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.

Dr. Fernandes continues speaking on the effects of Evolution and the Enlightenment. Following Darwin’s and his cousin Dalton’s philosophy, Dr. Fernandes shows how many of the ideas he was led to believe are anti-American and human rights. Inescapable, the conclusions he draws from merely taking Atheistic Evolution to its logical conclusion are startling: Eugenics, Racism and Hatred.

Speaking on the effects of Evolution and the Enlightenment, Dr. Fernandes starts with the principles embraced by the founding fathers of the United States, and examines how their decisions about which “rights” we have were influenced by Christianity. This leads to a look at the transformation of Charles Darwin’s philosophy from Christian to Atheist. The effects are followed to their logical conclusion in today’s morality.

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?

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.

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

THERMODYNAMICS

Thermodynamics deals with the relationship between heat, energy, and work.1 The first and second laws of thermodynamics pose serious problems for evolution. The first law of thermodynamics is called energy conservation. It states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant; no energy is now being created or destroyed.2 This means that if the universe had a beginning, whatever process or act that brought the universe into existence is no longer in operation today. In other words, the “creation process” is no longer operating today. Therefore, either the universe is eternal or the universe was created in the past; no continuing creative process is occurring.

The second law of thermodynamics is called entropy. Though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, it changes form. The second law states that when energy changes form it becomes less usable.3 Therefore, the amount of usable energy in the universe is running out. This means that the day will come when all the energy in the universe will have been used up. This will be the death of the universe. There must have been a time when all the energy of the universe was usable; this would be the beginning of the universe. In other words, since the universe is going to have an end, it is not eternal. If it is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning. The big bang model and the expansion of the universe also confirm the beginning of the universe.4

The evolutionist faces a dilemma. The first and second laws of thermodynamics together declare that the universe had a beginning. The evolutionists cannot deny these laws, for they are considered to be the most firmly established laws of modern science.5 But, evolution runs counter to these two laws. When a scientific model contradicts a scientific law, the model should be abandoned. Since the first and second laws of thermodynamics teach that the universe had a beginning, then something outside the universe must have caused the universe to come into existence. For, from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, the universe could not have evolved into existence out of nothing.

EVOLUTIONARY DATING METHODS

The evolutionary dating methods are inconsistent and unreliable. All evolutionary dating methods are based upon uniformitarianism.6 Uniformitarianism assumes that there were no world-wide catastrophes; therefore, the rate of decay has remained constant. Uniformitarianism assumes that today’s processes have continued at the same rate throughout all time. However, if there were a world-wide flood and a special creation by God, then this uniformitarian assumption would be unwarrented.7

Evolutionary dating methods have been shown to be unreliable. Rocks known to have been only a few hundred years old have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old.8 Henry Morris has stated that there are many different ways to date the earth’s age, but evolutionists only use those methods which give astronomically old dates since evolution needs millions of years to seem even slightly possible.9 Two methods which point to a young earth are population statistics and the earth’s magnetic field.10 If one assumes the principle of uniformitarianism, then due to the present rate at which the population of mankind increases, the start of the present population would take one back 4,300 years to the traditional date for the flood.11 Concerning the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, if one assumes that the present rate of decay remains the same going back indefinitely into the past, then about 7,000 years ago it would have been too strong to sustain life.12

The most convincing argument for an old earth is probably that of the speed of light.13 The speed of light is assumed by scientists to be constant. The light of distant stars and galaxies can be seen on earth. Since it would have taken billions of years for the light of some of these celestial bodies to reach earth (assuming the speed of light has remained the same throughout all time), the universe must be billions of years old.14 However, Barry Setterfield of Australia studied every measurement of the speed of light and found that the speed of light has not been constant throughout all time; it had been faster in the past.15 Setterfield’s research, if reliable, reveals the age of the universe to be only 6,000 years old.16

Even if the universe is old, this would not refute the creation model. Many creationists believe in an old universe.17 However, if the universe is young, the evolution model is destroyed. One thing is clear: the principle of uniformitarianism is an assumption that appears to go against the evidence. If uniformitarianism is true, then all the dating methods would reveal the same approximate dates. These dates would be old or young; they would not be old and young. Since some dating methods point to an old earth and others point to a young earth, the evolutionary dating methods are unreliable. Since uniformitarianism is not a given, the date of the universe is an open question.

THE FOSSIL RECORD

The fossil record is assumed to prove evolution, but, this is not the case. The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional forms (missing links). New life forms appear suddenly and fully developed.18 There are no animals with half-fins or half-wings in the fossil record. If there were transitional forms, why have none been found? This is a serious problem for evolutionists. Harvard paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Louis Agassiz have admitted this lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record.19 Aggassiz, a nineteenth-century creationist, stated:

Species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly in the progressive strata. . . . the supposed intermediate forms between the species of different geological periods are imaginary beings, called up merely in support of a fanciful theory.20

Gould, a twentieth century evolutionist, stated:

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”21

It is interesting to note that the first geologists believed that the fossil record was evidence for the world-wide flood recorded in the Bible.22 This view is strengthened by the fact that fossilization is extremely rare today. Even if the earth existed for millions of years, that would not be enough time for the present fossil record to have been produced without any world-wide catastrophes.23 Fossilization is world-wide and caused by the rapid burial of animals, which is something a world-wide flood would do.24

Another problem for evolution concerning the fossil record is polystrate fossils. These are fossils that extend through two or more layers of sedimentary rock.25 These fossils are usually trees. In order for a standing tree to be fossilized, it would have to be quickly buried before it decayed. However, in these polystrate fossils, the several layers of earth through which the tree extends supposedly took millions of years to form.26 This reveals that evolutionists are mistaken when they assume that layers of sedimentary rock must take millions of years to form and therefore indicate large quantities of time. No tree can live for millions of years. Therefore, these layers of sedimentary rock are not evidence for an old earth. They could have been formed rapidly.27

Another problem for evolution is the fact that the fossil record often appears out of sequence.28 Sometimes “old” fossils appear resting on rock layers containing “younger” fossils.29 The geologic column is “an imagined chronological arrangement of rock units in columnar form with the presumed oldest units at the bottom and presumed youngest at the top.”30 However, the world is full of strata appearing in the wrong order.31 If these layers took millions of years to be formed as evolutionists say, then this would not be the case.

If one assumes the possibility that the fossil record was formed rapidly, the world-wide flood offers the a better explanation. The flood would tend to bury fossils in this order. First, deep oceans creatures would be fossilized. Then, creatures in shallower water, followed by amphibians and land-bordering creatures. Next would be swamp, marsh, and low river-flat creatures (especially reptiles). After that, higher mammals who retreated to higher ground in their attempt to escape the flood would be fossilized. Finally, humans would be overtaken.32 This would be the “standard” order; still, there would be many exceptions due to upheavals in the earth’s crust during and after the world-wide flood.33 A world-wide catastrophe such as the flood offers a much more plausible explanation for these exceptions than evolution does.34

Other interesting aspects of flood geology are the canopy theory and the global ice age. The canopy theory refers to Genesis 1:6-8.35 In that passage, the Bible teaches that God surrounded the earth’s atmosphere with a huge canopy of water. This would have worked liked the ozone layer does today. It would have filtered out poisonous rays from the sun, thus increasing longevity. This may explain why the Bible records pre-flood men living more than nine-hundred years (Genesis 5). After the flood, man’s life-span would drastically decrease. The water contained in the canopy descended in the great flood (Genesis 6:11-12) and covered the entire earth (Genesis 7:19). This would explain why three-fourths of the earth’s surface is covered with water. In fact, if the earth were a completely smooth sphere, it would be covered by water 1.5 miles in depth.36 After the flood, tremendous upheavals in the earth’s crust due to the catastrophe would cause valleys to sink and mountains to rise (Psalm 104:5-9). The mountains that rose would become the dry land man now inhabits. The upheavals in the earth’s crust could also explain much of the continental shifts that scientists have shown to have occurred.

A global flood would cause a global ice age.37 Today, evolutionists accept the global ice age, but they reject a universal flood which could have caused it. Because of this, glacial geologists have failed to determine what caused the ice age. Also the lack of vegetation due to the ice age would have killed off most of the dinosaurs, though some recent dinosaur sightings are well-documented.38

LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS

A devastating problem for the evolution model is the lack of transitional forms. No one possesses an undisputed missing link. All the supposed missing links between apes and men have been dismissed. Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man both have the features of modern man.39 Colorado Man turned out to be a member of the horse family.40 Java Man (also known as Pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon.41 Heidelberg Man consisted of only a lower jaw.42 Obviously, a lower jaw is insufficient evidence for a missing link. One can only speculate as to the makeup of the rest of the skull and skeleton. The Piltdown Man was revealed to be a clever hoax.43 The Peking Man is now thought to be a large monkey or baboon.44 The Southern Ape (also called Australopithecus), Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus were extinct apes.45 The East African Man (Zinjanthropus) was shown to be an ape.46 Finally, the Nebraska Man, which consisted of only one tooth, was proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig.47 This is rather interesting since this tooth had been presented as evidence in the 1925 “monkey trial” as “evidence” for the evolutionary model.48 When the tooth of an extinct pig is mistaken for the tooth of the missing link between apes and men, it shows how subjective modern science has become. Though high school and college textbooks show drawings of the missing links from apes to men, the fact is that this art merely depicts the vivid imagination of scientists. No undisputed missing link between apes and men has been discovered.

Archaeopteryx was once thought to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.49 It had features resembling that of a reptile (teeth, lizard-like tail, and claws). But, archaeopteryx also had wings and feathers similar to a bird. Still, the archaeopteryx was fully developed. It did not have half-wings or the like. Archaeopteryx has now been classified as a bird. This is due to the fact that every characteristic of archaeopteryx can be found in some genuine bird, though some of its features are not found in reptiles.50 It should also be noted that the supposed evolution of reptiles into birds is highly improbable. The lungs of a reptile have millions of tiny air sacs, while the lungs of birds have tubes. In order for a transitional form to exist between a reptile and a bird it would have to breathe without having fully-developed lungs.51

An extinct, small three-toed animal called Eohippus was once thought to be the ancestor of the modern, large, one-toed horse.52 It is now doubtful that Eohippus should have ever been classified in the horse family. Eohippus is probably an extinct type of hyrax.53

Evolutions believe that invertebrates (animals without backbones) have evolved into vertebrates (animals with backbones). However, no transitional form between the two has ever been found.54

This lack of transitional forms is very problematic for the evolution model. It has been over 130 years since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. Still, no missing links have been found. Due to this absence of evidence for evolution, modern evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have proposed a new model called “Punctuated Equilibrium.”55 Whereas evolution means “gradual change,” Punctuated Equilibrium teaches that the changes occurred so suddenly that transitional forms did not survive long enough to be fossilized. It appears that Punctuated Equilibrium is an attempt to explain away the absence of evidence for evolution—but it fails as well.

Since there is no evidence of missing links in the fossil record, evolution should be rejected. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is evidence against evolution and in favor of the creation model, which teaches that there are no missing links.56

MUTATIONS

Evolutionists need a mechanism that explains how evolution has supposedly occurred. Many evolutionists believe that mutation is this mechanism.57 However, as was mentioned in the last chapter, mutations merely scramble the already existing genetic code. No new genetic information is added.58 Yet, for evolution to have occurred, a mechanism is needed through which new genes are produced. Therefore, mutations fail to explain evolution. Evolutionists claim that they believe the present interprets the past. However, there is no mechanism in the present that spontaneously produces new genetic information. Until such a mechanism is found, evolution can only be accepted by “blind faith.”

HEISENBERG’S PRINCIPLE OF INDETERMINACY

Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy is a theory in quantum physics. Quantum physics deals with the atom and the motion of subatomic particles.59 The principle of indeterminacy states that it is impossible to determine both the position in space of a subatomic particle and that particle’s motion at the same time.60 Therefore, subatomic particle movement is currently unpredictable for man. This simply means that scientists aren’t yet able to accurately predict where a specific particle will be at a given moment. Some scientists have wrongly concluded from this that things can occur on the subatomic level without a cause. If this were true, then it would be possible that the universe just popped into existence without a cause. If this were the case, it would not favor either evolution or creation. If things can come into existence without a cause, then the basis for modern science crumbles. All experiments would be a waste of time, for any given phenomena could have come into existence without a cause. Therefore, there would be no need to study the elements of the universe any longer. Modern science would die.

