[The text below represents an edited transcript of this Tomorrow’s World program.]

Four Perfect Reasons to Distrust Evolutionism

Is evolution the fact you’ve been told it is? Or is there reason to doubt Darwin and variations of his theory? Many discoveries made over the last half century, call into question whether life as we know it, could possibly be the result of random chance. One scientist with a PhD in molecular and cellular biology thinks otherwise. Jonathan Wells stated the following in an interview with Lee Strobel:

The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it’s systematically distorted. I’m convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future—I don’t know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now—people will look back in amazement and say, “How could anyone have believed this?” Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is (Strobel, p. 65).

Darwinism and macro-evolution, is not the open and closed case, that diehard evolutionists would like you to believe.

And if empirical evidence is not on Darwin’s side, this has serious implications for how we got here, and whether there is a purpose for our existence.

You may be surprised, at how many, highly educated scientists are now coming out and saying they are Darwin skeptics. Evolution is on trial. Cracks are forming in its foundations. On today’s program, I’ll show you who some of these scientists are, what some of the cracks are in this failing theory, and tell you about a new booklet, written by fellow presenter Wallace Smith, on Evolution and Creation. It can be yours free for the asking, so stay tuned!

Reasons to Doubt Darwin

Welcome to Tomorrow’s World where we know the truth wins in the end. And welcome especially to all of you who are tuning in for the first time. Today I’m asking whether evolution is a scientifically proven FACT. It seems that everyone believes it is, but that’s not accurate. Evolution is on trial and many jurors are becoming skeptics. What about you?

Recent scientific discoveries are turning the science world upside down. Former evolutionists and atheists are losing their confidence in blind chance. On today’s program, I’ll give you four reasons to be a Darwin skeptic, so let’s begin.

            Reason #1: You are not alone!

Lee Strobel is a former atheist who firmly believed in evolution. He admits he looked down upon poor religious souls who were so ignorant as to reject what he thought science proved long ago; but as an investigative journalist, he thoroughly researched the subject and wrote his findings in: The Case for a Creator. In this well-researched treatise, he describes how one hundred scientists from a variety of highly specialized disciplines, with PhDs from well-known and prestigious universities, reacted to a seven-part PBS series that asserted that:

“all known scientific evidence supports evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world…” (Strobel, p. 31).

In response, these credentialed scientists reacted by posting a two-page ad in a national magazine in which they wrote:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life…. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged (Strobel, p 32).

Now who were these skeptics? Were they high school biology or Junior High astronomy teachers? Were they narrow-minded religious fanatics? Far from it! They were:

World-class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most-cited chemist in the world; James Tour of Rice University’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology; and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School (Strobel, p 32). 

So the next time that know-it-all biology 101 snowflake posts a putdown on the internet, ridiculing anyone who would dare disagree with Darwin, take heart. Men and women, who know far more than an unknown keyboard warrior, have serious doubts, and many former atheists and evolutionists have come to outright reject the idea that life could have evolved anywhere in the universe, much less here on planet Earth.

Note this example from a December 9, Associated Press news report:

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. 

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature….

So the first reason to doubt the claim of Darwinian evolution is:

            Reason #1: You are not alone!

You have some very smart, very famous, and well-credentialed company. But good company doesn’t mean that you’re right. There is plenty of company on the other side of the argument, so let’s put on trial some of the so-called evidence for evolution.

Fellow Tomorrow’s World presenter Wallace Smith has written a NEW booklet that we’re offering on today’s program: Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss. This resource shows not only where evolutionists have missed the mark, but also where many sincere professing Christians have as well, and it’s yours free for the asking. So pick up the phone and call for your personal copy. Or go to our website: TomorrowsWorld.org. And I’ll be back in a minute to give you hard evidence as to why you should be a Darwin skeptic.

Fossil Records Do Not Support the Theory of Evolution

I pointed out in the first portion of our program, that you have very good company, if you’re a Darwin skeptic. Many famous scientists have put evolution on trial and found the theory bankrupt. Good company is comforting, but doesn’t prove anything. So why have so many former evolutionists become skeptics? Let’s look at the empirical evidence.

            Reason #2: The fossil record does not support evolution

Science teachers and natural history documentaries convince millions that the fossil record proves evolution, but nothing can be further from the truth. The evidence demonstrates the exact opposite, and scientists know this!

One evening I was watching a program put out by Nat Geo with the title: “Hippo vs. Croc.” And in the program it stated that hippos and crocodiles evolved from a common ancestor 55 million years ago. Nature programs are littered with similar comments—always stated as though they are factual, while offering absolutely no evidence to support such claims. Consider some of the obvious differences between a crocodile and a hippopotamus.

            1. The croc has scales and bony like protrusions. The hippo has a thick hide.

            2. The croc has a long powerful tail. The hippo has a short unimpressive tail.

            3. The croc has a long head and mouth. The hippo head and mouth are vastly different.

            4. The croc is a meat eater. The hippo is a vegetarian.

            5. The croc lays 40–50 eggs in the sand. The hippo is a mammal.

Now these are some of the more obvious differences, and they are huge differences. There are hundreds of others. But, they had 55 million years to make these changes! Now I’ll admit that this is a long time, but do you realize that, that very fact works against evolution? And here’s why. 

