


Origin of the Specious

Why the theory of evolution never became the law of evolution.

Up to the time of Darwin the ‘creation story’ was settled history..  There was no other explanation for the existence of life on this planet.  As a result there was an acceptance of the existence of God and mankind lived in relative harmony based on this understanding for at least thousands of years. Darwin’s theory of evolution was intended to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of life.


Darwin offered an alternative explanation for the origin of life;  Life came into existence out of nothing, gradually became more complex and eventually evolved into life as we know it.  God had nothing to do with it.  Some say the idea of evolution conflicts with, or disallows, the existence of God.  I don’t agree. I have no problem reconciling  the theory of evolution with the existence of God and can easily reconcile  the creation through the process of evolution, and expect that many people who believe in God and have concluded that Darwinian evolution is ‘settled history’ have developed ways of reconciling the two.  My problem with the theory of evolution is that it is not supported by scientific facts.


As a scientist Darwin developed a hypothesis.  He made assumptions based on his hypothesis and proceeded to test them developing his hypothesis into a theory which he hoped to prove establishing his theory as a law.  Immediately scientists around him, tried to make a name for themselves by working to validate Darwin’s assumptions.


His first assumption, that life came into existence out of non-living material, seemed reasonable at the time; bugs came to life out of rainwater,  maggots developed out of raw meat.  That life could come into existence spontaneously seemed reasonable, except that we now know it doesn’t happen.  Life comes only from life.  The theory was adjusted  to say that at some time in the past the atmosphere was such that life did come into existence spontaneously.  An atmosphere of methane and ammonia gas and other volatile substances was hypothesized, was stimulated with an electrical current, simulating lightening, and something resembling protein molecules was formed.  This was said to validate the ‘possibility’ that ‘life’ could have occurred ‘spontaneously’.  First there is no indication that the atmosphere was ever sufficiently similar to these starting chemicals to allow the formation of even such crude ‘proteins’.   Second even if they take their experiment a step further and actually create life it would not prove that life came about spontaneously, but only that life can be created.


Further compromising the theory of evolution is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all natural processes move toward entropy, or breaking down, or lower energy levels.  Evolution would require that natural processes move from simple to more complex. The second law of thermodynamics states that natural processes move in the other direction, from complex to breaking down.  Note that the laws of thermodynamics, as all laws of science, are proven.  Any theory, or hypothesis, that would conflict with these laws would face insurmountable obstacles being validated, although sometimes this happens; Einstein’s theory of relativity, when ‘proven’ replaced Newtonian physics.


The science of genetics had not been discovered at the time of Darwin.  He was not aware that the blueprint of life could be decoded showing the complexity, but rigid organization, of our genetic makeup.  This blueprint does not readily lend itself to random changes outside of strict narrow limits, and sudden large changes in variations typically represent breaking down, based on the second law of thermodynamics, rather than becoming more complex as the offspring ‘evolved’ into higher more complex forms within the genetic code, variations invariably represent a breakdown in the original genetic code and a less functional organism.  This can be differentiated as microevolution (changes within species, by genetic variations) and macroevolution (changes from one species to another or more particularly to more complex species).  Microevolution are the observable changes within species that allow different races of man or different breeds of dogs or cats to develop through ‘selective breeding’.  Macroevolution would be the change from fish to amphibians and then to mammals.  This is not only counter to the second law of thermodynamics but there is no reasonable way to explain it under the laws of genetics.  This was the ‘leap of faith’  Darwin took when he extended his observation of microevolution, particularly within bird species, to assume that,  given enough time,  these changes could have built up to man from nothing (lifeless matter)



