What do you think?
Rate this book
The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution
Today in nearly all colleges, universities, high schools and elementary schools the theory of evolution is taught as scientific fact, a theory that states that creation evolved from a single accident. But proof exists to dispute that theory as a hoax. Dr. Wilder-Smith gives one proof after another disputing the evolutionary philosophy of life. Every theory surrounding evolution is discussed and examined in length, and then compared with the undisputed truth that we were all created by God.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
1 person is currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 3, 2025
THE CREATIONIST BIOCHEMIST CRITIQUES ASPECTS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) was an organic-chemist, humanitarian, lecturer, and an author on ‘young earth’ creationism.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1981 book, “In the following chapters we wish to thoroughly examine the root of the evolutionary tree for its ability to function, but… we should like to mention some basic theoretical problems, which crop up repeatedly… 1. The origins of the coded programs in the biological cell [which] are attributed to change and the autoorganization of inorganic material… this supposition is categorically untenable according to the tenets of modern information theory. 2. … the Neodarwinian hypothesis offers no explanation for the greatest phenomenon in life: the development of the coded genetic information which makes life possible… 3. Darwinian transformism demands spontaneously increasing genetic information… Transformism demands a very large increase in information, the principle behind which Neodarwinian thought is incapable of explaining. 4. … How can matter organize itself into a machine, if matter itself knows of no system (the very basis of all machines)? … 5. … Darwinism has overlooked … that the laws of nature do in fact provide the basis for the FUNCTIONING of a machine, without at the same time being responsible for its GENESIS. 6. Evolution and transformism require the existence today of transformational stages between the species… In geological formations transitional forms do not exist---neither among whales and land mammals, not even among horses!” (Pg. x-xiii)
He asserts, “every attempt at artificially creating life in a laboratory proves that scientists … attempt to synthesize the machine of life from matter using matter, energy and know-how (logos, concept, information, expertise).” (Pg 7)
He argues, “concentrations of amino acids will combine only in minute amounts, if they combine at all in a primeval ocean providing excess water, to form polypeptides. Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess water. The ocean is this the last place … where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids.” (Pg. 14) He continues, “Without exception all Miller’s amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and animo acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions.” (Pg. 16)
He notes, “Even when a biochemist himself artificially produces all the enzymes required for his synthetic purposes, he has ‘copied’ the conceptual order No. 2 of life into the molecule. His artificial life still remains a hybrid between the two types of order---and this has nothing to do with CHANCE. Laboratory synthesis employs know-how and the code of life to pave the synthetic way for laboratory synthesis.” (Pg. 47)
He acknowledges, “An alternative formulation of the second law [of thermodynamics] simply states that within a closed system the total order will tend to decrease. Accordingly, no OVERALL spontaneous increase of order could take place in such a system. The total energy available for work within the system will tend to decease generally and steadily. Obviously, no general progressive autoorganization of matter would take place within a system of this sort. But according to the second law small local exceptions to the rule on a molecular basis are possible.” (Pg. 54)
He asserts of the so-called ‘human tracks alongside dinosaur tracks’ in Glen Rose, Texas, “the entire Neodarwinian philosophy would be totally destroyed by one proven discovery of a single brontosaurus track contemporaneous with a single human track in the same virgin layer of chalk… The well known publishing scandals involving Macmillan and the suppression of Velikovsky’s research, as well as the Piltdown hoax, provide us with much food for thought in respect to the suppression of the publication of facts which would correct erroneous generally accepted scientific philosophies.” (Pg. 98) [But of course, we now know that Henry Morris’s son John Morris wrote in the January 1986 issue of the ICR’s publication ‘Impact’ (no. 151, ‘The Paluxy River Mystery’) that these ‘human’ footprints are actually 3-toed dinosaur footprints, and that “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution.”]
He observes, “The earth’s magnetic field is generally thought to wax and to wane. The earth’s magnetic poles have also been reversed from time to time. Thus the question arises whether these fluctuations of the magnetic field were connected with the extinction of various species in geological time. Robert J. Uffen suggested that the decreasing magnetic field permitted cosmic irridation of the earth’s surface to such an extent that organisms inhabiting shallow water were destroyed---or that their mutation rate became so high that evolution was thus accelerated.” (Pg. 116-117)
He recounts, “Wilder Penfield held the opinion that … the mind is simply a shadow of the material brain. If this were the case… destruction of the brain would thus also destroy the mind or consciousness. After his experiments on epileptic patients Penfield came to the conclusion that the mechanical production of flash backs by stimulating brain matter does not really affect the mind at all. For a nonmaterial aspect of the consciousness was not influenced by the electric current. The mind simply acknowledged and perceived the material presented to it by the material brain. So the … chemicoelectrically stored images … in the brain are perceived and read by a nonmaterial, transcendent ego or consciousness. This ego itself, however, stands above the material stimuli as such. Consciousness thus depends partly on the material brain as well as on a nonmaterial psyche, consciousness, or ego… So the mind itself would seem to be nonmaterial… At death it irreversibly separates itself from matter, but remains conscious and consists then only of legislative and no longer of executive powers.” (Pg. 143-144)
This book will interest those seeking critiques of Evolutionary theory (particularly ‘origin of life’ chemical evolution theories).
