Arguments against evolution from
This article has extended excerpts from the book The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory by A.E. Wilder Smith. He discusses evolution and introduces the "I" factor for which there is no answer. With this we can explain God's role in evolution.
He has another book on the topic: The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. He shows that the natural sciences themselves contradict evolution. The only way it can work is with the supernatural intervention of God.
The DNA of humans contain something close to a thousand million bits of information. It would take a library of about a thousand volumes to hold this much information. Contained within these volumes would be intricate algorithms in encoded form specifying the growth and development of billions of cells.
If a computer of this magnitude existed, we would be compelled to say that it came into being as the result of the efforts of an intelligent designer. In fact, if someone were to declare that such a computer came about by random Darwinian processes followed by selection, he would be dismissed as crazy.
When the Darwinian theory was developed over a hundred years ago the information theoretical aspect and nature of the DNA molecule was totally unknown. The chemical basis of the genetic code with its supreme information storage and retrieval system, its replication mechanisms and its self-diagnosis of defects and the chemical repair systems were all undreamed of.
The biological cell is now known to be the most complicated von Neumann type of machine known to science. How could such a complex machine ever have arisen in random processes subject to natural law only, followed by natural selection seeing that even a simple machine cannot and does not so arise?
It takes an incredible faith to believe that a supremely complex machine system of information storage and retrieval, servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and then repairing them in a telenomic [purposeful] von Neumann machine manner, arose in randomness — the antipole of information. An information storage and retrieval system allegedly arose in randomness, the opposite and antipole of the information with which it deals.
The situation is such today that any scientist expressing doubts about evolutionary theory is rapidly silenced. Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer, was well on his way to being nominated for the Nobel prize. However, after the appearance of his books expressing mathematically based doubts as to Darwinism, he was rapidly eliminated. His books were negatively reviewed and no more was heard about his Nobel prize.
The case of halo dating methods developed by Robert V. Gentry tell a similar story. Gentry gave good evidence that the earth's age, when measured by the radiation halo method using polonium, might not be so great as had been thought. A postulate of this type would have robbed Darwinism of its main weapon, namely long time periods. Gentry lost his research grants and job at one sweep.
I plan to present and develop a scientifically sound theory based on the current state of information theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinian hypothesis.
It is a fact of science that in order to generate any machine, information must be hybridized with matter. Darwin's theory is not so much wrong as it is deficient in the one vital factor necessary to arrive at a machine, including the biological machine.
Darwin's theory can be outlined as follows:
Matter + time + energy = primeval life
Primeval life + time + natural selection = evolution speciation (evolution)
In the light of today's understanding of information theory and its surprise effects the 2 formulae must be supplemented today by the factor "I" or informational effects:
Matter + time + energy + I = primeval life
Primeval life + time + natural selection + I = evolution
Where I = information, surprise effects of "know-how" according to Shannon and Weaver.
It is not the business of scientists to specify just where factor "I" came from just as it is not the business of a computer programmer working with databases to specify where the data he is working with originally came from.
Noam Chomsky believes that the origin of information is a subject beyond the human mind to grapple with. However, regardless of the origin of the information necessary to generate any machine, one fact remains crystal clear. It is that, before matter can be aggregated to any machine, biological or otherwise, it must first be hybridized with the surprise effects known as information ( = "I" ).
If a primeval kind of amoeba is to develop up to a primate, that primeval cell will have to gather all sorts of new holistic information on how to make kidneys, livers, 4 chambered hearts, cerebra and cerebella, etc. For the synthesis of such reduced entropy systems, as for example a primate brain, requires all kinds of solid actual holistic information which neither the matter of which the primeval amoeba consisted nor the amoeba cell itself contained. Similarly, inorganic matter will have to assemble huge amounts of information before it can synthesize an amoeba.
Information is, by definition, a surprise effect. This means that information is not derivable from known natural law. For if one bit of information were coupled or were derivable from natural law—that is, if there were a causal chain between the bit of information and some natural law, then, since natural law is a known and calculable value, such a bit of information would thereby (i.e. by the causality) be robbed of its true element of surprise. For example, photographs or works of art are not derived from the natural law governing the paper on which they appear. Automobiles contain information not derived from the natural law governing the matter of which they are made. The car information is with respect to the metal of the car a true surprise effect. Similarly the text (i.e. the information) on the paper of a newspaper is a true surprise to the natural law governing the paper. These surprise effects are additional to all the properties of the paper. Similarly the properties of biological cells and organisms are additional and true surprise effects to the raw matter of the cell. They have been hybridized with the matter on which the life of the cell rides.
