This is a very basic outline for a 3 point speech on evolution... INTRO I. Once upon a time, 3 Bears...We all recognize this as a fairy tale for children. II. Another famous fairy tale is the one in which a princess is enticed to kiss a frog, and "Poof!" the frog instantly turns into a handsome prince. III. Today I'm going to address the theory of evolution, which I maintain is a fairy tale for adults. IV. We will examine the mathematical probabilities that evolution could be the way in which life began. We will look at some logical ananogies, and finally, we will see what some well-known evolutionists have to say on the subject.
First, let's examine the mathematical probabilities that evolution may have started it all. To do this we need to employ the calculations of some of the world's most eminent scientists and mathmeticians. I. For many years, scientists labored to discover the actual physical structure of DNA. A. Watson and Crick are credited with the discovery of the double helix as that structure. A double helix is similar to two long but incredibly minute ladders twisted in a spiral and connected at the mid-point of each rung of the ladders. B. Sir Francis Crick, one of the co-discovers and an avowed atheist himself, concluded, after many hours of calculations that the double helix could absolutely not have happened by chance. II. ________, the head of the Mathmetics department of Harvard University was commissioned to determine the probabilities of proteins coming together on their own in some sort of "Primordial Slime" to form a single living cell, and thus begin all life on Earth. A. His conclusion: The probabilities of this happening by chance: 1 over 10 to the 40,000 power. B. I don't know about you, but I have great difficulty grasping such infinitesmally small numbers. Someone else has calculated that this number is more easily understood thusly: If all the atoms in the Solar System were grains of sand, (That's every atom on all the planets, plus the Sun and all the other stuff floating around out there.) and there was one of those grains of sand colored gold. Mix it all up, and tell a blind man he has to find that one golden grain. That is 1 over 1 to the 40,000 power. Pretty slim odds, I would say.
Let us now examine some logical questions... I. Consider, if you will, the lowly mousetrap. How many parts does it have? 8? 10 at the most? Yet, all these simple parts must work together in a smooth fashion in order to catch a mouse. Take away any part, or even bend it a little, and the trap is useless. II. Compare this to the eye. Basically, the eye uses a pupil, a retina, an optic nerve and the brain to give us images. Of course it's much more complicated than that, but for our purposes, let's keep it basic. III. Now, consider the theory of evolution that states that living things evolve from simple forms to more and more complex forms because each new evolved part grants the evolving creature an advantage over those life forms that may not yet have evolved the new part. I admit that a functioning eye would give a creature a tremendous advantage over one that is sightless. However, what advantage would a craeture have if it had evolved, say, an optic nerve but no retina. Or perhaps a retina and an optic nerve, but no pupil. You see, in order for the evolving creature to have any kind of advantage, it would have to evolve a complete, functioning eye, with all its working parts, simultaneously! If any part failed to evolve along with the other parts, the pieces of the so-called eye would be as worthless as the mousetrap with the trigger missing.
But, you may insist, what do evolutionists themselves have to say on the subject? Let's listen to two very well-known evolutionists. I. First, Charles Darwin. You've heard of him. He started all this evolution thinking with his Origin of the Species. Yet, when asked if his theories were true, he said two very interesting things. A. First, he said that he could see no logical way that the human eye could have evolved according to his theory. He would leave that to others to figure out. And he said this at a time when little was known of the incredible mechanism of the eye. B. Secondly, Darwin stated that if his theories were true, then there would exist literally millions of transitional forms. As of today, we have no such transitional forms that satisfy the standard set forth by evolutionists themselves. II. Secondly, consider the words of Dr. Steven J. Gould of Harvard University. Dr. Gould is considered by many to be the world's most esteemed authority on evolution. Dr. Gould recently stated that it has long been known that no transitional forms exist to prove that evolution is a fact. But does he throw out the theory? No! He and his colleagues have now theorized that evolution occurs in quantum jumps. Dr. Gould calls this theory "Punctuated Equalibrium." Yes, the current thinking on evolution states that creatures evolve suddenly. For instance, a lizard hatches out a baby lizard, and that lizard, in turn, hatches out more lizards. This process continues for millions of years, when suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, a baby lizard hatches out with wings! Now, that frightens me! One day I may get married get pregnant. If I ever do, I'm going to have the doctor lock the windows and bar the doors. After all, my baby may get hit with "Punctuated Equalibrium" and fly away!
Yes, many people today just accept evolution as fact without ever checking out the facts. Today I have shown you that evolution is little more than an elaborate fairy tale for adults. We have seen that it is virtually mathmatically impossible. We have seen that it is not at all logical. And we have seen that even evolutionists themselves are quite at a loss to explain it. To me it takes much less faith to go ahead and believe that God did it. When a princess kisses a frog and he suddenly turns into a handsome prince, that's a fairy tale for children. When she kisses a frog and two billion years later he evolves into a prince, that's a fairy tale for adults. Thank you.