Big bang and Evolution Fail in the Face of Evidence

Just this week I had the opportunity to write an editorial piece for my Journalism class. It wasn’t a hard choice what to write about.


We’ve all gone through science class and learned about how the universe began with a bang and how life evolved from goo to you. We’ve heard the evidence, nodded our heads, and bubbled the right answers; not thinking twice about what they said.

However, the teaching of the big bang and evolution in public schools is not encouraging good science and critical thinking.

 “In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded into everything.” This, most likely, is one of the statements that has been made by your science teacher. Is it plausible to believe though?

Monty White, Ph.D. chemist, said this, “All logic predicts that if you have nothing, nothing will happen. It is against all known logic and all laws of science to believe that the universe is the product of nothing.”

Right there we can see that the big bang is a closed case.

“Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began,” Ph.D. astrophysicist, Jason Lisle, said.

The explosion of “nothing into everything” is only one problem of a multitude that are present in the big bang model; more than there is space to deal with here. We can even investigate and see that the continuation of the story, biological evolution, has its own faults as well.

In 1953, chemist Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in which he passed an electric current through an assortment of gasses (methane, ammonia, steam, and hydrogen) and produced a mixture of amino acids (the basic building blocks of proteins which are essential parts of living organisms). Evolutionists claim this to be evidence that life arose on the early earth 3.8 billion years ago.

White said this in regard to the experiment, “[Miller] was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer… ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed.”

That rules out the idea that life could form in such a way. Interestingly enough, this is not the end of the scientific problems. Charles Darwin himself discussed one of them in his book The Origin of Species.

“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links… this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” Darwin said.

He dismissed this at the time by saying that they did not yet have a complete enough fossil record.

“Since that time, however, literally millions of fossils have been found, but still the transitional forms are absent… All evolutionists ever point to is a handful of highly debatable transitional forms, whereas they should be able to show us thousands of incontestable examples,” White said.

Both the fact that life could not have arisen on the “early earth” and the lack of any evidence for “transitional forms” destroys the credibility of the evolutionary theory. Not only that, but the preceeding “big bang” lacks credibility as well, and this is only looking at a few of the counter-evidences.

In the National Science Teachers Association’s (NSTA) position statement (which strongly advocates the teaching of evolution) they state, “Science teachers should not advocate any religious interpretations of the natural world.” Yet, according to Meriam-Webster, religion is defined as “a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith,” which, according to the evidence, is exactly what they are teaching in our classrooms: A story not backed by the evidence that has to be believed by blind faith.

There are currently about 50 million students in public schools. From the time these students entered elementary school to the time they graduate high school, they’ve been indoctrinated with one belief system: a secular belief in the big bang and evolution.

The NSTA also said this in regard to what should be taught in classrooms, “In science a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world… explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or that cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science.

The evidence shows that the big bang and evolution do not match up with the empirical evidence. Taking them by their own word, the very theory that they advocate for should not be taught in our science classrooms.

When we open our eyes to the evidence we can see clearly the religion that is being taught in schools. It’s time that we stand up and let our school, and our district, know that we want ourselves, and our kids someday, to learn good science and critical thinking, not unsubstantiated beliefs.

Tyler J. Collins | Creator of Discover the Answer


 

Advertisements