“Selective Scientific Interpretations”

Now, if it turned out to be warm, you’d likely be pretty happy if you’d decided on your favorite tee, but you’d be a lot less comfortable if you discovered there’d been a huge snowstorm overnight, especially if you’d locked yourself out of the house and had to try and tough it out in your T-shirt for the day.

Of course, the same could be said if you’d thrown on your heavy jacket and discovered the temperature had shot up to 86 degrees Fahrenheit. But why am I making this point? Well, you probably already have it figured out, as it’s pretty obvious.

Those best outfitted to thrive in specific environments will perform better than those who aren’t, or to put it another way, certain environmental conditions will favor those best fit to live in them.

Although this might seem simplistic, it’s directly analogous to a topic we discussed in our last article—natural selection (sometimes referred to as survival of the fittest).

Previously, in Parts 1–4, we analyzed how Western culture (founded on the belief in the historicity and truth of the Bible) has been largely overthrown by the teaching of the story of evolution to generations now, which has eroded belief in the authority of God’s Word and the precepts within it relating to law, morality, family structure, marriage, identity, and the sanctity of human life among many other things.

Indeed, in his book titled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, atheist Daniel Dennett described the story of evolution as a metaphorical “universal acid.” In effect, a universal acid would be an unstoppable influence that was so corrosive it could even eat through the container it was placed in and, once released, would begin corrupting and corroding everything it touched.

Little did I realize that in a few years I would encounter an idea–Darwin’s idea–bearing an unmistakable likeness to universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.1

Theistic Evolution Requires Death Before Sin

Dennett’s description of the effects of Darwin’s idea upon Western culture is very apt because a naturalistic “survival of the fittest” worldview as an explanation of our origins completely undercuts biblical history.

Trying to somehow mesh it together and attach it to the rest of biblical history (typically attempted beginning in Genesis 12 and beyond) nullifies the ability of Christians to answer even the most common philosophical objection to the Christian faith, which is typically expressed in some version of the question—“If you have such a loving God, why is there so much death, pain, and suffering in the world?”

Even if there were a God, he must be fine with pain, death, and suffering because those elements are intrinsic to how evolution is supposed to operate.

Replacing the Genesis account of an original very good world (that became marred by sin because of man’s rebellion) with the story of millions of years of evolution would mean that even if there were a God, he must be fine with pain, death, and suffering because those elements are intrinsic to how evolution is supposed to operate.

How could a loving God use death, disease, suffering, and pain—things the Bible says are the result of sin—to create the world, then call a world full of those things “very good”?

Far from fortifying trust in the Christian faith, belief in the story of evolution disconnected the Bible from true history, weakening it immeasurably in the minds of many who’ve thought these things through.

Natural Selection Cannot Drive Evolution

And yet, upon examination, the primary idea that has convinced so many to believe the story of evolution (natural selection) lacks the very ability to evolve things inherently and conceptually. And why do I say that? Because natural selection is a selective process not a creative one.

You see, just like when you go to your closet to choose your attire for that day, you are choosing from items that already exist. Choosing different combinations of clothing may give you several different looks, but the components of the combinations are already in your closet. You are just choosing from what someone has already created.

Having said that, let’s work through a simple analogy regarding DNA among sexually reproducing creatures and your proverbial clothes closet to better understand what I’m getting at here.

You see, DNA comes in a paired form, which means there can be different varieties of information coding for the same trait (height, eye color, beak shape, etc.). This is why offspring from the same parents can inherit and then express a variety of different preexisting traits from one another.

Blue eyes, brown eyes, different hair types, different sizes, more fur or less fur, bigger beaks, smaller beaks, etc. can all be had by different siblings even though the source of their genetic information (the creature’s parents) was the same.

To use my closet analogy, it’s like potentially having different pairs of socks, different kinds of pants, shirts, jackets, hats, scarves, etc. in your closet and then choosing different combinations of them each day, resulting in various styles.

But no matter how many different arrangements of the various items you have can result in unique-looking outfits, all you can possibly end up with are a limited recombination and reshuffling of items that already exist.

Selecting items from your closet does not create new items that never existed before to pop into existence within your wardrobe (i.e., putting on jeans one day and dress pants the next won’t cause a wet suit for scuba diving to magically appear in your closet one morning).

That has always been the Achilles’ heel of natural selection in regard to the story of evolution. At its heart, natural selection requires some way to account for the supposed creation of new forms, functions, and features in creatures that never existed before to be able to somehow transform them from one kind of creature to a different kind (like a lizard into a bird, etc.) over long periods.

No Explanation for the Origin of Life

Do you remember Erasmus Darwin’s ponderings in the poem I quoted from Part 3 of this series?

Hence without parent by spontaneous birth
Rise the first specks of animated earth.2

Here, of course, is the idea of what evolutionists today call chemical evolution—life coming from nonlife, which has never been observed and contradicts one of the most established scientific laws. This is the law of biogenesis: life has only ever been observed to come from preexisting life.

Here, of course, is the idea of what evolutionists today call chemical evolution—life coming from nonlife.

And for those who (by faith) want to believe that scientific law was somehow broken in the past (which means it wouldn’t be a scientific law, despite the observational scientific experimentation contradicting that conclusion), the question is, how exactly would that first life-form have assembled itself with no mind guiding the process?

Despite the bluff and bluster from the evolutionary community declaring they have several theories to explain what they think might have happened, when push comes to shove, even evolution-believing scientists, such as Professor Paul Davies, will admit, “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software . . . ? Nobody knows . . . there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”3

Of course, Davies understands that DNA contains copious amounts of genetic information that codes for the construction, maintenance, and repair of whatever living thing is being discussed—something Erasmus would have been completely unaware of.

