Storage.googleapis.com
Grand Apologetic
Compiled by Bruce Wood, BA, BS, MA – Theological Studies
Table of Contents
(Clicking on the hyperlinked headings below will take you directly to that subject)
Page
Preface 2
What is Science? 3
Definitions (according to Webster's New World Dictionary): 3
Models 6
The Scientific Method (and major potential problems with it): 6
The Inefficiency of Evolution 8
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Design…………………….………...11
Persecution and Bias 12
Past and Present Creation Scientists 12
Creation Education 13
Benefits 14
Morality 16
Theological Viewpoints 17
Concluding Remarks 21
Preface
I remained a diehard evolutionist for twenty-six years. However, a serious study of creation and evolution convinced me that evolution had no scientific support. Coming to this conclusion was the result of using correct scientific procedures and critical thinking to challenge evolution, an option not allowed by secular/evolution indoctrination.
I served in three capacities while a staff member at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) for nine and a half years: Field Administrator—traveling nationwide to over 100 ICR-participating venues; giving tours in the ICR creation museum in San Diego for sixteen years (9 years prior as volunteer); responder to incoming questions about creation science, evolution, and theology.
I was trained by the very best creation scientists for four years while at Christian Heritage College (CHC), now San Diego Christian College. The CHC campus was also home to ICR. I developed my science apologetic education while under the tutelage of ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris, De. John Morris (geology), ICR VP Dr. Duane Gish (biologist and “Bulldog of Creation”), Dr. Gary Parker (biology), Dr. Steve Austin (geology), Dr. Richard Bliss (science education), Dr. Ken Cummings (biology), and other leading scientists.
I was also given an excellent theological education under noted theologians at both CHC and Northwest Baptist Seminary (Tacoma, WA). Practical application of both scientific and theological evidences came by way of participation in numerous evangelistic campaigns and visitations, teaching theological and scientific apologetics at two colleges, pastoring in two churches, and engaging in thousands of conversations with those in my personal and professional endeavors. Overall, I have accumulated over 40 years of researched knowledge, and consider myself qualified to deliver an adequate apologetic in the defense of a literal, six-day creation, according to the first book of Genesis.
As mentioned above, I gave (about 3,000) tours over sixteen (16) years at ICR’s Creation & Earth History Museum. In them, I discussed biblical creation views with literally thousands of evolutionists, including “crevolutionists” (Christians who believe God used some form of evolution). I was able to answer most of the scientific questions, not being a scientist, or having a science degree for that matter.
In truth, you do not need a degree in science to answer most creation and origin questions. What you need is a basic knowledge of Scripture, evolution, and creation science. Good science will determine whether creation science or evolution is the true science. Both are faith-based theories and seek to interpret history, and neither can repeat the origins of either creation or evolution cosmologies. Both sides look at the same evidences; however, both sides interpret them from biased viewpoints (e.g. God or no God).
I once had a running debate with Dr. William Thwaits (who twice-debated Sr. VP Duane Gish, PhD. [biochemistry, UC Berkeley]). He occasionally brought groups of SDSU students to our museum to show what he considered flaws with our position. Our debate lasted 3 ¼ hours, and during our discussion through the museum, I heard NO evidence for evolution—not ONE!
Both cosmologies can be divided into two primary camps: pure evolution (absolutely no God or deity in the construct of our universe) or a literal, six-day Genesis creation, without ANY evolutionary process. Whether the Biblical God could have used any form of evolution (e. g., Theistic, Day-Age, Progressive evolution, Gap Theory, etc.) will be examined later.
Evolutionists who reject any notion of creation science would find out that—with an objective attitude—good science would reject evolution outright. They would realize all too soon that trying to produce a working mechanism for evolution would be as successful as trying to nail a fresh pan of Jell-O to the wall.
Students intuitively know that a kissed frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. However, when millions of years are added to a frog to produce a prince, well, this is called science, according to the evolution theory! It is therefore imperative that we consider the facts:
What is Science?
Let science be good science, free from all things non-science, free from bias, philosophical views, religion (not to be confused with theology), and pride. Students of any religious or non-religious institution must KNOW good science if they are to launch rockets, cure diseases, validate a correct cosmology, or improve junk food.
As mentioned above, both creation scientists and evolutionists are biased. Both have views about the existence or non-existence of God. But in truth, creation scientists are more objective than evolutionists; they include the possibility of God, whereas atheist-evolutionists outright reject the existence of God, thus eliminating the Great Cause for the universe (and ignoring the primary Origin of this scientific law). Having taken God out of a scientific equation blinds them to objectivity and truth.
