Saving Faith
Everything about God and the Christian faith.
3 - Scientific myths
"Fossils formed slowly over a long period of time."
The lion's share of fossils is deposited in wet sediment. This points to a rapid process of fossilization; for animals or plants that are not quickly encased in sediment would, after a certain period, decay and decompose. Everything indicates that the geological layers formed rapidly. The decisive factor in this was so-called turbidity currents. A turbidity current is an underwater mudslide. The greater the flood, the stronger the turbidity currents. This is one of many pieces of evidence for a global deluge, as attested to in the Bible.
"The deeper the layer, the older the fossil."
There are certain organisms that inhabit the shallower regions of the water column; these include, among others, mussels, snails, and corals. Others, conversely, live in deeper waters. If these organisms are subsequently buried beneath sediment—stirred up by a sudden flood—they are typically found at the specific depth where they lived prior to their fossilization. Birds, mammals, and other terrestrial creatures—should they perish in such floodwaters—would instead float upon the surface. Consequently, the stratigraphic position of the layer in which a fossil is discovered reveals nothing about its actual age.
"All prehistoric animals were primitive."
All animals found as fossils exhibit a high degree of complexity. This complexity enables these organisms to exist and function. All animals were perfectly adapted to the specific habitats in which they lived. Thanks to the potential for genetic variation, these animals were able to adapt to changing circumstances within a short period. Many so-called "primitive ancient animals"—unearthed as fossils—still exist today in an unchanged form. These include, among others, ammonites, starfish, sea snails, turtles, coelacanths, the nautilus, and many more. Other species—such as trilobites, which were no less complex—no longer exist today. The fact that an animal has gone extinct does not imply that it must be older than one that is still alive. Nor does it imply that the extinct animal was primitive, or that a species living today evolved from an extinct one.
"Dinosaurs were bloodthirsty monsters."
There is no evidence to suggest that dinosaurs were brutal carnivores, as is frequently portrayed—particularly in Hollywood films or TV documentaries. Most dinosaurs were roughly the size of a chicken. A Tyrannosaurus, given its massive size, limited agility, and stunted forelimbs, would have been ill-suited for hunting. Distinctive physical features—such as teeth or horns (see Triceratops)—are not the result of an evolutionary process designed to equip these animals for hunting prey or for defending themselves against predators. In reality, these are secondary sexual characteristics that served primarily an aesthetic function, acting as tools to attract females. The situation is similar among apes, reindeer, cattle, birds, insects, and many other animal species. The fact that some animals today utilize their teeth, horns, claws, or antlers for fighting and for acquiring food is attributable to altered living conditions and the ensuing struggle for survival.
"Dinosaurs lived long before there were humans."
Science teaches that modern humans appeared on the Earth's surface only 3 to 6 million years ago. Dinosaurs, conversely, are said to have gone extinct no later than 65 million years ago. In 1961, stones were discovered in the Peruvian city of Ica depicting humans alongside other creatures that can be clearly identified as dinosaurs. However, since the physical appearance of dinosaurs was reconstructed from fossil finds only in modern times, ancient cultures could not have possessed knowledge of these animals' form—assuming, that is, that they had indeed gone extinct long ago. Therefore, these stones constitute clear evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. The claims made by skeptics—that these stones are supposedly forgeries—have yet to be convincingly substantiated. The situation regarding mammoths is similar: researchers once discovered elaborate paintings in caves in France depicting humans alongside mammoths. Furthermore, numerous fossilized human footprints exist alongside dinosaur tracks within the same geological strata, proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Moreover, dinosaur bone specimens have been found that still contained intact blood cells. It is impossible for these to have remained preserved over a period spanning millions of years. Rather, this fact suggests that dinosaurs must have continued to exist until just a few thousand years ago, before finally going extinct.
"Dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds."
The notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs is a fairy tale—a fact that an increasing number of recognized scientists are now conceding. The feathered dinosaurs depicted in books and museums are nothing more than figments of the imagination of fanatical researchers. In truth, there are absolutely no fossils in existence that prove the existence of such creatures. Recent studies have shown that birds—unlike dinosaurs—do not possess an embryonic thumb; this suggests that any close evolutionary relationship between these organisms can be ruled out. Furthermore, it is impossible for the lungs of dinosaurs—with their bellows-like structure—to have evolved into the high-performance respiratory systems found in modern birds. According to some researchers, the so-called "feather traces" found on the tails of certain dinosaur fossils are actually frayed collagen fibers, not true feathers like those possessed by birds. One argument supporting this view is that these structures are far less organized than avian feathers. Moreover, dinosaurs possessed scales, which form in a manner entirely different from that of bird feathers. Additionally, the structure of a feather is so complex that it could not possibly have evolved from scales. Furthermore, there are various types of feathers, which must be positioned at precisely the right locations on a bird's body for the animal to be capable of flight at all. This aspect renders the theory of avian evolution even more implausible. Finally, from a biophysical standpoint, it is impossible for the capacity for flight to have evolved from such large, bipedal creatures—animals characterized by shortened forelimbs and heavy tails used for balance. The claim that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds constitutes one of the greatest scientific falsehoods of our time—a fact once acknowledged by a renowned evolutionist and bird curator at the world-famous Smithsonian Institution. Nevertheless, this theory continues to be taught and disseminated in schools, despite having been scientifically refuted.
"The first cell arose spontaneously."
Regarding the question of how life emerged from inanimate matter, Darwin speculated that the first primitive cells might have evolved from simple chemical compounds within the primordial soup of the early Earth. The first concrete theory addressing this was proposed by the Russian scientist Alexander Oparin during the 1920s and 1930s. In the decades that followed, this theory gained increasing currency under the designation "chemical evolution." Oparin's theory posits that simple chemical compounds combined to form progressively larger molecules. These molecules, Oparin argued, eventually coalesced to form the first primitive cell. In most schools, it is taught that life began within a specific primordial atmosphere, under the influence of lightning. In this manner, the first amino acids—from which, in turn, the first proteins are believed to have formed—are said to have originated. In 1953, the American biologist and chemist Stanley Miller conducted a famous experiment—the so-called "Miller experiment." Through this experiment, Miller sought to demonstrate that, in accordance with his theory, various amino acids could indeed be synthesized. In this context, he hypothesized that amino acids would concentrate within the ocean—forming a sort of "broth"—and subsequently assemble into proteins. Ultimately, the first simple cell is believed to have formed from these proteins and DNA (the genetic material). However, what Miller successfully demonstrated under artificial conditions in his experiment does not, in reality, occur under natural conditions. To this day, scientists have been unable to demonstrate how amino acids dissolved in water might assemble into proteins, or how genetic information could form outside the confines of an already living cell.
For the first living cells to emerge, proteins—which constitute the building blocks of life—were indispensable. Proteins consist of a long chain of amino acids that, when folded together, form the protein structure. In nature, there exist 20 different amino acids, which biologists designate using letters of the alphabet. In contrast, there are at least 30,000 proteins, each of which is uniquely composed of various combinations of these twenty amino acids. In this process, the amino acids must link together, much like the links of a chain. Similar to computer code, only the correct arrangement of these "letters" yields meaningful "words." Each protein possesses a specific three-dimensional shape into which it must be folded. This process takes place within a highly complex molecular factory. The specific shape of a protein determines its function; only when a protein is correctly folded can it properly execute its intended role within the cell. Conversely, even the slightest alteration during the folding process can render a protein non-functional, trigger a disease, or lead to the death of the cell. The folding of proteins requires the assistance of so-called "chaperones"—specialized proteins. The task and function of these chaperones is to guide a newly synthesized protein to its designated location within the cell. In doing so, the protein must not only be correctly folded but also correctly "addressed." For only then is the collaborative interaction of the various proteins possible. Therefore, the chaperone assists both in the folding process and in the proper insertion of the protein into the cell. The chaperones themselves must also be correctly folded in order to function. To this end, every chaperone possesses its own chaperone. This fact presents proponents of evolutionary theory with an insoluble dilemma: for without the existence of chaperones, the very first chaperones could not have folded themselves. To ensure that a newly synthesized protein finds the specific location for which it is intended, the assembled chain of amino acids contains a special signaling sequence at its terminus. This, in turn, contains information regarding the respective destination. Furthermore, each cell is permitted to contain only a specific quantity of proteins. Therefore, the production of every single protein must be initiated and halted at precisely the right moment. Specific segments of the DNA are responsible for this task. Their function is to instruct the cell when to begin or cease the production of a protein. This necessitates collaboration with specialized regulatory proteins, each of which corresponds to a specific segment of the DNA. Together, they form a switch. In this process, both components must be perfectly synchronized to ensure correct activation and deactivation. Moreover, any worn-out protein must be replaceable by a new one in a timely manner. This ingenious—and simultaneously intricately coordinated—process refutes the assumption that a so-called "primordial cell" could ever have arisen spontaneously. Rather, the entire system that makes protein production possible in the first place must have been present within the very first cell from the very beginning. Otherwise, that cell could not exist.
