The Human Choice - 14
Here is what Giovanni Blandino S.J. wrote in his book, "Theories on the Nature of Life" (1969):
Summing up, we may say: In the hypothesis of equiprobability, the probability that a regular structure should form, either by generation or by gradual evolution, is equal to the probability that the same structure should form immediately from matter irregularly arranged. That is to say: by varying the ways of formation, the probabilities do not vary. (Principle of invariableness of probabilities).
Blandino fully supports that the creation of life or of any other structure is, in a system of equal chance, impossible.
THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE.
Leading authorities admit what is now too obvious to cover up: the fossil evidence also DENIES evolution.
This was confirmed in October 1980 when some 160 of the world's top anatomists, palaeontologists, evolutionary geneticists, etc. met in Chicago at what is commonly known as The Chicago Conference. They were forced to admit that the fossil evidence did not support Darwinian evolution and they could find no option other than to fall back on the previously ridiculed 'hopeful monster' theory. This theory also suffers all the weaknesses of Darwinian Evolution.
The 'hopeful monster' theory virtually demands supernatural intervention while denying that explanation. This theory asserts that a burst of mutational energy caused such massive deformities that the birth of entirely new creatures resulted in such numbers and perfection that they were able to breed and establish entirely new forms of life. One hardly needs mathematics to appreciate the impossibility of that theory of chance creation; in any case Giovanni Blandino, as we saw, had already nipped it in the bud.
To finish making the point that chance evolution theory is in conflict with natural law, I should also like to repeat that the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' is also violated. The second law states that, by nature, the universe is running down. We have this reflected in the fact that genetic pools, by nature, degenerate. This confirms the mathematical evidence that complex structure cannot form by chance. Complexity is a product of intelligent planning.
When we turn away from the needs and demands of social engineering we have a true scientific theory. Evolutionary degeneration is fully compatible with physical law and the fossil evidence. It is completely logical in relation to fact and is beyond scientific challenge.
However we have to face the fact that, despite all evidence and science to show it fraudulent, Darwinian Evolution is still taught in our schools and promoted by incessant mass media propaganda as though the only intelligent view of creation.
A small pamphlet published in 1991 by people calling themselves "The Australian Skeptics" sets out to expose their counterparts the Christian Fundamentalists with 'scientific' answers to the fundamentalist position.
On page 2 there appears this paragraph; quote:
To biological scientists the evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming. The evidence from paleontology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics and other areas of science fits together so well that the theory is as certain as any scientific theory can be. Certainly there are disagreements about whether prehistoric evolutionary changes occurred gradually or suddenly ..
In one sentence they are so self-contradictory as to discredit their whole position because the difference between spontaneous creation (the hopeful monster theory) and gradual evolution by chance over millions of years is about as wide a gap as can be imagined and more difficult to bridge scientifically than to accept an intelligent Creator.
Also, notwithstanding that gradual evolution had been abandoned by 160 of the world's leading experts in the relevant fields only eleven years earlier, all the examples given in the pamphlet by those scientists chosen to expose the fundamentalist arguments, were based on the theory of gradual evolution.
The fact of the matter is that spontaneous evolution is too extreme even for evolutionists and they prefer to stick with a theory that is abandoned on scientific grounds by even its own leading advocates.
On page 33 they make another monumental boo-boo when appears the statement: To be accepted as legitimate, a scientific hypothesis must be capable of being proved incorrect. In contrast, the hypothesis that God created the universe is not open to disproof. End quote.
I would think that any normally intelligent person, on study of both sides, would see that both, in their origins, are equally incapable of disproof. However, with only two possibilities to consider the logical or scientific practicality or impracticality of one might be considered a logical denial or confirmation of the other. It is also of interest that evolutionists believe that their theory disproves creation by God.
The future of humanity depends on exposing the thoroughly discredited dogma of Chance Evolution Theory. choice14.htm
.../Back to Contents Page