Musings on the Origins of Life

Transcription

1 Musings on the Origins of Life Why I Am Not An Evolutionist A Journey by Faith Overview of Contents 1. Chemical evolution is mathematically impossible. 2. Biological evolution cannot explain the irreducible complexity of life. 3. Geological evolution lacks evidentiary support and is based upon the unwarranted assumption of uniformitarianism. 4. Cosmological evolution cannot explain a plausible first cause for the existence of the universe. 5. Epistemological evolution is logically flawed, claiming a naturalistic limit on reality that science is not designed, nor able, to address. 6. Theologically, evolution contradicts the claims of the Bible concerning the creation of all things.! 1

2 Table of Contents Chemical Evolution Ambiguity and Evolution Complexity and Evolution Geology and Evolution Mount St. Helens and Evolution Age of the Earth and Evolution Fossils and Evolution Mutations and Evolution First Cause and Evolution Epistemology and Evolution To accept as the truth that which is not a truth... is an evil having consequences which are indeed incalculable. There are subjects in which one mistake of this kind will poison all the wells of thought, and affect with fatal error the whole niche of our thoughts. George Campbell, the Duke of Argyle The Reign of Law, London 1867 copyright 2008 Andy Richardson, revised 2013! 2

3 Chemical Evolution is Mathematically Impossible The probability that life arose from non-life on earth, by itself, is zero... impossible. One of the most fundamental of all the laws of science is called biogenesis, which means that life arises only from life. Another way to express this idea is that there is no life without antecedent life. Scientific evidence demonstrates this point. No incidents to the contrary have ever been observed in the history of science. The debate about this point in scientific circles was won more than 100 years ago by Louis Pasteur; and yet, evolutionists speculate that the opposite did in fact occur on earth - that life came from non-life by chance. For example, George Wald claimed that, "Given enough time, the impossible becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain." What silliness! Chance Evolutionists claim that life arose from non-life "by chance." What is "chance?" Chance is a description of mathematical possibilities. We speak of a 50/50 chance that a coin flip will result in either "heads" or "tails." But notice. Chance describes the possible outcomes of a situation, but it does not cause them! Chance has no power to cause things to happen. It can't do anything. R.C. Sproul noted that, "Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has the power to affect other things. To be more precise, it is nothing, and nothing cannot do anything!" However, evolutionists change the meaning of the word when they say "by" chance. When they do this, they give a causative power to the idea of chance. They say that life evolved "by chance," and by this they want us to think that "chance" somehow had a hand in the origin of life on earth. It did not, of course. It cannot, for nothing happens "by" chance, since "chance" is merely a description of possible outcomes. According to Sproul, "When scientists attribute instrumental power to chance, they have left the domain of physics, and resorted to magic." So then, let us return to the original question. What is the probability that life arose from non-life, not by chance, but by itself? What are the odds that life is self-created and self-existent? Probability In order to calculate the probability of any event, we must first know both the particulars involved in the event itself, and the possible outcomes as well. In the coin example, there was one coin and two possible outcomes, "heads or tails". When dealing with the origin of life on earth, however, evolutionists must also add a huge assumption, without which, there is nothing to talk about. The assumption is the existence of matter itself. Unable to explain the origin of matter, evolutionists are still faced with the question of the probability that life arose by itself from non-life. What are the odds? In this case, the expected outcome is "life," and the particulars are the chemical elements of matter itself, their interrelationships to each other, their environment, and their ability to survive and reproduce into something more complex. Sounds complicated? You're right!! 3

4 One of life's most basic elements is the enzyme. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of one enzyme arising from the "chance" interactions of chemicals to be 1 in 10 20, or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000! However, since there are thousands of different enzymes with different functions in the simplest living cell, Hoyle calculated that a minimum of 2,000 such enzymes were needed. When he calculated the probability of all these enzymes forming in one place at one time to form one bacterium, the odds went up to 1 in 10 40,000. How big a number is this? The total number of atoms in the observable universe is "only" Clearly, we are dealing with an impossibility here. Furthermore, Harold Morowitz made the case even worse for evolutionists when he added the idea of complexity to the probability calculation. He added the necessary chemical bonding energy requirements for the formation of enzymes, which Hoyle left out, and came up with the number 1 in ,000,000,000! He said, "It is always possible to argue that any unique event could have occurred. That is outside the range of science and mathematics, however. We may sum up stating that on energy considerations alone, the possibility of a living cell occurring is vanishingly small." Evolutionists' Response? Ian Musgrave railed against creationist usage of the probability argument in his article entitled, "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" (1998). He said that we make two mistakes in our thinking: (1) that, of course, a complex enzyme could not evolve by itself. Rather, some sort of more simple "polymer" came first and then later "hypercycled" into a more complex structure. The odds of this more simple structure evolving are much better, he claimed. According to Musgrave, "each step [of the hypercycle] is associated with a small increase in organization and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap." How these steps actually occur, he doesn't say - he can't say because it is speculative. (2) Our second mistake, Musgrave asserted, is that creationists think sequentially, rather than "simultaneously." He claims that if billions of these chemical reactions occurred on the early earth simultaneously, then the odds are again greatly reduced against evolution. However, the rebuttal to this is obvious: billions of chemicals simultaneously attempting to do impossible things will always yield an impossibility. For example, it is impossible for one boy to lift a 10-ton rock by himself without aid. It is no less impossible a feat, even if 1 million boys all attempt to do the same thing simultaneously! Not one of them will succeed. And the same is true for chemistry. A polymer will not self-create any sooner just because there may have been millions of them on the early earth. It is an impossibility regardless of how many chemical reactions happened, because the event itself is impossible. Conclusion Life is not self-created. It did not occur "by chance." It did not "hypercycle" into existence in some pseudo-scientific manner imagined by evolutionists. Rather, God created life. The Bible says that, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life." The probability of this truth is 100%!! 4