"Single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms."
During Darwin's lifetime, it was generally believed that cells were simple blobs of protoplasm—much like a piece of jelly. However, since the 1950s, our knowledge regarding cells and their complexity has expanded massively. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that there are countless molecular machines governing the complex functions within the body. When one asks how these came into existence, evolution proves to be an absolutely inadequate answer. Today, scientists hypothesize that individual cells initially aggregated to form colonies. Multicellular organisms are thought to have evolved from these cellular clusters. In this scenario, the internal structures of the single-celled organisms must have already contained everything required for that organism to sustain life. A multicellular organism, however, is not merely an aggregation of identical cells; rather, it consists of diverse cells that differ from one another in both structure and function—each of which is, in its own right, highly complex. Examples include stem cells, red and white blood cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, and cartilage cells. Each of these cell types is underpinned by distinct genetic information. Yet, if the "primordial cell" consisted of only a single cell—and thus a single set of genes—the question arises: where did all the additional genes found in the other cell types originate? For the various cells within an organism to cooperate, they must be positioned at specific locations and be activated or deactivated by corresponding genetic switches. This, too, requires a distinct set of genes. These include structural genes, regulatory genes (switches), and genes governing physiology and embryology (i.e., the formation and development of the fertilized egg). Here, the question arises once again: where did these genes come from? The sheer probability of a single gene spontaneously arising by chance corresponds to the figure one followed by eighty zeros. If one applies this calculation to the totality of all genes required for an organism to exist, one enters—from a mathematical standpoint—a realm that defies all reason. Consequently, this highly complex process can only be explained by a higher intelligence as its cause.
"Mutations are proof of evolution."
Science posits that, over time, random mutations occur within various species; these mutations lead to changes in an organism that may potentially prove advantageous. In this manner, various plant and animal variations emerge, with those possessing genetic advantages ultimately prevailing over others in the long run. Mutations are defined as alterations to genetic information—specifically, the hereditary material. The underlying cause is typically a spontaneous change in a single base, which can be triggered by so-called mutagens (such as UV radiation, X-rays, and various chemicals). In practice, there are few examples that serve as illustrative models. One such example is that of sickle-cell anemia. In this mutation, red blood cells assume an altered shape—resembling a crescent moon rather than their normal, round form. Consequently, the likelihood of parasitic invasion decreases, which, in turn, increases the chance of avoiding malaria. Within the scientific community, this is regarded as an "advantageous mutation." In reality, however, this constitutes a disease—or rather, a genetic disorder. The symptoms mimic those of pneumonia, ranging from fever, coughing, and difficulty breathing to severe chest pain. This clearly demonstrates that it is, in fact, a detrimental mutation—as is generally the case with mutations. Although some mutations may exhibit positive side effects, they are typically harmful or fatal to the organism. All hereditary diseases can be traced back to mutated genes. Of all the mutations scientifically investigated, only a tiny fraction have been classified as advantageous. Crucially, in not a single instance was there an increase in genetic information. Even in cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, no new genetic information is generated. Instead, a loss of genetic information occurs within the genome. Typically, only a single base is altered, rendering certain bacteria unable to attach themselves within the host organism. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists have induced various artificial mutations in the fruit fly *Drosophila*. However, none of the more than 3,000 mutants produced a new organism. This demonstrates that mutations do not generate new genetic material or information. Therefore, mutations do not constitute evidence for evolution; rather, they represent errors in the genetic code and are thus exceptions, not the rule.
"Vestigial and homologous organs point to evolution."
Science asserts that some human organs are incomplete (rudimentary) and point to evolutionary change. In 1895, Robert Wiedersheim compiled a list of 100 allegedly rudimentary organs. Among these, he included the thymus, pineal gland, thyroid, pituitary gland, and the cecum with its vermiform appendix. However, scientists gradually discovered that all the organs on Wiedersheim’s list perform very important functions throughout a human being's life—particularly during embryonic development and the first few years of life. For instance, the thymus gland jump-starts the human body's immune system and activates T-cells (white blood cells). The pineal gland, conversely, secretes melatonin. The thyroid produces thyroxine, while the appendix is necessary for the gut to learn how to distinguish between beneficial and harmful bacteria. From this, one can conclude that there are no useless organs in our bodies. The claim that the human coccyx represents the vestige of a tail is false and baseless. Likewise, the webbing between human fingers does not indicate a lineage tracing back to fish or amphibians. Furthermore, the supposed gill slits of the embryo turned out to be the initial developmental stages of the middle ear canal, parathyroid glands, and thymus. Moreover, science teaches that certain organs share an identical basic structure. In scientific terminology, these are referred to as "homologous organs." From this, it is inferred that organisms possessing similar organs share a common ancestor. The limbs of various vertebrates—such as humans, whales, or birds—are frequently cited as examples. Today, however, it is known that in each respective species, all these organs are generated by distinct genetic complexes. This fact refutes the claim that humans and animals are related simply because of their partially similar anatomy.
