Question: How does [evolution] qualify as science, since it is admittedly based on speculation...? ...

Question: Daniel C. Dennett (one of the "Four Horsemen" of the New Atheists) explains how Charles Darwin's book Origin of Species clearly shows how natural selection is a key factor in the creation (Dennett's word) of new species. He admits that Darwin's ideas about natural selection were little more than "musings" or "speculations," but he also claims that in more recent times scientists have "clearly demonstrated" the veracity of this concept. I'm having a hard time finding anything anywhere to back up this claim. Dennett makes broad generalizations such as, "Anyone...who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by...evolution is ignorant..." and "What else could account for evolution, if not the mechanism [natural selection] that [Darwin] had described?" This seems to be the approach that many atheistic scientists take. Rather than actually offering evidence, they present their ideas as fact. Millions of years and small, successive modifications are called upon to "explain" the "creation" of new species. My question is this: How does this qualify as science, since it is admittedly based on speculation; and has anyone ever come up with any proof that this could possibly happen? Why are we, and our children in public schools, being forced to accept something as fact that is so subjective? These "experts" feel free to make any "claim" that they want and we are to buy into it because "they say so"?

Response: We do not doubt "natural selection" up to a point, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with "creating new species." That is impossible. Nor do we have to be experts on genetics to know this. All we need is common sense and some knowledge of the elementary facts. Modern dogs come from the wolf, for example, and there are many varieties, from Great Danes to tiny Chihuahuas. Some atheists, to cheat a bit, call these different species. No, they are all dogs, deliberately created through selective breeding. The capability to do this is not a scientific invention. It is in their genes (DNA) and has always been in their genes; no new information has been added.

Genesis chapter 1 repeats the phrase several times, "after its kind." There is a barrier between "kinds" of living creatures, and that is defined by the DNA. "After its kind" is a clear declaration by God that evolution from one "kind" to another can never occur! Nor can any atheist produce an example of new information being created in the DNA.

The DNA alphabet is the same for every living thing, from plants to fish to birds, to animals and humans. Much is made of the similarity in the DNA of chimps and that of humans. Based on the DNA, Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, even claims that men and mice are descended from a common ancestor. Similarity in DNA, however, does not support evolution through natural selection. DNA prevents evolution from ever occurring. DNA defines each "kind." For evolution from one species to another species to occur, the DNA would have to be changed radically. DNA is information written in words. Information can only originate from an intelligence by specific intent. There is no other way to create a new species ("kind").

Richard Dawkins (the leading light of the New Atheists) was asked on camera how new information could be added to the genome. Looking back, he was not happy with his response, so he devoted an entire chapter in two different books (A Devil's Chaplain and Unweaving the Rainbow) to show how new information could enter a genome. He failed utterly. We deal with DNA in detail in Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny, due for release in early 2009.