5 Ambiguity and Evolution I want to explain what I mean by the term evolution. Evolution is the biological change of one species into a different species, such as a fish becoming an amphibian or an ape becoming a human. For most people, this definition is commonly understood to be the meaning of the term evolution. However, evolutionists want to confuse the issue by including the adaptability of creatures as evidence that evolution occurs. For instance, this headline appeared on FOX news in July 2006: Real-Time Evolution Seen Among Darwin s Galapagos Finches. How newsworthy! Evolution is proven! Well, not actually. What happened is that because of a drought, only the larger seeds of plants survived, and the birds on the island had to adapt in order to live. Their beaks grew larger over a short time span in order to eat the larger seeds. Amazing! The birds adapted! Is this evolution at work? No. The birds remained birds. The finches did not become giraffes. There was no species change on that island. Evolution did not occur, and FOX news was guilty of spreading propaganda. Adaptation within species occurs, of course. That is what breeding does for dogs and cats. Hybridization is another example of adaptation. Adaptation occurs within species by various processes, whether at the hand of a designing scientist or by natural selection. Adaptation is what happens when bacteria develop so-called resistance to antibiotics, not evolution. Actually, what happens is that the population of bacteria changes as the non-resistant bacteria are killed off by the antibiotics. Only the resistant bacteria survive, leaving a really tough gang of germs. However, they aren t changing from bacteria into viruses, for instance. There is no species change at all. Adaptation within populations occurs frequently, but it is not evolution. The Japanese population has increased in size and weight since World War II, but they are still Japanese, still human. Evolutionists apply the term micro-evolution to this process of adaptation in order to confuse things for the average person, but there is no evolution going on because there is no change from one species into a different species. Again, adaptation is seen in the inheritability of acquired characteristics, so that those island birds could pass along their larger beak size to their offspring. But that adaptation is not evolution at work, it is simply an adaptation within a species. An interesting case of inherited characteristics which baffles evolutionists has to do with sickle-cell anemia and malaria. It turns out that an African with the sickle-cell mutation in their blood is immune to malaria. So, while the one will save you (from malaria), it will also kill you (from sickle-cell). How do you pass along those traits to your kids so that evolution can create a new species if either way you're dead?! 5

6 So, the point is that these inherited changes within a species are not evidence of evolution occurring at all. Of course, genetic mutations occur in life, but they do not produce new species as evolution demands. They never have and they never will. Nor is the genetic similarity between species a proof of evolution; rather it is evidence that a designer was at work, a Creator who adapted His good design to produce a variety of life on earth. Recent research indicates that chimps and humans only share about 70% of a similar genetic code [Tomkins]. If a small genetic change by the Creator will produce a person instead of a monkey, why change all the rest of the genetic design as well? Finally, it is important to remember that evolutionists have a trump card in their pocket which they will use in response to comments like these regarding adaptation: TIME. Given enough time, anything can happen, they insist, and so the age of the earth must be calculated in astonishingly large figures millions and billions of years. It gets rather funny, actually, to listen to an evolutionist talk about time. We humans have only been on earth for a short time, some half a million years or so. For me, a short time refers to how long it takes to get your food in the drive through at your local McDonalds! The age of the earth, then, becomes the crutch evolutionists need in order to support their idea that naturally occurring adaptations within species will somehow, eventually, produce new species. However, lacking real scientific evidence of newly evolved species on the planet, TIME is called upon to give their theory covering so that it won t be seen for what it is wrong. Yes, adaptation occurs. Yes, there are mutations. Yes, natural selection works to keep the dark moths alive in England during times of pollution when the lighter colored moths are more easily seen by birds and eaten. But, no, evolution does not occur. If you keep these distinctions in mind when reading or listening to evolutionists, you will soon see that they are playing the ambiguity game and hope to confuse you into thinking that adaptation is really evolution. But that is a game we do not need to play. Complexity and Evolution Another reason I gave earlier for why I am not an evolutionist is because biological evolution cannot explain the irreducible complexity of human physiology or other forms of life. This idea has gotten serious discussion in recent years since a microbiologist from Lehigh University named Michael Behe published a book about the topic entitled, Darwin s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Professor Behe demonstrated that the world of molecular biology is staggeringly complex; so complex, in fact, that it would be impossible for such complexity to arise by evolutionary! 6

7 progression over time. Every cell in the human body is directed by a "code" called DNA, itself incredibly complicated. Each cell has millions of openings through which a continuous flow of materials move in and out. Each must find nourishment from these materials, dispose of toxic waste products, and then, ultimately, reproduce itself according to its original code. Metabolism, Synthesis, Reproduction. All these particulars happen in conjunction with millions of other cells doing similar things, and without which there could be no life. This is Behe's "black box." It is all or nothing. The box comes in a package deal, not piece by piece. He says that life cannot be thought of as one single cell, but rather as an "irreducibly complex" composite of cells. In Dr. Behe s own words, he explained the impact of his work: In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step, with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design. [ A Mousetrap Defended: A Response to Critics, by Michael Behe, Discovery Institute, 2000] In order to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity, Behe used a mousetrap as an example from everyday life. A mousetrap has a number of parts which must function together in order to be effective, namely a hammer, a spring, a platform, a catch, and a hold-down bar. The complexity of this mousetrap is such that it cannot work with just one or two parts, but must be all or nothing. Behe demonstrated that the human body at the cellular level where blood clotting occurs has exactly the same kind of complexity. Such complexity shows the hand of a designer, he concluded, rather than evidence of evolution. Dr. Behe s study of the flagellum (the tail) of bacteria revealed that it functioned as a marvelous swimming device. What amazed the scientists who unraveled the biochemical structure of the flagellum was that the flagellum was powered by a microscopic rotary motor which uses energy generated by a flow of acid across the bacterial membrane. The flagellum so fascinates scientists that thousands of studies have been done to reveal its composition, and yet none of them can offer a sensible evolutionary explanation for its function and existence.! 7

