The Institute is always getting great questions from curious and concerned Christians. Here’s one I thought I’d post since I think the answer might help clarify the topic for other Christians.

This is the question:

“Where do atheist get the notion that science and science alone can account for morality?”

Here is my answer:

There are, in the atheist perspective, two different kinds of morality. There is personal morality and social morality. In personal morality, each person gets to decide their own version of right and wrong for themselves. On the other hand, in social morality, a single, prevailing culture creates a standard of behavior. Usually, this standard evolves over time, changing as the opinions of the majority sway.

Most of the time, it’s in this realm of “social morality” that atheists say they are moral; It’s a given that most people are moral if judged by their own personal standards. So when an atheist claims to be “moral” or to know “morality”, it is only in a post-modern sense. Either their actions are moral by the standards of their own culture or else by some global, nebulous, inter-religious standard no one can seem to define.

Now, the question asked was, “Where do atheists get the notion that science and science alone can account for morality?” Their “notion” is forced on them by their world view. If there is no God to set a standard, there is no objective standard; Everyone must judge for themselves what is right and wrong. Of course, this is purely subjective and may change based on how they’re feeling at the moment. Aren’t we glad that morality doesn’t change based on how someone else feels that day?

So, if it is humans that determine morality, and humans are merely molecules in motion, then it must follow that morality is merely caused by some of those molecules in motion affecting other molecules in motion; There can be no other cause. Some biologically determined chemical change directs our moods and emotions. Based on those and our ability to choose the course of action that benefits us the most, we humans, over eons of time, developed systems of social morality. Eventually, as their story goes, these social systems of morality combined with superstition to form religion.

Therefore, if we begin with the assumption that there is no God, then we have no choice but to attribute morality to mere biology.  If mere biology then only science can explain them; There is no place for religion.

It is the assumptions they begin with that lead to their illogical conclusions.

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.

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.