"So-called "multiverses" explain the origin of life."
An alternative hypothesis regarding the origin of life, currently discussed within the realm of quantum physics, is the theory of a multiverse (i.e., a parallel world). This theory posits that myriads of universes exist, each possessing its own set of physical constants. Since the emergence of life requires these physical constants to be precisely fine-tuned to one another, only a very small fraction of these parallel universes would be capable of sustaining life. If the number of parallel universes were infinite—so the theory goes—the probability of a life-friendly universe arising purely by chance would be significantly increased. In order to describe the entire universe on the basis of known natural laws, it is absolutely essential to assume that these laws apply universally and remain constant over time. This implies that all natural laws must have been present from the very inception of the universe. These constants—which are indispensable for the existence of life—could, in turn, have been established solely by an intelligent Creator. The theory of a multiverse provides neither an explanation for the ultimate cause of the universe's origin nor a plausible rationale for the existence of the various natural laws; rather, it merely shifts the problem to a different conceptual level. The existence of parallel universes is not scientifically verifiable; thus, this theory remains purely speculative. Moreover, it actually reinforces the belief in the existence of a Creator. For if the universe observable to us already points toward the existence of a higher intelligence, how much more compelling is the case for a universe of even greater magnitude?
"The existence of predators and parasites supports evolution."
If GOD is the Creator of all creatures, the question arises: why is there so much suffering within the animal kingdom, and how can the existence of parasites and other pests be explained? This question also troubled Darwin. The fact that Darwin could not reconcile his scientific observations regarding the brutality among organisms with his belief in a benevolent Creator influenced his thinking concerning the theory of evolution—which, for him, remained the only plausible explanation. In contrast, the Bible itself offers us clues as to how the current state of nature can be explained. The Creation account states that GOD created the heavens and the earth, plants and animals, and finally human beings—both male and female—and that everything GOD had created was "very good". This implies that, at the dawn of world history, there were no wars, no diseases, and no death—not even in the natural world. This situation changed only with the Fall. After the first humans disobeyed GOD's commandment, GOD expelled them from Paradise. Through the curse that GOD pronounced upon the earth because of human sin, living conditions on the planet changed for humans as well as for all animals and plants. While in the beginning humans and animals lived together in harmony and no one lacked for food, many animals and plants were now compelled to adapt to the altered conditions on earth. Although GOD originally created all animals as herbivores, some of them now began to hunt and kill other animals—consuming their flesh—in order to survive themselves. Thus, the struggle for survival became the hallmark of a fallen creation, triggered by humanity's rebellion against its Creator.
Snake fangs are modified salivary glands. These enzymes originally served to soften plant matter. However, when they enter the bloodstream of another organism, they act toxically and trigger severe reactions within the body. This does not represent an evolutionary change. Thorns are modified stems or leaves. Under certain circumstances, plants develop thorns to minimize water loss through their leaves and to survive in arid environments. The very same gene that controls leaf growth causes the leaf—instead of unfolding—to curl up into a spine. This process is genetically determined, not evolutionary. In thistles, it is the flowers that have undergone genetic modification. The prickles found on roses are outgrowths of the epidermis or bark; this adaptation is climatically driven and likewise constitutes a survival strategy for the plants. Animals we label as "parasites" were not created by GOD to be pests. Most parasites possess neither an intestine nor eyes. Many are physically reduced to nothing more than a reproductive organ. The larvae of many parasites, however, are free-living; in this stage, they possess a full complement of organs. As soon as a parasite enters a host, these organs vanish, because the parasite is then nourished by the host's pre-digested food residues. This, too, is a proven survival strategy. Spiderwebs originally served to trap flower pollen—which constitutes the spiders' primary food source—rather than acting as snares for prey animals. Since vegetation was extremely lush in the beginning—up until the Great Flood—a relatively large amount of pollen would become ensnared in the webs. As the global plant population has since declined drastically, these webs now function primarily as traps for catching small animals. Likewise, mosquitoes were not designed to feed on blood, as is the case today. It is noteworthy that only the females feed on blood, while the males use the same apparatus to subsist on plant sap. Unlike the male, the female requires a significant amount of protein to produce eggs; in this regard, the blood of humans or animals offers a richer protein source than plant sap. Since some plant sap can thicken into a gel—which could lead to a blockage during feeding and consequently to the starvation of the insect—the mosquito injects enzymes into the plant to ensure that the sap does not gel. These same enzymes prevent the blood of a human or animal from coagulating while the mosquito feeds on the protein-rich blood.
