Institute of Biblical Defense

While I do not believe the discussion of evolution is incumbent to the question of the existence of God, for the purposes of this blog we will consider the two as connected. Recently on some atheist forums there has been a question concerning a better angle to take when discussing evolution with creationists. Instead of the tired question, “do you believe in evolution?” it has been suggested that “do you understand evolution?” is preferable. I agree that the syntax on the first question is horrible. There are several different types of belief and there is something like nine acceptable definitions of the evolution. But then, does the second question fare better?

From an epistemological standpoint alone the question fails because the answer to any epistemological question is contingent upon basic ontology; or that, understanding of a thing does not add or detract to its efficacy or existence in the world. For example, suppose a gun fell from a plane in the midst of a pre-industrial village. If the villagers managed to understand the device or not, its efficacious existence is contingent on neither their comprehension of the device or not.

Since knowledge of a thing does not aid in that things existence, what else should we consider about this second question? From a semantic standpoint, the second question “begs the question.” What I mean is, those who ask such a thing are obviously presupposing the answer. Or that, anyone who asks the question is essentially saying, “You disagree with evolution because you do not understand it. If you did understand it your belief concerning a creator would change.” This is worth examination.

My previously mentioned “translation” seems to be the driving intent of the question. The epistemological problem, the motives and question begging aside there is still a myriad of problems with this question. I wish to focus on two primary problems (which really is one criticism in two parts), one the ineffectiveness of full acceptance and the nature of “believing/understanding in evolution.”

What I mean by “the full acceptance” problem is, suppose that someone fully accepted every tenant of Darwinian evolution, would this result in atheism necessarily? In no way! Evolution is not a relatively new concept, there are Greek texts referring to various aspects of evolution. Darwin simply applied scientific methodology, terminology, and observation to pre-existing evolutionary thought. He was an Avant-garde in many senses, but by no means as the creator of the concept. However, these concepts were readily available and welcomed by atheism because until this date there was no real intellectual justification for atheism. While there were various philosophical arguments questioning the goodness or intent of God, the arguments for God vastly outweighed the arguments against Him. But with Darwinian evolution, it was a chance for the atheist to, in her mind, be truly intellectually justified in denying God’s existence.

Darwinian evolution seems to be the intellectual rallying cry of atheists but this is misguided. Darwin himself was not an atheist. One would think that if the creator of a school of thought does not reach the supposed necessary conclusion that is purported by other followers, one would not be justified in concluding the result is unnecessary—if Darwin was not an atheist, Darwinian evolution does not necessarily mean that God does not exist.

Further, not only does Darwinian evolution not necessitate atheism, but it is theoretically possible (and there are instances of it) of someone holding both to Darwinian evolution and being a theist (or even a Christian). While it seems most atheists or Christians are neither satisfied with this middle ground approach (both see it as an unjustified compromise) its existence is nonetheless proof that full acceptance does not necessarily entail atheism.

My second criticism concerning fundamental problems with the idea of “belief/understanding of evolution” is within the same vein of my first criticism. While the belief or understanding of evolution does not necessary point one toward atheism, I believe this can be taken to a further degree and maintain that by its very nature, evolution is merely advocated not because of its intellectual preeminence, but merely because it presents a possible alternative to God. A famous quotation by Arthur Keith renowned evolutionary scientist claims, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” There have been some questions as to the validity of this quotation but it is hardly an outlier belief. D.M.S Watson, a zoologist said, “the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” The previous two examples are somewhat dated, but this line of thinking is by no means limited to yesterday, Harvard Biology professor George Walls said, “I choose however to believe that which is impossible (Darwinian Evolution) rather than accept the unthinkable – special creation.”

While the question of Darwinian evolution really has very little to do with the question of God, even if it did its efficacy is not contingent upon comprehension, acceptance, and in no way necessitates atheism. At best it is a hope of intellectually justification for atheism, and this justification seems to be clung to not because of its intellectual prowess but because of the unwanted alternative, special creation.

According to the standard DNA model only about 2% of human DNA codes for amino acids. Amino acids are used by the cell to, among other things, construct proteins and catalyze reactions. The proteins, in turn, are used to construct structures (such as hair and skin) while the catalysts allow our cells to function by helping process materials and chemicals for use.