Those (including long-age/old earth Christians) who accept macro-evolution (e.g. kind to higher kind) regard young earth creationists as anti-intellectual and narrow-minded religious fanatics. Such views sometimes include charges (and fears) that conservative Christians want to teach the Bible in public schools. These accusations are unfounded, since the legal barriers are impenetrable. (It should be noted that the American education system was originally founded by Christians to teach literacy (using the Bible), for the primary purpose for all to read and understand the Bible and apply its truths to daily living.
Creation science education advocates a desire that good science be taught in public and other evolution-centered schools. Too, cosmologies are faith-based theories, interpreting theories of origins that cannot be repeated. Secular teachers who believe we have evolutionary origins cannot be trusted to discuss Bible theology accurately. Any portrayal of a biblical Creator’s timeline, what was made on each creation day, and why He created all things would be prone to many inaccurate details and interpretations.
Creation science rejects evolution because of the abundant scientific evidence that refutes it, as will be discussed below. Science will show that evolution is a religion. In PBS and "Evolution" - Tax Dollars Diverted for Religious Teaching former ICR President, Dr. John Morris quotes Richard Lewontin, a leading evolutionist from Harvard, who said,
We are forced by our a priori adherence to material (i.e., natural, ed.) causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, in New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)
ICR founder, Dr. Morris, goes on to quote Will Provine's (Cornell University) admission that:
[The] belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." (Will Provine, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999, p. 123.)
Objective scientific studies have brought many evolutionists to conclude that there is a Creator God who made the universe and everything in it in six literal days, according to Exodus 20:11. A good example is ICR staff scientist, Dr. Gary Parker, who used to teach evolution at the college level. His testimony of how he became a creation scientist can be read in From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony.
Definitions (according to Webster's New World Dictionary):
Webster's New World Dictionary (1998) defines “science” as a "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." This is exactly what ICR scientists have done. A good overview of ICR’s definitions and models can be found in the article entitled The Principles of Creationism.
The Webster Dictionary includes the following definitions:
• Adaptation: "A change in structure, function, or form that improves the chance of survival for an animal or plant within a given environment."
• Biblical creation*: "The doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of creation by God, specifically to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible."
• Big Bang theory: "A theory of cosmology holding that the expansion of the universe began with a gigantic explosion (big bang) between 12 and 20 billion years ago."
• Evolution: "The development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny."
• Macroevolution: "Large-scale and long-range evolution involving the appearance of new genera, families, etc. of organisms."
• Microevolution: "Small-scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing new varieties."
• Scientific Biblical Creation: "teaching and research based upon the belief that the biblical account of the creation of the world is scientific fact.”
• Uniformitarianism: "The doctrine that all geologic changes may be explained by existing physical and chemical processes, as erosion, deposition, volcanic action, etc., that have operated in essentially the same way throughout geologic time."
Regarding Biblical origins, there are 3 kinds of creation: 1) scientific - no mention of Bible; 2) Biblical - no mention of science; and 3) Biblical Scientific - mentioning both science and Bible. Evolutionists, on the other side, believe that life started with a single cell. That cell developed in a vertical and successive line of life forms into higher kinds (macroevolution*). Science and the Genesis creation week narrative agree that the Creator made all living things by their “kinds” with no biological abilities for any kind to evolve into another higher kind.
*“Macro-evolution,” according to J.S. Levinton (2001), is "the sum of the processes that explain the character-state transition that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank." For layman, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) – which mentions nothing about the origin of life – means that the human race (having evolved from primates) came by way of goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo.
The term Darwinian evolution is dependent on chance, mutations, natural (brainless) selection, and NO God. Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. Animal kinds (e.g. dog, cat, horse, etc.) speciate into various species, but they remain as dogs, cats, horses, etc.
Trillions of mutations are needed to evolve one major kind of animal into another in Darwinian evolution. However, no known biological program can facilitate the transition from one kind into another kind—especially using chance processes. Regardless, 4.6 billion years are woefully inadequate for any kind to transcend into another kind. Trillions of years would not be enough time. And why would evolution produce the complex and redundant systems in our bodies that search for and eliminate . . . mutations?
