Answers in Genesis: Evolution’s Failures

Read this and weep, you pathetic evolutionist! It’s from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG). The title is Three Puzzles Evolution Can’t Solve. They first posted this in July of 2015, but we missed it back then. It has three different authors. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

For more than a century Christians have looked for the scientific silver bullet that would destroy Darwinian evolution and prove biblical creation to be true. We already know from God’s revealed, infallible Word how the universe, the earth, and all life came into being: He spoke them into existence [scripture references]. This fact alone refutes Darwinian evolution. [Yeah!] Yet in a world where secular researchers reject the supernatural and divine revelation, many Christians still feel compelled to provide empirical (observable and repeatable) evidence to confirm the Bible’s claim.

Looking for evidence is a waste of time. They’ve already got The Truth. Then AIG says:

The problem is that neither creation nor evolution is observable or repeatable. Empirical science alone can’t prove a miraculous, onetime historical event any more than it can prove evolution. Instead, we must make assumptions, and our conclusions are only as good as our starting assumptions. … Evolution is based on a faulty initial assumption, while belief in creation is based on facts revealed by the only eyewitness, the Creator Himself.

Creationism wins! Game over! But the AIG article goes on. They tell us:

Three biological puzzles continue to stump evolution but make sense within the biblical worldview:

• Life from Nonlife
• Information of Life
• Irreducible Complexity

Each of the three authors handles one of those evolution-stumping puzzles. First, Life from Nonlife. We’re told:

Researchers around the world have been pursuing virtually every conceivable possibility. They have spent billions of dollars searching for water on Mars, apparently assuming that water also means there will be life. Creative experiments have produced a few organic molecules and some strangely structured strings of amino acids.

[…]

Yet, a simple fact remains — the scientific community is clinging to trivial results. … Despite decades of speculation, creative imagination, and untold millions of dollars spent on research, the spontaneous origin of life from natural processes seems just as impossible as ever.

Evolutionists are such fools! AIG continues:

A spontaneous origin of life has failed to meet the most basic of scientific tests. It has never been observed. On the other hand, we consistently observe that life comes only from life. After repeated verification, there has never been an exception. This is why biogenesis is a scientific law.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has a brief entry on that clunker: the “law of biogenesis”. But what if the researchers eventually do create life? AIG is ready for that:

If researchers ever do construct life in the laboratory from more elemental components, it will still not achieve their goal. Their accomplishment will use already preexisting components, and will be based upon decades of research and scientific understanding. It will not be a spontaneous event, but rather a carefully controlled and designed process.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] It will be designed! Let’s read on:

These researchers would simply have plagiarized the life systems that already exist. But as is often the case with plagiarists, they will attempt to deny the original author. Inadvertently, though, any such success will give honor to the original Creator, whose handiwork is worthy of copying.

That was fun! If we can’t create life, the creationists’ “law of biogenesis” will prevail. And if we do create life, we’re merely demonstrating that a creator is necessary. Either way, creationism wins!

The other two issues discussed by AIG, information and irreducible complexity, are long-time creationist clunkers, and we’ve discussed them several times in the past. For the first item, see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information, and Wikipedia handles the other — see Irreducible complexity.

The entire case presented by AIG boils down to the same old fallacies: God of the gaps, the Watchmaker analogy, or an Argument from ignorance. That’s all they ever had, all they ever will have, and all they want. Oh — they also want to silence you, permanently.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

7 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Evolution’s Failures

  1. …preexisting components…
    Yes, even going down to the level of atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, etc., these are all preexisting components, therefore any scientific endeavor that attempts to create life from non-life is already false.
    It will not be a spontaneous event, but rather a carefully controlled and designed process.

  2. For more than a century Christians have looked for the scientific silver bullet that would destroy Darwinian evolution and prove biblical creation to be true. We already know from God’s revealed, infallible Word how the universe, the earth, and all life came into being: He spoke them into existence [scripture references]. This fact alone refutes Darwinian evolution. how the universe, the earth, and all life came into being: He spoke them into existence [scripture references]. This fact alone refutes Darwinian evolution.

    And what’s their proof that the Bible actually is “God’s revealed, infallible Word”? The Bible itself doesn’t make that claim.

    And calling the Genesis story a “fact” presupposes what they’re supposed to be proving. Conclusion first, evidence later (if at all), seems to be the creationists’ approach.

  3. For the umpteenth time, Hamster et al. are lying. They know perfectly well that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Besides, abiogenesis is moderately understood by now. There is no such thing as “information” in living organisms. There is no such thing as “irreducible complexity” – heck, a conservative judge ruled as such a decade ago. Evolution is observable, and has been. And don’t forget – Hamster and company do accept evolution, except that it’s hyperevolution, which is ironically a “kind” of evolution that does not exist.

  4. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Someone remind me, if I rub two sticks together and start a fire from which of the gods am I plagiarizing it? Or is it all of them?

    Science is hard.

  5. “For more than a century Christians have looked for the scientific silver bullet that would destroy Darwinian evolution and prove biblical creation to be true.”

    Some Christians. A very small number of Christians.

  6. Hans-Richard Grümm

    You are plagiarizing Agni, of course. Or perhaps Hephaistos or Loki (see the finale of Wagner’s “Walküre”).

  7. RTT: you are accepting the gift which Prometheus gave us, having stolen it from meaner gods who would rather not have shared it with us. He thus enabled us to develop all the technology which so enriches and prolongs our lives. But his kindly effort would have been in vain, had not our mother Eve, by eating the Forbidden Fruit, instilled in us the desire for, and ability to acquire, knowledge.