| | O Timothy, keep that which is committed to
thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and
oppositions of science falsely so called:
I Timothy 6:20
Not everything man calls science is science.
CREATION - Creation/Bible Science
Bible science goes much deeper than just the Creation Science
aspect. Men's theories of this and that are quite fickle, and
change from generation to generation. Science itself has
disproved much of what was taught as fact mere decades ago. The
Bible just says what it has always said. If the evolution
"theory" was true, then Christianity itself would be void;
because Christianity is founded on the fact that there was no
death before the first sin, and one man's sin brought death into
the world.
ÿ
Is Evolution Scientific?
NOTE: At the end of this material, a list of scientific truths
discrediting the Evolutionary Theory are offered.
If is our hope that you will review this material, and
then seriously consider the above question.
Does Evolution have anything to do with Science?
ERRORS OF EVOLUTION - Part I
Author: Jim Hodge
It is a commonly accepted fact today that evolution is the means by
which man exists today. High schools and colleges throughout the
world teach evolution as a fact without any other possible
explanation for man's existence. One popular high school text
states, "All scientists at the present time agree that evolution is a
fact."
This statement is obviously false, yet many people are not
aware of the overwhelming evidence in favor of another explanation for
the origin of man, that being supernatural creation. In fact, there
are well over 600 scientists today who are members of an organization
known as the Creation Research Society. All of these men hold a
master's degree or doctoral degree in some field of natural science
and actively oppose the theory of evolution based on solid scientific
data.
Regardless of numerous uncovered facts refuting the theory of
evolution, many scientists refuse to believe in any type of
supernatural explanation for the existence of man and the universe.
A prominent believer in evolution put it this way, "We might say that
the term supernatural can be applied only to a set of conceptions that
are held by minds which have not learned that all facts of human
experience are natural." This is just not so. Man is not an
infallible creature and never can be. He does, however, have a mind
capable of rational decisions and the exercise of logic.
If those who believe in evolution would examine all of the data
available and approach it with an open and logical mind, it would
become perfectly clear that evolution is impossible, while a
supernatural creation is the only viable alternative.
The theory of evolution states that life, in its most simple form,
either developed on this earth spontaneously or was transplanted from
some external source. Without any act of God, there developed from
this extremely simple beginning all the forms of life, both plant and
animal, which now inhabit our planet, or which did ever inhabit it.
The first problem that we encounter with evolution is this origin of
life. Evolutionists believe that the first living organisms were
developed naturally, by innate processes, from non-living chemicals.
Science deals with observable data, and in order for data to be
confirmed, it must be observed in present processes. The origin of
life is not occurring now, nor has it ever been observed in the
history of man. Many scientists have attempted to create life in
controlled laboratory experiments without success.
According to the science of probability, calculations show that given
ideal conditions of temperature and moisture, using all the raw
materials available in the universe, and assuming that all the
smallest components (electrons) could participate in one linking and
unlinking, and reshuffling a billion times every second, 30 billion
years would not suffice to produce a chance construction having the
order and complexity of a one-celled organism.
This only shows that the beginning of life by mere chance is not
probable. The majority of evolutionists believe the earth to be only
4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating methods. This is
not nearly enough time for life to begin according to the science of
probability, much less evolve to its present state.
The Holy Bible has been proven to be historically and scientifically
accurate. This fact is too lengthy to be dealt with here, but based on
this presupposition, the evolutionist's claim to the origin of life
is a direct contradiction to the Word of God. Colossians 1:16 states
that all things were created by him, and for him (Christ). This is
sufficient evidence alone to disprove the concept of evolution, but
there are many other problems with this theory.
One of the main ingredients involved for evolution to be possible is
time. The great age of the earth according to evolutionists is based
upon the theory of uniformitarianism. This concept says that present
natural processes were operating in essentially the same manner in
the past and account for the present condition of the universe. This
view is commonly held by almost all geologists and evolutionists
alike. It is this assumption that most radiometric dating is based
on. However, many difficulties have been found concerning the methods
used in this type of dating. For example,
In the journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance is
cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to
be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be
2.96 billion years old.
There are other reasons to doubt the estimated 4.5 billion year life
of the earth. An amazing proof for the relatively young age of the
earth lies in what are known as polystrate fossils. These are fossils
that are found extending through several layers of sediments. The most
interesting of these are fossil tree trunks that extend upright
through many feet of strata, including successive layers of coal.
According to uniformitarianism interpretation, these trees would have
been required to withstand several thousand years of decay and
erosion, while slowly being covered with layers of sediments in which
they were found. This becomes difficult for the evolutionist to
explain.
The rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field, the current
population crisis, the lack of equilibrium between the specific
production and decay rates of radiocarbon, and a host of physical
processes not listed here all point to a recent creation of the
universe, and a young earth. It should also be pointed out that the
Bible clearly indicates that both man and his world were created only
a few thousand years ago and the best scientific data are completely
in harmony with this concept.
