The theory of something from nothing evolution has no many holes in it that it should be the “Swiss Cheese Theory.” Evolutionists can’t account for the origin of matter, organized information, design complexity, morality, or speech. Science requires proposing a theory and then backing up that theory with supporting repeatable experimental results. No scientist has demonstrated that matter, mind, and morality spontaneously appeared.
Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research faces the following problem:
Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted…. What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”
In a book he wrote in 1992, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm: “Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.…”
There is also the dogmatic claim that humans are distant relatives of less than human lifeforms. For example, journalist and author Gwynne Dyer claims that “The apes are our brothers—at least our first cousins.”
Union Minister of State for Human Resource Development Satyapal Singh objects to Darwin’s theory of evolution, “saying he does not consider himself a ‘child of monkeys,’” The Indian Express reported. “I am a science student and I have completed my PhD in Chemistry. … We should be compelled to think. We get scared of the press. If not today, tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then in 10 to 20 years, people will accept what I said. At least, I believe that my ancestors were not apes.” (Scroll.In)
It’s no accident that many people today are beginning to follow the logic of what Darwinists have been trying to force on them and their children. The Darwinists have made it their life’s mission to ensure that young people are made to believe they are animals:
Despite the protests of creationists and their intellectual allies, and the occasional attempts by American state school boards to expunge evolution from the curriculum, science has long taught that human beings are just another kind of animal, but most of the time this seems like a technicality.
Of course, today’s Darwinists will insist that the human animal is not a descendant of chimpanzees and apes but that the human animal and their closet DNA relatives diverged at some point. This means that we are less human than chimpanzees and apes. The late evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University, George Gaylord Simpson, disapproved of the attempt to dismiss the obvious:
On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.
The logic of Simpson’s point is that human animals evolved from something less than monkeys and apes. If monkeys, apes, and human animals evolved from a commonancestor then that common ancestor is less than a monkey, ape, or human animal…