The stinger of bees, wasps, and hornets is likewise not a product of evolution designed to harm other organisms. In reality, it is a modified ovipositor (egg-laying apparatus) found in females. When a threat arises—contrary to its original purpose—it is utilized for defense. Male bees do not possess a stinger capable of stinging. While wasps and hornets survive stinging, a bee dies shortly thereafter because it loses its stinger in the act. This fact argues against evolution, as such a stinger offers the animal no selective advantage. The toxins transmitted during a bee or wasp sting are modified protein molecules produced during the organism's natural protein synthesis. When injected into an organism, they can trigger allergic reactions. Science categorizes animals as herbivores, carnivores, or scavengers. It is asserted that each of these animal groups emerged through evolutionary processes. This assertion is typically substantiated by the animals' anatomy and feeding behaviors. Accordingly, while a lion or a wolf are considered carnivores by nature, animals such as sheep or deer are classified as herbivores. Various studies have demonstrated that so-called predators—such as wildcats or foxes—can be domesticated within just a few generations. During this process, a significant alteration in hormone levels—which influence the behavior of both humans and animals—was observed. While the animals initially exhibited elevated levels of adrenaline (a stress hormone) and comparatively low levels of serotonin (a "happiness hormone")—rendering them wild and aggressive—their adrenaline levels declined over time, while their serotonin levels within the brain simultaneously increased significantly. Consequently, the animals became progressively tamer and more docile, and eventually could even be sustained on a plant-based diet rather than the flesh of other animals. Scientists argue that the sharp, pointed claws, teeth, or beaks of certain animals classify them as predators and carnivores. Interestingly, animals such as pandas, koalas, raccoons, and various monkey species are also included in this category, even though they subsist on a plant-based diet in the wild. Even brown bears—or grizzlies—which are considered carnivores, derive 90% of their diet from plants, primarily berries. They catch fish only during the winter, as berries do not grow at that time of year. The fact that some animals consume the carrion of deceased animals also serves as a survival strategy in times of limited food availability. Some animals—such as pigs, rodents, or dogs—even consume their own excrement in order to utilize the nutrients in their food as efficiently as possible. Consequently, strictly speaking, there are no true carnivores in nature. The same applies to us humans. It was not until after the Great Flood that GOD permitted humans to eat the flesh of certain animals. However—contrary to many claims—the consumption of meat offers no nutritional advantage, neither for animals nor for humans; quite the opposite.
"Humans and apes share common ancestors."
Perhaps the greatest myth in human history is the scientific claim that we humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. The fact is that there is no paleontologically verifiable evidence of human evolution. Every fossil discovered to date represents either 100% ape or 100% human. This includes hominids—that is, humans—such as Neanderthals, *Homo erectus*, *Homo habilis*, and other so-called "primitive humans" who, in reality, were no such thing. In this context, natural variation—which has always existed among both apes and humans with regard to body size, bone structure, age, sex, and so forth—is utilized to demonstrate an alleged kinship between these two distinct species. Furthermore, all explanations regarding the evolution and lifestyle of these supposed human ancestors—as presented in encyclopedias and natural history exhibitions—are nothing more than pure speculation, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence. The same applies to illustrations depicting these alleged human forebears; here, too, the vast majority of reconstructions are based on incomplete skeletons or isolated bone fragments, which researchers piece together according to their own subjective interpretations. The resulting skeletal assemblies are then elaborately fleshed out and subsequently presented as human "ancestors." These so-called "ancestors" are frequently depicted with human-like features in order to suggest a close evolutionary kinship. This category includes renowned specimens such as Lucy, Ardi, Little Foot, and others that have graced the covers of prominent natural science journals over the past few decades—despite the fact that they were, without exception, merely ordinary apes exhibiting the kind of natural anatomical variations still observed among apes and humans today. The 98% genetic similarity between apes and humans is likewise unsuitable as evidence of an evolutionary kinship, given that nearly all existing animal species share genetic commonalities. This merely demonstrates that all living beings are underpinned by more or less the same biochemical cycles. For instance, the genetic similarity between humans and mice is 95%; with pigs, it is 90%; and with certain tropical fruits, it is still a respectable 76%.