Albert Einstein believed that Heisenberg’s principle did not prove that things can occur without a cause. Einstein held that the causes actually do exist, though man may not be able to find them.61 Man is limited in knowledge, and there may be some causes he is unable to find.62 Heisenberg’s principle, therefore, cannot come to the aid of evolution; the universe (since it had a beginning) needs a cause.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, evolution is not a proven fact. It is assumed to be true by many scientists, but they have offered no convincing proofs. There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.

First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation. The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model).

Second, there is no evidence for the evolutionary assumption that the universe is eternal. Evolutionists must accept this by faith. Evolutionists may assume that the universe evolved into existence from nothing, but this assumption goes against all available scientific evidence.

Third, there is no evidence that intelligence could come from non-intelligence. Intelligence shows evidence of design; it could not have been produced by chance.

Fourth, no evidence has been found proving that multi-celled animals came from single-celled animals. (Even the human embryo does not evolve into a human; it has its full human genetic code at conception.63)

Fifth, there is no evidence for the evolution of animals with backbones from animals without backbones.64 Though there should be multitudes of transitional forms between the two groups, none have been found.

Sixth, there is no evidence for the common ancestry of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.65 Common anatomy could point to a common Designer; it does not necessarily point to common ancestry.

All the major gaps that evolution must cross are assumed to have occurred; they have not been proven to have occurred. Therefore, evolution itself is an unproven assumption. Those who dogmatically proclaim it as truth spend more time explaining away the scientific evidence against their view than they do providing evidence for their view. Any scientific model which lacks plausibility should be abandoned. Such is the case with evolution.

Evolution needs God, but God does not need evolution. If evolution is true, then God is needed to bring the universe into existence from nothing, to bring life from non-life, and complex life forms from simple life forms. In each case, a miraculous superseding of natural laws is needed. However, if God exists, He doesn’t need evolution. He could have either started the long evolutionary process or He could have created the universe in six literal days. God could have used evolution, but if He did, He covered His tracks. He left no evidence. Since God is not the author of deception, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is a myth, devoid of any scientific evidence.

ENDNOTES

1 Tom M. Graham, Biology, the Essential Principles (Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1982), 75.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Orange: Promise Publishing Company, 1991), 53-105.

5 Henry M. Morris, Science and the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 17.

6 Ibid., 66.

7 Ibid.

8 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 292-293.

9 Ibid., 294.

10 Ibid., 295-296.

11 Ibid., 296.

12 Ibid., 295.

13 Paul D. Ackerman, It’s A Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 72.

14 Ibid., 73.

15 Ibid., 74.

16 Ibid., 75.

17 see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), entire book.

18 Geisler and Anderson, Origin Science, 150-153.

19 Ibid., 150-152.

20 Louis Agassiz, “Contribution to the Natural History of the United States,” American Journal of Science, (1860): 144-145.

21 Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, (May 1977): 14.

22 Morris, Science and the Bible, 67.

23 Huse, 46.

24 Ackerman, 83.

25 Ibid., 84.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Morris, Science and the Bible, 68-69.

29 Ibid.

30 Huse, 147.

31 Morris, Science and the Bible, 70.

32 Ibid., 73.

33 Ibid., 74.

34 Ibid., 75.

35 Ibid., 82-85.

36 Ibid., 83.

37 Ibid., 81.

38 Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 350-359. Some of the recent dinosaur sightings noted by Morris include: smaller brontosaurus in the rain forests of the Congo, living plesiosaurs in the Loch Ness and numerous other waterways, and what appears to be a freshly decayed plesiosaur captured and photographed by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand.

39 Morris, Science and the Bible, 58.

40 Huse, 98.

41 Morris, Science and the Bible, 56.

42 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 79.

43 Morris, Science and the Bible, 56.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid., 57-58.

46 Lubenow, 167.

47 Morris, Science and the Bible, 58.

48 Ibid.

49 Huse, 110.

50 Morris, Science and the Bible, 267-268. see also Huse, 110-112.

51 Huse, 112.

52 Morris, Science and the Bible, 54-55.

53 Ibid.

54 Huse, 44.

55 Geisler and Anderson, 150-153.

56 Ibid.

57 Morris, Science and the Bible, 46-47.

58 Ibid.

59 The World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago: World Book, Inc., 1985), vol. 16, 4.

60 Roy E. Peacock, A Brief History of Eternity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), 56-59.

61 Ibid., 59.

62 Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 38-39.

63 Huse, 120.

64 Ibid., 44.

65 Ibid.