8 Dr. Behe put it this way: In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner - no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cillium, or vision, or blood-clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. [ Darwin s Black Box, p. 187] The complexity of life on earth has always been a major reason for my disbelieving evolution, even before Dr. Behe s research was published ten years ago. Now, let s look at the idea of complexity, but this time from the field of energy and physics. Complexity and Evolution, con t. What is energy? The Encyclopedia of Science and Technology defines energy as "the ability of one system to do work on another." There are many different types of energy: chemical, radiant, electrical, mechanical, and nuclear. Newton said that you can't make it or destroy it. Einstein said that it is related to mass and really-fast speed. Energy can be changed from one form to another due to outside influences, but Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, and others showed that the natural state of energy is that it always moves toward equilibrium and eventually ends up being unavailable for usage. This idea is known as entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Isaac Asimov said that, "another way to state the Second Law is that the universe is getting more disorderly!" Examples of entropy-like phenomena can be seen virtually everywhere: the slowing of the earth's rotation, the shrinking of the sun, the decay of the magnetic field of the earth, erosion, and atomic decay. Our engines wear out, our houses decay, our bodies age and eventually die. To counteract the effects of entropy requires energy in the form of work. It takes work to keep a room clean, and it takes energy to do that work! However, the Second Law says that we will eventually have no energy available for that work to happen! The natural course of things in this world, according to this law, is that entropy increases - entropy being the measurement of randomness in a system. Problem for Evolutionists The world as we know it is characterized by a Law which says that complex systems "run down," and that there is less and less energy available for usage over the course of time. However, evolutionists claim that life on earth arose in a manner which contradicts this Law!! 8

9 For example, Huxley said that, "Evolution can be defined as a directional and irreversible process occurring in time, which gives rise to an increase in variety and a higher level of organization." As far back as 1949, Lecomte du Nouy, a French evolutionist, recognized this problem: "Entropy expresses the universal trend toward disorder. When an evolutionary complex, having a greater degree of dissymmetry than the elements that compose it is formed, we are in contradiction with the second principle of thermodynamics." Writing as a theistic evolutionist, Andrew Zenos said, "Evolution must be viewed in science purely and strictly as a process of orderly change in the form of things. The simpler organisms appeared earlier on the face of the earth than the more complex, and the progress of forms has been general from the simpler to the more complex." What we have, then, is a major problem for evolutionists, whether they want to admit it or not! They cannot explain away the discrepancy between their hypothetical ideas about evolution and the factually proven Laws of Thermodynamics. Christians have rightly pointed out this problem for the evolutionist. Henry Morris said, "The Law of Increasing Entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome." Another Creationist, Emmett Williams said, "There is no valid experimental evidence of a violation of the second law of thermodynamics in either animate or inanimate material. This places the evolutionist in the position of passively or actively denying the second law of thermodynamics." Objection by Evolutionists The typical response of virtually all evolutionists to this problem is to say that the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to "closed" systems. Since the earth is an "open" system, constantly bathed in the "free" energy of the sun, evolution did, in fact, occur despite the second Law. Exceptions to the second Law occur, they insist, on a "local" level on the earth and for a "temporary" time period. Everything will, of course, succumb to the Law eventually, they admit, so the Law is actually preserved. Examples such as crystallization, seeds growing into mature plants, snowflake formation, and water flowing uphill in a vortex, are given to illustrate their point. How to Respond? Henry Morris dealt with the "open system" argument this way: (1) Of course the earth is an open system - the Laws of Thermodynamics were discovered and proven in such a system. The charge about a "closed" system is a ploy. (2) The "free energy" of the sun is a destructive force, not a productive one. (3) Therefore, more is needed than just the free energy of the sun - what! 9

10 is needed is an energy-conversion mechanism, and a code/plan to organize the "free energy" once it is converted into something else. One evolutionist, Mr. Len Flank, finds these necessary items in the "unique chemistry of carbon atoms" which convert "free energy" and organize it all by themselves, never admitting that he argues in a circle at this point. He assumes the existence of such carbon atoms and then claims that these carbons converted and organized themselves to evolve into something else. His logic is faulty and his evidence is absent. As one bright observer of this debate said, " A necessary component of a system cannot be called upon to initiate the system itself." [Dr. David Boylan, PhD. In Chemical Engineering] Each of the examples given by evolutionists to show that entropy can be temporarily disregarded are faulty. Cellular growth in a plant results from a complex, information-coded process whereby one form of life gives rise to a different form of that same life. Crystal formation is a totally different process than evolution. In crystal formation, matter arranges itself in a lower energy state (thus, more probable), while evolutionists need matter to arrange itself into a higher energy state, which is less probable. Thus, the example doesn't prove the point. Additionally, evolutionists confuse order with complexity. Life requires complex transfers of energy and information, for change (which we call growth) to occur. The orderliness of a snowflake pattern is just another example of crystallization. It is orderly, but it is not complex. Dean Overman said, "Order is not synonymous with complexity. A structure's specified complexity relates to the quantity of its information content... Applying the analogy of language, (a dictionary) has a high information content, but a series of 1,000 pages with only the letters ABC appearing in repeated order on each line, has a higher level of order and a very low level of information content." Water flowing uphill in a vortex happens because a greater force causes it to flow in that direction. When that force is removed, the vortex disappears. Nothing is produced by the vortex - no complex information is created. Again, a faulty example is appealed to as "evidence" that life evolved. Conclusion Plants die, snowflakes melt, vortexes collapse, and entropy wins in the end. Dean Overman observed: Although the earth has an energy source from the sun, energy alone is not enough to support abiogenesis. Dynamite can be a source of energy, but unless the energy from its explosion is directed in an intelligent manner, its energy will be more destructive than constructive. For abiogenesis to occur, energy flow must be joined to a mechanism which will direct it to generate sufficient information content into inert matter... Scientists frequently confuse the concepts of order and complexity. To construct a plausible theory for the origin of life, scientists need to discover a theory which explains the generation of complexity, not the generation of order. This they have not done.! 10

