Chapter 11, entitled â€œIs Evolution Possible?â€, may be summarized by Youngâ€™s claim that the laws of nature do not negate evolution, even though there is nothing within the laws of nature providing valid scientific evidence in support of evolution. Young concludes this chapter by intimating that the only scientific argument creationists use to challenge evolution is thermodynamics. According to Young, the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows either for a decrease or increase in the order of any system undergoing change. This chapter is concluded with Youngâ€™s statement, â€œentropy provides a measure of the amount of energy to do work in an isolated system.â€ This statement is totally misleading, because the amount of energy available to do work in ANY system is the difference between the energy content (enthalpy) of the system and the energy due to the entropy of the system. Furthermore, as any informed creationist knows, thermodynamics is NOT the only scientific tool used by creationists to challenge evolution.
In chapter 12 Young addresses the origin of life. There is no new information provided here. The same old theories of proteins evolving from amino acids and DNA, RNA evolving from the appropriate nucleotide bases are regurgitated all over again. It has long since been thoroughly documented that such evolutionary processes are utterly impossible. Young goes on the state that most recent research (circa 1980s) confirms a principle of self organization at the simple prebiotic level. However, none such evidence was ever provided in the 1980s or at any other subsequent time. Although the laws of probability deal the evolution of life a serious blow, Young attempts to circumvent this by stating that biological evolution is â€œguided by regulating mechanisms, not by pure chance.â€ The following questions arise: What are these mechanisms? Where did the mechanisms come from? What valid scientific evidence is provided in support of them? The answer to all of these questions is there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence in support of such mechanisms. Even if such mechanisms were true, they would have to have been derived by a higher intelligence, which is not accepted by evolutionists.
The most blatant falsehood stated by Young is the following, â€œModern theory (evolution) explaining the general steps by which matter may have become organized into living organisms is therefore not simply an unfounded invention of a fertile imagination. Experiment has become the beacon by which theory is guided on the right course.â€ Of course there are NO valid scientific experiments to lead evolution on the â€˜right courseâ€™.
In conclusion, it may be safely asserted that this bookâ€™s attempts to point out the fallacies of creationism, while providing so called support for evolutionism, have failed miserably.
Blessings in His Holy Name, Ed
Dr. Ed Boudreaux, RMCF President