No realistic person can deny that life on planet earth exists. But where did it come from and how did it get here? Everything had a beginning. There are only three ways to explain life on this planet: - Life has always existed.
- Life came from non-life by some "natural" process.
- Life was suddenly created by a higher power.
The first law of thermodynamics informs us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed and that energy or matter cannot be naturally created from nothing. It may be changed from one form to another, but never created nor destroyed. Yet, the evolutionary premise demands the initial creation of matter and energy from nothing. The second law of thermodynamics, stated quite simply, is that spontaneity causes degradation-the tendency to run down. In other words, the universe runs just one way: it is like a great watch that is running down, not evolving to a higher state. The second law of thermodynamics describes a universal law of decay and disintegration over time. This is the diametric opposite of the evolutionary concept. Material things are not eternal. Nothing stays as fresh as it is the day one buys it; material items ultimately rot, rust, and return to dust. Everything ages and wears out. The effects of the second law of thermodynamics are all around us, touching everything in the universe. This second law of thermodynamics is, in fact, one of the major reasons many evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of creationism. The logic is inescapable. The second law of thermodynamics attests to the inevitable heat death of the universe and proves that there has been no past eternity of matter. Since this degradation of matter can be measured, we know that not enough time has gone by for all matter to run down since it was created. Thus, we can eliminate the first hypothesis that all mater has always existed. This leaves two-and only two-remaining possibilities. One is the theory that life somehow "migrated" from alien beings from somewhere "out there." However, this theory does not explain beginnings but is merely an attempt to obfuscate matters by pushing it further and further into the past. If evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily overcome the powerful, ultimate tendency toward "atrophy" brought by the second law of thermodynamics. If such an important force or mechanism exists, it would seem it should be a demonstrable fact and obvious to all scientists. The fact is, no such force of nature has been found because it does not exist. The pure theory of evolution teaches, in effect, that everything that exists resulted from mechanistic, naturalistic processes without the intervention of any outside agency. Natural selection and mutations, its proponents claim, can explain everything. By contrast, the Holy Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth by divine fiat. Although some attempt to meld both claims together as one, they are truly irreconcilable if one takes the Bible literally. Huxley, the noted evolutionist, once admitted, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the Bible." What Is the Theory of Evolution? Evolution is essentially a philosophical theory designed to explain how life came from non-life by some peculiar intrinsic process. More specifically, it maintains that there is a gradual process in which things change from one genesis kind to another genesis kind by the unseen hand of "resident forces." In the field of biology, it is the theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, resident forces, mutations, and profound "leaps" so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. Where, we ask, is the proof of such an affirmation? What are these mysterious "resident forces" and where did they come from and what makes them work? Are they still working today and, if so, where is the evidence? Going further, common usage of the word "evolution" conveys the idea that living things in our world have come into being through a long unguided naturalistic process starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation over a period of approximately 1520 billion years (give or take a few billion depending upon your authority). If evolution be true, the burden of proof is on its proponents, not creationists. In truth, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the creation without a Creator. A more precise understanding of the evolutionary theory divides the act of conveying "atoms to people" into four categories: - Cosmology
- Abiogenesis
- Micro-evolution
- Macro-evolution
Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe. The belief that the atoms of a "big bang" eventually produced people all by themselves (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven second law of thermodynamics, which demonstrates that the universe is known to be "running down." Yet evolution postulates it is "building up and changing through time." While many try to push beginnings back into the undiscoverable past, we must still ask the fundamental questions of where these first atoms come from, and to what laws did they conform, and where did these laws come from? Something cannot come from nothing either g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y or suddenly. By analogy, if you were to cup your hands together and peek through your fingers-imaging that the space between your hands was a total vacuum (no matter!)