11 Mount St. Helens and Evolution Mount St. Helens is an active volcano in Skamania County, Washington, in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. It is 96 miles south of Seattle and 53 miles northeast of Portland, Oregon. Mount St. Helens is most famous for its catastrophic eruption on May 18, 1980, which was the deadliest and most economically destructive volcanic event in the history of the United States. Fifty-seven people were killed; 250 homes, 47 bridges, 15 miles of railways, and 185 miles of highway were destroyed. The eruption caused a massive debris avalanche, reducing the elevation of the mountain's summit from 9,677 feet to 8,365 feet and replacing it with a mile-wide horseshoe-shaped crater. Among the more spectacular results of this eruption was the creation of many new canyons and even a new glacier, all formed rapidly in the matter of days and weeks. Take a look at the strata-layered wall in the canyon pictured here. It looks like something from the Grand Canyon in Arizona which took millions of years to form, doesn t it? Well, the truth is that this canyon was formed by the eruption of Mount St. Helen s in 1980, and the bottom layer of strata formed in six hours on May 18th, the day of the explosion. The middle layer of strata was formed about a month later on June 12th, and the top layer of strata was formed by mud flow almost two years later in March of The assumption of geology is that all the surface features of the earth were formed slowly over time by the natural processes which are still at work today. This is called uniformitarianism, and! 11

12 evolutionists love this idea because they see that it would take millions of years to form things like canyons and mountains and glaciers by such slow gradual processes. However, as Mount St. Helens demonstrated, uniformitarianism is a flawed assumption, and geologic time scales are incorrect by millions of years. Rather, the surface of the earth demonstrates the occurrence of past catastrophes that created the features which amaze us so much. Rapid formation of mountains, glaciers, and canyons due to catastrophic events like floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes is a better conclusion and a better explanation for our earth than anything the evolutionists have to offer. When we look at the results of the explosion of Mount St. Helens, we should be reminded that there was once a catastrophe on the earth that dwarfed this event in size and duration. The Bible calls this catastrophe the flood of Noah. Only such a world-wide cataclysm like Noah s flood can adequately explain the geologic features of the earth, from fossil graveyards in the Cumberland mountains of Maryland, to sea shells on the mountaintops of Colorado, to the Grand Canyon of Arizona. Instead of mocking the Bible, and Noah s flood, the evolutionists should reconsider their assumptions and look for the hand of God in their study of geology. It isn t hard to see, especially when you look at events like Mount St. Helens. Age of the Earth and Evolution As the results of the Mount St. Helens explosion demonstrated, the earth s age is better explained by catastrophe than it is by gradual processes, and therefore the earth is not necessarily so old as the evolutionary geologists would insist. For the Christian, the earth's age is mainly important in two ways: 1) it must fit in with the biblical teaching of a six-day creation; and 2) it must be explained in defense of the attacks of evolutionists. Other than this, the age of the earth is irrelevant as far as biblical theology is concerned. For the evolutionist, however, the earth must be declared old, on the order of millions of years, because their theory of origins requires vast quantities of time in order to work. A young earth invalidates evolutionary theory because it removes the necessary time required for accidental mutations to develop into higher life forms. The most important thing to remember in this discussion is the following: creationism does not fail even if the earth was proven to be old, whereas evolution is doomed as a viable theory if the earth is truly young.! 12

13 Creationist View The earth is young, on the order of less than 50,000 years. Scientific evidence, rightly interpreted, points to this fact: (a) recorded human history, as known from ancient writings and archaeology, is only 10,000 years old; (b) bone diseases may account for the advanced dates for some human fossil remains; (c) the speed of light may not be constant, which could explain the distance light travels from the stars; (d) the earth's magnetic field is unstable, and so now is believed to have been at full strength only 6,000 years ago, not millions or billions; (e) compelling evidence exists proving the rapid formation of geologic features like the Grand Canyon; (f) sea-floor sediment formation and the rapid cooling of the earth's oceans point to a young earth; and (g) the decay rate of the carbon atom is unstable, thus calling into question radiocarbon dating methods. These, and many more such facts, cast doubts on the basic evolutionary assumption of an old earth (see appendix below). However, even without this kind of a scientific defense for a young earth, there is a plausible and biblical explanation for the apparent old age of the earth. The idea of "apparent age" maintains that all of God's creative activity, including the miracles of Jesus, involve not only the instantaneous creation of billions of cells from nothing, but also an instantaneous increase in complexity. Scientist Martin Lubenow said of this, "When one starts with nothing, the order of magnitude in complexity is staggering. Further, it is instantaneous, for one cannot go from nothing to something in stages of degrees." All of God's creative acts are instantaneous and complex, from the original days of creation, to the miraculous conception of life in the womb. An example of "apparent age" would be the creation of Adam. When God made Adam on the sixth day of creation, he was one day old, but he appeared to be an adult male. If a doctor performed a physical examination of Adam that first day, he would have pronounced him to be somewhere in his early twenties, no doubt, because from a strictly physical point of view, that was what he appeared to be. Similarly, the same holds true for the miracles of Jesus: the wine appeared to be aged, the loaves appeared to be freshly baked, and the fish appeared to be fully grown. In actual fact, these items did physically correspond to their apparent ages. They weren't ghosts or figments of the imagination, as an existentialist might surmise. Thus, the appearance of the loaves and fish reflected the actual physical state of their chronological complexity, although the chronological age was younger. The same is true of the earth: it appears to be old, and in fact, physically corresponds to its appearance, but in chronology it is young. To claim that the earth must be as old as it appears, is to draw an illogical conclusion, not based in actual fact. One's appearance does not always reveal one's true age, a fact to which many of us can testify, and the same is true for planet earth. Evolutionist Response Of course, the first thing most evolutionists do is mock the Christian point-of-view. In this case, they attack the idea of apparent age by saying that if God created the earth to look old, even! 13