Biogenesis says that life comes ONLY from life. It is a mathematical impossibility that even one strand of highly complex DNA could arise from random, non-living chemicals (abiogenesis). Structurally, DNA is a double helix, comprised of thousands of amino acids arranged to form hundreds of polypeptide chains. Arranging the hundreds of bases, amino acids, and polypeptide chains sequentially to form even one strand of DNA, without mistakes, is beyond random chance probability. And in evolution’s beginning, there was nothing from which “natural selection” could select when only non-living chemicals existed.
Chirality (e.g. handedness) in human biology requires only left-handed amino acids. Even if there were substantial amounts of non-living amino acids, how would random processes, void of any intelligence or plan or additional information, combine only left-handed amino acids? Too, it takes proteins to manufacture DNA, but it takes DNA to help manufacture proteins. One needs the other and thus both had to form at the same time, according to evolution. Evolution insists that this came about by undirected chance. (A short, secular YouTube video on chirality can be seen HERE.)
Evolutionary mechanisms had to exist in the first life forms to produce incredibly complex chemical reactions in time for healing processes before traumatic injuries occurred (to stop bleeding, infection, disease, etc.). Another example is photosynthesis: a mechanism had to exist in plants to convert raw sunlight into chemical energy. Which came first, the chicken (plant) or the egg (mechanism)?
Information—and a lot of it, is required for one kind to become another kind. Whatever is needed to function had better happen FAST before the life form dies. Mechanisms are required to digest and convert raw materials into compatible energy. Systems must also exist for breathing, blood circulation, nervous connections to transfer information, waste elimination, and, in general, every other life-supporting system!
Vast gaps between kinds of animals are documented in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate links to bridge such (amoeba-to-man) transitions. Furthermore, evolutionists are at a loss to satisfactorily explain the "Cambrian explosion" that supposedly took place approximately 541 million years ago. Single cell life is seen in the Precambrian stratum. But the next (higher) Cambrian stratum is filled with highly complex life forms, with no transitional fossils between the two strata. Of the multi-billion ocean-dwelling fossils, not one invertebrate (e.g. clam) is seen transforming into a vertebrate (e.g. fish).
The 2nd law of thermodynamics basically says that order goes to disorder as useful energy dissipates (increasing entropy). Yet the Big Bang cosmology says just the opposite: disorder becomes orderly. Evolutionists disregard the fact that it would have been impossible for life to have arisen from non-living chemicals (abiogenesis) according to both the 2nd law, as well as the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Accordingly, our complex brains came from an invisible, odorless, tasteless, gas, which originated from . . . nothing!
“Creation science”, then, is a valid term, because ICR scientists use research procedures to evaluate evidences they find in various disciplines. The word “creation” in creation science is used to denote a valid alternative cosmology to that of evolution. ICR uses a model, from which to make predictions about the causes and construct of our universe and earth. Similarly, evolution has a model from which it makes its predictions.
ICR scientists have observed that evolutionary processes (uniformitarianism) do not coincide with what science reveals. In short, the present processes do not accurately tell us if such processes were the same in the past. A major problem in evolution thinking is that the Genesis flood never happened exactly as described in Genesis (Chps. 6-9). Evolution assumes that present geological processes are constant. Contrarily, ICR scientists have revealed many scientific evidences that indicate a young earth.
Evolutionists who reject any notion of creation science would discover that good science—using an objective attitude—would reject evolution outright (as seen in the video, Icons of Evolution - Dismantling the Myths). They would realize all too soon that trying to produce a working mechanism for evolution would be as successful as trying to nail a fresh pan of Jell-O to the wall. Students intuitively know that a kissed frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. However, when millions of years are added to a frog to produce a prince, well, this is called science, according to the evolution theory!
Neither creation science nor evolution can be called scientific theories. A scientific theory must be qualified by the following conditions: The Scientific Method is the approach science uses to gain knowledge. This method tries to be unbiased and neutral. The Scientific Method involves observation, inductive and deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing and falsification, and predictive model testing (see below).
Models
Contrary to anti-creationist claims, ICR does not want to exclude either creation or evolution from the class room. ICR (and other creation organizations) favor a balanced treatment of both models. ICR uses a model, from which to make predictions about the causes and construct of our universe and earth. Similarly, evolution has a model from which it makes its predictions. These models are discussed in the following ICR article: Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I and II).
The model of evolution is predicated on five basic assumptions about its cosmology: Vast amounts of (1) time (billions of years) were necessary for multiple trillions of (2) mutations, to allow (3) natural selection to form life from non-life (spontaneous generation), in an undirected course of (4) random events, otherwise known as chance, (5) void of any deity or “intelligent design” to produce humans from nothing.
