Have you ever hugged a tree? I’m not going to suggest you should, but perhaps it’s time for some of us to give trees and plants-and their origins-a lot more thought than we have up until now…


A few months ago I shared with you a discussion I heard by a panel of very learned evolutionists on the subject of photosynthesis*. In its scientific moments it was extremely educational-because life is stunningly complex and beautiful, and because truly empirical science is fascinating and enlightening. However, it also included a degree of speculation and wishful thinking, revealing more of the incredible lack of evidence evolutionists actually have for their theories which, they tell us, are conclusively proven. I decided to give it a second visit, and quickly found more gems of speculation which I would like to sample for you here.

I said last time that:

Evolutionists love to claim the moral high ground in the debate over origins by stating that their beloved theory is supported with only empirical and rigorously tested science, whereas, they insist, “ignorant”, “deluded”  and even “dangerous” creationists rely solely on faith, hope and mysticism.

I then went on to outline the explanation they have for the evolution of photosynthesis. Apparently chloroplasts, where that all-important process takes place, “were once bacteria”, and were “captured by more complex cells, something in the order of one billion to one and a half billion years ago”. Well that’s pretty darned specific, eh? What’s in a half billion years anyway? Time just flies by doesn’t it?

The problem with this “expert” explanation for the origin of photosynthesis-and so lfe itself-is that there’s no actual evidence of any such transition from bacteria to chloroplast. There’s just bacteria…and chloroplasts. However, evolutionists are determined to believe in it anyway. As one of the experts on the panel says:

“…there are no fossils of this kind of thing-to date-in rocks, but it must have happened…

The casual listener, and especially the listener convinced of the theories of evolution, would enjoy the discussion convinced that he’s hearing expert scientific assurance in his view of the origin of life. I found it interesting that the genres of this particular discussion are listed on the BBC web-site as “Factual” and “History”. Since there’s no evidence to support the theory of the origin of the process, shouldn’t there be more genres listed: “Speculation”; “Philosophy”; “Faith”; “Hope”; “Religion”; “Propaganda”; “Poppycock”?

Chloroplasts take electrons from water and, in layman’s lingo, “put them onto” Carbon Dioxide, with the help of sunlight energy, the panel tells us. They also discard oxygen as a by-product. Hey-what a weird coincidence! Plants discard oxygen which we need, and we discard carbon dioxide, which plants need…to make food…which we eat…and to discard more oxygen…which we need… and grow bigger, and reproduce… and make more oxygen…and food… Far out man!

August 2013 010

Asked by the fawning host how a series of membranes and enormous complexes of proteins extract electrons from water and “pass them down a kind of a chain”, and eventually push them onto carbon dioxide to make sugars, the expert answers that at the biochemical level the process is “enormously difficult” to understand.

“Why?” says the host.

“Well it’s not easy to get electrons out of water in the first place”. Even waves crashing upon rocks in the largest storms will not release electrons from water.

“But light can do that. Now light doesn’t normally do that: certain wavelengths-UV light-can split water, but by enlarge it requires..a…a biochemical skill which we can mimic, but with great difficulty…and plants just simply do it…”

Host: “They must have evolved to do it over a long period of time… why did they want to do it?”

Answer: “That’s always a difficult question in evolution…”

Why indeed.

I’m not here saying that what is unknown is evidence for God, as some would accuse me of saying. However, the incredible “coincidences” of nature; the inexplicably complex processes-all interlinked and interdependent; the unfathomable intricacy; the unsurpassable beauty of nature, and the sheer lack of hard evidence for the only theoretically viable alternative to Creation by an intelligent and omnipotent God, are all compelling arguments, in my book, for the notion that “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0435jyv

My original post: https://nickyfisher.com/2016/07/22/the-must-haves-of-evolution/