-how long would you have to wait until "something" appeared out of "nothing"? Answer: an eternity. How much longer would we have to wait until all the matter in all the vast universe appeared in a materialless universe? When put into such simple terms, one wonders how one's mind can seriously entertain the idea. Abiogenesis refers to first life-the production of living organisms from non-living matter. "Atoms-to-people" evolution resembles a religious belief more than scientific fact. With all his technological skills today-even after "cracking" the gene code-man cannot create a single living cell-not a worm or a mosquito-let alone demonstrate the premise of evolution. Whether conscious of the fact or not, many today harbor an anti-supernaturalistic bias which prevents them from believing that God literally created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis. We will see that there is really no sound reason not to believe in a literal creation just as the Bible presents it, while the mind reels at the evolutionary concept. Microevolution (small adaptations): No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "microevolution"- which is variation within a type of organism caused by natural selection-occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. This is not real evolution and yet nearly all touted evidences for evolution are of this category. Actually, "microevolution" is a misnomer because it implies that "a little" evolution is continually taking place and that, over eons of time, these add up to big changes. In actuality, no evolution is taking place at all because there is no increase in complexity, such as the development of a new organ or species, but merely the accentuation of some already present feature over others. A change in eye or hair color, for example, is not an evolutionary change, but merely a variation within the same genesis kind. A classic example of natural selection is the peppered moth changing its predominant color in response to recent environmental pollution in an industrial area in Britain. Before pollution darkened the landscape, it is claimed, both light and dark moths were equally present. It is claimed that within the past one hundred years the moth has been "evolving" from a light color to a dark color. This darker coloring, it is claimed, provides protective camouflage from predatory birds and other enemies because it now blends in with pollution-darkened surroundings. Such clever reasoning has deceived many. This adaptation is not, however a change in kind or species where one life forms develops into another kind or species. Regardless which variety survives best in a given environment, they do not change into a different kind or family of organism. A moth is still a moth and nothing "new" is formed. Adaptation has limits beyond which no more change is possible. A horse and a donkey can produce a hybrid mule, for example, but the mule is sterile. It has reached the limits of its "kind." Macroevolution (giant leaps), or general evolution, refers to the progression from simple to more and more complex forms of life. Though much debated, the popular explanations for microevolution are via "mutation" and "natural selection." Large-scale change from one type of organism into another, or so-called "macroevolution," is far beyond the ability of mutation or natural selection to produce. Most evolutionists dodge this issue by acknowledging this is still a "research question." Even non-creation scientists such as Denton and Behe have written books documenting why this is impossible. The "geologic column," or layers of strata, which has been cited as proof of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood as described in the Bible. Virtually all evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record consists of already fully formed creatures that abruptly appear. There are no "half-formed" or transitional fossils of any kind. Mutations ("blunders" and happenstance) are suggested to have altered or provided new genetic material used for reproduction. Some suggest that exposure to radiation altered isolated life forms into other, more advanced, life forms. Since this theory was first introduced it has been demonstrated that naturally occurring mutations are very rare, and that all known mutations are harmful. Various arguments supporting evolution are just as irrational and illogical. Two-headed frogs or snakes do not evolve into a new species of reptile or warm-blooded animal. Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new! Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment such as being camouflaged, more fierce, or a faster runner are more likely to leave behind more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations. This may be true, but it does not cause any biological changes in the genesis kind and is not evolution. Upon examination, we see that two of the most obvious weaknesses of the theory of evolution are: - There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.
- The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
When we examine the fossil record, which is the only alleged support of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, we find that it lacks any transitional forms. All animals, birds, reptiles, and fish appear suddenly, already fully formed and fully functional when first present, just as they are today. If evolution was a fact, there should be billions upon billions of transitional evidence-half-formed mammals that did not evolve far enough to "make it" and therefore reproduce. Our museums should contain more half- or partially formed fossils than fully formed ones. To repeat: there are no such transitional fossils on the face of the earth today. Not one. The law of "each after his kind" proves itself day-by-day to be in full force and effect. The evidence that "pre-men" existed is speculation based upon unproved speculation at best. So called pre-man fossils have turned out in every case to be those of wholly man, contemporary or extinct apes, or historical frauds. The patriarch Job spoke of base men driven by want and famine into the caves and rocks of the earth (Job 30:36), but these were coexisting men, not half-man, half-beast. True science has never yet produced the so-called "missing link" between species. It may come as a surprise to some that there is no single view of evolution. There are nearly as many views as there are evolutionists to expound them. The majority of hardcore evolutionists, however, still concurs that, "somehow," all life must have evolved through billions of years in all its complexity of its own accord. God is left totally out of the picture because such beliefs are not deemed by some as "scientific." Coached in impressive pedantic terminology and illustrated in breath-taking step-by-step art forms, the theory of evolution is dropped into our children's minds as