Why? Finding Missing Pieces for Faith

Why Accept Creation, Not Evolution?

Play

In our first lesson in this series, we made mention of the difficulties of allowing random time and chance to cause all that we see in the universe. We talked about the odds of things like gravity being perfectly tuned for life was 1 in 1052 (a one with 52 zeroes after it). In this lesson, I want to take things one step further. In that first lesson we showed that science proves creation. In this lesson, I want to show that science disproves evolution.

Defining Science

Scientists today present evolution as an established fact. For decades, science books and school textbooks have presented evolution as something that has been proven and there is no room for debate or discussion any longer. But I want to challenge that assertion in this lesson. Creation is not allowed to be taught in the school because it is considered something that is based on faith, not science.

George Gaylord Simpson in Science said, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything…or at the very least, they are not science” (Science, Vol. 143, p. 769, 1964).

Oxford Dictionary defines “science” as “a branch of study concerned with…demonstrable truths or with observed facts…” An additional requirement that is usually imposed upon science is that a theory must be capable of being tested to see if it is true or false in a given set of circumstances.

The point that must be made is that, admittedly, creation fails these criteria. Creation is not observable, demonstrable, or testable. Creation is accepted by faith, but not blind faith. As we noticed in our first lesson, evidences in this world cause us to conclude creation is the reason. Evolution, however, also fails the criteria of being called “science.” Evolution is not observable, demonstrable, nor testable. If one points out that creation is not science, then one must also accept that evolution is not science either. Both are matters of faith, not scientific fact. In fact, neither can be even considered theories because neither can be tested. To science, creation and evolution are simply hypotheses for the origins of the universe.

Why Is Evolution So Widely Accepted?

Most scholars and scientists have difficulty with creation because it demands the acceptance of the supernatural. D.M.S. Watson summed up the problem well when he said in Nature, “Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Nature, Vol. 124, p. 233, 1929). What evolutionists fail to realize is that evolution is just as incredible, if not more incredible, to believe in. There are two laws of the universe that evolution violates.

Law of Biogenesis. This law of the universe states that life comes from life. Life cannot come from non-life. For a long time it was widely held that spontaneous generation was possible. The proof was meat left out began to breed maggots. This was life (maggots) coming from non-life (meat). It was in 1851 when Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation by showing that when microbes were excluded, nothing grew. This test brought about the law of biogenesis. I think it is important for us to consider that evolution violates this law of the universe. Remember, those who accept the big bang believe that non-life (complex molecules) exploded to bring life. We are right to realize that it is ridiculous to think that life came from nothing. All that we see came from nothing. Even at this, we must ask the question: where did the simple molecules come from? Where did the nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon come from so that when it exploded life came? These elements could not come from nothing. But this is not the only law of the universe that evolution breaks.

Second law of thermodynamics. Isaac Asimov in the Smithsonian Institute Journal states, “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘e universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out–all by itself–and that is what the second law is
all about.”

To state the law simply: everything goes from a state of order to disorder. However, evolution violates this law because it states that everything is going from a state of disorder to order. In the beginning where hydrogen, nitrogen, and other elements which exploded into the universe that now exists. The universe went from disorder to order. Evolution in animals is also going from disorder to order, according to the theory. Amoebas became more complex and orderly, turning into fish, turning into apes, turning into man. Energy has to be applied to keep things orderly. But not random energy, but intelligent energy. Believing that random energy can make things more complex means that you believe that pouring gasoline and lighting a match at a junkyard will produce a functioning car from the explosion.

But let’s go back now. Remember that creation is rejected because it requires the incredible. I hope you see that evolution also demands the incredible. Evolution demands that nature violated its own laws of the universe. Nature decided to suspend its own rules to bring the universe into existence. Now, which is more difficult to believe: The laws of the universe were broken by nature itself or that God created the universe? Nature cannot break its own laws, by definition. It is a law of nature. Easier to think God created than believe that nature itself broke its own laws to make the universe.

Pangenes

Darwin recognized that natural selection could not explain evolution alone. Pangenes is best described by illustration: it has been commonly taught that the way giraffes got long necks was by continually stretching their necks into the trees to eat. As each giraffe stretched its neck, the next generation would have longer necks. This theory has also been disproven. A scientist cut off the tails of mice for more than twenty generations only to find that the babies were still born with tails. However, though the theory was been disproven, it is still taught.

Mutations

Many scientists have actually come to reject Darwinism because of these obvious problems. Now mutations are believed to be the reason for our origins. This is called neo-Darwinism. We are aware that radiation and various chemicals do indeed cause mutations in reproductive cells that can be passed on to future generations. So, okay, it is mutations that has caused us to develop into what we are today. But there are some large obstacles to this theory.