First, have you ever noticed that the beginning point is always described as a common ancestor? Evolutionists take offense when someone says man came from an ape. Instead, they say apes and man came from a common ancestor, an ancestor only found in artists’ imaginations—never in the fossil record.

As with men and apes, so with crocs and hippos—the common ancestor is missing! But the far greater problem is that transitioning from an imaginary common ancestor to a hippo or crocodile would require thousands of transitional forms, for both creatures. Why are these missing from the fossil record? The problem is not “the missing link.” It’s the millions of missing links required of evolution. As Michael Denton writes:

The overall picture of life on Earth today is so discontinuous, the gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his recent book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on earth, “we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis” (Denton, pp. 157–158).

Consider only one feature of crocodiles and hippos—their tails. How many transitions would be required to evolve from this mythical common ancestor to create either the hippo or the croc? Certainly, in the course of 55 million years, we ought to find some of the hundreds or millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, especially considering that both these creatures live in an environment more conducive to fossil development than most creatures. Missing transitions plagued Darwin from the beginning. As Denton points out:

The absence of intermediates, although damaging, was not fatal in 1860, for it was reasonable to hope that many would eventually be found as geological activities increased (Denton, p. 160).

But time has not been an ally for evolution. Denton suggests that “probably 99.9%” of our current knowledge of the fossil record has been discovered since 1860, and:

Only a small fraction of the hundred thousand or so fossil species known today were known to Darwin. But virtually all the new fossil species discovered since Darwin’s time have either been closely related to known forms or, like the Poganophoras, strange unique types of unknown affinity (Denton, pp. 160–161). 

So whether it’s crocs and hippos, birds and reptiles, there is no fossil evidence to support evolution. While the speaker on Nat Geo states with authority that crocs and hippos evolved 55 million years ago from a common ancestor, we DEMAND to see the evidence in the rocks to back this up. Sufficient transitional forms to bridge the gaps just don’t exist. Denton states the obvious to any honest person who looks at the fossil record with an open mind:

Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis (Denton, p. 158).

So far we’ve seen that, if you are a skeptic of evolution, 

            Reason #1: You are not alone!

Many world-class scientists with advanced degrees are also skeptical. And,

            Reason #2: The fossil evidence [recorded in stone] does not support evolution!

In a moment I’ll give you two more reasons why you should doubt Darwinian evolution, but I want to remind you of today’s free offer: Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss. This is a must read, and it’s yours free for the asking. So pick up the phone and call for your personal copy. Or go to our website: TomorrowsWorld.org. And I’ll be back in 15 seconds to give you two more reasons to convict evolution of fraud and deception.

The Problems With the Research Behind Evolution

Before the break, I gave you two reasons to be skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Before giving you two more, let me clarify the difference between micro- and macro-evolution.

We see new breeds of dogs as breeders emphasize certain genetic characteristics over others until a new breed is created. These are not mutations as Darwin envisioned changes taking place. They’re the result of genetic material already present. While a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are very different, no one disputes that they’re dogs. This is what we know as micro-evolution.

But Darwin took this one step further. He viewed this process and postulated that an animal could mutate into a totally different kind, which is macro-evolution. One problem is, as we have seen, the fossil record shows zero evidence of this.

Those who believe in macro-evolution, where all life has evolved from some original single cell, often claim that this original cell somehow came together from non-living material, that it learned to feed and reproduce itself, that one cell became two, that these somehow learned to combine cells into more complex organisms, and, well you get the idea. Walla [Voila?]! You and me!

On the surface, it can sound so reasonable, but is it? Our third reason to put evolution on trial, is:

            Reason #3: Life arising by chance is mathematically impossible!

Most biology students are familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment. Stanley Miller and Harold C. Urey speculated that the earth’s early atmosphere might be composed of water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. By a carefully crafted experiment in which they sent electrical charges through a mixture of these chemicals, they were able to produce amino acids. This 1952 experiment, published a year later, was hailed as proof that life came from non-life, kickstarting evolution—but was it?

All reputable scientists recognize that there are huge problems with their research: 

            1. The experiment was conducted under carefully controlled conditions unlike anything outside the laboratory

            2. We know that the earth’s atmosphere was not the same as the experiment

            3. An amino acid is not life!

            4. All living creatures use left handed amino acids unlike the mixture the experiment produced

            5. Scientists cannot demonstrate or explain how a single protein is formed from amino acids by chance

            6. The odds against a protein forming by chance are staggering

Just how staggering is explained in Bill Bryson’s, A Short History of Nearly Everything,

No one really knows, but there may be as many as a million [different] types of protein in the human body, and each one is a little miracle. By all the laws of probability proteins shouldn’t exist (Bryson, p. 288). 

That’s a real challenge for evolution! Consider carefully. Bryson, a believer in evolution, uses the term miracle to describe the existence of proteins. Why?