His theory also required a time frame of millions or billions of years for life to evolve from nothing and used radioactive dating, particularly radiocarbon dating, to justify this timeframe.  But how does radiocarbon dating work?  As I understand it a radioactive carbon atom is formed when atmospheric nitrogen is bombarded by radiation causing it to lose an electron from its outer ring (from 5 to 4) and form a more stable carbon bond, leaving an extra proton in its nucleus  thereby giving this ‘radioactive carbon’ atom a positive charge.  Today all living things, plants and animals, have a certain (measurable) level of radioactive carbon atoms in their structure. That level deteriorates at a measurable rate as these radioactive carbon atoms tend to ‘throw off’ the extra protons. Upon death we stop accumulating radioactive carbon and it begins to decrease at a measurable level with a half life of 5,000 years.  When a ‘fossil’ is found the level of radioactive carbon is measured and if is half the level of what we find in now living matter it is assumed to be 5,000 years old.  If it is a quarter the amount the fossil is dated as 10,000 years and so on.  A very low level of radioactive carbon leads to an older age.  But this presupposes that the level of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere, and plants and trees and animals, was the same 5,000 years ago and 5,000,000 years ago as it is today?    (It is hard to reconcile this assumption of a stable radioactive carbon level over millions of years and that the atmosphere ‘evolved’ from the toxic one that would allow life to arise by spontaneous generation!)  What if the level of radioactive carbon was increasing (in a parabolic curve, high at first and more slowly in recent years ) so that at some point in the past there was little or no radioactive carbon in the atmosphere.  What if prior to some historic event, such as a flood, the atmosphere was radiation free, protected by a canopy of water vapor, which collapsed, flooding the earth, burying massive amounts of vegetation as fossil fuel, removing vast quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere which had kept the earth warm, triggering the ice age, starting the formation of radioactive carbon as a new kind of radiation which began accumulating in the atmosphere (Just as the accident at Fukushima Japan started the release of radiation into the atmosphere)  and shortening mankinds lifespan fron 1,000 years to 100 years.  In this case all life before the flood and fossil fuel resulting from this initial event would contain little or no radioactive carbon.  Over the next 1,000 years levels of radioactive carbon would rise rapidly and after that more gradually thereby skewing the readings taken from radioactive carbon dating.


Darwin further hypothesized that the fossil record would reveal all the ‘missing links’ between the life forms that survived.  ‘Scientists’ were quick to search out these ‘missing links’, one of which was determined to be a tooth from the link between man and monkeys, however that tooth proved to be from a pig.  On closer examination none of the missing links he predicted would be found were found.  The fossil record only produced more fossils similar to life forms already in  existence, or in the fossil record.   Not one ‘missing link’ between the distinct species known to exist has been found.


Anatomically he predicted that as we ‘evolved’ we formed new organs, such as fish developing organs that allowed them to breathe air and move onto land, and other organs, that we needed when we lived underwater, became ‘vestigial’ and no longer needed and we became a veritable museum of vestigial organs.  Autopsies were performed and many such vestigial organs were initially found such as the appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, etc. but gradually it was discovered that all our parts served a purpose (with the possible exception of the appendix, and just because we haven’t figured out what it does doesn’t ‘prove’ it doesn’t do anything). It now appears that we are masterpieces of design and not just an accidental accumulation of parts.


In all cases where scientists tried to prove Darwin’s hypothesis the facts did not support them.  In retrospect it seems that his hypothesis did not even justify being validated as a theory, so it certainly couldn’t be classified as a law.


When I hear a scientist explaining something by saying we ‘evolved’ to function or behave a certain way  I can’t help but question the conclusion they arrive at.  Certainly they can reach a valid conclusion even if some of their premises are wrong, but if the conclusion is dependent on an invalid premise there is reason to question the conclusion.


The problem is that a system of though can be no more valid than the assumptions it is based on.

I would argue that part of the problem of society today is that it is based on the invalid assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’, established in part by Darwin’s influence,  and our inability to learn from history.  There are certain patterns in human behavior that can be predictive.  Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat It.  The authors of the Bible, those who first began ‘recording’ history, had observed these patterns and were thereby able to predict (recognize) how these patterns (societal behaviors) repeat themselves throughout history.  They were the first social scientists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *