In Step 3 we came to the surprising conclusion that natural selection explains no evolutionary change necessary to account for all the diversity on earth. Recall what we call The Natural Selection Paradox: Natural selection did nothing to cause or explain any evolutionary change in any ancestor of all current living things. (Link HERE to full explanation, and examples of mainstream scientists agreeing.)

 

In otherwords, we successfully removed the keystone from the arch of evolutionary theory! Does every current version of evolutionary theory therefore collapse?

​

Maybe. Recall that evolutionary theory is built on two proceess steps: (1) descent with modification, and (2) natural selection. If natural selection plays no role in the origin, development, adaption, or existence of every current living thing, what does? The only other option in the evolutionary toolbox to explain the diversity of life is descent with modification. 

​

Descent with modification occurs in every generation of offspring by one, and only one, mechanism: genetic variation. And genetic variation occurs for one, and only one, reason: random mutations in the DNA passed from parent to child.

​

Genetic mutations are a necessary component of any evolutionary theory that seeks to explain new life forms. Understanding the necessary implications of random genetic changes to the genome of a first living organism to change into that of a second, very different, living organism opens the door to understanding why evolutionary theory fails completely.

​

We start with a Foundational Fact: No natural forces, laws, or causes in nature can explain the creation of the coded information inside living things.

​

No natural forces, laws, or causes in nature can explain the creation of the coded information inside living things.

​

The Foundational Fact above stands as the single best reason—nature's own silver bullet—why evolutionary theory is a non-starter in explaining human existence.  While there are many, many other reasons to reject evolutionary theory as explaining human origin and existence, the truth of our Foundational Fact alone is sufficient to inform a rational rejection of evolution.

​

Why isn't the fact above widely known as true? Because—as we discussed in Step 2—modern scientists believe they must infer only natural explanations for all of nature. This rule of modern science holds regardless of other logical inferences from the material evidence on earth. That is, modern scientists believe they must confine their curiosity to natural explanations, whether such explanations exist or not. But, as we learned in Step 1, we choose not to be constrained by such artificial barriers to truth. We are more curious.

​

The reason we are human beings is because we have inside the cells of our body complex coded building instructions—DNA—tailored to build a human being, and only a human being. According to evolution, however, these carefully coded, complex building instructions evolved over time—primarily by genetic mutations—from a very different, much less complex set of building instructions. According to current evolutionary theory, for example, our human DNA evolved over time from the DNA coded to build a sea sponge. (See, HERE).

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recalling what we learned about natural selection in Step 3, we now know that natural selection plays no role in the origin and existence of every current life form. But even if we grant natural selection the role of preserving existing life forms, it is undeniable that natural selection plays no role in the production—the origin—of new life forms. This fact can be confirmed by reading every example provided by evolutionists of natural selection working in nature. In none of the examples of natural selection (such as the famous Peppered Moth example) does any life form change, adapt, or emerge. Every example simply relates to the living or dying of already-existing life forms. We urge the reader to investigate this fact.

​

As we continue, we must face head-on this question: Giving natural selection its full force and effect to preserve created organisms what, then, in the evolutionary toolbox of Darwinism creates new things that then either live or die?

​

Following our Foundation Fact, we are faced with a Foundational Question: What must be true to support a natural explanation for the origin of all the new and different coded building instructions for new species from previous building instructions of ancient species?

​

What must be true to support a natural explanation for the origin of all the new and different building instructions for new species from previous building instructions kof ancient species?

 

​

What must be true is the identification of a natural process in nature that can explain how a first set of coded instructions for building an ancient primitive life form was modified over time such that a new, and very, very different and more complex second set of coded instructions was created to build human beings.

​

The necessity of this truth can be realized by understanding our Foundational Question in light of our Foundational Fact above. As we seek to understand we will indeed discover nature's silver bullet against evolutionary theory: the necessity for a natural process capable of creating new coded building instructions from old coded building instructions. Because, if evolution is true, this necessary process explains the origin and existence of all living beings.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

As we seek to understand we will indeed discover nature's silver bullet against evolutionary theory: the necessity for a natural process capable of creating new coded building instructions from old coded building instructions. Because, if evolution is true, this necessary process of continuous re-programming explains the origin and existence of all living beings from a theorized first living thing.

​

Necessity of Coding to Creation of New Species from Old

 

For our discussion we will carefully consider the use of the term “species.” This, of course, is the term Darwin used and for this reason it is the term we will use to critique Darwinism. And we will use the term as Darwin did, which is to say that we will not be tied to a strict definition but will employ a rhetorical approach that includes treating “speciation” in its strongest logical form as the appearance of new living forms, or kinds, of every living organism from previous, different, kinds of living forms. For example, rather than focusing on evolutionary processes to explain the origin of wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs from a dog ancestor we will focus on the reasonableness of believing evolutionary processes can explain the origin of dogs from an ancestor that was not a dog.

​

The only illustration in On the Origin of Species is a “tree of life” diagram that, according to Darwin, illustrated the steps by which the small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into the larger differences distinguishing species. And Darwin’s illustrated example seeks to show the supposed origin of multiple species that exist today from a species that existed in the Silurian period about 420 million years ago. (See, Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 120, 432)

​

Clearly, Darwin had in mind a process that did more than produce “varieties” in nature. That is, Darwin had in mind a process that did more than produce wolves, dingoes, coyotes, and domestic dogs from a dog-like animal. He envisioned his theory as explaining how a dog-like animal can originate from a prior animal that is not remotely dog-like. And, importantly, he proposed a theory that purports—and is used today—to explain how human beings originated over time from the first life form—a living being with a form and structure having no resemblance to that of human beings. Thus, when we allege that Darwinism fails to explain the origin of the human species we are using the term species in its strong form: a breeding pair of entirely new kinds of beings on Earth that did not exist before and which can mate to make a third, fertile being of the same kind.

​

To understand the importance of using the term species as we do (and Darwin did) in its strong form, note that “speciation” is said to be observed happening today among varieties of animals of a similar kind. Take birds, for example. Multiple finch “species” have been observed to arise on the Galapagos Islands and this observation is presented as an example of evolution in real time. These finch species differ in comparatively minor ways—such as beak size—and their designation as distinct species is trivial when considering the purported power of evolution as the originator of species writ large. An ordinary observer would be hard pressed to distinguish one finch species from another.

​

Using finches as an example, we wish to consider how did the finch-kind of organism originate? That is the question useful in critiquing Darwinism. More generally, we know that any bird-kind of animal is built from a DNA code having instructions to build a bird including sub-codes for building hollow bones, beaks, bird feet, bird eggs, bird reproductive systems, and—uniquely—bird feathers. Further, the bird-kind DNA code includes extensive bird-specific building instructions for integrating all the bird parts into working bird systems. And these instructions instruct to build nonmaterial bird attributes such as unique bird instincts like building distinctive nests. And the bird-kind DNA code includes instructions to build fertile bird pairs that can reproduce more fertile birds. It is trivial to recognize that the bird-kind DNA code can include instructions to build some birds with small beaks and some birds with large beaks. In certain environmental conditions one of either small beaks or large beaks may be more useful to survival. But such environmentally driven “speciation” is of little interest in seeking the origin of the bird in the first place.

 

Let us continue a bit longer with the bird example as we lay the foundation for our discussion of speciation, particularly the origin of the human species. A search of how the bird evolved leads to websites such as Understanding Evolution provided by the University of California, Berkeley. On this site we read that birds evolved over time from carnivorous dinosaurs of the Late Jurassic (which themselves evolved from the first living organism). A helpful diagram with a timeline and a progression of pictures of animals shows a large dinosaur on one end of the timeline and a bird on the other. In between we are shown that at some point many millions of years ago hollow bones show up in what still looks like a dinosaur kind of animal. Later on the timeline we are shown an animal that still looks like a dinosaur and is said to have had hollow cylindrical feathers. Later still on the timeline tufted feathers appear on an animal, and after many, many millions of years we reach the present time where toothless beaks appear on what appears to be a blue jay.

 The Understanding Evolution article accompanying the diagram explains the process which it summarizes with the truism: As birds evolved from these theropod dinosaurs, many of their features were modified.

​

What is missing in any of the explanation is any discussion of how this happened; what must have been true for “features to be modified” by Darwinian processes?

​

From our discussion we know that what must have been true is that an operable and working genetic code with DNA-coded instructions to build a meat-eating dinosaur with a carnivore’s digestive system and without feathers was modified over time—unattended and without purpose—through generations of DNA code variations and copying errors to transform into a new and working genetic code with complete DNA-coded instructions to build a seed-eating bird with an herbivore’s (or omnivore’s) digestive system and with hollow bones, feathers, tufted feathers, beaks, and all the accompanying systems to integrate these features. In fact, the original code with instructions to build a dinosaur with all dinosaur parts must—according to evolution—have been completely changed through innumerable unattended random copying errors over many generations to produce an entirely different kind of animal—a blue jay with all bird parts. It seems easy to produce a succinctly crisp diagram of the supposed progression from dinosaur to bird. But can we reasonably believe that what evolution demands be true according to such a diagram is true?

​

We belabored the point on birds to illustrate a point of crucial importance in our inquiries on evolution. What must be shown by evolutionists is not tidy diagrams showing a supposed progression from, say, dinosaurs to birds. What must be explained beyond truisms is a reason to believe that the intact properly coded genetic instruction set to build a perfectly good dinosaur with no bird parts can be changed by unattended random errors over time to be a totally different, intact properly coded genetic instruction set to build a perfectly good bird with no dinosaur parts. What this discussion of birds illustrates is that, at a meaningful level, the term “species” must be understood—as Darwin understood—to mean “kinds” of animals. Can evolutionary processes really explain how a dinosaur without feathers evolves to a bird with feathers?

​

Necessity of Nature Learning to Code

​

We now focus on the nature of the only mechanism in evolutionary toolbox that can possibly produce—create—the necessary “favorable variations,” required by evolutionary theory to eventually produce new life forms from old. 

​

We ask the question because we now understand more fully the reason that we are human beings. Inside each of us reside physical codes—hardware—of extremely complex and detailed instructions—software—that provide the information and instructions to build every single organ and component part of us, the connection of those components, and the continued operation of every system of our physical bodies.

​

Our human body, therefore, is a human computer housing a physical coded instruction set in the form of DNA that codes the software that executes to construct and maintain us. The software executes via our DNA coded instructions such that our human body is built to interbreed with a very differently constructed—but equally human—body to produce another of us, an offspring which is fertile to do the same. All the material evidence we have on Earth, including from efforts at breeding animals, indicates that this process can continue indefinitely with no expectation that the next body produced be anything other than human.

​

Evolutionary theory teaches us that we exist as the result of a drastically and randomly changed DNA code that originated in the first replicating living being. That is, according to evolutionary theory the first original replicating DNA coded instruction set was re-programmed over and over and over again throughout innumerable generations of random changes to result in our human DNA coded instructions. According to evolutionists, the software that once produced a sea sponge has been changed to now produce a human being. And every change along the way was caused solely by random changes in blind nature.

​

Where did the coded building instructions in us come from? To consider this question, first consider a related question: What do we know about where “codes” come from? What, for example, causes a computer code with instructions to be programmed to purposefully achieve a transformation of some material object? Is there any natural law, force, or cause that can produce a code in nature?

​

Our inquiry centers on an even more consequential question: How was the DNA code programmed with instructions to build a perfectly good sea sponge re-programmed over many generations to have instructions to build a perfectly good human being?

​

Fortunately for our understanding in answering our questions, DNA codes and their software instructions are exactly analogous to computer codes and software. We can use the metaphor of re-programming computer codes to aid in our understanding of the evolutionarily-necessary programming and re-programming of DNA codes.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

It is not disputed that computer codes are functionally analogous to DNA codes. It is uncontroversial that the DNA molecule is coded instructions, coded with enormously long sequences of four nucleotide bases (denoted by the letters A, T, G, and C). Nucleotide bases are the part of DNA that stores information and gives DNA the ability to encode a person’s building instructions including a person’s visible traits. In exactly the same manner machine code in computers is coded with long binary sequences of two numbers (1’s and 0’s). These binary sequences store information to encode instructions for computer software. Here Stephen Meyer, an expert in the field of DNA studies, makes this point in an article in First Things:

​

As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell. The nucleotide bases in DNA function in precisely the same way as symbols in a machine code. In each case, the arrangement of the characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. As Richard Dawkins has noted, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer “like.” In the case of a computer code, the specific arrangement of just two symbols (0 and 1) suffices to carry information. In the case of DNA, the complex but precise sequencing of the four nucleotide bases (A, T, G, and C) stores and transmits the information necessary to build proteins. Thus, the sequence specificity of proteins derives from a prior sequence specificity “from the information” encoded in DNA.

