Evolution is Superstitious by using Chance
su.per.sti.tion . . . n. 1. A belief . . . contrary. 2. a. A belief, practice, or rite resulting from . . . faith in magic or chance. . . .
chance . . . n.. . . 3. a. An unexpected, random, or unpredicted event. b. A [lucky] event. . . . adj. 1. Happening unexpectedly: a chance meeting with an old friend. . . .--v. . . . --intr. To happen by chance; occur by accident.
Synonyms: chance, random, . . .These adjectives apply to what lacks purposefulness or method. Chance implies total absence of design or predictability: my chance meeting with a friend . . . (12)[Bold emphasis theirs)
Please be assured: I do recognize biology-without-evolution as a true science. I do not pretend to claim that biologists do not know a lot about how the life mechanisms in our bodies work today. The problem is that some of their leaders are determined to keep the idea of God out of their--and your minds.
These evolutionists have been using their biological language to try to hook you into believing--as they apparently do--their superstitious, fanciful stories about evolution. Real scientists should be ashamed for letting these superstitious people fool themselves and this nation into thinking they--evolutionists--are real scientists. I hope that widening your knowledge about the superstition in evolutionists’ beliefs will further help you to realize that the study of evolution does not belong in your life. It belongs in the trashcan of bad history.
Chance is for Wishful Thinkers
Many of you know from experience that when you go to one particular shopping mall you are fairly likely to meet friends or acquaintances. This would be something you could almost predict. But you would be rather surprised to meet people you know if you were shopping in a small store in another part of town. Such an unplanned encounter with a friend in that small store would truly be meeting that person by chance. Well, evolution is supposed to work in a similar way: No planning ahead; no expectations, but it happens although very infrequently—so say the evolutionists.
Mr. Darwin himself, in his book The Origin of Species says that "every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, . . ."(13)
This tells us that he was looking for small changes that happened by accident, by chance. Those words "in the course off ages" should tell you that Mr. Darwin wasn't expecting chance happenings to occur very often. In fact, his modifications are so rare that—for my little shopping story to be realistic about evolution's chance happenings—I should say that Darwin didn't just go to another part of town to shop and have his evolution "chance" encounters--he went to another town! Such is the faith example that he set for his followers; faith in impossible chance—a superstition as defined and practiced.
My Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell biology textbook offered an explanation of natural selection's legendary powers. They claimed that "adaptive evolution is a blend of chance and sorting—chance in the origin of new genetic variations by mutation [change] . . ."(4 )
The Encyclopaedia Britannica also agrees with evolution's superstitious nature when it says that "nature shuffled and sorted its own productions, through processes governed purely by chance, . . ."(15)
Also, famous evolutionist Sir Francis Crick wrote in Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature that "since life is probably a happy accident which, . . ."(16)
And, the Audesirk and Audesirk authors have to rely on chance to support their story. They do this when they suggest an answer to "How Did Life Begin". They wrote: "Let us suppose that, purely by chance, one of these RNA . . ."(17)
Please note Mr. Crick's use of the word probably and the Audesirks' use of the word suppose. Guess what! They are guessing--which is what all evolutionists are doing.
I again quote the late Mr. Stephen Jay Gould who also helped keep the stamp of superstition on evolution by referring to it as a bunch of lucky accidents. He wrote, "the course of evolution is only the summation of fortuitous contingencies [lucky accidents], not a pathway with predictable directions."(18)
Now I ask you: How many accidents are "lucky"—good? I suspect that if you did some research, you would find an appreciation for the expression, "scarce as hens' teeth" (hens have no teeth). Well, a chemist with highly respected qualifications did do some research on good and bad accidents in nature. That is next.
Chance Mutations Kill Rather Than Help
There is a very odd thing about evolutionists' stories about living things evolving to become something new. Evolutionists almost always talk as if all of these "slight modifications" are good for that living thing. The living thing just naturally evolves to something better. Somehow, their tales don't mention the bad accidental chance happenings. Did you realize that almost all of the accidents (chance happenings) or alterations that nature experiences are bad? Chance accidents in nature usually kill living things! What Darwinists claim is supposed to slowly change a living thing to become you and me is actually a killer—not a creator!
John C. Kendrew, a Nobel prize-winning (chemistry) scientist, wrote that "mutations [changes, chance happenings] will almost always be deleterious [harmful], almost always, in fact, they will kill the organism [living thing] . . ."(19) He also wrote:
but these deleterious mutations [harmful accidents]
may, one hopes, over generations be eliminated by
the process of natural selection. Just occasionally a mutation might actually be advantageous. (20)
Hope and guesswork (see Crick and Audesirk, above) are what evolutionists live on. Mr. or Miss American Teenager, don't you try to eliminate God by hope and guesswork. You will lose!