14 though it is young, then He is a deceiver and a liar. If scientists have no chance to use their skills to discover, by the methods of science, that the earth is young, then God is unfair. The answer to this charge is that God is not unfair nor a liar because He told us in the Bible that the earth was created with an apparent age. Anyone who reads the first chapters of Genesis will immediately understand that the earth looks older than it really is. Thus, there is no deception by God, since everyone, scientists included, were told that the earth is younger than it looks. Despite all this, evolutionists still claim that science proves that the earth is very old, and when pressed to name a specific figure for the age of the earth, evolutionists play fast and loose. Oh, the earth is about 4 or 5 billion years old, they say. This is an amazingly inaccurate figure, when one stops and thinks about it! A difference of 1 billion years may not be much between evolutionists, but in any other field of science, such a margin of error (20%) would be laughable. How old is the earth, then? We don t really know, but the best evidence, the testimony of the One who created it in the first place, is that it is far younger than it looks. Appendix: Further Evidence for a Young Earth Fossilized trees that extend vertically through multiple ages of rock strata. Realistic population growth formula, accounting for wars, etc., give several thousand years as needed to produce the current world population (not millions of years). The rate at which the Moon is moving away from the Earth, due to tidal friction, places a limit on the age of the Moon of no more than 20-30,000 years. Calculations, based on the gradually increasing negative effect of mutations on living organisms, indicate that life forms cannot be more than several thousands years old and still be as free from defects as they are. Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere implies a maximum age of no more than 10,000 years. According to Robert Gentry, polonium halos (ring patterns formed by radioactive decay) found in granite, the thick bedrock underlying all continents, seem to indicate that the granite came into existence in solid form in less than three minutes. Bloody mosquito found in a fossil supposedly 49 million years old... real blood, not yet mineralized!! 14

15 Fossils and Evolution Most of the discussion regarding the theory of evolution is conjecture; that is, there is very little evidence that can be presented to support the idea that life evolved. Natural selection isn t evidence for evolution; it is simply a description of how nature works, and it certainly isn t a causative force. Adaptation within a species is not evidence in favor of evolution either, nor are suspect dating methods which are questionable and perhaps irrelevant due to the apparent age of the earth. So, that pretty much leaves fossils as the only bits of real evidence which might support the idea of evolution, or not. Alternate Interpretations It is helpful to think of fossils as evidence used to prove the validity of one s ideas about life in the distant past. No one doubts the existence of fossils, and yet there are obviously great disputes regarding the meaning which we can derive from them. In other words, what do the fossils prove regarding the origins of life on earth, if anything? Scientific data must be interpreted. It is evidence, not proof. Evolutionists interpret the data as proof of their theory, but interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. So, too, do Christians have their own interpretation of the data. It is the conclusion of this study that an unbiased look at the evidence strongly supports the Christian interpretation. A great Canadian scientist named Arthur Custance pointed out the need to properly interpret scientific data: What, then, are we to do with the current body of evidence which anthropological research has accumulated, and universally interpreted in such a way as to challenge the biblical record of man s early history at almost every point? I suggest that we accept wholeheartedly whatever factual knowledge there is but apply to it an alternative interpretation. We cannot merely reject it, for that is to commit intellectual suicide. But it can indeed be interpreted otherwise than from the current evolutionary viewpoint; and the alternative interpretation proves, to my mind, to be thoroughly satisfying and reasonable. [Genesis and Early Man, pp.7-8] The Nature of Proof and Evidence Proof differs from evidence. Proof is the conclusion one comes to based upon one's interpretation of the evidence. Thus, proof is the interpretive work of one's decision-making processes. It is the making of a judgment regarding evidence and data. The burden of proof may be on the prosecutor, but only a jury can determine a thing proved or not. In this sense, the idea of proof requires the existence of someone to sit in judgment and come to a conclusion regarding the issue at hand.! 15

16 Therefore, because proof is contingent upon someone making a conclusion, it must be understood that all conclusions of proof are influenced by more than just evidence and data. In fact, conclusions of proof may or may not be congruent with the evidence and data because of these other factors. Such factors may include things like personal bias, pre-determined assumptions, stress, uninformed opinions, ignorance, temperament, hostility, paranoia, psychosis, upset stomachs, headaches and so on. At this point, it should be noted that evolutionists are pre-biased by their theory such that they are forced to interpret the data in a way which supports their view. No doubt they would make the same charge against Creationists, but that is the point, isn t it? Evidence is interpretable and proof is fleeting. Involved in most, if not all, determinations of proof is an element of uncertainty. In court, the jury must find that the evidence, for or against, is "beyond a reasonable doubt," not absolute. In science, probabilities rule the day, and there is the expectation that the next great experiment or discovery will render past ideas in science erroneous and obsolete. In history, the amount and credibility of written records and archaeological evidence is weighed against the truism that the victors get to write the history books. In mathematics and logic, lines of deduction are only as good as the premises upon which they are built. In philosophy, the wrangling over semantics never ends nor is it ever certain that anybody really understands anything anybody else has said. Nor do we require absolute proof to conduct our daily affairs. We eat, drive, work, and make purchases accepting that there is uncertainty regarding all these kinds of things, and yet we do them anyway. How do I know that there isn't poison in the food served to me at lunch? How do I know for sure that the repairs the mechanic made on my brakes will actually stop my car before I get in an accident? We are actually very comfortable with the idea that we don't need, maybe even don't want, absolute proof for much of anything. So, once we realize that evidence doesn't prove anything, rather people do, we can be more agressive in defending our own point-of-view regarding the origin of life on earth. There is an alternate interpretation which explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution, namely the presence of a Creator God. Don t be intimidated by somebody insisting that evolution is true, because it turns out that the evidence doesn t prove it after all.! 16

17 Fossils and Evolution, con t. Evolutionists have only two possible arenas in which they can "prove" their theory true, and these are the past and the present. Previously, we discussed the fact that there isn t any evolution happening at the present time (despite the claims of the evolutionists), and in this article we will see that the fossil record gives no evidence that evolution took place in the past. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard evolutionist, admitted this when he said, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." The Geologic Column In order to find evidence of evolution in the past, we must look to the f o s s i l r e c o r d. Paleontologists look for the fossilized remains of animals and plants in the crust of the earth, and they are particularly on the lookout for any fossils that might be a "transition" from one species to another. Once collected, the fossils from around the world are arranged in an imaginary sequence known as the "geologic column." A display of this column can be seen in the Smithsonian museum in Washington, D.C. This imaginary column is used to classify the s u p p o s e d a g e o f geologic strata (rock layers) in the earth's crust, and in turn, the fossils they contain. However, because the fossils themselves are used to date the rock layers, and because the fossils are given dates based upon the time scale posited by evolutionary theory, the geologic column becomes an invalid tool to prove the truth of evolution. Any argument based upon the "geologic column" is an exercise in faulty logic known as circular reasoning. It may look good in museums and textbooks, but it is bad logic. Furthermore, the column doesn't even exist anywhere on the face of the earth! There is no place one can go on earth to find all the fossils of the column arranged in order as they are pictured in evolutionary propaganda. There is no "geologic column" except in the minds of the evolutionists! Living Fossils Another problem for evolutionists are so-called "living fossils." These are species that were thought to be extinct, but which have been recently discovered living in various parts of the world. For instance, the Coelacanth was a fish that was supposed to have gone extinct 400! 17

18 million years ago, but is now found to be alive and well on planet earth. Jurassic pine trees (Wollemi Pines) have been discovered 200 kilometers from Sydney, Australia. A freshwater shrimp known as Anaspides was declared to have gone extinct about 100 million years ago, but now has been found thriving in the depths of the oceans. Cockroaches, dragonflies, and horseshoe crabs are all found in the ancient parts of the "geologic column," millions of years ago, but are obviously unchanged and still alive on earth today. These "living fossils" present a real problem for the evolutionists because it calls into question the credibility of their assertions about the fossil record. Sudden Appearance Contrary to what evolutionists expect, the actual fossil evidence shows a sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian time period. All but one of the biological phyla of classified life forms which are capable of fossilization are represented in the Cambrian rocks of the earth. For example, the Trilobite appears in the fossil record with no evidence of its formation from simpler creatures, and yet it had a remarkably complex compound eye that allowed it to see underwater. Evolutionist D. Axelrod admitted this difficulty: "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks. When we turn to examine the Pre-Cambrian rocks for the evolutionary forerunners, they are nowhere to be found." Charles Darwin also was aware of this problem of 'sudden appearance' and declared that he could "give no satisfactory answer." Missing Links There are no intermediary fossils between species showing a transition from one group to another. The evolutionists hope to find such fossils, but in the meantime, they are called "missing links." To surmount the problem of "missing links," evolutionists today are moving away from gradualistic Darwinism toward a theory called "punctuated equilibrium." They now suggest that evolution did not occur gradually, but rather rapidly, in isolated populations, leaving little fossil evidence of their transition from one species to another. They neither prove the mechanism by which this occurred (mutations again?), nor do they supply hard scientific evidence that their new theory is any better than the old one. What About Those Human-like Fossils? What about them? Java Man was deceitfully made from an ape's jaw; Piltdown Man was a hoax; Ramapithecus was a pongid (a form of ape); Nebraska Man was made out of a pig's tooth; Cro- Magnon Man is indistinguishable from modern Europeans; Neanderthals were fully human creatures suffering from bone diseases; Peking Man was killed by more advanced humans using man-made weapons; and Australopithecus ("Lucy") is strikingly similar to modern chimpanzees. Furthermore, genetic studies of human origins have discovered one common ancestor for all of humanity. One researcher said, "We are finding that humans have very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor. Research suggests that virtually all modern men, 99.9%, share genes from one male ancestor, dubbed 'Y-chromosome Adam.' "! 18

19 The work of Canadian scientist, Arthur Custance, demonstrated that dispersal patterns of human migration indicate a central originating point for humanity, the middle east. As it turns out, this corresponds with the biblical record. Custance also noted that most hominoid fossil discoveries have come from the most distant regions away from this starting point. He concluded that the further a culture got from civilization, the more isolated that culture became, and correspondingly the people degenerated severely over time. Thus, instead of evolving and progressing, the history of mankind, as shown in the fossil record, actually indicates a de-evolution and a degeneration. Anybody have any sixfingered cousins living out in the hills? Other Fossil Problems for Evolutionists 1) Wrong-order rock strata at Glacier Park, Wyoming, and 500 other locations around the globe (The common evolutionary rebuttal of "out-thrusting" would leave hard evidence like gouges, breccia, and striated stone. These wrong-order rocks have no such evidence.) 2) Rapid coal formation in deep water flood strata around the world 3) Rapid canyon creation at Mt. St. Helen's 4) Fossilized footprints found in Nicaragua under 11 strata of solid rock 5) Shoe print found in a coal seam in Fisher Canyon, Nevada 6) Fossilized leather shoe found embedded in a Triassic rock 7) Fragmentary nature of fossil finds - often conjecture and a few bone fragments alone comprise the so-called "evidence" that evolution is true. Mutations and Evolution Evolutionists suppose that the various species of life on earth, both plant and animal, all developed from lower forms of life. Charles Darwin postulated the idea that there was a force at work in nature called "natural selection" which allowed genetic mutations in plants and animals to create new species of creatures. This mutational process is the mechanism by which evolution supposedly took place and which has been taught in schools for decades. It is popularly confused with the "survival of the fittest," and several classic "proofs" are usually given to show the scientific reality of this idea. Darwin pointed to the variety of finches on the Galapagos islands, while others looked to giraffes, moths, and bacteria as their "proof" that evolution is true. Well, what about these mutations, are they the mechanism by which evolution has taken place?! 19

20 What is a mutation? A mutation is a change in the genetic code within the population of any given species of plant or animal. Various agencies such as cosmic radiation or chemical toxicity can cause mutations, but most mutations are spontaneous; that is they occur because the reproduction mechanism within the individual does not perfectly reduplicate itself each time. However, mutations are invariably harmful to the species involved, and hardly qualify as an evolutionary mechanism to explain the supposed biological advancement of species. Mutations usually render the individuals affected either weaker, sterile, deformed, or destroyed. In order for evolution to be scientifically believable, evolutionists must find evidence that harmful mutations have, in fact, caused one species to change into a different kind of species through the process of natural selection. This, they cannot do. Examples given by evolutionists a) Darwin's finches - While visiting the Galapagos islands off the coast of Ecuador, Charles Darwin acquired a collection of finches from two particular islands in this chain. After his voyage, he studied this collection and marveled at the variation of beak size within the 26 sets of birds he had examined. He said, "The most curious fact is the perfect gradation in the size of beaks... Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends." He thought that the variation in the birds' beaks proved that evolution had taken place on these islands. However, since 1973, two Princeton scientists have exhaustively studied these birds, observing, cataloguing, and assessing their findings. Of particular interest is what happened to these finches after the El Niño of El Niño is a weather pattern that occurs in cycles, and in this case, the unusually warm weather stirred up a severe rainy season, changing these desert islands into tropical breeding grounds. The result was an explosion of matings between the birds which had supposedly evolved into different species, and the production of generations of finch offspring which are all the same! The many varieties of Darwin's day became one group again. Is this surprising? Not to breeders of plants and animals who know that if one does not keep various breeds separate the uniqueness of the variety will be lost. If various kinds of dogs are allowed to breed indiscriminately they will eventually lose distinction and all wind up as mutts! Darwin's finches cannot be used as proof of natural selection since they have always been related in the same way that the various breeds of dog are related. They are still finches! b) moths - As a result of industrial pollution in England, the number of moths which are light colored has supposedly decreased since they are more easily seen and eaten by predators. This idea is used by evolutionists as "proof" of natural selection at work. However, no genetic change has occurred in these moths at all, and there are still black and white moths in England! c) giraffes - Supposedly, in the struggle to survive, only the creatures with the longest neck could eat the leaves higher on the trees, and thus in times of famine, creatures with shorter necks would die off and be lost somewhere in evolutionary history. However, how does one explain that the neck of the female giraffe is two feet shorter than the male? How did she survive?! 20

21 d) bacteria - Hey, what about all those "resistant" bacteria to the new medicines and pesticides? Doesn't that prove natural selection to be at work? Answer: yes, but it does not produce anything new. The mutations involved may arise as a result of exposure to these medicines and pesticides, however, because the pre-existing strains of nonresistant bacteria are killed off by the drugs and chemicals, the more resistant super-bugs are left intact. Despite the genetic change that takes place, no new species is created, only the population of the variant bacteria changes. Furthermore, the "resistant" bacteria is actually "weaker" than the non-resistant type, for when the drugs and chemicals are removed, the "normal" bacteria return and take over the population again. e) fruit flies - scientists have bombarded the fruit fly species with radiation for 50 plus years. By so doing, they have created millions of mutations in an accelerated manner and have never been able to find one mutation that has created a new species of fruit fly. They have made multiple-headed fly monsters, but nothing that could survive and change into a different species! f) roses - Scientists working with roses and gamma radiation over a period of many years, have produced mutations that caused variations in size, color, texture, and petal number. However, in every case the new rose variation was weaker than the original and less fit to survive. One scientist involved in this study said, "It is evident that mutations can only alter various phases of expressions of the rose, but the pattern of the rose itself cannot be changed." Conclusion Natural Selection by mutations is actually a conserving force within species, not an evolutionary one. In recent years, enthusiasm among scientists for demonstrating evolution by a study of induced mutations has died out because there is no evidence that advantageous mutations occur. What science actually shows is the correctness of the Bible when it says that each species reproduces "according to its own kind." Arthur Custance wrote, "Contrary to public opinion, a great many of Darwin's conclusions were not based upon observation but upon the logical extensions of a basic idea which had captured and imprisoned his mind. That his premises were at fault has become increasingly apparent, and this applies with particular force to his ideas about natural selection."! 21

22 First Cause and Evolution When we were kids, we used to lie around on the grass looking at the clouds roll by in the blue sky, and sooner or later, one of us would ask this question, Who made the world? And without much hesitation, somebody would say, God did. And then, just to show what deep thinkers we were, one of us would ask, Well, who made God? The answer, we all knew, was that nobody made God. That s why He qualified to be God, and we all knew it, even though none of us were church kids. We were totally secular, not religious at all. This, in simple form, is what is known as the cosmological argument, also the cause and effect argument. It simply says that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. The illustration from my childhood was meant to show that this is a commonsense idea, simple enough for everybody to understand. It is also devastating to the evolutionary idea that the universe is self-creating. For a long time, evolutionists wanted us all to believe that the universe has always been here. That way, there was no need for a Creator. However, the Big Bang theory destroyed the validity of an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein found out that his theory of general relativity implied that the universe had a beginning, it irritated him because it implied a necessary First Cause. He tried to overcome this implication with the concepts of anti-gravity and the cosmological constant, but he later admitted that was the biggest mistake of his career. In the 1920 s, Edwin Hubble, looking through the 100 inch telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, discovered the red shift of stars and galaxies which showed that the universe was expanding and that all these objects were hurtling away from each other at fantastic speeds. Hubble s observations were confirmed by many other scientists, all of whom concluded that the cause for this expanding universe was a beginning point when everything in the universe was so compressed into one small point that it exploded. They called this beginning point the Big Bang. Further proof of the Big Bang came in the 1960 s when two radio engineers discovered mysterious background radiation coming from space, and they surmised that this radiation was leftover from the Big Bang. The evidence was so convincing, that by 1970, physicist Stephen Hawking wrote, There must have been a Big Bang singularity.! 22

