New Robot Proves Evolution is Impossible

The theory of evolution is posited as an established scientific fact even though there is no empirical evidence of how inanimate matter came into existence and evolved into highly complex living organisms. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating where organized information came from to give structure and development to evolved matter. Finally, there is no empirical evidence showing the millions, possibly billions, of gradual evolutionary steps that were necessary to go from an inanimate glob of atoms to fully evolved humans.

There are theories for such things, but no empirical data to prove the theories.

Evolutionists wax eloquently about “nature’s design capabilities,” as if nature has a mind.1 Nature isn't a person. When "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state," as the opening line to the theme song for "The Big Bang Theory" TV show states, where was life, thought, mind, logic, rationality, morality? What was directing the organization of atoms into "autotrophs" and "Neanderthals" and everything else?

The first question is not “is the human race just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet?,” as Stephen Hawking asked. The primary question is, Where and how did the “chemical scum” come into existence in the first place and organize itself into complex life forms? Erwin Schrödinger noted the problem in his book What is Life?, published in 1944:

“How can the events in space and time which take place with the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry? The preliminary answer . . . can be summarized as follows: The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences.”

Dr. Schrödinger didn't know then, and physicists and chemists don't know now.

Andy Pross writes that the passage of more than 65 years and “enormous advances in molecular biology, illuminated by a long list of Nobel prizes, we continue to struggle with Schrödinger’s simple and direct question.”

Chemists, biologists, and physicists know that “living things are made up of the same ‘dead molecules as non-living ones, but somehow the manner in which those molecules interact in a holistic ensemble results in something special—us, and every other living thing on this planet.”

This is what is known. What’s not known, and Pross and other evolutionists admit, is how it call came to be.

Even so, contrary to all “common sense,” the “basic laws of physics,” and the fact that “highly organized entities don’t spontaneously come about,” Pross and other evolutionists have no other choice but to deny common sense and the basic laws of physics in order to maintain that the cosmos and life in it arose spontaneously.

They need to take a lesson from the development of Roboy said to be “one of the most advanced humanoid robots.” Did it arise spontaneously? From conception and design to manufacture and assembly, building Roboy has taken “15 project partners and over 40 engineers and scientists.” Why don't we see examples of early models of Roboy buried in the fossil record? Why no Transformers?

Roboy is certainly a marvel of engineering, but it cannot compare to a human, and if it hadn’t been for humans, there wouldn’t be a Roboy.

Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, would claim that the evolution of the robot is similar to biological evolution. Instead of a robot, he appeals to the evolution of the Corvette:

“Everything evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.”2

Berra’s definition of automotive evolution is in no way similar to non-directed biological evolution whereby life arose from nonlife and changes within a species resulted in gradual changes so that a new species is said to have evolved. The first Corvette was designed by someone as was each new model thereafter. The same is true for everything — from the thumb tack to the space shuttle.

  1. Andy Pross, What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2012. []
  2. Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 118–119. Berra is equivocating in his use of 'evolution.' []



170 thoughts on “New Robot Proves Evolution is Impossible

  1. Ferdie Mostert says:

    This is such a futile exercise and proves nothing either side. Every human being have to make this out for themselves while living. Reasoning about fact or fiction of something while living within the realm everyone is reasoning about just makes no sense. Religion and finding the right and wrong about this always end in breaking down relations and never building relations. Even being an engineer and loving science and technology, the wonder of physics have always shown me that their is a higher hand that had to put this intelligence in place. The mere existence of human beings perfectly made is enough to have me in awe. If I then had to believe in an "earthly level" religious god whom I can factually explain and logically prove existed like some statue or worldly doctrine or even scientific fact, then surely that will not be worth the effort. All the arguing and earthly reasoning just proves the futility of the religious problem. The God that created and sustain Life is not to be found at this level. Why would anyone try to prove God's existence or not. What have you gained by being right or wrong.
    So much better to live in peace with all other people and let everyone answer this question for themselves on the inside because there it is found. My choice is to believe in a much higher God than all the religious earthly reasoning. I am thankful for the fantastic creation I live in and enjoy the perfect science that I can be part of.
    I am therefore able to live and have relations with people who believe or don't believe, people of high intelligence or anyone else who simply exist in faith. Don't have to convince or prove anything to anyone. Love all the same.

  2. Max Kaiser says:

    It is nice to see a Creationist making a statement without citing Fundamentalist propaganda. If only the commenters down here were on the same level of wisdom.

    It is true that Evolution can't provide an explanation for how exactly life originated from non-life.
    Using God in a supposedly logical argument is pretty much impossible though, as His influence and existence can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.
    Atheists often make the mistake of arguing that something cannot exist unless its existence is proven, which would also be an argument against every single scientific discovery ever made. Als long as there is no proof, both existence and nonexistence are possibilities.

    There is also one important detail many Creationists (and even quite a few so-called Evolutionists) get wrong: Evolution is not about why, it's about why not.
    Lifeforms don't need to have one specific shape or ability to survive and prosper, everything goes as long as it doesn't get you killed. Teleiological evolution does not happen in nature. Lifeforms do not necessarily become "better" over time, like the machines we build and the animals we breed. Because unlike machines, farm animals and pets, who are build and bred to serve our purposes, the only purpose a natural lifeform needs to serve is its own survival. They need to be just good enough to survive, everything beyond that is a bonus.
    It makes a great difference if the factor of selection is provided by a single intelligence or by an entire ecosystem. And if God is the source of all life, He apparently intended His creation to develop further on its own. And if God is the one perfect being, it only make sense that nothing mortal is ever perfect and unchanging.

    And finally, in this sense, I can only suggest the religious people here to stop looking at Evolutionism as a rival religion. Evolutionary biology is a scientific field, not a belief system. Darwin was not a prophet of any sorts, but merely a researcher who first began to understand a process unknown to the rest of the scientific community at the time. His theory is no (Un)Holy Testament of Evolutionism. The scientific community of today knows far more about evolution than what Darwin thought he knew.

  3. Why is Gary DeMar claiming to know so much about evolution when his degree is in Theology and not Biology? Evolution by natural selection has already been proven and reproduced in a laboratory.

  4. If God created everything, is all loving, all knowing & can do no wrong, than why did he create a planet with a food chain, immeasurable suffering, constant wars & other innumerable adverse problems akin more to be created by the Devil - and let's not get into that Garden of Eden crap. Grimm's fairytales are more believable. -
    Is God a 5 year old kid playing with his chemistry.