​

Stanford University Explains the Necessary Process for Programming and Reprogramming Coded Instructions

​

To examine the question of how coded information can become more usefully complex through re-programming, let's utilize an excellent discussion of how computer codes are programmed and re-programmed presented by Stanford University. Below we utilize portions of Stanford's "CS101, Introduction to Code" for teaching and commentary related to how codes are created. We urge our readers to read Stanford's full discussion.

​

Stanford's CS101 discussion is directed to how computer codes can be usefully changed over time. The first diagram below is a graphic that introduces the issue. We added the result in red text--"Sum of 2 numbers"—to illustrate the usefulness of the computer code. As indicated, a computer is programmed to follow certain fixed instructions, for example to calculate the sum.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

To illustrate the exact analogy of computers to DNA codes, in the next diagram below we have modified the first diagram to show how the exact same concept applies to DNA codes in your body. Note the exactly analogous nature of DNA coded information (red text is our modification). The human body is programmed to follow certain fixed instructions, for example to build a protein.

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Following Stanford's CS101 discussion sheds light on just how a simple raw computer code can be made into a code to produce something more complex and beneficial. In the next diagram below we show the question as presented by Stanford. In Stanford's example, the question is how to modify a computer code to build a unique functionality—in this case "red-eye reduction." As Stanford asks: What connects coded information with a new useful feature to be added?

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

Consider the diagram above carefully and note the question mark. What connects the two sides? How do new, useful functions, such as red-eye reduction, arise out of raw computer code?

​

Just as computer codes are modified—programmed—to adduseful functions, according to evolution our DNA coded instructions have also been modified innumerable times to produce innumerable new and often unique features and useful functions, such as eyes, lungs, brains, ears, and every other feature humans enjoy that sea sponges don't. 

​

Thus, in the next diagram below we reproduce teh diagram above with modifications to show the directly analogous nature of DNA codes in our bodies. In our analogous example, the question is: Can DNA coded instructions be modified to build increasingly complex and unique functionality--in this example, "eye focus." The question mark represents the same question: What, in nature, "connects the two sides" such that existing, working DNA coded instructions can be modified to produce new working DNA coded instructions to build a new function or feature in a human body? Consider the red text in the diagram below which is exactly analogous to the content in the diagram above. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Again, consider the question mark. What is it that can change existing DNA coded instructions without a "eye focus" building instructions into new coded instructions with a "eye focus" building instructions?

​

At this point we ask the reader to consider what might be the change agent represented by the question markthe diagrams above. Specifically, what might be the source, or change agent, for natural systems such as the DNA hardware executing the coded instruction software to build a human being? 

 

f evolution is true, the question mark represents a natural process must operate in nature. More specifically, if evolution is true, one or both of (1) descent with modification, and (2) natural selection must operate where the question mark is.

​

Let's see what Stanford's CS101 puts in the place of the question mark. Study the diagram below, noting the added red circle and arrow.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

For the beneficial modification of computer codes, programmers are the necessary link between computers and useful features and functions.

​

The Stanford course further includes the explanatory detail:

​

Since computers are totally mechanical and stupid, why are they so ubiquitous? The gap between the computer and doing something useful is where the human programmer creates solutions. Programming requires a person to be creative and have insight about a problem as well as the ability to break the solution down into instructions that a computer can follow.

 

Because DNA codes are directly analogous to computer codes, we can consider the truth of the following analogous statements: The gap between the computer (our human bodies) and doing something useful (building and maintaining every part of us) is where __________________________________ creates solutions.

​

What can evolutionists fill in the blank space? What "creates solutions" in natural, blind, evolutionary processes?

​

The only tools available in evolutionary theory to be a programmer substitute are (1) genetic mutations, and (2) natural selection.

​

We have already seen that natural selection plays no role in creating anything; natural selection merely acts on already-created things.

​

Thus, the only tool available in evolutionary theory to serve as a "programmer substitute" is genetic mutations: random, copying errors in replicating DNA. Does it stand to reason that random, copying errors in inherited DNA codes can cause a primitive DNA coded instruction set to build a sea sponge to gradually be re-programmed into a highly complex, feature rich DNA coded instruction set to build a human being?

​

We at Creation Reformation submit that until evolutionary theory can supply a natural cause as a "programmer substitute," there is no reason to believe that any of the natural processes of evolution can rationally explain the claimed evolutionary change from sea sponge to human.

And thus, we believe it is safe to jettison evolutionary theory as a plausible explanation for human beings, and we will seek our answers elsewhere.

​