Get Scientific

Get Scientific: We Laugh and Cry for a Reason

The young man was extremely frustrated. He had come to the seminar as a skeptic, with hopes of debunking much of the material that was being presented. However, during the question and answer period this college student quickly realized the weakness of his case, and he became angry at having never seen some of the scientific studies that indicated the Earth was relatively young. He asked a few additional questions and began to shake his head. Finally, holding the microphone in both hands he looked up and asked: “Why haven’t they ever taught us this stuff?”

Great question. I suspect the reason many young people are never introduced to the errors associated with the evolutionary theory is because students would quickly realize that this theory is foolish and should be abandoned. Add to this the fact that this is a godless theory that has ultimately become a religion for those who have stiffened their necks against God, and one can begin to understand why evolutionists are extremely protective about what is taught in the classroom. They don’t want anyone loosening the grip they currently have in the academic world.

Textbooks today brashly assert organic evolution as a “fact.” Yet, these same textbooks gloss over the fact that evolution cannot explain: (1) how non-living material produced living material; (2) from whence matter for the Universe originated; and (3) the design found in nature. These are major hurdles for the evolutionary theory, and yet this is the only theory for origins that is legally taught in most classrooms. If we desire young people to be open minded and critical thinkers, then why are they only exposed to one contaminated theory for the origin of mankind? That is not educating—it’s indoctrinating. And our tax dollars are funding it.

In previous years, textbooks correctly taught students the Law of Biogenesis: that life comes only from other life. This law of science was established after empirical evidence demonstrated that life cannot spontaneously arise from non-life in nature. This is not a theory or hypothesis, but rather, a scientific law that has never been observed to be incorrect. Current textbooks however, have dropped the Law of Biogenesis in favor of abiogenesis—a theory that teaches students the possibility that life can arise from non-life under “suitable circumstances.” Do we have any scientific data to back up this new theory of abiogensis? Absolutely not—but at least it doesn’t contradict the evolutionary theory. Have we lost the ability to reason? How logical is it to replace a scientific law with an unproven theory?

While evolutionists may have the backing and support of the mainstream media, many Darwinians realize how damaging that spotlight can be when left to shine on their beloved theory too long. Students who are taught to think critically and not swallow whatever is thrown out before them quickly realize Darwin’s theory falls short in many areas. For instance, does the evolutionary theory have a suitable explanation for:

  • why we laugh/cry?
  • for human altruism/charity?
  • for the origin of language?
  • for the origin of the human consciousness?

But this is only the beginning. The evolutionary theory cannot even adequately explain the origin of sex and gender? Think about it for a moment. How do you simultaneously evolve a separate male and female—with all of the necessary internal organs—all the while, still being able to reproduce during this evolutionary “transition” period? What good is a partially evolved uterus? Do we have examples of transitional stages between asexual and sexual reproduction? Additionally, if the sole purpose of a creature is to replicate its own genes (e.g., survival of the fittest), then wouldn’t asexual reproduction make more sense? Why go to the trouble of “evolving” separate male and female anatomy, when all one would have to do is split or bud off? Evolutionists might argue that sexual reproduction evolved because of the need for diversity—but such speculations are not a part of real science, as no one has successfully demonstrated how this “need” can cause such major physiological changes. Speculations are easy to pronounce, but rarely stand up to the test.

Respected Swedish biologist Sören Lövtrup once declared: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology…. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?” (1987). How indeed?!

This entry was posted in Brad Harrub and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.