Creation: Darwinian Engines of Evolution

Posted by Gregg on Oct 18, 2009 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |

s42875ca107509_9A guest post today from my brilliant husband, Gregg.

A Finite Universe and Finite Time

Darwinists used to have the comfort of infinity to lend the odds of life occurring by random chance in their favor. The oldest example of it I could think of is, “Given infinite time, an infinite amount of typewriters, infinite typing paper, and infinite monkeys typing away, one of them would eventually produce the collected works of William Shakespeare in order without error.”

The obvious answer to this for me at age 14 was, “Yes, but that exercise would also produce an INFINITE amount of waste, infinite reams of gibberish that were NOT the collected works of William Shakespeare written in order and without error. Look around the universe. Where is the infinite waste?”

palms-clockBehold the wonder that is life in our finite universe. Even supposing the universe is 15 billion years old, that is a finite amount of seconds (47,304 x 1010 seconds) in which an infinite amount of changes must occur for Darwinism to be true. Even supposing the earth is 5 billion or so years old, a single cell has to assemble itself from dirt and rocks and such by an undirected, unguided, random process –and for that simple single cell to appear, a nearly infinite number of random occurrences must take place in order, without error, in only 15,768 x 1013 seconds.   The best estimates put it at a greater than 1 in 10100,000,000,000 chance.

lotteryThat is more zeros than there are atoms in our galaxy.  There is an almost infinitely higher probability — exactly 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120 — that my son will win the lottery every single week for the rest of his life purchasing only one lottery ticket per week.

Faced with these odds, Darwinists began to scramble for “engines” that would “drive” Darwinian evolution. This is admittedly an attempt to, once more, skew the odds to make their idiotic theories of creation without a Creator somewhat plausible by compensating for the limiting factors of finite time and matter.

Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”
-—Charles Darwin (1866), quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 139.

The Four Darwinian Engines of Evolution

Darwinists invented theoretical “engines” that “drive” or speed up evolutionary change.  I could say a good bit about the fallacy of reification but that will be a later post.

I will say this. When we ascribe concrete characteristics to concepts which do not possess those characteristics, it always leads to fallacious conclusions. For example, “nature” is simply what we call the arrangement of things and the order of events in the universe that we experience. Nature does not have a personality. Nature does not have a mind. Nature cannot look into the future, anticipate future shortfalls, and stockpile in advance of the event. Nature cannot construct useless things in one generation because it “knows” it will need those useless things and find a use for them in future generations. Nature is mindless and, by and large, a terrible logistician.

Setting reification aside for the moment, the “engines of evolution” past and present are:

  1. Larmarkism
  2. Natural Selection
  3. Mutation
  4. Punctuated Equilibrium


larmackismI have already written on Lamarkism, the notion of “the inheritance of acquired characteristics.” The fairy tale notion holds that, for example, a deer can dream of a long neck and his descendants will have transformed into giraffes as a result of his magical wish. I also stated that I believe Darwinian theory has come full circle, all the way back to Lamarkism, which presently serves as the unstated philosophical foundation of all present Darwinian evolutionary theory. Please note my intentional use of the word philosophical as opposed to scientific. Darwinism, as I hope you will soon see, has no scientific foundation.

Natural Selection

dogchartWith respect to Natural Selection, I would like to carefully state that natural selection DOES occur in nature. For instance, when only the Alpha Wolf gets to breed with the females in the pack, only the Alpha Wolf’s pups come into being in the next generation of wolves.

But they are still wolves.

When a zebra stud breaks his ankle and is eaten by lions, the next most fit zebra stud gets to breed and the next generation of zebra colts are all his.

But they are still zebras.

ZeMuHorseIn other words, what natural selection does is not as important as what it does NOT do. What it does NOT do, not ever, is drive any kind of macro-evolutionary change that generates brand new species. Even Darwin admitted this after publishing his last revised edition of his racist diatribe.

Horses and zebras can interbreed. I firmly believe they have a common ancestor –probably some kind of horse. Dogs and wolves can interbreed. I also believe they have a common ancestor. It was probably some kind of dog.

