EVOLUTION: WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
(A Newspaper response to Dr. Kadalja)
By Reuben Kigame

I wish to begin my humble challenge against scientific evolutionism by offering a cash price of Ksh.3000 for any one who would be kind enough to provide me one piece of scientific evidence for Macroevolution. This price can be collected upon submitting the evidence through this medium or by contacting the WTM offices in Nairobi's South "C" estate. The reason for this offer is that I find it increasingly unbelievable that any intelligent scientist would miss the golden opportunity of applying First Principles in science to examine a position he/she hails as scientific. For a field of great debate like Evolution versus Creation, it would only be fair for anyone who arrives at the conclusion that Evolution is scientific to ask the question, is this theory in harmony with the foundational laws of science or does it contradict them? If found to violate these principles, then, no matter how much one may wish Evolution were a proven scientific theory, it must be sent to the black holes. In this response, I wish to first argue that the theory of evolution contradicts the First Principles of science and is therefore unscientific. I will then give a brief response to Dr. Kadalja's assumptions appearing in this section of the press about two weeks ago.

MAJOR DIFFERENCE

As worldviews, Creation and Evolution debate differ in their major premises. While Creationism presupposes that "Nothing plus God equals everything", Evolutionism’s major presupposition is that "Nothing plus Time plus random Chance equals Everything." Even a casual look at these two premises will indicate that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than in Special Creation by an intelligent Being.

EVOLUTION AND THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE

Evolution is not merely a pseudo-science. It is non-scientific given its violation of the following laws of science:

1. The Law of Biogenesis: This law states that all living things come from pre-existing living organisms of the same kind. It is the law of the origin of life. In other words, you do not generate living things from macrocosmic accidents. Evolution cuts right through this law by advancing the assumption that non-living things gave rise to living matter through spontaneous generation. Not only is "spontaneous generation" too big a "crutch" for science to adopt, but no scientist conducts investigation on origin of matters via this assumption. Why? Because of its further subjection to the principle of "random chance" and, consequently, unpredictability.

Even worse is the underguarding presupposition that spontaneous generation occurred only once. Christianity offers a more reasonable and binding explanation for such biogenesis: We read in Genesis 1:11: "Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: Seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds,' and it was so." This passage and others in the Bible correspond better to the law of Biogenesis than the wild assumption of spontaneous generation underguarded by chance.

2. The First Law of Thermodynamics: This law governs the conservation of energy and matter in the universe. It states that the sum total of energy and matter in the universe today remains constant. In other words, nothing is being created today. Unless one disproves this law scientifically, it remains binding. If this law is scientifically true, then the universe has no room for self-generation. This means it is not eternal. It would require a Creator more powerful and higher than its manifest complexity in design. For Evolution to claim that matter evolved from non-matter and that it has been growing into greater order, is a direct violation of this law.

3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Sometimes this is referred to as the law of Entropy. This law states that in a closed and isolated system such as our universe, the total amount of available energy decreases as time increases. In other words, nuclear fission is taking place throughout the universe. It means that the universe, like a wound-up clock, is running out of usable energy as the energy present is converted. This "winding down" implies an initial winding up, quite synonymous with the concept of beginnings. In Evolution's assumption that the universe is growing from disorder into greater order, this principle is blatantly violated. "Survival of the fittest" too violates this principle at a macro-evolutionary perspective. Even if we were to grant the "Big Bang" option, we would still need a “Big Banger.”

4. Law of Uniformity: This Law states that present observations are similar to past observations. Here, as in Dr. Kadalja's case, there is a hasty rush to comparative anatomy and fossil records. A closer look at the different species will prove that fish remain fish, tetrapods as tetrapods and man as man, not as the ape. If we (compared?)observed a kind of species in the African environment (with the same kind of species as is found) as a similar species found in South America, they are resemblent of each other, even if we are talking about a difference in time. Mutations through natural selection violate this law. First, you see, natural selection as an evolutionary term is contradictory. If it is a "selection", it cannot be governed by random chance. This is because a "selection" involves intelligence. Nature cannot select anything. In short, if it takes intelligent causes to produce highly specified and complex information in the present, then it must be the same for past events. If a dictionary or Ngugi Wa Thiong'o's "The River Between" is not the consequence of an explosion in a random printing house, past complex events must be subject to this very necessity of intelligence. Here, Macro-evolution collapses.

5. The Law of Specified Complexity: In Genetics, this is the law that governs a coded statement. Information content in, for instance, a single cell is so vast that it could fill more than twenty volumes of "Encyclopaedia Britannica." Evolution's pseudo-scientific approach cannot give a sufficient explanation for this specified complexity because it does not give room for supernatural intelligence. To argue that highly-specified and complex life patterns evolved via random chance mutations transcending the natural genetic limits of biological change is to ask too much of scientific minds. It is what I might call "scientific heresy." Genetic laws do not fit the evolutionary position at all.

