No doubt the first thing someone will ask me is, "what are you talking about 'my evolutionist'? People don't have evolutionists!" To which I say sure they do. Everyone does. Perhaps it's your biology teacher - the one you think is so great, who so diligently teaches the evolutionary line, refusing (perhaps for fear of losing her job) to even mention the problems of evolution, or the alternatives to it. Perhaps he's that famous author you love to quote because he makes you feel intellectually fulfilled. Or perhaps he's that smug cosmologist you find so funny because he likes to mock those who don't toe his materialistic evolutionary line. Well article titles are supposed to be short and attention getting. And "Lies that my favorite evolution promoting - biology teacher, author or science guy - told me" is a bit too long for a title. I trust the title, short as it is, has served its purpose. There's nothing else to see here so let's move along to matters of substance.

Onto the next objection: perhaps you think "lie" is too strong a word. After all - most people would protest the thought that evolutionists are intentionally trying to deceive others when it comes to the origins debate. Let's hold on to that thought and return to it later. First let's look at some of the lies. There are too many to look at them all, but we'll examine a few of the big ones - in no particular order - along with sufficient evidence to demonstrate the falsity of each one. Then we'll reconsider if "lie" is too strong a word.

Lie #1. How life began - Life from lifelessness

Evolutionists claim to be believers in science. Real science (unlike pseudoscience) requires observation. But life has never been observed coming from lifeless matter. Never. It has always been observed coming from another living being. Always. Yet evolutionists persist in this believe of spontaneous generation, since it is required for evolution.  The idea of spontaneous generation - life spontaneously arising from non-living matter - has been around at least since the days of the 4th century B.C. philosopher Aristotle who believed "the heat of the sun and the element ether could spontaneously generate life from non living material."[1]  Lazzaro Spallanzani came close to disproving the theory, but supporters like Needham clung to a technicality in the way the experiment was setup. 

Louis Pasteur finally plunged a sword through the heart of the theory, laying it to rest with his famous curved neck flask experiment for which he won an award in 1862.  In fact, "Pasteur was so convincing in showing that life could not arise spontaneously, that it took another 30 or 40 years before people began to think about the origin of life again."[2] In other words, all manner of people who denied life arose through creation stopped speaking the non-sense of life from lifelessness until Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859 began to grow in popularity. (For those who aren't aware, originally it was widely rejected by the scientific community.)

So while evolutionists claim to believe the proven science of Pasteur (inventor of the still used process of Pastuerization ) - that spontaneous generation is false; they also believe this fallacious conclusion: "the undeniable fact is that non-living materials must have formed into living ones at least once. If not through spontaneous generation, then how?"[3] That is a clear statement of support for spontaneous generation, while simultaneously re-enforcing the evolutionary tenet that only materialistic causes can be considered.

But if they really want the answer, the answer is simple: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Gen 1.1, 2.7) But evolutionists refuse to believe that.[4] They also claim they no longer believe in spontaneous generation. But the fact is - if life did not come from a living being; the only option is spontaneous generation of some type - whatever you call it. Yet they lie and say evolution doesn't require spontaneous generation, and they don't believe in spontaneous generation. In fact, they mock it as did cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson did:

“I always liked the spontaneous generation concept – some dirty rags, some wheat, look the other way and mice crawl out. That’s kind of fun. I don’t know why that concept hung on for so long. Because a simple test could have verified that mice do not spontaneously generate themselves out of dirty clothes and wheat.”[5]
Neil deGrasse Tyson

Evolutionists will claim what they believe is not "spontaneous generation", it's the origination of a self replicating molecule or cell or some such thing. But as the saying goes, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", and  life from lifelessness without a living being imparting life is still spontaneous generation.

Lie #2. The early atmosphere was conducive to evolution
The Miller Urey experiment is more than an icon of evolution as Jonathan Wells calls it. To evolutionists it's hallowed ground - not to be tampered with or desecrated. And so though the experiment has been shown to be fatally flawed and worthless in supporting evolution, it's still referenced and it's still listed in text books.