No one can demonstrate that zebras can come from wolves or vice versa. There is no such thing as macro-evolution.  Simple natural selection has never been shown to produce such sweeping changes, either, even granted infinite time and matter, which does not exist in this finite universe.


mutation-xrayWhat about mutation? Discovering that certain chemicals—and especially radiation—could cause abundant mutations, thus speeding up “the process of evolution,” Darwinists were certain that soon they would prove Darwin right.  Finally, the crackpot theory they worshiped would be vindicated!  They were certain they could produce wonderful new, robust species. They immediately started blasting fruit flies and tadpoles and what not with all kinds of toxins and radiation. All that has been produced in the last 60 years is weakened creatures which generally die soon after coming into the world or, if they live, do not produce any offspring.

There are only two facts that stand in the way of Mutation being a viable evolutionary engine: (1) Mutations are always harmful and frequently lethal; and (2) mutations never, never change one species into another species.

Wait a minute! What about sickle cell? Doesn’t that provide an immunity to malaria? Well, yes. Yes it does. And cutting off your feet provides an immunity to athlete’s foot.

Sickle cell is not a beneficial mutation by any definition. If you think it is, ask someone who has it. They suffer horrible and debilitating pain and the condition shortens their lives.  In the same way, maleria brings horrible and debilitating pain and a shortened lifespan.

Punctuated Equilibrium

punctuatedequilibriumSteven Jay Gould proposed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium and it became the basis for what is now called neo-Darwinism. He theorized that “since evolution is true” then at set intervals in time (Which kind of implies a directed process, but don’t question him.  He’s an expert after all.) an offspring, let’s say a male offspring, is produced which contains every possible “beneficial mutation” that his parents can contribute. Simultaneously — and as the exclusive result of utterly random chance — a female offspring is born who contains every possible “beneficial mutation” of her parents. Randomly, and driven by “as yet unknown evolutionary forces,” these two somehow meet — maybe on some online mutant dating service, I’m not sure — they fall in love, get married, and have beneficially multi-mutated offspring for “millions of years” until they produce a whole new species and Punctuated Equilibrium happens all over again.

360px-Punctuated-equilibrium_svgLeave aside that there are no beneficial mutations and that the entire process is clearly a description of a directed process, it sounds okay except that it turns out that, in addition to defying logic and challenging common sense, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium lacks some other important factors. It lacks things like scientific evidence, data, facts, and such. Essentially, it is a gigantic placeholder while Darwinists attempt to come up with a better justification for believing their idiotic theory in the absense of any proof. It’s nothing but an intelligent sounding rationalization after begging the question on a rather massive scale.

Full Circle

Which brings Darwinists firmly back to Larmarkism. As a good Darwinist, you have to believe that a deer can transform into a giraffe because he had a dream. You have to believe it. You must believe that a fish wanted to breath air and walk on dry land. You must have FAITH!

DarwinAltarIn addition, you must ignore any evidence to the contrary. As a good Darwinist, you must ignore and belittle any such evidence and threaten anyone who brings such evidence to light. As a good Darwinist, you must falsify data –at the least –if it does not support Darwinian theory, or construct an out-and-out full-blown fraud if you feel it would be more effective.


The truth is that there are no Darwinian “engines of evolution” because simple life forms did not spring forth from dirt, complex life forms did not spring forth from simple life forms, cows did not evolve from whales, lizards did not evolve from fish, birds did not evolve from lizards, and man did not evolve from apes.

Inconvenient Truths

Inconvenient Truths

The truth is that Darwinism is in crisis. For a century and a half it has pervasively invaded our culture lacking logic, evidence, or proof of any kind outside of fraud, misdirection, and half-baked guesses. It is now, sadly, limping along based on philosophy, mockery, and threats. The thing you may wish to notice, though, is the delight Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins take in philosophizing, mocking, threatening, and lying.

Scripture promises that if we believe lies and take pleasure in unrighteousness, we will be damned. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 reads (in part) …for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The truth is that God created the known universe and all living things IN the known universe — just as He said He did. Man brought death into the world and spoiled God’s perfect creation. We live in a fallen world.

darwin_jesusMan’s wickedness after the fall was so great that God destroyed the earth by laying it flat under a blanket of ice and water. When man returned to wickedness after the flood, God sent his son, Jesus, to redeem the fallen world that we might live in His glory by his amazing grace.  We are saved by grace through faith alone.

This is a truth worth knowing because it is a truth with a promise. I entreat you to embrace the truth of the Bible and shun the lie of Darwinism.

God Bless you and yours. Gregg


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.