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) was an organic-chemist, humanitarian, lecturer, and an author on ‘young earth’ creationism.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1981 book, “In the following chapters we wish to thoroughly examine the root of the evolutionary tree for its ability to function, but… we should like to mention some basic theoretical problems, which crop up repeatedly… 1. The origins of the coded programs in the biological cell [which] are attributed to change and the autoorganization of inorganic material… this supposition is categorically untenable according to the tenets of modern information theory. 2. … the Neodarwinian hypothesis offers no explanation for the greatest phenomenon in life: the development of the coded genetic information which makes life possible… 3. Darwinian transformism demands spontaneously increasing genetic information… Transformism demands a very large increase in information, the principle behind which Neodarwinian thought is incapable of explaining. 4. … How can matter organize itself into a machine, if matter itself knows of no system (the very basis of all machines)? … 5. … Darwinism has overlooked … that the laws of nature do in fact provide the basis for the FUNCTIONING of a machine, without at the same time being responsible for its GENESIS. 6. Evolution and transformism require the existence today of transformational stages between the species… In geological formations transitional forms do not exist---neither among whales and land mammals, not even among horses!” (Pg. x-xiii)
He asserts, “every attempt at artificially creating life in a laboratory proves that scientists … attempt to synthesize the machine of life from matter using matter, energy and know-how (logos, concept, information, expertise).” (Pg 7)
He argues, “concentrations of amino acids will combine only in minute amounts, if they combine at all in a primeval ocean providing excess water, to form polypeptides. Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess water. The ocean is this the last place … where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids.” (Pg. 14) He continues, “Without exception all Miller’s amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and animo acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions.” (Pg. 16)
He notes, “Even when a biochemist himself artificially produces all the enzymes required for his synthetic purposes, he has ‘copied’ the conceptual order No. 2 of life into the molecule. His artificial life still remains a hybrid between the two types of order---and this has nothing to do with CHANCE. Laboratory synthesis employs know-how and the code of life to pave the synthetic way for laboratory synthesis.” (Pg. 47)
He acknowledges, “An alternative formulation of the second law [of thermodynamics] simply states that within a closed system the total order will tend to decrease. Accordingly, no OVERALL spontaneous increase of order could take place in such a system. The total energy available for work within the system will tend to decease generally and steadily. Obviously, no general progressive autoorganization of matter would take place within a system of this sort. But according to the second law small local exceptions to the rule on a molecular basis are possible.” (Pg. 54)
He asserts of the so-called ‘human tracks alongside dinosaur tracks’ in Glen Rose, Texas, “the entire Neodarwinian philosophy would be totally destroyed by one proven discovery of a single brontosaurus track contemporaneous with a single human track in the same virgin layer of chalk… The well known publishing scandals involving Macmillan and the suppression of Velikovsky’s research, as well as the Piltdown hoax, provide us with much food for thought in respect to the suppression of the publication of facts which would correct erroneous generally accepted scientific philosophies.” (Pg. 98) [But of course, we now know that Henry Morris’s son John Morris wrote in the January 1986 issue of the ICR’s publication ‘Impact’ (no. 151, ‘The Paluxy River Mystery’) that these ‘human’ footprints are actually 3-toed dinosaur footprints, and that “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution.”]
He observes, “The earth’s magnetic field is generally thought to wax and to wane. The earth’s magnetic poles have also been reversed from time to time. Thus the question arises whether these fluctuations of the magnetic field were connected with the extinction of various species in geological time. Robert J. Uffen suggested that the decreasing magnetic field permitted cosmic irridation of the earth’s surface to such an extent that organisms inhabiting shallow water were destroyed---or that their mutation rate became so high that evolution was thus accelerated.” (Pg. 116-117)
He recounts, “Wilder Penfield held the opinion that … the mind is simply a shadow of the material brain. If this were the case… destruction of the brain would thus also destroy the mind or consciousness. After his experiments on epileptic patients Penfield came to the conclusion that the mechanical production of flash backs by stimulating brain matter does not really affect the mind at all. For a nonmaterial aspect of the consciousness was not influenced by the electric current. The mind simply acknowledged and perceived the material presented to it by the material brain. So the … chemicoelectrically stored images … in the brain are perceived and read by a nonmaterial, transcendent ego or consciousness. This ego itself, however, stands above the material stimuli as such. Consciousness thus depends partly on the material brain as well as on a nonmaterial psyche, consciousness, or ego… So the mind itself would seem to be nonmaterial… At death it irreversibly separates itself from matter, but remains conscious and consists then only of legislative and no longer of executive powers.” (Pg. 143-144)
This book will interest those seeking critiques of Evolutionary theory (particularly ‘origin of life’ chemical evolution theories).
April 7, 2023
The book is fifty years old and dated. For example, in the effort to establish a "young earth," Wilder-Smith references concerns such as intermingled "Brontosaurus" and human footprints as evidence of their coexistence, even though we have known that Brontosaurus itself was actually reconstructed inaccurately from two completely unrelated dinosaurs, and that the human footprints cited (some as long as twenty inches) have long been recognized as the result of spalling, where layers of rock separate from one another in random shapes. In an effort to cast doubt on radio-isotopic dating, he bizarrely attributes the Earth's magnetic field to residual currents in the Earth's crust rather than movement within the core, and so theorizes that the earth's magnetic field has experienced a consistent decline in strength that accounts for the decrease in carbon-14 measured in ancient materials. In general, he proposes an incomplete or inaccurate theory of evolution which he then uses to create red herring arguments against claims that science has never made to begin with.
February 21, 2022
A bit of a difficult read for a layperson like myself but has some great aha moments- I definitely learned some things!
October 28, 2019
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
August 9, 2016
Read this years ago when I was a creationist. I liked it at the time but now find all of these arguments unconvincing.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews