Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Creation magazine print - 1 yr new subn


US $25.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $9.00
View Item

Feedback

End of story?

This letter is from Shelley Moore, USA. It is an example of the prevalent confusion about the meaning of evolution. The response clarifies the misunderstandings, and explains once more how variation within a kind is a completely different concept from evolution from microbes to microbiologists.

This letter is in response (specifically) to your article about eyeless fish. Evolution is indeed real. It is fact because DNA changes with every new organism. No one disputes this. Now, perhaps it would not be true, if the changes did not lead up to something better. (as according to the Dictionary.com definition of evolution) But; when genetic changes that are destructive to the organism occur, the line carrying that change will eventually die out, i.e. survival of the fittest. Now, the organisms that have helpful genetic changes will survive, and therefore pass on the changes, thus ensuring that it does not disappear. Therefore, any change in a species or subspecies resulting from natural selection that has not eventually caused it to die out, is helpful. End of story.

Also, where exactly do different species come from over time if not from evolution? Especially considering some species are so close together that one or the other would be pointless creations if made by a deity.

Dear Shelly,

Thank you for contacting us. Please see our response below:

This letter is in response (specifically) to your article about eyeless fish [presumably New eyes for blind cave fish?—Ed] Evolution is indeed real.

How so? We have never observed evolution from goo to you via the zoo and neither has any evolutionary scientist. It would be helpful to define your terms to avoid equivocation—see Definitions as slippery as eels.

It is fact because DNA changes with every new organism.

How does this prove evolution as a fact? Creation also indicates that DNA changes with every new organism.

No one disputes this.

We dispute that evolution is a fact. We do not dispute that that DNA changes. It is just bait-n-switch to conflate these concepts. See also this review of the book The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time for egregious examples of this equivocation.

Now, perhaps it would not be true, if the changes did not lead up to something better (as according to the Dictionary.com definition of evolution).

Exactly! But don’t stop there; there must be millions, perhaps billions, of mutations that build up a DNA strand with NEW previously non-existent information. There have only been a few rare cases where information has gained specified complexity but for evolution to work there needs to billions of them. And simply put, they’re just not there! So mutations can’t be the mechanism for evolution. This is why evolution is having problems.

Because informational arguments are probabilistic, we cannot rule out the finding of an occasional information increase, but we have yet to see one. But goo-to-you evolution predicts that information increases should often be observed. Therefore, if millions are not found, then evolution is simply unfounded.

But; when genetic changes that are destructive to the organism occur, the line carrying that change will eventually die out, i.e. survival of the fittest.

We believe this obvious and logical phenomenon. But we must point out that you need to be aware that contrary to how some will take your statement, and contrary to common lay belief, not all harmful mutations are eliminated by this process. In fact, mutations which are harmful only when homozygous—inherited from both parents—will almost invariably be maintained at a low frequency in the population. Humans carry hundreds of such inherited accumulated mistakes. See Take it from an expert—Sickle cell anemia does NOT prove evolution!

Note also, Edward Blyth, a Christian creationist, developed the concept of natural selection about 25 years before Darwin. This is called natural selection and it only results in the elimination of information, not its creation.

Mutations, on the other hand, have been shown primarily to be defects and breakdowns on the DNA strand. At any rate, there have never been any observed mutations that build up the DNA strand with new previously non-existent information. This is what is devastating to evolution. In fact, even in the rare cases of ‘beneficial’ mutations, which help the organism to survive, they are virtually all informationally downhill. This point was made in the very article you cite, as well as in Beetle bloopers and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?

Now, the organisms that have helpful genetic changes will survive, and therefore pass on the changes, thus ensuring that it does not disappear.

These are the fictional ones that we have never seen. Every once in a while a defect can be helpful to the organism but it still works backwards for evolution. Please take the time to read this article, The evolution train’s a-comin’.

Therefore, any change in a species or subspecies resulting from natural selection that has not eventually caused it to die out, is helpful.

Since a defect can also be a survival advantage, it’s not as simple as that, as a little thought will show. I.e., it begs the question of the type of change, as the articles above show.

End of story.

Obviously not.

Also, where exactly do different species come from over time if not from evolution? Especially considering some species are so close together that one or the other would be pointless creations if made by a deity.

Shelley Moore
US

Note that this is not a scientific argument, but a pseudo-theological one! Some evolutionists (falsely) accuse creationists of saying merely ‘God did it,’ but apparently have no compunction against saying ‘God wouldn’t have done it this way.’ It’s amazing how much atheists claim to know about a God they don’t believe in, yet use this as support for evolution. This sort of argument is also a tacit admission that the ‘two-model approach’ is valid, i.e. that creation and evolution (in the broadest senses) are the only alternatives. However, many evolutionists scream loudly if creationists claim that there are only two broad approaches, or the corollary that evidence against evolution is support for creation!

But also, we believe that the biblical ‘kind’ is often broader than the modern taxonomic category of ‘species.’ Therefore the original kind, while starting off as a species, would often be the ancestor of several species, split off by an acquired inability to interbreed. This is explained in What is the biblical creationist model? Note also, the Bible implicitly predicts rapid speciation, and observed examples of this have taken evolutionists by surprise, but not biblical creationists—see Speedy species surprise.

Let me explain with some simple diagrams.

Evolutionists believe that all life originated by one accidentally chemically-made single celled life form:

Tree diagram
The evolutionary ‘tree’—all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals).

Evolutionists often falsely think of the biblical view as represented by the diagram below, and your arguments are based on this misconception:

Lawn diagram
The Linnaean ‘lawn’—the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today's species.

Evolutionists believe that the Bible teaches that life forms can not adapt and naturally select into various types of the same kind. This is a false belief. The actual biblical view is as follows:

Orchard diagram
The creationist ‘orchard’—diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds.’

With all due respect, it would be intellectually honest to find out what we actually believe before attacking us. It would also be helpful if you were to define your own terms consistently. We believe that all animals with the ‘breath of life’ originated from individual kinds (that came off of Noah’s Ark) and split into various species around the globe—e.g., wolves, dingoes, coyotes and domestic dogs were all from one pair of ‘dogs’ from Noah’s Ark (see also this response to a critic, A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?). We are convinced of natural selection but not evolution. They are, if anything, actually opposites.

We pray this information helps.
Editors


NEA Teacher does not subscribe to theory of evolution

I just read with interest your note about the NEA convention. I am a Christian, a Teacher/Elementary Counselor, and member of the NEA. As you discovered, many Christians belong to the NEA, but do not subscribe to the popular, but completely flawed, theory of evolution. Many of the Teachers I work with are also Christians though we work for a public school system. Most of us belong to the NEA because the organization works mainly for the advancement of the teaching profession. If not for the NEA, Teachers would still be making minimum wage. Thank you for spreading truth.

S.
US

It may be worth reconsidering membership of an organization that supports the right to homosexual behaviour and abortion, while being vindictive against home-schoolers, as well as being highly politicized making it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. See for example this article.


Expand this site. Besides the over 8,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
2128
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.