though it were fact. Once the seed idea is planted it is difficult to dislodge. It has been said that it is ten times harder to unlearn error than to learn new truth. We need to get to the crux of the matter. Nothing can be more important. Contrary to what many would have us believe, the Bible is not "against" true science. The very word "science" is from the Latin word scientia, meaning "to know." The biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth in Genesis 1:28 requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. We are cautioned, however, in 1 Timothy 6:20 to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." The implication is that there is true science and there is pseudo-science, just as there is true religion and false religion. "Creation science" is simply the admission of science coupled with the acknowledgement that there is a Creator God. Let us go on to prove all things and hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). What the Experts Say Many media-driven television programs would have us believe that nearly all scientists, paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, zoologists, geneticists, and physicians are in near complete harmony and agreement about the theory of evolution. The truth is just the opposite. Behind closed doors heated debates take place between scientists as to the mechanisms of the various proposed theories. Shortly, we shall list a few eye-opening quotations by some of the most prominent thinkers of our time concerning some of the various aspects of evolution. They are worthy of our consideration. Though many more quotations could be given, lest we exhaust the reader, the ones listed should be enough to convince any open-minded truth-seeker that all is not well in the realm of evolutionary hypotheses. Those listed below will suffice to show why hundreds of scientists are distancing themselves from the theory of evolution every year. Cosmology: What the Experts Say Concerning the 'Big Bang' Theory Cosmology is the theory concerning the origin, structure, and development of the material universe. Let us all agree upon one thing: we exist. (For anyone who denies that this world is real and that we exist, it is recommended that he resort to the old "hatpin test." He will soon suspect that we do exist!) We live in a material universe consisting of the basic ninety-two natural elements. Matter is defined as physical substance that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more of our five senses; something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, or gas; a physical body. Truly, matter does exist, but the question arises, where did matter come from? The universe as a whole is composed of matter, but how did it permeate the universe in the form of planets, stars, and galaxies? Where did the complicated and delicately balanced solar systems and heavenly bodies come from? What keeps them in balance? And how did the laws that govern matter originate? Science has repeatedly demonstrated that there has been no past eternity of matter. It had to have a beginning. It came from somewhere. For millennia, philosophers and scientists have set forth their best theories and reasonings to explain creation without a Creator. The result has been a hopeless hodgepodge of conflicting hypotheses, conjecture, assumptions, and guesses. It is relatively easy for the would-be evolutionary protagonist to speculate that this or that might have occurred if.and then go on to orchestrate a visionary scenario as to how he thinks these things could have "accidentally happened." We would like to point out that those who dismiss "beginnings" can be likened to those who would come into the middle of a movie, as it were, and wish to move aside the former director, producers, and performers to direct and alter the happenings as they see fit. How convenient to begin with an already created, fully-functioning, law-abiding universe! It is as intellectually dishonest to dismiss true beginnings and interject one's own interpretation somewhere in the middle as it is to lift a scripture out of context to "prove" one's own slanted point of view. Beware of such skullduggery! The "Big Bang" Theory It is only logical that before evolutionists can even tackle the issue of the transmigration of species, they must first explain how matter and the universe came to exist in the first place. As a substitute for divine revelation, evolutionists have devised a framework of theories in the 1920s through the 1940s which they call cosmology, to explain how matter in general, and stars in particular, could have come into existence. An extraordinary theory was invented called the "big bang" theory, which declares that, since there has been no past eternity of matter, in the beginning there was nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nothing. The logic is that when much of this "nothingness" gathered itself into one place it became so greatly compressed that it exploded and blew itself into hydrogen gas from which the entire universe evolved. Then somehow during this fantastic explosion, we are led to believe, the laws of thermodynamics invented themselves and caused the gas to congeal into "clumps." So, the theory continues, as indeterminable periods of time elapsed, these clumps of gas billowed outward and congealed themselves into stars. From there all the stars began exploding themselves into supernovas, but instead of these explosions destroying as they do today, these explosions "created." Laws of physics, energy, light, gravitation, momentum, action and reaction, and so forth, are said to have manifested themselves and acted upon the matter, forcing it into far-flung galaxies and the vast universe we see today. Clothed in pedantic scientific rhetoric and impressive mathematical formulas, the theory was later christened "scientific." Those who believed in it were called "enlightened." It is reasoned that if enough time passes anything can happen. And so, in order to adapt the theory and make it seem plausible, the supposed age of the universe has been pushed back to a theoretical age of 1520 billion years (give or take a few billion), when the big bang is said to have occurred. Science Versus the Big Bang True science and common sense, however, refute the fallacy that "something" can explode out of nothing and organize itself into an intricate, law-abiding universe. If such a hypothesis were accepted, consider the following logical fallacies: -