This leaves 98% of our genome as “non-coding”. In 1972, Susumu Ohno ignorantly claimed that these sequences were functionless leftovers of the random process of Evolution. He coined the phrase, “Junk DNA“. It is today recognized that much of our non-coding DNA serves any number of functions, such as: maintaining structure, controlling which genes are expressed and acting as hooks for RNA to attach to when copying segments of “coding” DNA. It reminds on of the equally as ignorant “vestigial organ” theories of the 19th century; where many organs were thought to be useless throwbacks to a different time.

Of course, humans and other creatures do have vestigial “features”. These are features that have lost either part of all of their functionality because of selective pressures (environment), sexual selection (it looked bad) or mutation. Now, there is no scientific consensus on exactly how much of our DNA is actually just broken junk. However, this part is certain to grow with time. Eventually, if the genetic load becomes too heavy, our species will become extinct.

This leads us to the conclusion that ancient peoples (at some time in the past) had what are now broken functions in full working order. From research into the ancient past, we can tell that those humans who came before us were an amazing lot. With foot falls in the mud clocking them at 23 miles per hour (and accelerating), strength that makes us modern folks look like wimps, larger brains, amazing memories that could remember huge amounts of information (including oral traditions like the ones used when Moses wrote genesis) and even giants, we can definitely see how, in many ways, we are less than those who came before us.

Now this concept of becoming “less” over time kind of sums up what “Genetic Load” is. For example, if we take Biblical history as fact, we can see clearly how human life spans began to shorten after the flood. It is well known today that anytime a creature is reduced to only a few members (like 8), any genetic problems present in that number become a permanent addition to the genome quite quickly. So us modern folk are victims of broken, non-functional DNA passed down from our ancestors.

It’s not only humans, however, who suffer from this misfortune. The modern cheetah and panda populations are nearing extinction. As population loss creates a sudden rise in genetic load, these creatures are quickly approaching genetic non-viability; According to natural selection, their time is up.

So, if genetic load is slowly destroying life on earth, how long do we have? What does it say about how long we have been here? What about evolution and its millions of years?

Here’s the skinny. If most of the human genome is discovered to have purpose (little is classified as junk) then the human genome has a small genetic load. If most of the DNA is useless junk then humans have a large genetic load. It’s that simple.

Now, we inherit approximately 60 to 200 mutations per generation via our parents’ reproductive DNA. Although most of the changes are neutral, they do represent change and can combine to either benefit or harm the genome. Fortunately, we can run simulations to discover how quickly genetic load builds over time, taking into account such factors. The simulations, however, are only as accurate as the numbers entered.

Here is where both creationists and evolutionists must begin making assumptions and creating models. A creationist will take straight forward approach, counting the neutral, beneficial and destructive mutations. This reading leads to a human race doomed after only a few hundred generations. On the other hand, evolutionist models rely heavily on Junk DNA. If humans are a million years old,  there must be large regions of useless DNA that have and will continue to absorb most of the mutations while the protein coding and useful non-coding regions are left mostly unharmed (in a similar way to how Jupiter protects the earth from asteroids). This leads to using numbers that are different than those used by creationists and viability up to 10k generations and beyond.

In the end, simulations aside, it seems to me that this entire issue of genetic load and viability revolves around two rates which are scientifically measurable. Since we know how quickly genetic load accumulates, the only thing left to measure is how quickly it degrades our viability. Here, however, is the second point where the creationist and evolutionist models diverge.

In the creationist model, the genome started with zero genetic load; It was perfect when created by God. After the fall, it began to degrade as it was attacked by viruses, exposed to carcinogens or attacked by other mutation causing factors (including the human race being reduced to 8 people). In the evolutionist model, the genome is in constant flux. Mutations that are destructive are kept in check through selective pressures (sexual selection, fitness, etc) and are absorbed by junk DNA while beneficial and neutral ones are spread. This keeps the genetic load from ever reaching the extinction point (1) and allows for new functions to be created.

One of these models relies on a lot of “must haves” and “probably’s”; In other words, a lot of assumptions that we can’t validate.  The other model relies on known values and measurements that corresponds to a known historical and anthropological discoveries. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

Evolution is a word that, in Christian circles, stirs up deep contentions. So much so that most pastors would rather ignore the issue of creation rather than risk the inevitable, divisive controversy. Why is this the case? At face value, it seems as if science and scripture are almost totally at odds about the origins of life. If a pastor embraces biblical creation, aren’t they just inviting ridicule from unbelievers and closing doors to the gospel? Maybe.