Listed below are some of the most obvious contradictions between the two models, which could be considerably extended. There is no excuse for theistic evolutionists and other old-earth advocates to claim that the evolutionary system is compatible with Scripture. Either Scripture contains allegory only, or evolution is wrong.
Contradictions between Evolution & the Bible:
|Evolutionary Order |Biblical Order |
|Life in ocean before land plants |Land plants before life in ocean |
|Simple plants before fruit trees |Fruit trees, the first plants |
|Land animals before flowering plants |Flowering plants before animals |
|Small animals first land life |Cattle before creeping things |
|Dinosaurs evolved into birds |Birds before land animals |
|Land reptiles evolved into plesiosaurs |Flying animals before land animals |
|Land reptiles evolved into pterosaurs |Marine animals before land animals |
|Land mammals evolved into bats |Flying animals before land animals |
|Land mammals evolved into whales |Whales before land animals |
|Death of the unfit produced man |Man was the cause of death |
It should be noted that at no time should it ever be claimed that creation science is a “scientific” theory. Nevertheless, its scientists use the scientific method to validate a young age for the earth. Actually, evolutionists have helped discover evidences for a young earth, such as the cellular proteins in dinosaur fossils.
Changes occur in speciation, caused by environmental conditions and other biological challenges. However, such (environmental) changes are the result of adaptation (microevolution, if you prefer), which is determined by available genetic information, and not because of macroevolution processes. As stated above, microevolution will not enable one kind to transition into another higher kind.
The Scientific Method (and major potential problems with it):
ICR affiliate Dr. John Baumgardner, PhD geology, has the following to say in his article entitled Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method:
Frank Wolfs, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, reviews the four following essentials:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
Dr. Baumgardner reviews reasons under his subtitle, When Does the Scientific Method Fail? He summarizes by saying,
science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own biases and personal preferences to short-circuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process.
In other words, the overriding bias is forcing any scientific results to conform to a uniformitarian process. That is, cosmological, geological, and biological processes took millions and billions of years to produce what we see today. Galaxies were caused by the Big Bang, or other nebulous theory; life evolved over millions of years from bacteria; the fossil record is to be interpreted as a succession of plant and animal life over millions of years.
Accordingly, the scientific method would invalidate and refute the biased conclusions that secular scientists present. Strict adherence to every part of the scientific method would include the following steps:
[pic]
As seen at left, scientific understanding begins with observations. Scientists then make a hypothesis to explain those observations. The hypothesis should make predictions which can be tested via experiments. If the predictions of the hypothesis are verified, it is concluded that the hypothesis is supported by the scientific data. That conclusion is an observation in-and-of itself, which can form the basis for further hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions. In this way, scientific knowledge builds upon itself:
[pic]
Scientific knowledge is at its heart based upon observations and experiments. Another way of putting it is that science is based upon empirical data.
What creation scientists have observed is that evolutionary processes (uniformitarianism), according to Charles Lyell, do not coincide with what science actually says. In short, the present processes do not accurately tell us if present processes were the same in the past. A major problem in evolution thinking is that the Genesis flood never happened exactly as described in Genesis (Chps. 6-9). Evolution assumes that present geological processes formed earth strata. Contrarily, ICR scientists have substantiated many scientific evidences that indicate a young earth.
Dr. Baumgardner emphasizes evolutionists’ woeful disregard for complying with the scientific method regarding the beginning of everything by saying,
Some of the most glaring examples of this failure of the scientific method today have to do with the issue of origins. There are two fairly obvious reasons for this: 1) many of the crucial processes occurred in the past and are difficult to test in the present; and 2) personal biases are especially strong on topics related to origins because of the wider implications.
In truth, evolution is a religion. ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris mentions a confession by a leading evolutionist in his (free online) ICR booklet, The Scientific Case against Evolution,
Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
There is truth in the statement that the creation theory cannot be a scientific theory because it cannot be tested. Evolution is not a scientific theory for the same reason: its theory cannot be tested, observed, or repeated. Both creation science and evolution are faith-based theories that interpret history. Neither creationists nor evolutionists were there “in the beginning” to see what happened, and they cannot repeat either process. Both, therefore, interpret history based on how each interprets the present evidence.
Dr. Baumgardner concludes his article above (Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method) by saying,
In summary, science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own biases and personal preferences to short circuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process.
