Ek het nou al heelwat hier kwytgeraak oor die darwinistiese evolusieleer se wankelrige fondamente. Ek het my egter misgis… heeltemal.

Daardie sogenaamde fondamente bestaan nie eens nie. Daar ís geen fondamente nie. Die hele evolusieleer is soos ’n kadawer wat kunsmatig regop gehou word deur aggressiewe bemarking en antagonistiese flagrante treitering met bewerings van sogenaamde onkunde, skelwoorde, beledigings en blanko ontkennings, deur sy proponente. Mens sien dit amper soos ’n trait by selfs die plaaslike ateïste oor hulle evolusie religie – dit is nie net Richard Dawkins en ’n paar ander bekendes wat so maak nie. In die kort rukkie wat ek hiert skrywe, is dit karakteristiek, ook die somtotaal van die ‘kritiek’ wat my hier te beurt geval het – maar nou moet ek dadelik erkenning gee aan ’n paar uitsonderingsgevalle wat nié daardie modus operandi volg nie – hulle beweer steeds gebrekkige kennis, maar die venyn ontbreek by die paartjies.

Dus, die blanko kritiek teen hulle kritici is – jy moet stilbly want jy weet nie waarvan jy praat nie.

Daarom sal ek vandag die spulletjie weerlê – en bekendes, geleerdes, spesialiste op die gebied, hier aan die woord stel, om daardie bewering van onkunde eens en vir altyd die nekslag toe te dien en die doodsheid van die fondament waarop die darwinistiese evolusieleer berus, te ontbloot, ongeag die proponente daarvan sê amper desperate, venynige, aggressiewe en bewyslose pogings tot verdedigings daarvan.

I.L. Cohen: Ingenieur, wiskundige, navorser, lid van die New York Academy of Sciences, beampte van die Archaeological Institute of America (N. Shore Society):

“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.” – I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984), pp. 4,5,8;

“In fact, the chromosomes, the actual bearers of the hereditary particles, the genes, within the cells of this huge number would occupy less space than half an aspirin tablet! Reflect upon that! All the hereditary materials the heredity of the whole human race [in 1963, 3 biljoen] of all those now living could be contained within the space of half an aspirin.” – Ashley Montagu, Human Heredity (NYC: The New American Library, 1963), p. 25;

Sir Fred Hoyle is ’n welbekende Britse wiskundige, astronoom en kosmoloog; Chandra Wickramasinghe is ’n bekende bioloog, beide egter, self ook evolusioniste:

“Life cannot have had a random beginning The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. 

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems cannot in our view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago.

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences even to the limit of God. Such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.„  - Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 141, 144;

“The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they become interested enough to calculate for themselves, instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point.„ – Fred Hoyle, „The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527;

„True, the problem is not discussed openly in the main stream of biological literature, but one comes on small fragments published in obscure corners by writers who have evidently perceived the problem and been acutely worried by it. Having made their protest against current dogma, such writers seem always to have been prepared to let the matter drop, as no doubt they encountered the same kind of opposition that Chandra Wickramasinghe and I have run into My impression is that most biologists really know in their hearts the issue is there, but are so appalled by its implications that they are prepared to swallow any line of thought to avoid it. if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterialists with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture.„  - Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture): And Other Papers on the Origin of Life (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1982), pp. 27-28;

Duane T Gish, Ph.D. Biochemie, Universiteit van Kalifornië en voorheen  navorsings biochemikus by die Cornell Universiteit en Upjohn Company:

  “The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by Evolutionary scientists, themselves The process by which life originated was thus a supernatural process and cannot be accounted for by natural processes and natural laws now operating on planet Earth.”  - Duane Gish, „A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), p. 185;

George F Howe, Botanis en bioloog, Ph.D. en M.Sc. in Botanie van Ohio State Universiteit, Post-doktorale studies in stralingsbiologie, Cornell Universiteit, Post-doktorale studies in botanie, Washington State Universiteit, Post-doktorale studies in woesteny biologie, Arizona State Universiteit, voorheen assistent Professor van biologie en botanie by Westmont College, Santa Barbara, Kalifornië, stigterslid en gewese President van die Creation Research Society , Direkteur van CRS Grand Canyon Experimental Station, Professor en voorsitter van die afdeling Natuurwetenskappe, The Master’s College, Newhall, Kalifornië:

“The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are approximately zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? There is virtually no chance that chemical ‘letters’ would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein ‘words’.„ (George Howe, expert in biological sciences and Creation/Evolution issues) – George F Howe, „Addendum to As a Watch Needs a Watchmaker,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (September 1986), p. 65.

Soos ons almal alreeds weet, is dié premis van Howe bewaarheid deur die werk wat by die J Craig Venter institute baie onlangs gedoen is,  toe ’n massa uiters gesofistikeerde tegnologie en geld en die toegewyde breinkrag van 46 wetenskaplikes oor die verloop van 15 jaar  aangewend en ingespan moes word om ’n eenvoudige genoom kunsmatig te vervaardig, wat alles uiteraard in uit-en-uit intelligente ontwerp herlei.

Biochemici en evolusioniste David Green, University of Wisconsin, and Robert Goldberger, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland:

“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence.” – David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406-407;

Sommige evolusioniste gee te kenne dat ‘chance’ of ‘luck’ nie ’n rol speel nie, maar dat die nodige verbindings deur die werking van bestaande natuurwette (sonder om hulle te vermeld, natuurlik) tot stand sou kom. Maar in daardie verband, word dit ook as wensdenkery afgemaak:

“No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules.” – Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p. 148;

“such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its codelike character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy.” – Michael Polanyi, „Life’s Irreducible Structure,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3834 (June 21, 1968), p. 1309;

Bekende evolusionis N. Chandra Wickramasinghe:

“there are very few empirical facts of direct relevance and perhaps no facts relating to the actual transition from organic material to material that can even remotely be described as living. The timescale [the supposed 5 billion year old age of Earth] is grossly inadequate and the information content that is needed to produce life is so vast that it is impossible to actually arrive at that final step on Earth” – N. Chandra Wickramasinghe in Vol. 325 of Philosophical Transcripts of the Royal Society of London (1988), pp. 611-618 (aanhaling vanaf p. 611);

“An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.” – Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), pp. 211-212;

Bekende evolusionis Michael Denton:

“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.

 The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” – Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986), p. 261, 264;

“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.” – Hubert P. Yockey, „A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67 (1977), p. 398”;

… supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a “tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” – Sir Fred Hoyle ,“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105;

Arthur E. Wilder-Smith,  Chemikus, Ph.D. (Physical Organic Chemistry) by die Universiteit van Reading, England, Dr.es.Sc. in farmakologiese wetenskappe van Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule  in Zürich, D.Sc. in farmakologiese wetenskappe van Universiteit van Genève, F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry), Professorate by verskeie instansies insluitende Universiteit van Illinois Medical School Center , besoekende volle Professor in Farmakologie, Universiteit van Genève se School of Medicine, Universiteit van Bergen (Noorweë) School of Medicine, Hacettepe Universiteit Medical School (Ankara, Turkye), Presenteer die 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture op uitnodiging van die Universiteit van Oxford, mede-outeur van meer as 70 wetenskaplike publikasies en meer as 30 boeke in 17 tale gepubliseer, ’n NATO driester Generaal:

“… an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.” – Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), p. 4;

„As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell. There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed in it a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice so that the cell builds itself from the information…” – Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of Life (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983);

Nobelpryswenner en biochemikus Dr. Ernst Chain, lewer ten slotte ’n juweel:

“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts.” – Ernst B. Chain, as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148”.

 

Nou ja, ons sal die ruimte hieronder en elders dophou, en sien waarmee die desperate ateiste en evolusioniste nou weer vorendag gaan kom by wyse van irrelevante uitlatings en andersoortige manifestasies van hulpelose gespartel. Dit moet vir hulle erg wees om so uitgewys te word as mense wat hulle lewens verander en omver gewerp het het ter wille van ‘n absolute klug, want die enigste basis waarop hulle daarmee kan probeer volhou, is ‘n verskerping van hulle basislose venynige aanvalle en natuurlik die verskerping van daardie pogings om die selfsdesepsie psigose weereens te voed met inhoudlose delusies, wat noodwendig gepaard gaan met die volstruis sindroom – daardie kop-in-die-sand metode.