Since I’m not one to shy away from controversy, I thought I’d offer a small argument in favor of creation. This argument relies on a little bit of science and a little bit of logic; Both lie just at or above the layman’s level. Please feel free to add your own comments as you feel appropriate.

The logic of the argument arose organically while I was defending Christian theism on YouTube (as I often do). It goes like this:

1) According to the theory of Naturalistic Evolution, the first creatures on this earth were simple; They had a small amount of DNA (relatively speaking) and few moving parts.

2) Today, there are many complex creatures in the world; They have large amounts of DNA and many interacting, interdependent, moving parts.

3) In order to get from a simple creature to a more complex creature, as is obvious, copious amounts of functional (protein coding), instructional and structural DNA must be added to a creature’s genome.

4) The only known means to create this new genetic information is mutations, where, for one reason or another, a creature’s current genetic information gets altered, extended or both to create a novel function.

5) Although mutations occur in cells throughout a creatures life, only mutations that are passed on are relevant to evolution.  Mutated cells that die without being passed on are irrelevant.

6) Therefore, unless a mutation occurs in the reproductive organs or in a very, very early stage of fetal development, they are pointless in terms of evolution.

So it isn’t just mutations that urge on Naturalistic Evolution via Natural Selection, it’s mutations that occur in the reproductive areas to the DNA that is used to create a baby. Now, what are the odds that any random shuffle of reproductive DNA will contain a mutation? What are the odds that the mutated DNA will be among the fortunate few used to create a baby? What are the odds the mutation will be both beneficial (or neutral) and contain new information?

Considering the number and eggs a woman has and the mind-numbing number of sperm a male produces in his productive years, these numbers are already infinitesimally small. Wait, it gets better.

In a similar way, in order for a creature to pass on an information adding, beneficial or neutral mutation to a significant number of the other members of the species (so as to become fixed), the population must be small and, on most occasions, inbreeding must occur. At this point, the odds are getting very, very, very small. So small that, in fact, it would almost seem impossible.

Add to this the fact that DNA contains a “language” of sorts that is read and interpreted to create proteins and you can see where I’m going with this. There’s a reason why famous agnostic/atheist Anthony Flew rejected pure atheism in favor of his own flavor of deism in 2004: The sheer volume of both coincidences and serendipitous situations that must occur for a single high order creature to arise from a lower level one border on the a number that suggests the miraculous.

Now, let’s wrap all this up with some great Naturalistic Evolutionary science.

Since it’s nearly impossible to make DNA work as a first source of life, an alternative hypothesis has been suggested. In this hypothesis, DNA was not necessary at all, instead RNA (which carries copied DNA information to protein creation machines) functioned as both a catalyst and carrier of information; DNA wasn’t necessary because the RNA both stored information and allowed it to be copied into proteins. Ingenious, right?

So where did RNA come from? Simple. Enter the ironically nick-named “garbage bag” theory. Oily or metal oxide membranes formed in water. Huge numbers of random polymers just happened to be floating around (what a coincidence). Since the membranes allowed small polymers in and kept large polymer chains from leaving (how serendipitous) longer and longer chains formed. Other substances destructive or distracting to this process were somehow kept out of the process (it’s a miracle in the ancient seas) and among the polymers there were a variety of monomer sequences available. Then, some mysterious means to amplify the number of polymer chains containing certain catalytic properties came along (this miracle is apparently not of God) which caused the RNA to fold up and start to do something (rather than just do nothing).

Yeah … I’m convinced. How about you?

In the first part of this response, I mentioned a few of the arguments atheists use to discredit theists; For the most part, their contentions lack evidence and their convictions are just as religious as any Sunday morning Christian. We are not fooled.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, let’s ask the question the article brings up: Did the scientists  indeed create life in the laboratory;  Was this a precursor to artificial intelligence? I know this may seem surprising, considering the way the article words it, but the answer to both of these questions is no.

First of all, the idea of a true AI has already been demonstrated to be untenable. John Searle demonstrates this with his famous thought experiment: Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese. He’s locked in a room full of boxes. Each is covered with Chinese symbols (a data base of sorts). At his disposal is a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (a program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols, which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (input). Now imagine that by following the instructions in the program, the man in the room is able to arrange and pass out Chinese symbols which happen to be correct answers to the questions sent in (the output). The program does enable the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese. However, he still doesn’t understand a word of Chinese.

