If you notice any errors or incomplete information, correction of text, etc., please send an email to Kaline Fernandes, info@scienceleadstogod.org, indicating what video it is about.

Does science deny God?

#3: Is the Darwinian theory proven?

Video no. 3
Language: English
Review: 1
Last update: 09-09-2018
DRAFT

We like it better or we like it less, it is essential to understand the Darwinian theory.

For what reason?

Before Darwin, the origin of life was clearly attributed to the action of a Being smart.

Everything created was the work of a Creator. In all cultures and in all ages.

Scientists argued that the universe and living organisms manifest, unequivocally, the existence of a Creator.

Where there is design, there is a designer.

The existence of a watch,
prove the existence of a watchmaker.1

Max Plank, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918, said: “The greatest natural scientists of all time […] were imbued with a deep religious attitude.”2

Many centuries before, ancient Greek philosophers already recognized that the origin of the entire universe was due to the existence of a ‘Intelligence’.2

Aristotle argued that God is the cause of the movement we see in the universe, ‘Causa Uncaused’, el ‘ Immobile engine ‘that moves everything but that is not moved by anything. A perfect Being.2

During the Renaissance, a wise man of the stature of Leonardo da Vinci, said, with humility: “I have offended God and humanity because my work did not have the quality that I should have had. “4

Nicolai Copernicus, considered the most important astronomer in history, left written: “Who will not worship Architect of all these things?”5

The great names of the Scientific Revolution as Copernicus, Galilei, Kepler, Pascal, Newton. Bacon and Leibniz, believed in the existence of the Creator of the universe and of life.2

Galileo Galilei:
“Remembering that the wisdom and power and goodness of the Creator is nowhere as good as in the heavens and celestial bodies, we can easily recognize the great merit of That that has brought these bodies to our knowledge. “ 6

Johannes Kepler:
The celestial machine can be compared to a watch gear, because its “multiple movements are executed by means of a single very simple magnetic force”.7

Isaac Newton:
“This beautiful system composed of the Sun, the planets and the comets could not have been created by advice and mastery of a Being powerful and intelligent […] the God supreme.” 8

C. S. Lewis:
“Men became scientists because they expected to find laws in nature, and hoped to find laws in nature, because they believed in a Legislator“.9

Consequently, we would lack space here to present the numerous quotes of many other scientists.

But …

First with Lamarck in 1809 and, above all, with Darwin, 50 years later, a long period began during which this design evidence came to be considered as a simple ‘appearance’.

But is design in life a evidence?

Or is the design in life a appearance?

This is the question!

Darwin tried to prove that living beings emerged and diversified through a natural process, without the need for prior planning of a Agent external.10

But did you show it?

The Darwinist theory proposes that the diversity of life forms that exist on Earth came from a evolutionary process, unguided, that lasted millions of years.

Affirms that living beings, both animals and vegetables, arose from atoms and molecules, lifeless.

But: where did the first atoms come from?

The Theory ignores this aspect completely.

Despite this, it is stated that, through millions and millions of years, atoms and molecules became cells.

But nobody knows how.

Maybe some of us do not know exactly what is the difference between a molecule and a cell 🙂

This is why, perhaps, we do not see major problems and we accept, without further ado, this first essential step of the Darwinian theory: the chemical evolution.

We believe in this evolution because our teachers, whom we respect, took it for granted.

However, if we think a bit, we are able to understand the Darwinian proposal:
1. Something lifeless (atom)
2. Produced life (cell).

But: what does the Science say about this possibility?

Is there a chemical process that allows you to go from atoms or molecules to cells?

Absolutely none.

The only possible way to create a cell on this planet is through of another cell.11

A living cell, doubling, forms another cell.12

There is no other way.

Do you remember Pasteur and the Law of Biogenesis?13

“Only life creates life.”

Pasteur demonstrated in 1864.

The publication of The Origin of Darwin’s Species was the year 1859 that is: 5 years before that Pasteur refutes spontaneous generation.

Interesting …

The Theory of spontaneous generation was still in force and it was believed that microorganisms formed, spontaneously, inside a broth.14

Do you remember the primordial soup?

When Darwin proposed his theory, the understanding of the cell was very limited.

Perhaps because of this Darwin and other naturalists of his time had no major problems accepting the chemical evolution.

The mysterious passage of molecules to cells.

The microscopes were still very rudimentary. They only increased about 400 times.

It was thought that the cell -the basic unit of life- was a single substance, the protoplasm, something like a gelatin.15

The naturalist Haeckel, follower of Darwin, considered that the simplest cell was “purely and simply, a plasma without structure, or protoplasm”.15

But today we have electron microscopes and atomic force microscopes that can amplify up to 10 million times.16

We even have quantum optics and information systems.17

Molecular biology has shown that the most ‘simple’ cell requires an extremely complex biochemical design, comparable to a high-tech industry.18

It works through more complex languages ​​than the digital code of our computers or smartphones,19 sophisticated languages ​​that require decoding systems, central memory banks, storage and location of huge amounts of information, specific three-dimensional structures, such as the enzymes involved in cellular metabolism …20

A ‘simple’ cell membrane, for example, is incredibly sophisticated.