Thus, genuine information must be derived from outside natural law. The hybridization of information with matter in the synthesis of machines or cells brings about an extrinsically derived interference with the normal processes of natural law. Such interference does not, however, contradict the normal processes of natural law, but it guides or shepherds the natural law to produce structures such as those of a machine which natural law, if left to itself, would not produce.
It would seem, then, that the information must arise from behind dimensional event horizons and constitutes and interaction the events of one dimension with those of another. The same applies for machine genesis.
The consequence of this is far reaching. For, if human of other intelligence is directly or indirectly coupled with creative bits of information, then creativity in itself may have, in the last analysis, a similar extradimensional source to that of information itself.
Creativity itself would seem to stem from "windows" in dimensional event horizons which divide between our dimensions of natural law in the space-time continuum and the other dimensional source(s) of information. When these windows become opaque towards the passage of information, then there will be a loss of creativity in time and space.
Maybe the genius among men possesses a large window connecting him with the source of information supplying the creativity.
Physicists today have few difficulties concerning the real existence of other dimensions, event horizons and the consequent inaccessibility of other dimensions to our research methods from our own laboratories in the space-time-continuum.
Thomas S. Kuhn has examined the history of many of the scientific revolutions that toppled old theories and replaced them with new ones. The rejection of an old theory by a new one was often a stormy battle between the supporters of both theories. For men who supported the old theory, the new theory reflected too poorly upon much of the scientific work they had already successfully completed.
Not all scientists, nor all biologists accept the statement that evolution is a proven fact. For example, anyone who thinks that only uninformed cranks reject Darwinism should read Dr. W.R. Thompson's forward to the new edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species."
As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution, but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this is unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.
From Dr. Edwin Conklin, biologist, Princeton University: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
From Dr. Erwin Chartoff, Columbia University: "Our time is probably the first in which mythology has penetrated to the molecular level!"
From President Leavitt, Lehigh University: "Protoplasm evolving a universe is a superstition more pitiable than paganism."
From Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission: "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
From Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research in France: "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
From Herbert Nilssen, Director of Botany Institute, Lund University: "My attempt to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more that 40 years has failed. . . . It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
From G.A. Kerkut, Professor of Biochemistry: "There are seven basic assumptions not mentioned during discussions of evolution. . . . The first point I should like to make is that the seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification."
From a correspondent to Nature journal: "There are more anti-Darwinists in British universities than you seem to realize. . . . For them to speak out would be to invite the ridicule and would probably ruin their careers."
From Charles Darwin, himself: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some sense staggered. . . . Why if species have descended from other species by fine graduations do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
The primary assumption used in formulating the theory of evolution is that there is no God. Because men were unwilling to believe in a creative, living being who lives outside of this space-time-continuum, they declared that the natural laws themselves were sufficient causes of the complex biological von Neumann machines. But this line of reasoning has led only to absurdities and contradictions as scientists cling with religious fervor to their unscientific belief.
The sensible alternative is to accept that there is a source of information outside the space-time-continuum and that information is transferred from there to here and coupled with matter to create biological machines. The source of this information is by definition intelligent, because information itself is intelligence. The source of this information is also creative because things are created in this world by creative processes.
It is obvious what it is that is beyond the event horizon of this universe and injects information into the universe. It is intelligent, creative, it knows how to create living biological machines and must therefore, itself, be either alive or possess something even greater than life.
These qualities and characteristics are the very ones associated with the word God. In fact, it is for this very source of information that the word God was invented. To deny the existence of God is to deny the logical conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence. To reject God is to reject sensibility. To accept God is to accept the logical conclusion of scientific observations.
This God is intelligent, and it is His intelligence which shaped matter into the complex von Neumann biological machines which we call humans. What was His purpose in creating us? What does He want from us? Why has He given us the ability to perceive His presence beyond the event horizon?
Only a fool would be unconcerned with such matters. According to the comprehensive information system which He has revealed to us (the Bible) those who do not actively seek a deep relationship with Him through His human manifestation in this space-time-continuum (Jesus Christ, the God-man) will suffer separation from Him forever. There will be no more input of information from Him to those ones after judgment.
To disbelieve this is to suffer miserably forever. To believe in Jesus Christ as the savior sent by God to redeem mankind is to live in joyful abundance of life forever in the presence of God the creator.
I shudder when I ponder the fate of those who simply will not believe even in the face of compelling evidence.