Searle goes on to explain that the man in the room is similar to a computer. While computers can process information at an incredible rate, they don’t have the capacity to think about what they process. True “Artificial life” shouldn’t just produce inputs and outputs. In order for it to be what most consider real, it must have independent thoughts about those inputs and outputs; Or more precisely, this AI must participate in a function found only in humans: the use of second order mental states.

Second order mental states are essentially thoughts about thoughts; It would be impossible for a machine to do this. A machine can evaluate evidence and determine probabilities concerning various outcomes. That, however, is hardly a second order mental state. Now, in time, machines, androids, or some other type of AI could become so anthropomorphized that they are barely distinguishable from humans. Once again, this is not a true artificial intelligence, but rather the result of very clever and careful programming.

Back to the article. While there are some very intriguing uses for the molecular science mentioned in the article, this is in no way creating life. Essentially, this is more like the photocopying of a cell. In a nutshell, the process includes: Taking existing DNA, sequencing it, rebuilding and programing it, and  placing the DNA into an existing live cell and watching it grow. It isn’t anything new and it only acts according to how it was programmed. Now, it’s not my intention to diminish this fascinating work, but in no way does this article describe creating life; After all the hype is stripped, it merely describes how scientists can rearrange existing life.

Originally posted by IBD Vice President Matt Coombe on mjcoombe.com

I recently read about this article on an atheist forum. It is provocatively titled: “Scientists create life. We are God.” I’m not sure if their intention was to mock theists or to disprove God (or both). Either way, I have every intention of dismantling not only the title but the evidence presented in the article as well. Before I can do that, however, we need to understand where these arguments come from. We should first take a look at current trends in atheist argumentation.

There are many trends in atheist thought today. That said, there appear to be two getting the most media attention. These are the incoherent claim: “Look at this amazing scientific breakthrough! God surely does not exist!” and the ever popular: “Look at these religious cooks! They’re part of some obscure cult! It’s obvious that all religious people are mentally deficient … and God surely does not exist.”

The first argument, the science disproves God claim, is usually spouted by atheists without any thought given to the actual evidence; I’m convinced most don’t even realize they’re using the argument. It forces me to respond with comments like: “Why is this subject being discussed under the guise of atheism?” Of course, I usually await atheist responses in vain.

As for the article (linked above), my response was: “Why is this article being discussed on an atheist forum?” Not that atheists aren’t free to discuss whatever they wish; Don’t get me wrong. I was just wondering why such an obviously religious article, as its title makes clear, is so popular among a group that abhors religion … unless, of course, they are engaging in the religious practice of apologetics.

At times it seems like atheists are similar to those “religious” people who claim to see miracles everywhere (i.e. “I found my car keys, it’s a miracle!”).  In the same way, an atheist claims: “Science did something really cool, therefore God does not exist!’” It’s beyond the scope of this essay to argue this point further, but science and theism are in no way fundamentally contradictory.

As for the second popular argument, where religious people are viewed as deficient, I always tell my students: “If you want to refute something, you must refute it at its best. If you had the choice to refute a ‘moral’ atheist who loves his wife, provides for his family, and gives to the poor, or refute an atheist who is a murdering rapist, we should choose to refute the better example of atheism.” When I first ask my students which of the two we should  refute, they usually miss the mark (atleast at first) and assert the immoral atheist should be refuted. But I remind the student, Christianity can measure up to and overcome any other worldview at its best; After all, the most superior being in all of existence should bestow a superior worldview or lifestyle.

Atheists like to point out pedophile priests or suicide bombers, but such claims are informal fallacies, stemming from (but not limited to): The “red herring”, “poisoning the well”, and “straw man” arguments; None address the fundamental evidence for theism. Atheists (and at times Christians too) think that if they were to sink another’s boat it would entail that their own boat is floating. But this is not the case. Poking holes in the Christian worldview will in no way seal the holes of atheism (or vice versa). While lifestyle or actions should play somewhat of a role in determining the relative superiority of a worldview, the debate should come down to evidence. Who is more justified in believing what they believe?

It seems at best strange for an atheist to make the assertion, “We are God.” As people that openly voice their hated of religion, they certainly do seem to make alot of religious claims. For example, I hear atheists refer to their conversion to atheism or make large, sweeping metaphysical pronouncements. Despite the very similar terminology and subject matter, atheists still vehemently maintain: “Atheism is no religion.” Really?