There are two big problems with the experiment which purports to demonstrate how a simple organic chemicals could have formed naturally on the early earth: First, in order for it to work - i.e. wind up with the few organic chemicals that Miller wound up with - you need to have an environment with no oxygen - which is how Miller setup the experiment. Yet the scientific consensus now is that the early earth atmosphere contained some amount of oxygen. (Exactly how much is disputed, but that it was there is agreed.) So prior to the supposed mass production of oxygen by cells that somehow evolved the ability to do photosynthesis to generate mass quantities of it, oxygen was in the atmosphere from a process known as "Photodissociation."

Photodissociation "splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen escapes into space, leaving the oxygen behind in the atmosphere."[6] Thus the atmosphere was not void of oxygen as Miller's experiment required. That's one problem. A second, bigger problem is Miller's experiment did not mimic the composition of the early atmosphere. As Jonathan Wells documents:

"Since 1977 the view has become a near-consensus among geo-chemists. As Jon Cohen wrote in Science in 1995, many origin-of-life researches now dismiss the 1953 experiment because "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation."[7]

Evolutionists comfort themselves with the false thought that science has shown that needed organic molecules will naturally form. But science has shown no such thing.
 

Lie #3. DNA is just a fortunate arrangement of chemicals

The DNA molecule is nothing short of  miraculous. Miraculous not only because of it's information bearing, replication and self-healing properties, but more importantly because of the information it contains. The information in DNA has been compared to computer code - the software that runs computers.  We all know such software is designed.  Even atheist and evolution evangelist Richard Dawkins acknowledges that "the machine codes of the genes is uncannily computer like."[8]

That presents an insurmountable problem for evolutionists: Where did such information come from? They want you to believe that it came about by accident - like spilling ink on the pages of a blank book again and again and coming out with an encyclopedia or the works of Shakespeare. They claim information can be increased by random mutation. Let a magnet used for clearing hard drive represent mutation events. Try running it multiple times across the hard drive that runs your computer. It will definitely mutate the data on your hard drive - but see if that makes your computer run better - or irreparably breaks it. Evolution simply cannot explain the origin of DNA or the information in it. Since DNA is the basis for all life, evolution cannot explain the origin of life.

And the further you look into the more apparent it becomes that the complexity is so great, no amount of random chance could produce it - even if you gave it an eternity. Evolutionists pin their hopes on the simpler but still necessary RNA coding system to jump start the evolutionary process. But that too is nothing but a big failure. Neither RNA, nor DNA, nor proteins by themselves are sufficient - you need them all - working together - simultaneously.  Such intelligently designed complexity simply cannot happen by any natural process:

“That's the biggest problem for evolution - is how life got started. Because you need DNA to make proteins, you need DNA to make RNA, and you need RNA to make proteins. So it’s worse than what came first – the chicken or the egg?”[9]

"These are all interacting interdependent upon one another. You can't have the RNA be anything meaningful really without its transcription from DNA. You can't have the protein be anything meaningful without something to act on or something to be translated from. The problem is, life is not based on an RNA only system. It's based on this three part system. And even if you evolved an RNA only system first eventually you've got to convert to this 3 part interdependent - you'd call irreducibly complex - system. And that's an unsolvable problem as far as I'm concerned in the evolutionary model."[10]
Nathaneil Jeanson, Ph.D., Cell Biology

And Perhaps the biggest lie:
Lie # 4 Evolutionists objectively follow the evidence where ever it leads.

Atheist and Cosmos host Neil deGrass Tyson stated in episode 1:

"This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence where it leads; and question every thing. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours."[11]

Many think scientists - are objective, indifferent researchers seeking only the truth. Think again. That tends only to be true when what they're researching does not have implications for how you live your life; implications on what is moral and immoral; implications for what's right and wrong.  But most will not acknowledge that. But there are a few candid scientists out there who admit their main commitment is to materialism, not truth. They have rejected God.  Therefore they will follow any scientific just-so story that supports materialism - as long as they don't have to acknowledge God - as professor of biology Richard Lewontin points out:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[12]

In other words - if the evidence points to God - as they know much of it does, there is no way they will ever acknowledge it. They will tell some outrageous story about the evidence (or as I'd call it -a lie) to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion: the evidence points to a transcendent God.

