| As we
have shown in all the questions we have considered so far, the
theory of evolution is completely at odds with scientific discoveries.
This theory, born of the primitive level of science in the nineteenth
century, has been completely invalidated by successive scientific
Those evolutionists who are
blindly devoted to the theory look for a solution in demagogy,
since no scientific foundation is left to them. The most frequently
resorted to of these is the clichéd slogan that "creation
is a faith, so it cannot be considered part of science." The
claim goes that evolution is a scientific theory, whereas
creation is just a belief. However, this repetition of "evolution
is science, creation is a belief" stems from a totally erroneous
perspective. Those who keep repeating that are confusing science
and materialist philosophy. They believe that science must
remain within the borders of materialism, and that those who
are not materialist have no right to make any statements at
all. However, science itself completely rejects materialism.
Studying matter is not the same
as being a materialist
Like contemporary materialists, Democritus was deceived
into thinking that matter had existed forever, and that
nothing existed but matter.
Let us first briefly define materialism in order
to examine the matter in more detail. Materialism is a philosophy
that has existed since Ancient Greece and is based on the
idea that matter is all that exists. According to materialist
philosophy, matter has always existed and will continue to
do so for all time. Nothing exists apart from matter. This
is not a scientific claim, however, because it cannot be subjected
to experiment and observation. It is simply a belief, a dogma.
However, this dogma became mixed up with science
in the nineteenth century, and even came to be the basic foundation
of science. Yet science is not compelled to accept materialism.
Science studies nature and the universe, and produces results
without being limited by any philosophical classification.
the face of this, some materialists frequently take refuge
in a simple word game. They say, "Matter is the only subject
of study for science, so it has to be materialist." Yes, science
only studies matter, but "studying matter" is very different
from "being a materialist." That is because when we study
matter, we realise that matter contains knowledge and design
so great that they could never have been produced by matter
itself. We can understand that this knowledge and design are
the result of an intelligence, even if we cannot see it directly.
For instance, let us imagine a cave. We do not
know if anyone has been in it before us. If, when we enter
this cave, there is nothing in it but dust, earth, and stones,
we can infer that there is nothing but randomly distributed
matter there. However, if there are expertly produced pictures
in stunning colours on the walls, we may assume that an intelligent
entity has been there before us. We may not be able to see
that entity directly, but we can infer its existence from
what it produces.
Science has refuted materialism
Science studies nature in the same way
as shown in that example. If all the design in nature could
only be explained by material factors, then science could
confirm materialism. However, modern science has revealed
that there is design in nature that cannot be explained by
material factors, and that all matter contains a design brought
into being by a Creator.
For example, all experiments
and observation prove that matter could not by itself have
given rise to life, for which reason life must stem from a
metaphysical creation. All evolutionist experiments in this
direction have ended in failure. Life can never have been
created from inanimate matter. The evolutionist biologist
Andrew Scott makes the following admission on the subject
in the well-known journal New Scientist:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and
wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The "fundamental"
forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak
nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But
how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how
much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism
of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up
to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either
controversy or complete bewilderment.75
If matter were capable of giving rise to life on its
own, as materialists claim, then it should be possible
to synthesise life in laboratory conditions. However,
not even one organelle in a cell can be reproduced in
the laboratory, let alone a complete cell.
The root of life is based on speculation and
debate because materialist dogma insists that life is the
product of matter. Yet the scientific facts show that matter
has no such power. Professor Fred Hoyle, an astronomer and
mathematician who was knighted for his contributions to science,
makes the following comment on the subject:
Prof. Fred Hoyle
If there were
a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic
systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable
in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take
a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it
with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please.
Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine
any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the
experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those
2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared
in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time
and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment.
You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry
sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic
The cover of the July 27, 1998, "Science Finds God"
edition of Newsweek.
Actually, materialism is in an even worse dilemma.
Matter cannot even form life when combined with human knowledge
and time, let alone form it by itself.
The truth that we have briefly glanced at is
the truth that matter cannot form design and knowledge by
itself. Yet the universe and the living things in it contain
extraordinarily complex design and knowledge. That shows us
that this design and knowledge in the universe and living
things are the works of a Creator Who possesses infinite power
and knowledge, Who existed before matter and rules it.
If we look carefully, this is an entirely scientific
conclusion. It is not a "belief," but a truth acquired through
observation of the universe and living things in it. That
is why the evolutionists' claim that "Evolution is scientific,
whereas creation is a belief that cannot enter the domain
of science" is a superficial deception. It is true that in
the nineteenth century materialism was confused with science,
and that science was led off course by materialist dogma.
However, subsequent developments in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries have completely overthrown that hoary old belief,
and the truth of creation, that had been concealed by materialism,
has finally emerged. As the banner headline "Science Finds
God," used by the famous magazine Newsweek in its
historic July 27, 1998, edition makes clear, behind all the
materialist deception, science finds God, the Creator of the
universe and all that is in it.
Scott, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist, vol. 106,
May 2nd, 1985, p. 30.
76. Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe,
Michael Joseph, London, 1983, p. 20-21.