I recently read a popular atheist argument that goes like this: “Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Okay, I understand the statement. However, I disagree; Atheism is more than merely a lack of participation. Consider the example presented and imagine it this way: Atheism is like a man confronting a stamp collector and saying, “Why do you collect stamps? That’s a child’s hobby! Who even collects stamps, anyways?” As soon as someone is willing to fight for a belief, whether in a verbal or physical way, the belief begins to enter into the realm of religion.

In fact, whatever belief is most important to a person, if it shapes their worldview and guides their actions, that belief is for all practical purposes their religion. It isn’t just having a belief in one or many supernatural beings that necessitates a religion; In fact, many traditional Buddhists are atheists. Buddha himself was an agnostic; To him, the existence of God wasn’t even an important question. Even so, who would claim that devout monks, spending hours in meditation each day while secluded in cloistered monasteries are not religious people? Clearly, atheists can be highly religious people.

However, are all atheists religious? Maybe it’s just the vocal minority. Maybe it’s not. Many people aren’t aware of this, but the original humanist manifesto clearly referred to secular humanism as a religion. Mankind’s salvation would be found through reason and technology. Since the atheists making the “We are God” claims are obviously secular humanists, it appears that they are denying the very definition of their own beliefs. As Ravi Zacharias once said, “It’s not me you have a problem with. It’s reality.”

So even if an atheist isn’t an activist, they still espouse a religious worldview. As Dr. Fernandes has questioned, “If the statement, ‘There is a God’ is a religious statement, then why is the statement, ‘There is no God’ not a religious statement?” Well said. After all,  aren’t both statements making judgments about the same metaphysical truth?

Anyways, since I spent so much space on tangents here, I’ll have respond the article tomorrow.

by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

HISTORY OF THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE

The creation model is the view that God created the universe without using evolution. The creation model dominated modern science before 1860.2 Modern science was started by men who believed in the existence of the God of the Bible. Galileo, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal are just a few who fit into this category.3 Their belief in God’s existence formed the foundation for modern science. They believed that a reasonable God created the universe in a reasonable way, so that through reason man could find out about the universe in which he lives.4 In other words, the universe makes sense only because God designed it to make sense. Today, however, atheistic evolutionists have rejected this base for modern science.5 They have rejected the existence of a reasonable God. But the question that they must face is this: “Without a reasonable God, can a person really expect the universe to make sense?”

The evolution model is the view that life spontaneously evolved from non-life without intelligent intervention.6 The evolution model dominated modern science after 1860.7 Charles Darwin published his book The Origin of Species around that time.8 Darwin proposed a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, first life, and new life forms.9 He taught that nature can be explained without appealing to a supernatural origin. Darwin’s proposal quickly became the predominant “scientific” view.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Evolution is not a scientific fact. The scientific method consists of six steps: 1) observation, 2) proposal of a question or problem, 3) hypothesis (an educated guess), 4) experimentation, 5) theory (a hypothesis with a high degree of probability), and 6) natural law (a theory shown to be valid on a universal scale).10 Evolution is not a scientific law or theory, let alone a scientific fact. The supposed evolutionary changes from one species to another cannot be observed.11 They supposedly occurred in the past. Therefore, since observation is the initial step in the scientific method, evolution cannot be proven through the scientific method.

The creation view is in the same category as evolution. Creation, scientifically speaking, is not a fact, law, or theory. Like evolution, the supposed creation is a singular event in the past. It cannot be observed. Therefore, both creation and evolution are only scientific models; they represent different ways to interpret the same evidence.12

This does not mean that creation and evolution cannot claim to be scientific. Contrary to popular belief, the scientific method is not the only way to search for truth in the field of science. Forensic science (crime scene investigation) does not use the scientific method, for the crime can no longer be observed. Still, forensic science is a legitimate science.13 Science can be separated into two main divisions: operation science and origin science. Operation science deals with the repeatable; it is science of the observable present. It uses the scientific method. Forensic science, creation, and evolution do not fall into this category.14 Origin science, on the other hand, deals with the non-repeatable; it deals with the singular events of the past. Origin science does not utilize the scientific method since singular events of the past can no longer be observed.15 Forensic science, creation science, and evolutionary science fall into this category.

ORIGIN SCIENCE

Since the non-repeatable events of the past cannot be observed, origin science does not make use of the scientific method. Instead, origin science uses the principles of analogy (also called uniformity) and causality to determine whether or not a model is plausible.16 The principle of analogy states that when a scientist observes a cause bringing about a certain effect in the present, he should posit the same kind of cause for a similar effect in the past.17 In other words, similar effects usually have similar causes. The principle of causality states that every event must have an adequate cause.18 A scientist should use these two principles to determine the plausibility (or lack of plausibility) of a particular model.

Since the creation model and the evolution model fall under the heading of origin science, the principles of analogy and uniformity must be applied to them to determine which model is more plausible. It must be understood that the creation model and the evolution model both deal with the same evidence. An example of this is common anatomy. Common anatomy deals with the similarities in the body parts of different species. Examples of common anatomy are the similarities that exist concerning the arm of a man, the arm of an ape, the wing of a bird, and the fin of a shark. Both creationists and evolutionists agree to the common anatomy between different species of animal life. However, the two models interpret the evidence differently. The evolution model teaches that common anatomy proves common ancestry.19 Common ancestry is the view that all species are related since one species has evolved into another. The creation model teaches that the same data (common anatomy) proves the existence of a common Designer. Animals often share common anatomy due to their being created and designed by the same God.20

Which model is more plausible? In order to answer this question, the principles of analogy and causality must be applied to the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms. Both the creation model and the evolution model must be tested in these three areas to ascertain which model is more plausible.

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Did the universe have a beginning, or did it always exist? This is a very important question. For if the universe had a beginning, it would need a cause. It could not have evolved into existence from nothing. If the universe is eternal then it may not need a cause. Fortunately, science is not silent on this question. The second law of thermodynamics is called energy deterioration. This law says that the amount of usable energy in the universe is running down.21 Eventually, all the energy in the universe will be used up. This means that the universe is winding down. If it is winding down, it had to have been “wound up.” If the universe is going to have an end, it had to have a beginning. There had to be a time when all the energy in the universe was usable; this marks the beginning of the universe.

The expansion of the universe and the big bang model also confirm the beginning of the universe.22 In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions.23 As time moves forward the universe is growing apart. This means that if one went back in time the universe would get denser. If one goes back in time far enough, the entire universe would be contained in what scientists have called “a point of infinite density.”24 But, a point can only be finitely dense. For a point to be infinitely dense it would have to be non-existent. Therefore, the universe came into existence from nothing a finite time ago.

There have been two main attempts to refute the beginning of the universe. The first is the steady-state model. This view holds that the universe had no beginning. Instead, it always existed in the same state. However, because of the mounting evidence for the big bang model, this view has been abandoned by most of its adherents.25

The second attempt to evade the beginning of the universe is called the oscillating model. This model teaches that, at some point during the universe’s expansion, gravity will halt the expansion and pull everything back together again. From that point there will be another big bang. This process will be repeated over and over again throughout all eternity. However, the oscillating model fails for three reasons. First, there is no known principle of physics that would reverse the expansion of the universe into another big bang. Second, current scientific research has shown that the universe is not dense enough for gravity to pull it back together again. Third, even if one could prove that several big bangs have occurred, the second law of thermodynamics would still require that there was a first big bang.26

Therefore, science has shown that the universe had a beginning, but, since from nothing, nothing comes, something must have caused the universe to come into existence. Everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Since the universe needs a cause, the creation model is more plausible than the evolution model. If the universe were eternal, then the evolution model could claim some type of plausibility. But, for the above reasons, this is not the case. The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning. Something separate from the universe had to cause it to come into existence.

THE ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE

Evolution teaches spontaneous generation—that life came from non-life without intelligent intervention.27 However, spontaneous generation violates the law of biogenesis and the cell theory. The law of biogenesis states that “all living things arise only from other living things.”28 The cell theory defines the cell as the most basic unit of life, and declares that “new cells arise only from pre-existing cells.”29 Both the law of biogenesis and the cell theory are accepted by evolutionists; the evolutionists merely assume that first life is the exception to these principles. But, a model that violates scientific theories and laws should be abandoned. This is especially true when there is a rival model that does not violate scientific theories and laws.