A Necessary Conclusion
Chance happenings supposedly make evolution work. A thousand and more years ago, alchemists tried to turn base metals like lead into gold. Today, Darwinists try to turn mindless accidents into intelligent creation. Instead of improving society’s knowledge, evolution-by-chance is wasting your study time and teaching you to be superstitious and unscientific by ignoring evidence that is contrary to what you want to believe, evidence like “mutations . . . almost always . . . kill . . .", and trusting in luck—chance.
One other point. Did you notice something in the "synonyms" part of the above definition of chance? It says: "Chance implies total absence of design or predictability." Now, how can evolutionists mix chance and design in describing their work when, just by definition, "chance" and "design" should have nothing to do with each other. Mr. or Miss Teenager of America, no matter what you think of me or my writing, please realize that evolution is a superstitious bluff--a hoax that you must run from.
AND--while running from evolution--run to JESUS!
God’s grace, mercy, salvation, and corrections are available to every one of us—but ONLY through His Son Jesus Christ! You should know that He is just a sincere confession, repentance, and belief away. Find a Bible and look up Romans chapter 3:verses 10, 23; 6:23a; 5:8; 6:23b; 10:9, 10, 13; and Luke 13:3; and Acts 7:55, 56; and John 14:15—20! Then start by confessing to Jesus that you—like me and everyone else—are a sinner who deserves our holy God's consequences for sin—death. Tell Jesus that you repent of your sins—you want to change your ways, sin no more. Tell Jesus that you believe He died on that Cross to take YOUR DEATH PENALTY—AND—He defeated death by rising from the dead and is now at the right hand of God the Father. Then thank Jesus and ask Him to give you a new life—come into your heart and live through you. If you were truly sincere—from your heart, you have just begun a fantastic journey with God.
1. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition., A.D.1982.
2. Heinz Pagels, Dreams of Reason (156-58), by Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, A.D.1993) 116--117.
3. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, A.D.1993) 116--117.
4. Johnson, 117.
5. Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. (New York: Harmony Books, A.D.1995) 370.
6. Campbell, Neil A., Reece, Jane B., & Mitchell, Lawrence G., Biology, Fifth ed. (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings-Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., A.D.1999) 7, 8.
7. Teresa Audesirk and Gerald Audesirk, Biology: Life on Earth, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., A.D.1999) 272.
8. Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origins and Nature, (New York: Simon and Schuster, A.D.1981) 39.
9. Audesirk., 9.
10. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD., F.M., Refuting Evolution. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, A.D.1999) 19.
11. Johnson, 109, 110.
12. The American Heritage Dictionary.
13. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, A.D.1859. ed. J.W. Burrow (New York, Penguin Books, A.D.1968) 131.
14. Campbell, Reece, & Mitchell, 440.
15. L. Pierce Williams, "The History of Science," The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, vol. 27, A.D.1998, p. 41.
16. Crick, 39.
17. Audesirk, 314.
18. Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. (New York: Harmony Books, A.D.1995) 332.
19. John C. Kendrew, The Thread of Life, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University press, A.D.1966) 107.
Evolution Teaches Superstition
Definition (Note: all bold emphases and red highlights are mine unless otherwise noted)
su.per.sti.tion . . . n. 1. A belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary. 2. a. A belief, practice, or rite resulting from ignorance of the laws of nature or from faith in magic or chance. . . .(1) [Bold emphasis theirs]
Evolutionists, for over a hundred and fifty years, have been trying to credit their brainless hero natural selection (brainless because "it just happens") with creation of living things. Unfortunately, evolutionists and their followers have fallen into a type of thinking that fits into the category of superstition. Let me show you how evolution meets the definition: "A belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary."
Some things are Too Obvious to be denied.
They must be True.
Remember the times you have seen a house being built, when you could see the wood framework, the rafters--the skeleton of the house. This, of course, is what gives the house shape and support. Now consider the room arrangements and the locations of the plumbing and electrical systems, the things that make the home functional. Finally, visualize a nice house that is complete with its outer walls and roof that protect its interior from the wind and rain.
Now I ask you, did that house become a functional home because the wind blew some boards and nails together? No; of course not. Somebody had a plan. Somebody like an engineer or an architect designed it. Somebody who knew what it would take to make a house a functional, livable place for humans--somebody with intelligence (unless they put the toilet in the living room) designed that house. The requirement of intelligence is so obvious that even real dummies can see that intelligent humans design and build houses.
Now touchyour ribs; think of the frame of the house. Pinch your skin; think of how your skin encloses and protects your internal parts. Think of your heart, your lungs, your stomach and the rest of your "plumbing" system. Consider your legs, arms, hands. Make a fist; look at all of the blood veins and tendons in your forearm. Are you any less complicated than that house? Furthermore, is it possible that some thing without intelligence could make a heart, an eye, a stomach, and all the rest of your body parts . . . and then put those parts in the proper place—with all the necessary connecting nerves and life-supporting blood vessels?
Surely, ifit takes intelligenceto put a house together, it would take no less intelligence to arrange all the parts and systems to where you can be a functional, living human being. An engineer with great intelligence must have designed and made you.