The cell also has spectacular nanomachines like kinesinas, which walk with their own feet on cellular roads, transporting nutrients with their own hands.21

Mitochondria, that is: cellular organelles responsible for supplying most of the energy necessary for cellular activity.22

Within each mitochondria there are several enzymes called ATP synthase, and each of them is a colossal nuclear power plant.

And we could ask ourselves: how many plants like this do we have in our body? It is difficult to speculate, since the synthesis rate is large…

But we do know that the human organism, at rest, can manufacture about 1021 molecules of ATP per second!23

We make, every second, 1,000 trillion molecules of ATP.

And each of these 1,000 trillion molecules of ATP performs the process of electron transport shown in the diagram on the left.24

Fantastic.

But the Theory continues…

For millions of years, those first rudimentary cells originated the first living being, the one called LUCA, of which is estimated its ‘appearance’ about 3,500 million years ago.25

How did it appear?

It is also ignored, completely.

Is there any natural force that manages to transform a cell into a more complex organism?

Does not exist.

Science also does not confirm this other step
of the Darwinian theory: the biochemical evolution.26

The official science is very imprecise when describing this first LUCA, of which it is conjectured that it was a very rudimentary being

We cite one of the many descriptions: “It is impossible to know how or when, but in some way these chemical substances came together to form life.”27

But the advances of the last decades in chemistry and biology show that this LUCA should have had, at least, three indispensable characteristics:28

  1. It should be able to reproduce.22
  2. It should be able to store and process energy.22
  3. It should be able to store and process information.22

This LUCA (our first ‘ancestor‘) is supposed to have evolved, little by little, driven by slow, gradual and successive natural processes, without guidance or purpose, to over millions of years.29

Is there a known natural process by which, from simple organisms, it can be obtained, by spontaneous generation, more complex organisms?30

It is very clear that no.

Although we wait millions of years, it is not scientifically possible.

Unless we believe in some peculiar kind of miracle

This kind of process is not Science.31

This theory, as we have seen, was published in 1859, with the publication of The Origin of Charles Darwin’s Species.

About 160 years ago.

Despite having spent all this time, it continues to be, today, just that: a theory.

Why?

For many reasons, but we do not want to tire you…

We will only outline here some of them.

One of the reasons why this theory is only theory is because it is unprovable, then:

No one ever saw any species evolving into another species.

What has been termed as ‘macroevolution‘ was not tested and has not yet been tested.32

No one was at the origin.

When they told us about it for the first time, it seemed very strange to us
-We have to admit it- but we ended up accepting it because we trusted who told us about it.

It’s like believing in the Magi…

or in Santa Claus.

There are also those who do not believe in this theory because, being theory, it admits, in fact, the two options: to believe in it or not to believe
in it.32

Some believe and others do not believe.32

It’s a matter of faith.

George Wald, Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, Darwinist, said in 1967: “When we are talking about the subject of origin of life, there are only two possibilities.33

  1. “One is that life started from the spontaneous generation that leads to evolution.
  2. “The other possibility is that the supernatural creativity is God.33
    1. “There is no third possibility.

      “The spontaneous generation was refuted 100 years ago by Louis Pasteur, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Francesco Redi, and others.33

      “This brings us scientifically to a single conclusion: that life began as a God’s supernatural creative act.33

      “I can not accept this philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.
      Therefore, I choose to believe in something that I know that is not scientifically possible 33

      the spontaneous generation that leads to evolution.”33

      A Nobel Prizewinner, Darwinist, recognizes that the Theory of Evolution is not scientifically possible; but choose to believe in it…

      A small parenthesis: We are not all in agreement in affirming that faith is something ethereal, unproved, whereas Science is something obvious, proven?

      What shall we say then? Is the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species scientifically possible?

      Independent of beliefs, if we rely on the evidences of Science, there is only one possible answer:

      No.

      So, since there is the ‘clock‘, is it scientific to say that…

      Is there an Engineer and Designer?

      Unfortunately for you – and for us – this is not so easy to know…

      In addition: genetics, natural selection and random mutations…

      Do not confirm the evolution?

      Continue.

      No of Science.