Proteins are made from amino acids connected in a manner that allows them to be folded into precise 3-dimentional shapes. They can be compared to the letters in our alphabet, but instead of 26, most proteins are built from a set of only 20.

Think of it this way. A book may have a million different sentences, no two being alike; but each sentence is made up of letters and words that are placed in a precise order that makes sense. It’s the same with proteins. You cannot throw a bunch of amino acids together to make a protein, any more than you can throw letters together randomly to make a meaningful sentence.

Imagine a sentence containing 200 letters, the size of a typical protein. Consider the odds of one of the 20 amino acids happening to fall into each of the exact locations along the chain, that it needs to be, to form a meaningful sequence. Now what are the odds of a single protein being formed by chance?

Bill Bryson asks and answers the question, but does so with the most common protein found in all of us—collagen. 

…to make collagen, you need to arrange [not 200, but] 1,055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence. But—and here’s an obvious but crucial point—you don’t make it. It makes itself, spontaneously, without direction, and this is where the unlikelihoods come in. The chances of a 1,055 sequence molecule like collagen spontaneously self-assembling are, frankly, nil. It just isn’t going to happen (Bryson, p. 288).

Bryson calculates the odds of a much smaller, but typical 200 amino acid protein, of self-assembling as 1 in 10260. That is a single chance in a 1 followed by 260 zeros! To which Bryson states: 

That in itself is a larger number than all the atoms in the universe (Bryson, p. 288).

Do you understand the magnitude of this comparison? The chance of a typical protein self-assembling is one chance in 1 followed by 260 zeros. Yet, the total number of atoms in the observable universe, which goes out 46 billion light years in all directions, is estimated to be miniscule in comparison. As recently as November 2017, Anne Marie Helmenstine, PhD, reported on the number of atoms in the observable universe: 

Overall, the estimates of the number of atoms range from between 1078 to 1082 atoms. Both of these estimates are large numbers, yet they are very different, indicating a significant degree of error. These estimates are based on hard data, so they are correct based on what we know. 

A quick Internet search will confirm this estimate from numerous sources. In other words, in Bryson’s words,

…each one is a little miracle (Bryson p. 288).

That is understatement to the extreme! Each protein is more than a little miracle. It’s an unbelievable miracle! And remember, we’re only talking about one of perhaps a million different kinds of proteins, each one a faith-challenging miracle, that make up the human body. Bryson makes a pitiful attempt to explain the impossible in subsequent pages:

Perhaps two or three amino acids linked up for some simple purpose and then after a time bumped into some other similar small cluster[s] and in so doing “discovered” some additional improvement (Bryson, p. 290). 

But, as Bryson admits, and this is a major point, we do not see proteins self-assembling in the real world. Instead, they’re constructed using DNA. Now can anyone give us an example of code (or shall we call it building instructions) that ever came into existence without intelligence behind it? Why would anyone think that the most powerful code known to man could come into existence by chance? And DNA is only the beginning. Making a protein is complicated and requires the use of molecular machines made from already existing proteins! You need proteins to make proteins! DNA can do nothing without protein machines! And where did the DNA come from? Who wrote this code?

So we have a paradoxical situation. Proteins can’t exist without DNA, and DNA has no purpose without proteins. Are we to assume then that they arose simultaneously with the purpose of supporting each other? If so: wow (Bryson, p. 289).

Who is it now who has faith in miracles?

When we come back I’ll show you just how large the gap is between life and chemical soup, but first I want to remind you that, Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss, can be yours free for the asking. Inquiring minds want to know the facts. Parents and grandparents want to teach their children and their grandchildren the truth. Dinosaurs fascinate many young people and this publication explains how dinosaurs fit into the creation/evolution debate. So call, write, or go to our website for this free offer, and I’ll be back in a moment to show you how great the gap is between chemical soup and life.

The Complexity of a Cell Points to a Creator

Before the break, I told you I would show you how large the gap is between chemical soup and a living organism. Those not familiar with recent scientific discoveries have NO IDEA how complicated life is. That “simple cell” that you’ve heard about? Our 4th reason for putting evolution on trial, is:

            Reason #4: There IS no such thing as a “simple cell.” 

Michael Denton explains:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle (Denton, p. 264).

Few today understand just how complex life truly is, but as atheists and evolutionists with PhDs discover this truth, is it any wonder that many quietly admit that evolution is guilty of fraud?

Israel’s King David was inspired to write:

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well (Psalm 139:14).

David may not have known what we know today, but he could see the evidence of creation everywhere: in every bird, butterfly, fish, and flower. 

The Apostle Paul declares that Darwin’s promoters of creation without a Creator have no excuse.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse… (Romans 1:20).

As King David declared:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Be sure to order our new publication, Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss. And be sure to come back next week when Richard Ames, Wallace Smith and I, along with guest presenter Rod McNair will bring you more of today’s news in the light of end-time prophecies. Until then, may the peace and truth of Almighty God and Jesus Christ be with you.
 

SOURCE: https://www.thoughtco.com/number-of-atoms-in-the-universe-603795