23 It took awhile, but when the Big Bang was finally accepted by science, the idea that the universe has always existed exploded in the faces of the evolutionists. So, they came up with the idea of oscillating universes. That is, along with the Big Bang which started the universe, there will also eventually be a Big Crunch when all the matter in space will collapse back in upon itself until another Big Bang occurs. Of course, this will take billions of years, so we don t need to worry about this in our lifetime. The problem for the Big Crunch is that science proves it false. First, there doesn t seem to be enough matter in the universe to cause a reversal of the Big Bang. Visible matter accounts for about 4% of the universe, and another 25% of the universe is composed of dark matter which nobody can see or experiment with. Second, gravity isn t bringing everything together again; it is still pushing everything away from everything else... the expansion continues! Finally, this idea of a Big Crunch contradicts the First of Law of Thermodynamics which says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So, let s follow the reasoning of the cosmological argument now; it goes like this (remember, even kids can figure it out!): Everything that has a beginning was caused by something else. The universe had a beginning point called the Big Bang. Therefore, the universe was caused into existence by something else. This something else is the First Cause. Who, then is the First Cause? Well, kids around the world know that the answer to this question is God. He is the First Cause of the universe. But He Himself is uncaused. Nobody caused God because that is what makes God, well, God. The Bible tells us in Genesis that He caused the universe to exist: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Aristotle called this First Cause, the Prime Mover, about which he said, It is that which moves without being moved (see Book 12, Metaphysics). Today, evolutionists insist that there is a First Cause for the universe, namely, the universe itself! One man, Quentin Smith, put it this way, I argue for the conclusion that the universe, be it infinitely old or finitely old, caused itself. One might object that no such argument could possibly succeed, because the claim that the universe caused itself is incoherent. Exactly! What is the evolutionary answer to the question of the First Cause? Carl Sagan put it this way, We don t know, and we never will. Wow, what an admission for such a smart guy!! 23

24 Reality and Evolution This is the last of my musings in this series on evolution, not because I have in any way exhausted what I wanted to say on the subject, but because I intended this document to be an overview of the reasons why I am not an evolutionist. I am not claiming to know that evolution is wrong, just that I believe it to be wrong, and in order to demonstrate that my belief is not irrational, I have written these articles. You see, there is a tension between faith and reason; so great a tension, in fact, that many people have wrongly concluded that the two are contradictory. It is the Christian position that faith and reason are complementary, with faith having the final word of authority. In the good old days, the phrase went this way: philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. Martin Luther thought in terms of the magisterial and ministerial use of reason, meaning that although faith and reason work together, it is only faith which has the authority of a judge who is able to make final decisions regarding the truth. In more modern terms, we can think of experiential truth and transcendental truth, or that which we know through our senses and that which we know from a source outside of ourselves (God, for instance). Now, the evolutionist denies the Christian assertion that there is a source of knowledge beyond our reason and sensory perception. He insists that there is no reality beyond that which is perceived by modern scientific reasonings. If you are a scientist who believes this idea, then you will probably come across as annoying and arrogant since you and your pals are the only ones who can know anything about the reality of the world. In fact, two prominent evolutionist s (Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins) call themselves the Brights, because they believe themselves to be smarter than everybody else. Unfortunately for these brights, a man named Immanuel Kant destroyed the idea of the supremacy of naturalistic reason back in 1781 when he published a book entitled, The Critique of Pure Reason. This book was written as a response to David Hume who insisted that all knowledge is empirical, and that nothing can be known beyond our senses. Kant insisted that although all knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that all knowledge arises out of experience. Basically, Kant had two points to make: (1) yes, all human knowledge is based upon sensory experience; but (2) we cannot know if human perception corresponds with reality itself. He insisted that there was a reality consisting of real things (noumenon), but that we only know about them through our perception (phenomenon). For example, we have a dog at home, and we know what it looks like, smells like, and how it behaves, but we do not know what it is like to be! 24

25 a dog. The reality of dogginess escapes us. Most evolutionists ignore Kant s philosophical challenge to their claim to be the sole possessors of true knowledge about reality. Yet, Kant demonstrated that it is irrational to presume that our experience of reality corresponds to reality itself. D sousa phrased Kant s conclusion this way: Our experience of things can never penetrate to things as they really are. That reality remains permanently hidden from us. So, which one are you? Are you with the evolutionist who insists that there is no world beyond the natural one... that there is no reality beyond that which can be perceived by the senses? If you are, then how can prove your assertion since you can only use your five senses in your demonstration? What if something exists, like the dark matter of the universe, which you can t perceive at all? Is it really there? Of course, you must deny the existence of God if you hold to this view, but have you checked out the furtherest points of the universe, and determined by your scientific methods that He is not there? What if He exists beyond this universe? How will you prove that He isn t there? You have an impossible, and therefore irrational, task before you. Or, are you with the Christian who insists that there is a world beyond our own called the supernatural, and that the God who made both heaven and earth has communicated to us a greater understanding of reality than we could have ever known on our own. He is transcendent, and because of this, we can know for sure that there is more about reality than meets the eye. Yes, this position takes faith, but it would be foolish and irrational to live without it.! 25