And Davies also understands that coded information has only ever been shown to originate from a mind, not matter. Again, Erasmus didn’t know anything about DNA or have a clue as to the mind-blowing complexity of even the simplest life-forms we observe today. But back to his musings.

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves,
Was born and nurs’d in Ocean’s pearly caves;
First, forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.4

Here, we see Erasmus (like all evolutionists) is “Darwinising”—imagining simple creatures gaining new “powers” and abilities, such as fins and feet and wings, which the former creatures didn’t have.

Mutations Don’t Drive Evolution

Once again, this is the conundrum that naturalists have never been able to effectively explain via natural selection—how and where did all this new genetic variation come from? Natural selection, being a selective and not a creative process, cannot account for the genetic variation whatsoever.

This is why students today do not learn Darwinian evolution in our state-run education centers, but rather neo-Darwinian evolution, or new Darwinism. This version of the story incorporates the addition of genetic mutation as the driving force that supposedly creates new genetic information for forms and features that natural selection then theoretically weeds out the best of.

However, mutations tend to break things—they don’t create anything new in any true sense of the word. One could say their effects would be like laundering a red shirt and having the dye run, resulting in a “new” pink shirt. But again, the shirt itself and the red dye were already in existence, a lessening of the amount of color does not truly create anything new.

Even though genetic mutations tend to be degenerative in their effect and have never been observed to create new, functional genetic information (something Professor Davies’ previous quote confirms), the teaching of neo-Darwinian evolution itself is a clear admission that natural selection alone simply cannot evolve anything. A concept that Charles Darwin is supposedly famous for “discovering”!

In case you forgot, do you remember the BioScience article (“Ten Myths About Charles Darwin”) I mentioned in Part 4 where it specifically said,

There are many other Darwin myths . . . One is the idea that evolution was “in the air” at the time, and if Darwin had not thought of it when he did, someone else soon would have. Although the idea of evolution, in the sense of transmutation of species, was broached by Buffon, and was openly advocated by Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, as well as by the anonymous author of Vestiges of Creation ([1844] 1994), no one had proposed a plausible mechanism by which such change could occur.5

Well, despite the nonsensical meanderings about whether or not someone else had already “thought of evolution” (because many had), what specific, so-called “plausible mechanism” for evolution were they talking about?

Natural selection is a very real and observable scientific process, providing variety in creatures. Creationists have always recognized this is the case as it is intrinsic to the biblical creation model. Natural selection is the way to account for the wide variety of animal species we see today that descended from the limited kinds of creatures that went aboard and then exited Noah’s ark.

But natural selection is also a mechanism that cannot by its very nature evolve anything! So why are modern-day information controllers trying to influence learners in the present with false information by saying that Darwin discovered natural selection (which he didn’t) and that it evolves creatures (which it doesn’t)?

Outdated “Proofs” of Evolution

And why are large portions of our population today being brainwashed into thinking examples of natural selection are proof of evolution? Modern educators still use outdated arguments such as varieties of peppered moths (for example) turning into varieties of peppered moths to promote so-called examples of evolution. However, evolution-believing zoologist L. Harrison Matthews admitted they were not in his own introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species!

The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content or light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.6

For those of us who’ve intellectually looked into such things, it’s actually quite pathetic that the evolutionary community would continue to promote such blatantly false examples such as the peppered moth as “the poster child of Darwinian evolution”7 and to make claims such as, “It is the slam dunk of natural selection, the paradigmatic story that converts high school and college students to Darwin, the thundering left hook to the jaw of creationism.”8

I mean, if you are willing to use examples of natural selection as supposed proofs of evolution (when everyone who has seriously studied natural selection knows it can’t possibly evolve anything) to “convert high school and college students to Darwin,” the only conclusion I can come to is that you have an agenda.

And unfortunately, I’ve seen several examples of such an agenda admitted to by several evolution-promoting naturalists. One example is Bora Zivkovic, a former online community manager several years ago at the popular Public Library of Science, or PLOS ONE9 website.

He openly admitted that he approved of teaching lies to students (calling them “inaccuracies” instead) and advocated a subversive approach in order to convert them from what their parents may have taught them to believe the story of evolution. Here are some of his statements.

You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step.10

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of NOMA, it’s a short form for non-overlapping magisteria. In this case, the idea of teaching that science and religion are two separate spheres of study that do not overlap, which is, as Zivkovic admits, wrong.

Because if “science” could somehow demonstrate that millions of years of evolution had occurred, then the Bible’s creation account would be falsified and vice versa. So he admitted he was fine with using a slow, steady, undermining approach and using falsehoods to sway students away from former beliefs: “And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.”11

He even advocated applying his approach of feeding “inaccuracies” to very young minds, taking advantage of their lack of critical thinking skills. Teachers could use examples of variations of how Mickey Mouse was drawn over the years as a way of illustrating how creatures can gradually change over time.

And even though as a grown adult he knew those pictures were drawn by intelligent artists that made those decisions purposefully, he also openly admitted he thought that even if they believed those lies for the rest of their lives then the ends justify the means.

If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives.12

But, in the end, what was his justification for lying to students, ultimately?

It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead.13

Ah, there it is—creationists. People who believe in the Creator God. Couldn’t have that now could we, because it goes against the new narrative, it doesn’t fit the plan. So keep spoon-feeding the story of evolution to the kiddos that attend our publicly funded indoctrination centers. Keep pouring out that universal acid, sit back, and let it do its work on the minds of the next generation.

Those in control of the present, controlling what people believe about the past, have brought us to where we are today—and that’s how the battle for the transformation of the West has been won, so far.

Join us for Part 6 where we’ll pull back another curtain behind the veil of naturalism and reveal some of the most influential, deceptive, and controversial concepts put in place to enable the popularization of the story of evolution and some of the key players that did so.