Mathematical problem: The first problem is the simple math. On average, a mutation occurs once out of every ten million duplications of a DNA molecules (107). Our bodies have 1014 cells which means that, on average, each person has two cells in mutated form. But for evolution to work, we need far more than two mutations. But worse, we need the mutations to be related, that is, working on the same character trait.

Here is the mathematical problem: the probability of getting two related mutations is 1014. But we need far more than two related mutations to change an organism into another organism. The probability of having three related mutations is 1021 and the probability of four related mutations is 1028. These are impossible numbers. Evolutionist Huxley calculated the odds for the evolution of a horse through mutations to be 1 in 103,000,000. This is impossible when you consider that there have only been 1017 seconds in five billion years and there are fewer than 1080 atoms. These mathematical problems have caused many evolutionists to not longer believe in typical Darwinian theory. But the teaching is still pushed, as I read recently in our local newspaper about the role of mutations in evolution.

Health problem: Fortunately for us, mutations are rare. The reason this is fortunate for us is because mutational changes are harmful not beneficial. We know that radiation causes mutations. So, if mutations are beneficial, why are we not all running to the xray machine? Why do we wear lead aprons when we have a xray performed? The reason is because mutations are almost always harmful. Now, we need every single one of those billions of mutations to all be beneficial and not harmful.

Genes problem: Finally, mutations are only changes in already existing genes. Mutations do not produce new genes. All one can get from a mutation is a varied form of an already existing gene. Mutations in fruit flies still leaves us with fruit flies and not new organism. Mutations in corn still gives us corn, not apples.

The Fossil Record

If evolution is true, we would expect to find thousands of transitional forms of organisms evolving. We ought to find fossils that show stages through which one kind of animal or plant changed into another kind. Most people think that the fossil record proves evolution, but quite the opposite is true. Darwin himself even admitted that this was a problem to his theory. He writes, “…intermediately links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” Darwins hoped that as more fossils were discovered, “missing links” would be found to support his theory. Those missing links have not been found.

When we look back into the fossil record, we do not see evolution. Instead we see extinction. The past shows a greater variety of animals and plants than what we see today. Further, when we look into the fossil record, we see snails are still snails and squid are still squid. E.J.H. Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University said, “…to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” But most scientist will not tell you that their theory is not upheld by the fossil record. Rather, the newspapers continue to proclaim the finding of missing links. Yet, there are none that have been verified to be true snapshots of evolutionary change. Nothing reveals itself evolving from the simple to the complex. All supposed missing links between apes and men have been proven to be fraudulent.

Dating The Universe

I think what bothers Christians the most is the dating that takes place by scientists. We are troubled when we hear that something dates to be 3 million years old and this seems to cause us difficulty. But there are acceptable answers for this seeming problem.

Radiocarbon dating has flaws. One of the assumptions of radiocarbon dating is that we living in a closed system. Therefore, things have always remained the same so that we can assume a constant rate of decay of whatever isotope is being measured. But the earth is not a closed system and we see a lot of cataclysms that would run such measurements. Mount St. Helens is proof of this problem. In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted. By 1986 a new lava dome formed. Potassium-argon testing of that lava dome in 1997 came back with a dating of 500,000 to 3 million years old. However, the newly formed dome was only 11 years old. Cataclysms throw off these measurements. Scientists are currently working on challenging the belief that isotopes decay at a constant rate. It is called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. You can search for it online to read more about it.

Old earth created. But there is one thing that Christians so often forget. When God created the universe, he did not create the universe young, but mature. If Adam would have cut down a tree, he would have assumed that the trees were decades old. But tree had only been made three days earlier. God made the earth fully mature. God wasn’t going to wait millions of years for the light of the sun to reach the earth. God made it happen instantly. So the universe does not have to be millions of years old to explain that we can see light from other solar systems. Adam himself was not made a baby. Eve would have assumed that Adam had been around for a few decades. But he was only a couple hours older than Eve. I hope we see the point that we should see dating of the universe be old not young.

Conclusion:

  1. Science has not disproven creation. As much as science likes to claim that there is a contradiction between science and the Bible, such an assertion is simply not true. In fact, science continues to disprove the various evolutionary theories that have been presented over the past 120 years, not special creation.
  2. Scientists are beginning with a conclusion. We would like to think that scientists are unbiased in their efforts and are simply allowing the scientific evidence to sway them. But this is simply not the case. We can especially see this problem with the supposedly found “missing links” between apes and humans. Scientists do not want there to be a God, so they will look for evidence that proves their belief.
  3. Creation explains our existence, evolution does not. Creation gives our lives purpose, value, and meaning. Evolution means that our lives have no purpose and meaning. According to evolution, we are cosmic accidents and everything around us by chance came into existence. Out of nothing, life came and became more complex. God says that he made us in his image. “In the beginning God created in the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Scroll to Top