The greatest problem with the theory of evolution lies in the absence
of transitional life forms among the fossil records. According to the
evolutionary process, life began in the sea, then sea creatures moved
to land by reason of necessity. Land animals then progressed to
creatures of the air and through a series of changes over millions of
years, man has become the end result. If this speculation is true,
then there should be key transitional life forms between one species
and the next. The only record we have of such transitional life
forms would have to be found in the fossil record.
The fossil record is the key test. Transitional series must have
existed in the past if evolution is true, and the fossil record should
reveal at least some of these.
Even the most dogmatic evolutionists would agree that there are some
serious problems with the missing links. R.S. Lull, a Professor of
Paleontology at Yale University made this statement:
The evidence afforded by the fossil record does not at first sight
seem so convincing, for the absence of certain "missing links" in the
chain of life is striking.
Another prominent evolutionist, Professor J. LeConte of the University
of California said:
"The evidence of geology today is that species seem to come into
existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially
unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass away in full
perfection. Other species take their places apparently by
substitution, not by transmutation."
An interesting example of this absence of fossils deals with the
protozoa or single-celled organism. This is the most basic stepping
stone according to organic evolution. These organisms evolved into
two-celled organisms, then four, then six and so on. But according
to the fossil record, the next step in animal complexity, after
protozoa, are the metazoa having over a thousand cells.
There are no creatures, either living today, or in the fossil record,
with two cells, or with four, or six, or eight cells. No organisms
whatsoever having any number of cells between two and a thousand, and
no evidence that they ever existed.
In the first chapter of Genesis, nine times we find the expression
"after his (their) kind." From this statement we can assume "like
begets like," but the evolutionist says never exactly alike. This
is true to an extent, there do exist changes within species, but
never from one species to the next as the evolutionist would have us
believe. Professor T. H. Morgan says, "Within the period of human
history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of
one species into another."
If evolution is true, there should be no gaps between species at all,
whether in the fossil record, or in present observable living
creatures. All creatures should be interconnected by slight
variations. The fact of the matter is, however, that there is no such
thing. There are no creatures between a cat and a dog, between apes
and humans. This is a perplexing matter for most believers in the
theory of organic evolution.
Evolutionists have suggested various explanations; the inadequacy of
the fossil record, explosive evolution in small populations, and
others. All such explanations are based upon the absence of
evidence. Actual fossils of transitional forms would be much better
evidence of evolution than their absence.
Evolutionists will continue to search for answers to these innumerable
problems. Once again time becomes an important factor for evolution
to work. Scientists continue to wait for new facts that they hope
will substantiate their belief in this theory, as evidenced by this
statement made by a believer in evolution: "To find serene security
in our faith of continuity of life, we must still await discoveries
that will bridge certain breaks."
Fallen men will continue to search in vain for answers concerning
their existence. It is man's pride that prevent him from
acknowledging his true Creator as revealed in the Word of God. Man
finds it difficult to believe in something that he cannot understand
and the things of God are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14).
The fallen, unregenerated man is biased to his own views because he
refuses to realize the severe limitations of the human senses which
operate within a very narrow spectrum. It is the humanistic belief in
the infallibility of man.
"The evolution-idea is a master key that opens all locks into which we
can fit it, and that we do not know of a single fact that can be said
to be in any way contradictory." As ridiculous as that may sound,
many people believe exactly that. Whenone takes a closer look at
the facts and examines the Scriptures, he cannot help but see the
foolishness of such a statement.
The theory of evolution contradicts the basic laws of nature and more
importantly, it contradicts the Word of God. James Dwight Dana said,
"I, an old man who has known only science all his life long, say to
you, that there is nothing truer in all the universe than the
scientific statements contained in the Word of God."
Evolution is a dangerous doctrine because of what it teaches
concerning the origin of man and the origin of the universe.
Evolution is anti-Bible, and anything that is anti-Bible is harmful.
One of the most notable evolutionist's ever is Thomas Huxley. Mr.
Huxley once wrote, "These essays are for the most part intended to
contribute to the process of destroying the infallibility of
Scripture."
Mr. Huxley and a host of other evolutionists believe that the proof of
evolution will invalidate the Scriptures. The problem lies in their
ignorance of the Word of God. The Bible cannot be invalidated and
when it states that God created the universe, it is a fact. Nehemiah
9:6 reads:
"Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of
heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are
therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them
all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee.
This verse testifies to the creation of the universe by God and also
to the fact that He is responsible for the preservation of it.
The evidence of a supernatural creation is set before all men to see
if they so desire, but many people become wise in their own minds and
refuse to acknowledge their Creator, thus becoming fools (Romans
1:19-22). Even those who do not accept the Bible as truth can witness
to the foolishness of evolution if all of the scientific data will be
examined. Unfortunately, many people would rather believe the lies
and absurdity of evolution, rather than believe in a supernatural
creation.
False doctrines and philosophies shall pass away, but the Word of God
will never change or pass away (Matthew 24:35).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Duncan, Homer. Evolution: The Incredible Hoax. Lubbock, Texas:
Missionary Crusader, 1978.
Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No. San Diego, California:
Creation Life Publishers, 1979.
Hiebert, Henry. Evolution: Its Collapse in View. Alberta, Canada:
Horizon House Publishers, 1979.
Morris, Henry M. Many Infallible Proofs. El Cajon, California:
Master Books, 1974.
Morris, Henry M. The Scientific Case for Creation. San Diego,
California: C.L.P. Publishers, 1977.
Stoner, Peter W. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody Press, 1976.
I would also like to briefly mention possibilities of why
one would believe in the theory of evolution to begin with. An
individual might have truly researched the topic, and from
digesting the information they obtained, subscribed to the
theory. On the other hand, some were taught the theory in school
as fact, and not a theory at all. (The drawings presented in
textbooks are just that, an artists view of what they think may
have been, usually based on a few found bones, thus subjective ness
played a major role in the supposed evolution of man).
Another reason for subscribing to the theory of
evolution could have spiritual connotations, such as an alternate
to believing in a Biblical account.
However one comes to believe in this theory, it is my
endeavor to present the theory, from what could possible be a new
approach, in a different angle from what might have been presented
to an individual in the past. Before this task is undertaken, I
would present just a few of the incongruitities associated with
the view that Science has anything to do with evolution:
- Spontaneous generation has never been observed. All
observations have shown that life only comes from life. This
observation is so consistent that it is called the Law of
Biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this law by
claiming that life came from non-living matter.
- Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic
material becomes available for evolution. Almost all (perhaps
all) observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal. No known
mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater
complexity and greater viability.
- If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be
simplest. On the contrary, language studies reveal that the more
ancient the language, the more complex it is with respect to
syntax, cases, genders, tenses and verb forms. The best evidence
indicates that languages devolve.
- Many of the world's fossils were buried before they could
decay. This is strong evidence that sedimentary material was
deposited rapidly - not over millions of years.
- DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes. But
these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA.
Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the
origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the
other. No evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation.
- Detailed studies of various animals reveal certain physical
equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the
world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies.
A few examples include: the sonar systems of the dolphins,
porpoises and whales; the radar system of the bat; the precise
navigational systems of many birds and fish; and the self repair
capabilities of practically all forms of life. Each component of
these complex systems could not have evolved without placing a
selective disadvantage on the animal. All evidence points to a
Designer.
- The planets should rotate on their axes in the same direction,
but Venus and Uranus rotate backwards. All moons of the various
planets should revolve in the same direction, but at least six
revolve backwards. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune have moons going in both directions.
- If the entire universe is an isolated system, then according to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy in the universe that
is available for useful work has always been decreasing. But as
one goes back further in time, the amount of energy available for
useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the
universe that, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics,
remains constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore
implies that the universe had a beginning.
- A further consequence of the Second Law is that when the
universe began, it was a more organized state than it is today,
not in a highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists
and proponents of the Big Bang Theory.
- Geological formulations are almost always dated by their fossil
content, especially by certain "index fossils" of extinct
animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the assumed
evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary sequence is based on
the fossil record. This reasoning is circular.
- Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past
140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This
pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic
field. If this view is correct, then just 25,000 years ago the
electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's
structure would not have survived the heat produced.
- The moon experiences moonquakes, has a magnetic field, and is
still warm, all of which indicate that the moon is still young.
- Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made
direct visual measurements that indicate that the sun's diameter
is shrinking at the rate of about .1% each century or about 5
feet per hour. Using the most conservative data, one must
conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would
have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much
that life could not have survived.
- Many of the earth's previously unexplained features can be
explained only by the Flood of Noah: Glaciers and the ice age,
continental drift, coal formations, mountains, extinction of the
dinosaurs [there are other possible theories for this, however
the "flood" is certainly one of them], ocean trenches, magnetic
patterns of the ocean floor, geological strata, continental
shelves and slopes, metamorphic rock... Every mountain range on
the earth contains fossils of sea life.
- In the face of all creation's argument, men still have
"worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator... the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse"
(Romans 1:25,20).
þÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍþ
As a last note, it is obvious that a belief in creation by
the God of the Bible contradicts the belief of an evolving
process for existence. For if one that believes in the creation
account should turn their belief to the evolutionary processes,
they would have to reject the Bible as an accurate source, both
spiritually and historically. This would include admitting that
life of the man called Christ, Messiah, Lord and Jesus was a
hoax; a deception regarding His promises, acts, nature, and
mission, regardless of the inspirational benefit others received
from just tuning into His "ideas".
On the other hand, if one who believes in evolution should
turn and receive the creation account, they might feel that it is
necessary to neglect the intelligence of science and revert to
the uneducated view of creation. It is my intention to present
creation as scientific, and evolution... as a theory in great
need of reexamination. Hopefully you will both enjoy and
research what is presented in this material in regards to the
theory of evolution and creation.
Sincerely,
John B. Scudder../
|