Evolutionism contradicts science

Evolutionism claims to be an operation science, although it doesn’t have any scientific proof for its conclusions concerning origins and it contradicts all the basic and most important laws and principles of science. Actually, we thank God that the evolutionist scientists are not applying their false evolutionist assumptions to all of their other researches, or else we would not have any development in science. Actually, evolutionism is anti-science.

Let’s see together some basic and important laws and principles that are clearly contradicted by evolutionism:


The laws of thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant; it doesn’t change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder. Now, if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount. You can’t run out of an infinite amount. If you have an infinite amount of money, then you can’t spend them all. You can’t run out of money in that case. This means that the universe is finite, and not eternal. It could not have existed forever in the past and will not exist forever into the future.

Brief, the universe is CREATED. It came from NOTHING, with a finite amount of energy. As soon as you say “creation”, then you say “no evolution”, because ALL what evolution is based on assumes that there was no creation. For example, if evolution will date a tree from the first days of creation, it will give a wrong date, because when it uses any tool of measuring it first assumes that the tree was not created. Thus it gets a wrong age for the earth through that tree, because the tree was just created, and yet it is a grown up tree that evolution will date as being hundreds of years old. All the assumptions of evolution fall if there is creation. If there is creation, then everything was NOT happening in the past the same way it is now, at least it was not happening the same way before creation. If there is creation, then there is the Creator who created, and what He says about how He created is true, and not the assumptions of the evolutionists who don’t have any eyewitness.

That was one of the laws of science (actually 2, if we also take the first law of thermodynamics) that evolutionism contradicts.

Evolutionism doesn’t have any scientific proof. It contradicts the laws of science. So it needs to prove itself scientific BEFORE beginning its studies and its claims. While all what it does is to assume that there was no creation BEFORE beginning its studies, and reaches to the conclusion that there was no creation… Very scientific, right?

For additional facts about these laws of thermodynamics go to the following pages: The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Second law of thermodynamics – Does this basic law of nature prevent evolution?, Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism.

The principle of causality

This is the principle of cause and effect upon which all modern science is built. Everything in this universe, everything that has a beginning, has a cause.

As we have seen, the laws of thermodynamics say that this universe had a beginning, because it is not eternal. It is finite. As the evolutionists can’t defend their dream that this universe is eternal, because it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, so they pass to another option. They think: “Why not say that the universe came all alone from nothing!”

Here is what they call science!! “Let’s speculate and imagine things!”

Anyways… saying that this universe came from nothing all alone clearly contradicts the very important scientific principle of causality, and it is NOT operation science. This is just a belief, and you need a very strong blind faith to believe in this, because it contradicts science and experience.

And they still call evolutionism science… In that case, the ancient Greeks had a better science than our modern science… They didn’t have the principle of causality in their pseudo-science, just like the evolutionists when talking about origins…

Spontaneous generation?

Pasteur’s work showed that there is nothing called spontaneous generation. And all the scientific findings prove that spontaneous generation is only a wrong ancient belief of the ancient Greeks. But, despite all this, spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since).

This was another scientific fact that evolutionism contradicts. And yet, evolutionists say that evolution is science! Although evolutionism has ZERO scientific proof, and it clearly contradicts the laws of science and the scientific facts, as we have seen.

Jdisciple†

~~~

Additional resources:

~~~

Don’t forget to visit this important website: Answers in Genesis.

And this one: Institute for Creation Research.


Advertisements
This entry was posted in Worldly Movements. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Evolutionism contradicts science

  1. Emőke Győri says:

    Dear JDisciple,

    Hi. Its me again. Sorry for bothering you, but after i’ve read your answer, I went throught your linked topics. Thanks for the illuminating things you told me in your comment. But there is an argument at the end I just cant swallow. Maybe I just misundertood again, so I have written a comment. Again. I know. Sorry. So, it was about this arcticle. I have read through it, several times already, but I still can not grasp everything in it (it is 2 in the morning), so pardon me if I am unclear on some of my points I’m trying to make.

    I found some holes in your argument, and the very first was actually your first sentence. You claim that evulotionism is an operation science. I have studied science and I was told the opposite.
    The Operational Sciences describe how the universe operates today. Operational sciences are based directly on empirical testing and can be used to get us to the moon or map the human genome. Good technology is based mostly on such empirical observations and testing. The stability and rationality of nature is guaranteed by the Creator of the Cosmos, thus making the operational sciences possible. I think the best exsample is Mathematics. You can not get any more operational science than that. Or a more hands on can be medical science.

    By contrast, the Origin Sciences attempt to explain via chance and naturalistic processes how the cosmos and the marvels of life originated. For example, how did the first cell originate? How did the human genome originate? How did creatures with no eyes develop eyes? How did creatures with no no brains develop brains? How did the solar system or galaxies of stars originate? The Origin Sciences include implausible naturalistic accounts of such origins using chance and naturalistic explanations such as Big Bang Cosmology, the Chemical Origin of Life, Biological Evolution and Dating Methods extrapolated to an open-ended and unobservable past. Origin Sciences are speculative and often suspect because they are based on untested foundational assumptions, vast extrapolations, and the need to postulate unobserved hypothetical entities to save the theories from disconfirmation from stubborn anomalies in the data.

    So I can surely say that it is an origin science, and furthermore I would wenture that I don’t agre with the term anty science. Your linked report said, that basically there is no thing called science, because the term is controversial, because no scientist can explain why they use uniformity, as that is for the people who belive in the bible. But the writer never mentions that every science is based on the principle: A statement is true, until I can not prove it is false. So evidently science in this sense IS based on uniformity. And I just dont see it why should faith, close out science, or vice versa. As I see it, they rather complement each other. I have only seen extremist views clash whith faith and I was never for extremes, because they are just so far from reality, that even science can not prove them, so basically wath is going for them is the faith of the people who belive in them. And that is something should only be reserved for God.

  2. Emőke Győri says:

    Sorry, I think I should finish this tomorrow. My mind is just not working properly this late, and I am not sure if I am understandable.

  3. Dear Emi,

    I really appreciate your honest and respectable way of studying the topics that we have studied. Don’t worry about the way of expression, because it is understandable.

    Well, actually when you call something “science”, i.e. “knowledge”, then it should be based on true facts, and not on false assumptions and false calculations based on imaginary chance etc. When evolutionists call evolution as origin science (or they rather make you conclude that by claiming that there is only one science and that evolutionism is a part of that one science), they assume that evolution is a fact proven by all those operation science methods by which they try to prove their dreams. So, practically, when evolutionists say “origin science” they mean “operation science applied to origins” or very simply “science applied to origins”. We have seen in the article that the operation science methods that evolutionists use in their studies cannot be applied to origins.

    Now, operation science also assumes some evident truths such as uniformity. In fact, uniformity is assured by the Creator who has put the natural laws in His universe. But this is not a false assumption, as long as it is applied only in operation science, because operation science studies natural events that happen regularly without supernatural intervention, and thus they are under the natural laws which assure that uniformity in this universe. The scientists are not making a false assumption when they believe in the Creator and in the uniformity caused in the natural things because of the laws that He has put. But what exactly is the problem that we explained in the article? It is that evolutionists take this assumption of uniformity and they apply it to supernatural events such as origins, and they thus reach false conclusions. Thus, the evolutionists are uniformitarians, which actually is equal to say that they are anti-creation and anti-science, because with their assumption they prevent the real knowledge (science) about origins. Creation has nothing to do with uniformity, because creation, i.e. something coming to be from nothing, doesn’t happen regularly; it was a supernatural event that happened once for all and that cannot be repeated by applying the laws of uniformity.

    Now, we thank God that evolutionist scientists, who clearly are the majority among the scientists, do not apply their anti-science assumptions to the other researches that they make. Imagine if evolutionists assume today that bacteria are appearing by spontaneous generation… that would be a catastrophe for science, because that would prevent any research in the branch of bacteriology… And yet, these same evolutionists have no problem in saying that the universe came from nothing all alone (thus applying uniformity to origins and contradicting the principle of causality) or that it always existed (thus applying uniformity to origins and contradicting the laws of science and especially the laws of thermodynamics).

    Uniformity is a principle of operation science and not of origin science. And as we have seen above, uniformity is based on the fact that there is the Creator and that He has created this universe with laws of nature. So the sole fact that evolutionists use the principle of uniformity, even in the study of origins, shows that they are inconsistent. Indeed, evolutionists who deny creation and intelligent design, do not have the right to assume that there is uniformity in the universe and that this uniformity even existed when those origins were becoming what they are called, i.e. origins (beginnings).

    Now, when you use the right tools and the right assumptions but in the wrong place where they cannot be applied, you will have wrong results that contradict science. We have seen examples of this fact in the article where we have studied how the fact that evolutionists use uniformity to explain origins has contradicted the laws of thermodynamics and the principle of causality and has defended an anti-science dream called spontaneous generation.

    So, once again, I remind you that true faith does not contradict science as evolutionism does. True faith is built on true facts and not on dreams. I previously advised you in another article’s comment to read the following article about faith: On what should we build our faith? Please, read that article. Real faith is built upon true facts revealed by God and that do not contradict science. And true faith believes what God says about origins, because that’s the real origin science (knowledge), because the only Eyewitness of origins is the Creator Himself, so He is the only One who can give us true knowledge about origins (i.e. origin science). And while evolutionism contradicts operation science by building on false assumptions about origins (without any scientific proof and without any eyewitness), the account of this Eyewitness always agrees with operation science, keeping in mind that operation science does not apply to origins that didn’t come to exist according to natural laws, contrary to what evolutionists think. We accept the fact that operation science reaches a place in its studies where it gives up the place for origin science. Evolutionists do not accept this fact.

    An interesting article that explains these things in more details is found on the following link: What is the evidence for God’s existence?

    I hope that these explanations were of help for you. If you need any other clarifications, please don’t hesitate to write about them in your comments.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

Comments are closed.