The creation model posits the existence of an intelligent Being in order to bridge the gap from non-life to life. The creation model recognizes that the specified complexity (highly complex information) found in a single-celled animal could not be produced by chance. A single-celled animal has enough genetic information to fill one volume of an encyclopedia.30 Just as an explosion in a print shop cannot randomly produce one volume of an encyclopedia, there is no way that a single-celled animal could have been produced by mere chance. Intelligent intervention was needed.31

Natural laws by themselves do not produce specified complexity. Geisler illustrates this point by stating that though natural laws can explain the Grand Canyon, they cannot explain the faces on Mount Rushmore.32 The faces on Mount Rushmore reveal evidence of intelligent design.

Evolutionists often offer the Miller and Urey experiments as evidence that life has been produced from non-life in the laboratory. In response, several things should be noted. First, Chandra Wickramasinghe, one of Britain’s most eminent scientists, calls these experiments “cheating.” Miller and Urey start with amino acids, break them down, and then recover them. They do not produce something that wasn’t there to begin with.33 Second, Geisler states that the Miller and Urey experiments do not produce life. They only produce amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. Amino acids are to life what a single sentence is to one volume of encyclopedia.34 Third, Geisler points out that even if these experiments did produce life from non-life in the laboratory (which they don’t), it would support the creation model, not the evolution model. The reason for this is clear. The experiments would merely prove that to get life from non-life intelligent intervention (i.e., the scientists) is needed. The experiments would not prove that life spontaneously arose from non-life.35

Therefore, the creation model is more plausible than the evolution model when explaining the origin of first life. Intelligent intervention is necessary to produce life from non-life. It could not have happened by accident.

THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS

Many people believe that the fossil record proves evolution, but, this is not the case. In the fossil record, new life forms appear suddenly and fully developed.36 There is no evidence of transitional forms (missing links). There are no fins or wings becoming arms. There are no intermediate forms. The gaps between forms in the fossil record are evidence against evolution, not for evolution.

Evolution teaches that single-celled animals eventually evolved into human beings. Of course, evolutionists claim this took large quantities of time to be accomplished. A single-celled animal contains enough information to fill one volume of encyclopedia,37 but, the human brain contains enough information to fill twenty million volumes of encyclopedia.38 Natural law, no matter how much time is involved, can never produce twenty million volumes of encyclopedia from one volume. Intelligent intervention is needed to produce more complex information.39

Evolutionists often point to mutations as the process by which evolution takes place.40 However, mutations do not add more complex information to the genetic code. Instead, they merely garble the already existing genetic code.41 For evolution to take place, new genetic information is needed. For example, single-celled animals would need new genes for the development of teeth, yet mutations produce no new genetic information.42

Simple life forms do not go to complex life forms through natural law alone.43 Time plus chance plus natural laws can never produce more complex information.44 Something must impart more information. Therefore, the creation model is more plausible than the evolution model concerning the origin of new life forms.

CONCLUSION

The scientific case for creation is very strong. Though it is true that creationists have never seen the invisible Creator, evolutionists also have never seen the supposed evolutionary changes of the past. The principles of analogy and causality support creationism as a superior model to evolution. Blind chance and natural laws are inadequate causes for the origin of the universe, first life, and new life forms. An intelligent Cause is needed in each case. The cause of the beginning of nature cannot be nature itself. No being can preexist its own existence in order to cause its own existence. Therefore, nature needs a supernatural Cause. This supernatural Cause must be an intelligent Being to bring life from non-life and complex life forms from simple life forms. Hence, the creation model is more plausible than the evolution model.

ENDNOTES

1 Norman L. Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson, Origin Science (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), entire book.

2 Ibid., 37-52.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 37-40, 51.

5 Ibid., 52.

6 Ibid., 82-86.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Tom M. Graham, Biology, the Essential Principles (Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1982), 6.

11 Geisler and Anderson, 15.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., 25.

14 Ibid., 36.

15 Ibid., 127-132.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., 131-132.

18 Ibid., 130-131.

19 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 252-255.

20 Ibid.

21 Graham, 75.

22 Craig, 81-83.

23 Ibid., 82.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., 83.

26 Ibid., 83-88.

27 Morris, 260.

28 Graham, 18.

29 Ibid., 12.

30 Geisler and Anderson, 162.

31 Ibid., 162-163.

32 Ibid., 141.

33 Varghese, 34.

34 Geisler and Corduan, 105-106.

35 Geisler and Anderson, 138-139.

36 Ibid., 150-152.

37 Ibid., 162.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., 163.

40 Morris, 256.

41 Ibid.

42 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 111.

43 Geisler and Anderson, 150.

44 Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 94.