Search AFA

The Unscientific Claims of Evolution

Wednesday, June 27, 2018 @ 11:56 AM
The Unscientific Claims of Evolution ATTENTION: Major social media outlets are finding ways to block the conservative/evangelical viewpoint. Click here for daily electronic delivery of The Stand's Daily Digest - the day's top blogs from AFA.

Stacy Singh Writer - AFA Journal MORE

As a child, I pored over creation science books and magazines. I came to understand that my belief in creation is based foremost on my faith and interpretation of Scripture but is also supported by scientific evidence and facts. 

Those who believe in evolution are equally basing their beliefs on a type of faith – that a theory about things that happened in the past is true although it cannot be directly observed happening now (For example, we do not see any current transitional species). However, the evolutionist’s position is not supported by science, despite what many believe. That is not my opinion, but something that other qualified scientists have noticed. 

Jerry Bergman is one of many leading scientists who currently work for the Institute for Creation Research. He serves as research associate at ICR and has a background in the fields of medicine, psychology, and many sciences including biology, genetics, anthropology, and geology. Through his extensive research documented in more than 1,000 publications, he is able to cite evidence that proves: many evolutionary theories are unsupported by science, and claims that are frequently made to defend evolution are in fact false. 

Passing on unproven beliefs is more common in the scientific world than one might realize, Bergman told AFA in an interview. 

“The scientist Steven J. Gould once wrote, ‘Once ideas get out in the scientific community, over and over they’re repeated uncritically,’” Bergman said. “That is a huge problem. Well, ideas about evolution are repeated over and over for years. People just repeat what famous Darwinists like Richard Dawkins have to say.” 

In history, we can see instances where unfounded opinions from the scientific community led people to accept wrong thinking. The example Bergman pointed out was eugenics, which led to intense racism in the 19th and 20th centuries, including that which led to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. 

“The scientific community, almost without exception, was racist and supported eugenics,” Bergman said. “Now why would there be almost total scientific consensus on an idea that we today recognize as not just wrong, but horribly wrong? Well, the reason was that once ideas become scientific consensus, it’s hard to go against them. From 1859 to the 1930s or 1940s, the idea of racism was prevalent in science and accepted as valid. Today, that is an embarrassment to science.” 

However, not all erroneous scientific arguments used to support a shaky theory are dead. Many claims still used to support evolution are just as invalid. Bergman described three such examples. 

The eye: 

“I’m reading a book right now called Human Errors by Nathan Lents, and he says we have a lot of glitches and pointless bones and broken genes in our body, and the only way we can explain those things is by evolution,” Bergman said. 

“For example, he says the retina of the eye is backward. That is poor design, he claims. 

“The problem is his argument is simply wrong. There is a very good reason for the design of the retina – it is not backward. In fact, it would not work the way evolutionists say it should be placed. It has to be the way it is – which is a very good design. This information is not hidden. It is not secret. You can read books on ophthalmology; you can read plenty of articles that point out the need for this design. But in the evolutionary Darwinist community, it’s widely believed that the retina is backward.” 

Vestigial organs: 

“The vestigial organ argument has been used by Darwinists since Charles Darwin,” Bergman pointed out. That is the claim that certain organs of the body are useless, or even harmful because they are left over from earlier evolutionary stages and no longer serve any purpose in the body. 

“Now we know that every single one of these organs has a function. You can live without a spleen. Nonetheless, for many people, they’re not going to be as healthy without a spleen. The gallbladder is another such organ. You can remove the gallbladder, but if you take the gallbladder out, you’re going to have some problems. These organs indeed have a function, and that’s what creationists argue. But the evolutionists say, nope, you don’t need these organs.” 

Mutations: 

“The creator Darwin came up with (to replace God) was natural selection,” Bergman said. “He never could come up with an explanation where genetic variety comes from. In the 1920s and 30s, the explanation evolutionists came up with was mutation. Mutations produce variety, they believed. Natural selection selects that variety, and that’s basically how we got here. 

“But scientists now recognize that the vast majority of mutations are either harmful or near neutral. Near neutral means they’re not lethal, but the harm adds up, and you end up with what they call a genetic catastrophe. So in other words, evolution says we are the result of billions of mistakes. If you think about this idea that we are the result of billions of mistakes, you realize this is ridiculous.” 

When it comes down to testing the truth of these theories, scientists have to admit that they don’t hold up well. But because evolutionary theory is so central to the modern worldview, they may be loath to give it up or have it questioned. 

“They really can’t explain it, but when I present the idea (that perhaps evolution is not true), people get mad,” Bergman shared. “Belief in evolution is so strong – just like how the belief in racism was so strong – it’s really very hard to change people.” 

But the fact of the matter remains – worldviews and subjective viewpoints aside. 

As Bergman concluded: “The evidence used to defend evolutionary worldview is not supported by science.” 

SHOW COMMENTS
Please Note: We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the content. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at the author or other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

CONNECT WITH US

Find us on social media for the latest updates.

SUPPORT AFA

MAKE A DONATION Donor Related Questions: DONORSUPPORT@AFA.NET

CONTACT US

P.O. Drawer 2440 Tupelo, Mississippi 38803 662-844-5036 FAQ@AFA.NET
Copyright ©2018 American Family Association. All rights reserved.