At the risk of sounding trite, we must ask the question: Which came first, the laws of physics, or the physical matter that they operate upon? If there had been "nothing" in the beginning, there would have been nothing for such laws to act upon. If "something" grew gradually-or even "instantly"-out of nothing, where did the laws come from and what caused them to act upon matter? Law demands a lawgiver and is a proof of God. -
"Nothingness" is not squeezable or compressible. All the "nothingness" in the pre-universe could not pack itself together into "something." It is an observable fact that the gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than any fog on earth. Can you imagine trying to pack a valley of fog into a ball? Yet, by mere chance, according to some, such a metamorphosis is supposed to have accomplished this magic billions of times on an unimaginable scale throughout the universe! -
If there were no laws of physics, there was no way to compress free hydrogen gas-assuming it came into existence by itself in the first place-into a solid or semisolid form. There would be no action or reaction. -
Assuming that such a solidification of nothingness could have occurred anyway, there would be no mechanism to congeal it into a single point, and then stop it there. -
Assuming further that a universe-filling pre-atom did assemble itself, either once or-according to the "oscillating universe" theory-billions of times, out of nothingness and compact itself, there would have been nothing to explode it. Atoms do not just explode. There would be no combustion, no fire to ignite the nothingness-assuming that it was combustible-that had just assembled itself. Even a match will not ignite in a vacuum. -
Without the laws of physics there would have been no way to cause such a hypothetically compacted and ignited ball of matter to expand. There would be no way to propel this congealed nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness. -
Once set into motion, even if the expanding nothingness could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow it down in frictionless space. -
There would be no way to clump it. It is impossible for gas to pack itself together on earth, much less in outer space without gravity. Gas disperses from high density to low density-not the other way around-with no way to produce heavier, more complex atoms and elements. -
There would be no way to produce stars because there would be no gravity. There is no way by which gas could form itself into stars, planets, and galaxies. Only after a star has been formed can it hold itself together by the law of gravity. -
There would not be enough time for the exploded gas to reach the edge of a universe of more than 20 billion light-years, and then convert itself into billions of stars, before the theoretical explosions were supposed to have stopped. "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything" (G.K. Chesterton in The Quotable Chesterton). In Isaiah 1:18, the God of the Bible says, "Come, let us reason together." Think for a moment: Do highly ordered systems emerge from disorder automatically? Do explosions in print shops produce encyclopedias? If you were to throw a mass of metal and glass into the air enough times, would it fall to earth as a fully assembled, perfect time-keeping wristwatch? No, random explosions do not produce encyclopediasor intricate planetary orbits. And haphazard explosions in the neither regions of space could never produce gravity, stellar rotations, or intricate orbits. Scientists Speak Out Theories come and theories go. Numerous scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not, occur. Scientists have illustrated why the theory is unworkable in many professional books and journals; yet, because of media hype, news coverage, and "nature programs" often aired on TV, the public is largely unaware that scientists disagree sharply upon their diverse speculations. For every theory advanced by man, someone else has advanced facts to prove that theory wrong. Let us look briefly at what some of the scientists themselves say about the big bang theory. "The French Mathematician, Lecompte de Nouy, examined the laws of probability that a single molecule of high dissymmetry could be formed by the action of chance. De Nouy found that, on an average, the time needed to form one such molecule of our terrestrial globe would be about 10 to the 253 power billions of years. "But," continued de Nouy, ironically, "let us admit that no matter how small the chance it could happen, one molecule could be created by such astronomical odds of chance. However, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. Thus we either admit the miracle or doubt the absolute truth of science" (Quoted in "Is Science Moving Toward Belief in God?" by Paul A. Fisher, The Wanderer, Nov. 7, 1985; cited in Kingdoms In Conflict, C. Colson, p. 66).
"Probably the strongest argument against a 'big bang' is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little" (G. Burbidge, Was There Really A Big Bang in Nature?, 233:3640).
"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target-a building for example-that anything happens... But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead" (Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92, 1981, pp. 521, 523).
"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point. The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, 'is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. 'If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms" (Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, 1984, p. 415).
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed" (W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297).
Written by: Church of God, International
(Originally titled Evolution: Fact or Fallacy?) |