      Bibliography

      Texts
      1) Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature of William Paley (1802).
      2) Religión und Naturwissenschaft. Conference given by Max Plank. Full translation (in English) in Max Planck: Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1968).
      3) Aristotelis Opera por August Immanuel Bekker (1837).
      Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, translated by Hugh Tredennick. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1933, 1989. See text complete
      4) Matar a Leonardo da Vinci (Crónicas del Renacimiento 1)of Christian Gálvez. Editorial Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España, 2014.
      5) Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the revolutions of the celestial orbs) of Nicolai Copérnico (1543).
      6) Discourse and mathematical demonstration, around two new sciences of Galileo Galilei (1638).
      7) Excerpted from a phrase by Johannes Kepler, German astronomer (Weil der Stadt, 1571 – Ratisbona, 1630). Widely cited in various sources.
      8) De los Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Book III of Isaac Newton. Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings. New York: H.S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics (1953).
      9) Quoted in Why science can not bury God? Mathematician J. Lennox. Lion Hudson, plc, Oxford, England (2009).
      10) De Darwin al DNA y el origen de la humanidad: la evolución y sus polémicas of Rosaura Ruiz and Francisco Ayala. Editorial Fondo de Cultura Económica, México (2002).
      11) Louis Pasteur of P. Debre and E. Forster. Johns Hopkins University Press (2000). + Dictionnaire des sciences de la Terre of Magdeleine Moureau, Gerald Brace. Édition Technip. p. 56. (2000) + Fomos planejados of Marcos N. Eberlin. 2a. Ed. p.167. Editora Mackenzie (2018).
      12) Molecular Biology of the Cell of Alberts & al. Garland Science, chap. 18.
      13) M. Pasteur. Histoire d’un savant par un ignorant of René Vallery-Radot. J. Hetzel, Paris 1883. Book written under the direct supervision of Pasteur, considered as autobiography.
      14) Nouvelles Recherches, Part 1-2 : Sur les Decouvertes Microscopiques et la Generation des Corps Organises of L. Spallanzani and J.T. Needham – (1769) – Reprint Kessinger Publishing (2009).
      15) History of the creation of beings according to natural laws of Ernst Haeckel. P. 180, of the translation into Spanish. Prometeo. Sociedad Edtorial. Valencia. https://www.uv.es/~orilife/textos/EHaeckel.pdf
      16) Increase of the electron microscope. https://www.mundomicroscopio.com/aumento-del-microscopio/
      17) Interview with Anton Zeilinger in “La Contra” of La Vanguardia on the 25/11/2012.
      18) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide. pp. 32, 49, 128 + Evolution: A Theory in Crisis of Michael Denton Burnett Books (1985). ISBN 0-09-152450-4.
      19) Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design de Stephen C. Meyer. ISBN: 9780061472787.
      20) Oxford dictionary of biochemistry and molecular biology of Oxford University Press. (1997). ISBN 0-19-854768-4.
      21) A nanometer is one millionth of a millimeter. We could also say that 1 nm = 10-9 m.
      22) “Quantification of mitochondrial morphology in neurites of dopaminergic neurons using multiple parameters”. Lee Wiemerslag. J Neurosci Methods. 262: 56–65 (2016).
      23) Biochemistry, Foundation for Medicine and Life Sciences (1 edition). Editorial Reverté. p. 518. ISBN 978-84-291-7393-2.
      24) Fundamentals of Biochemistry of Donald Voet, Judith G. Voet, Charlotte W. Pratt. 2 Ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 547, 556. (2006).
      25) The universal ancestor of Carl R. Woese. Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B103. Chemical and Life Sciences Laboratory, MC-110, 601 (1998).
      26) Scientific divergence of Darwinism. Authors: about 1,000 scientists, PhD from around the world (2018) + Fomos planejados of Marcos N. Eberlin. 2a. Ed. p.221-225. Editora Mackenzie (2018).+
      A Auto-Refutação de Darwin of Nathaniel Jeanson. Canal Inteligentista. (2016).
      27) The origin of life of A. I. Oparin. The Worker Editor of Moscow, 1924.
      28) Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design de Stephen C. Meyer. ISBN: 9780061472787 + Fomos planejados of Marcos N. Eberlin. 2a. Ed. p. 222. Editora Mackenzie (2018).
      29) “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry” of Theobald DL. Nature. 465 (7295). pp. 219–222. (2010).
      “Uprooting the tree of life” of Doolittle WF. Scientific American. 282 (2) pp. 90–95. (2000).
      30) The Implications of Evolution of G.A. Kerkut. G. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. (1960) + Implications of Evolution of G. A. Kerkut of John Tyler Bonner. American Scientist. Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 240-244. (1961).
      31) God and the Astronomers of Robert Jastrow, 1978, pág. 11
      Fomos planejados of Marcos N. Eberlin. 2a. Ed. pp. 21-29, 72. Editora Mackenzie (2018).
      32) Scientific divergence of Darwinism. Authors: about 1,000 scientists, PhD from around the world (2018). http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
      Darwin on Trial (Proceso a Darwin) of Phillip E. Johnson
      Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution of Michael Behe, 2006. pp. 39,40.
      33) Programming of Life. Big Mac Publishers. p. 123. ISBN 9780982355466
      Magazine Scientific American: 199, 9/1958. p.100

      Images
      The images used in this document are mostly free of rights and comply with the regulations Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. Those that do not, the source is mentioned explicitly. Each photograph includes your appointment.

      Some icons
      www.flaticon.com – www.flaticon.com is licensed by Creative Commons BY 3.0 – CC 3.0 BY.

      Audio
      Concert for flute, strings and basso continuo, in C major, “Il Gardellino”, Op. 10 num. 3 of Antonio Vivaldi. Public domain.
      Coral 80 “O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden”, BWV 244, of J.S. Bach. D.P. Interpreter: Paolo Troni
      Danza fantástica núm. 3, “Orgía”, of Joaquín Turina. Public domain.

      Idea, script, texts and voices
      The team of Science leads to God