Which brings me back to our first question: Is "lie" too strong a word? Are evolutionists really trying to deceive?  Once you recognize the target of the deception the answer becomes obvious.  Scripture tells us "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Ps 19.1) But evolutionists and atheists have determined they want a world without God. And thus they deny any evidence that points to God. And so the target of their lies - first and foremost - is themselves. They are lying to themselves so that they don't have to acknowledge to themselves the evidence of God because "...since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1.20) So instead they elect to "suppress the truth" (Rom 1.18) so that they may "believe the lie." (2 Thess 2.11)  And since God has given humans free will, He allows people to lie to themselves.

Now consider: someone has convinced themselves 2 + 2 = 5; and tells you 2 + 2 =5 . Are they lying, ignorant or simply mad? They likely are not be trying to deceive you because they have already deceived themselves and thus "believe the lie." (2 Thess 2.11) That however doesn't make the statement true - it's still a falsehood they want you to believe. There's deception alright, but it's perpetrated on themselves, not necessarily directed at you.  Is it also ignorance? Unlikely. Most people are intelligent enough to know the answer to 2 +2 is not 5.  Likewise the complexity of god's creation makes it clear it did not come about by accidental, purposeless processes like evolution.  What about madness? Does it include insanity? We have a description in the Bible of what such people are like.  Such are like Nebuchadnezzar in his madness - reasoning like an animal - even acting like one. Thus we should not be surprised when they come up with godless ideas - such as Richard Dawkins mulling over cannibalism.[13]  He's infected with the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar. And until he, like Nebuchadnezzar did, turns his eyes toward heaven to have his sanity restored, (Dan 4.34) he will continue to sink lower and lower - "deceiving and being deceived" (2 Tim 3.13) while moving and closer and closer to the beast like creature that Nebuchadnezzar became. And so will all who continue in the folly of denying the many tangible evidences that God has given in his wondrous creation of his existence and his glory. It's foolish to say there's no evidence. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."(Rom 1.20)

So are evolutionist lying when sharing their beliefs?  As noted above, deception has certainly occurred, but by the time they're telling the foolishness to you - they likely blindly believe the lie. Jesus has a recommendation for such a situation:

 "Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Mat 15:14)
 

Duane Caldwell | April 15,  2018
Follow @duanecaldwell
 

Notes  

1. "How Life Began", Documentary (The History Channel), 2008
Back

2.Harold Morowitz, George Mason University ref. from "How Life Began", Documentary (The History Channel), 2008
Back

3. Narrator, "How Life Began", Documentary (The History Channel), 2008
Back

4. Speaking now of pure Darwinian evolutionists of course. Theistic evolutionists have not realized that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Both sides affirm that in this quote from Richard Dawkins highlighted by the Bible believing, creation supporting organization Answers In Genesis:

"I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity..."
Richard Dawkins

ref from.
Ken Ham, "Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Evangelical Christians Have Really Sort Of Got It Right'", Answers in Genesis | Ken Ham Blog, April 21, 2011, https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/04/21/atheist-richard-dawkins-evangelical-christians-have-really-sort-of-got-it-right/
Back

5. Neil deGrasse Tyson ref. from "How Life Began", Documentary (The History Channel), 2008
Back

6. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution,  Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc, 2000, p. 15
Back

7. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 21
Back

8. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 10
Back

9. Jeffrey Tomkins, ref. from Unlocking the mysteries of Genesis episode – “What is life?”, ICR DVD documentary series, 2014
Back

10. Nathaneil Jeanson, ref. from Unlocking the mysteries of Genesis episode – “What is life?”, ICR DVD documentary series, 2014
Back

11. Neil deGrass Tyson ref. from Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2016, Kindle Edition loc 609
Back

12. Richard Lewontin, ref. from Lita Cosner, Evolutionists Say the Oddest Things, Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015, p. 4
Back

13. Wesley J. Smith, "Dawkins Wants to Eat Human 'Meat'", National Review, March 6, 2018, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/richard-dawkins-eating-human-meat-cannibalism-taboo/
Back

Image

All images used by permission

 Featured:  "Portrait...at the fireplace" © Ruben | fotolia - used by permission