----------There should be no doubt that your body was designed—
----------just as there is no doubt that a house was designed.
Super-intelligent God designed and built humans (and all of nature) just as intelligent humans design and build houses.
Examples of evolutionist superstition
Evolutionistshave also apparently seen houses being built. At least theyknow design when they see it. Heinz Pagels was an evolutionist who wrote Dreams of Reason. Note his recognition of the need for intelligence:
Scientists know . . . that the architecture of the
universe is indeed built according to invisible
universal rules . . . No human mind could have
arranged for any message so flawlessly
[understandable], so strangely imaginative, and sometimes downright bizarre. It must be the work of an Alien Intelligence!(2)
Mr. Pagels then shows superstition by denying what he sees. In the next paragraph he says that "there is no scientific evidence for a Creator of the natural world . . ."(3) And, Professor Phillip E. Johnson, an expert on analyzing evidence, in his book Darwin on Trial writes: "[evolution] controls his mind so completely that Pagels can stare straight at evidence of intelligent design, describe it as such, and still not see it.”(4)
The lateevolutionist leaderStephen Jay Gould also admitted seeing design when hewrote: "We are so overwhelmed . . .by the intricacy of aerodynamic optimality [perfection] of a bird's wing, . . . we are dazzled by good design.”(5) However, Mr. Gould, like most evolutionists, denies any designer by claiming the bad logic of similarity proves common ancestry. (see my article on evolution and poor thinking.
I have a college biology textbook that must be included among the evidence of evolutionistswho are impressed by the design in nature. I will quote some of what they write about birds. (This is justa sample of their comments about the beauty and functionality of many living things):
Knowing the function of a [body part] provides
[ideas] about its construction.
An example . . . is the aerodynamically efficient
shape of a bird's wing . . .. The skeleton of a bird also
has structural qualities that contribute to flight, with
bones that have a strong but light honeycombed
internal structure. The flight muscles of a bird are
controlled by neurons (nerve cells) . . . In exploring
life on its different structural levels, we will discover
functional beauty at every turn.(6)
That quotation reads like a lecture at a convention for aerospace engineers where the speaker is telling how intelligent engineers can borrow from God to build an airplane. And, "functional beauty" is certainly a testimony to design, yettheir book praises their brainless natural selection. Also, they try to say that a bat's wing and a whale's flipper are similar because of their common ancestry--evolutionists just cannot accept the idea of a common-Designer--God.
Another college biology textbook tells of the design in a spider web. They write about a beautiful photo they have:
This intricate spider web is strong, lightweight, hard
to detect, and ruthlessly effective at capturing
passing insects. It's a marvel of efficient design, "but
its "designer" is the simple, mindless process of
Surely evolutionists realize that the word "design" requires intelligence (Check your dictionary. You will find that every "design" definition demands use of the mind.). Furthermore, evolutionist Sir Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of DNA) uses the word "plan" when trying to describe how living things came to be. He writes: "The immense variety of nature--man, animals, plants, microorganisms, even viruses--is built, at the chemical level, on a common ground plan."(8) Again, a check of your dictionary onthe word "plan" will find the requirement of a mind.
--------So! If "mindless . . . natural selection" really is responsible for creating the spider and all of nature, evolutionists would have described nature with some other words besides "design" or "plan." Society just cannot function smoothly if people don't pay attention to the meaning(s) of the words they communicate with.
That is one of the problems with evolution. Evolutionists see design, talk design but defy all reasonable thinking by denying a designer. It is time for evolutionists to acknowledge there is something in the world besides the physical--something like God. Then the authors of the above biology book could learn to accept and trust nature's evidence. Instead, the same authors say:
If we cannot trust the evidence provided by nature,
then the entire enterprise of science is futile."(9)
Unfortunately,evolutionists are the ones rejecting nature’s evidence--the good data of intelligent design—evidence of God,Who calls them fools (see the Bible's Book of Psalms, chapter 14, verse 1; and chapter 19, verse 1; also the Book of Romans, Chapter 1, verses 18--32).
Why do they insist on crediting “mindless . . . natural selection” with the world’s beauty and complexity? The answer has to be thatevolutionists are superstitious, because they insist on holding to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.
The above spider web example reminds me of what I read in Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. He wrote, "Evolutionists are often not consistent . . . For example, whenarchaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they haven't seen the designer."(10)
Phillip E. Johnson states:
"practically all [evolutionary writers] stress the appearance of design and purpose . . . Everyone uses the vocabulary of intelligent communication . . .”(11)
A person just has to conclude that evolution is a superstition because--by their own words—their belief is contrary to the design evidence they admit to seeing.
Mr. or Miss Teenager of America, are you going to go through life as the atheists/humanists do by denying things you see but do not like? We all make mistakes in life, but todeny or ignore God is the biggest mistake a person can make--I Herb Grossman can testify from experience that ignoring--living without God is dumb!