These are not the only scientific laws evolution violates, but suffice it to add that Evolution has introduced the crutch of "fossil records" to justify her sin against the scientific community. Ask any evolutionist how they date fossils. He will tell you that it is by the rocks in which they are found. How then do they know how old these rocks are? "By the fossils found in them." This is not only contradictory but circular reasoning based upon a stubborn bend towards pseudo-scholarship and faux scientific principles.

Let us briefly turn our attention to Dr. Kadalja's so-called "proof of evolution theory."

First, his claim that the fossil record going back over 3.8 billion years proves evolution is true and scientific. We need not reiterate the fact that fossil record evidence begs the question as to how you date fossils. Space does not permit me to show the insufficiency of the dating methods themselves.

Second, evidence that the Archaeopteryx exhibits many reptilian features and that lung fish are a link between fish and amphibians can be challenged at several levels:

A. Fish of all kinds exhibit no major morphological mutations. For example, for a long time, evolutionists thought that the Coelacanth or Latimeria had been extinct for 80 to 100 million years. This species was found alive and well off the South African coast. Recently, this supposed "progenitor of the human race" was discovered off Sulawesi in Indonesia. Evolutionists had maintained that the Coelacanth with its four lobed fins resembled primitive tetrapod limbs and that it was the forerunner to the first land animals. The living specimens were investigated and research found out that the fins were ordinary fish fins with cartilage and not bone. The fins were structured in such a way that they could not possibly become legs. In 1986 and again in 1996, the Coelacanth was filmed using its fins for swimming alone. Soft tissue anatomy such as the brain, heart and intestines of this fish were not what evolutionists had predicted, resemblant of man. They were of fish. While Darwinism demands transitions for this fish, it speaks of no mutation, i.e. stasis.

B. Besides, the homologous assumption that man is a highly specialized bony fish (Osteichthyans) on the basis that craniates with arms and legs evolved from a group of lobe-finned fishes that in turn evolved from the true bony fishes, has been adequately challenged. In 1997, science writer Richard Milton said: humans and other four-limbed vertebrates have hind limbs which are similar in homology to their fore-limbs. Milton aptly observed that these cannot be possibly taken as evidence of common descent. Human hind limbs cannot have descended from human fore-limbs. Furthermore, if vertebrate limbs had evolved from fish anatomy, then such an evolution must be from varying precursors: the fore-limbs from the pectoral fins of the fish and the hind limbs from the pelvic fins. (Milton R. in "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism." p.181-182). In short, it is the crutch of homology that has been the greatest stumbling block to Darwinism because non-homology implies a separate origin for the different species according to their own kind, just as the Bible teaches in Genesis, which implies Creation, not evolution.

C. The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is no longer believed by embryologists. This is because they came to find out that every stage in the development of species embryos is essential to its own development and so is not just a pointless repetition of some hypothetical evolutionary history. This totally contradicts Dr. Kadalja's Comparative Embryological evidence based upon kidney identity.

Lastly, Comparative biochemistry and anatomy as raised by Dr. Kadalja in principle do not prove random origins. Similarity comes easy in a common environment especially with Creation rather than Evolution in place. Since embryological development takes place under somewhat similar environmental conditions, from an initial union of two microcosmic germ cells until birth, it is reasonable to have a standardized appearance for a time to a point of size and growth. At this point, specialized features begin to appear and make every animal distinctly different from another. Nevertheless, these embryos in their specific compositions cannot be the same at all with.

But, this argument would be incomplete on the question of embryology if I did not mention a report appearing in the November 27 1997 Issue of "World Magazine." In a brief feature titled "Raising Haeckels", World reported that the 19th century German biologist, Ernst Haeckel, whose side-by-side drawings of Salamander, human, rabbit, chicken and fish embryos is standard in biology text books, was found to have altered the embryos to prove a point. World Magazine quoted Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London as having performed a comparative photographic study of the embryo-types Haeckel was thought to have drawn. He found that not only had Haeckel added or omitted features of the samples - endowing the chick embryo with human-like pigmented eyes and deleting the unique limb buds in the human embryo - but he also forged the scale accompanying his drawing. In this way he exaggerated the similarities among the species.

There is no scientific proof for evolution. When we set our intellectual arsenal against Heaven, sooner or later you will find yourself bankrupt of the very end you try so hard to reach. The English Essayist, G.K. Chesterton wrote in his book "What's Wrong with the World": ""In the modern world we are primarily confronted with the extra-ordinary spectacle of people turning to new ideals because they have not tried the old. Men have not got tired of Christianity; they have never found enough Christianity to get tired of." (What's Wrong with the World", p.34).