The Inefficiency of Evolution
Evolutionists have been trying to explain the origin of species without a design—or a Designer—since 1859. The Darwinian macro-evolution theory is just as dismal today. Let good science be taught without ANY philosophical bias. Let science be inductive, not deductive, and let the student decide! Following are stated observations for consideration that have been compiled by the writer of this document:
Arguments for evolution may seem plausible to one who has not taken a critical look at the theory. However, such arguments would be empty, due to a lack of verifiable, scientific evidence.
1. The origin of the species has never been observed (and empirical science demands this). The supposed “macro” evolutionary process (one distinct kind transitioning into another distinct kind) would take trillions of mutations to evolve a major kind of animal into another. Therefore, evolutionists insist on a (current) age of ~4.6 billion years for mutational processes to produce and advance living things on Earth. Note: Trillions of years would not be enough time for evolutionary processes to bring about any life, according to mathematical probability see #5 below).
Biogenesis prohibits evolution. This law says that living things come from living things, period. Life has never been produced from non-living chemicals in a lab. Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is mathematically impossible. Nevertheless, evolution insists that mutations have accumulated to derive man from amoeba. Or, as stated above, from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo.
No mutation has resulted in a net increase of usable information. However, a staggering fact faces evolution: From where does all the information come to increase the magnitudes of complexity in the lowest orders of life? But information in and of itself is not enough; it must be compatible information. In other words, a mechanism and a plan/schematic must be able to convert raw information (sunlight for example) into usable information (e.g., nutritious chemicals/energy by way of photosynthesis).
2. An amoeba needs phenomenal amounts of information for natural selection to do its thing. Understand that natural selection selects OUT those things that are not useable. Ironically, redundant systems seek out useless formations and eliminate these, um, mutations. And just what produced such complex mechanisms for this genetic security safeguard, not to mention amino acids, proteins, etc.? Certainly not the chaotic and random process of evolution! (Incidentally, how does any evolutionary process know what is needed or not needed? It is, after all, a random and unintelligent process!)
3. No mechanism for macro-evolution has ever been demonstrated. Such a mechanism MUST be present if evolution processes are to transcend any species into new higher kinds of any plant or animal life. Limited information within the DNA programming only allow for various species to adapt to the environment. DNA will never contain information (even “recombined information”) to evolve into a higher lifeform.
4. "Natural selection" in macro-evolution is a myth at best, a hoax at worst. The so-called mechanism of natural selection was impossible if non-living chemicals existed before life. There was nothing from which to select! And there was obviously no mechanism to organize the first living anything.
5. Furthermore, programmed (genetic) informational and mechanisms had to exist to select and manufacture every required chemical necessary for the construction of any life form. Too, processes required starting and ending points in constructing everything, including molecules, RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins, and the thousands of systems within any body. Dependency on chance and random mutations to combine, produce, and maintain every unplanned organ is an absurd process. More information on this topic can be found in the article What Is the Difference between Macroevolution and Microevolution?
6. It is a mathematical impossibility that even one strand of highly-complex DNA could arise from random, non-living chemicals. Structurally, DNA is a double helix: two strands of genetic material spiraled around each other. Each strand contains a sequence of bases (also called nucleotides). A base is one of four chemicals (adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine). Arranging the hundreds of bases sequentially to form even one strand of DNA, without any mistake, is beyond the ability of random chance processes.
7. It is also impossible that DNA and/or a single cell, which require only left-handed amino acids (known as chirality) could form in (non-living) chemicals. Amino acids consist of equal proportions of both left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Assuming there were substantial amounts of non-living amino acids, how would random processes—void of any intelligence or plan, combine only left-handed amino acids? Just one right-handed amino acid will destroy any DNA formation. Consider, too, that it takes proteins to manufacture DNA, but it takes DNA to help manufacture proteins. One needs the other and thus both had to form at the same time, according to evolution.
8. Evolutionist Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) argues that a complex organism cannot lose any part that would cause its malfunction or death. Take an engine or transmission out of a car, and it has reached a point of irreducible complexity, despite having every other necessary component.
In biology, this becomes an insurmountable problem to evolution: There are interdependent relationships of many symbiotically-related parts within any organism—especially organelles in a cell. These parts must arise at the same time if the organism is to function as a unit. For that matter, any cell needs all components at the same time to function. If the mitochondria (e.g. energy storage units) are not in a cell, the cell will cease to function.
9. The infamous evolutionary “tree of life” begins with only one “proto (first) cell,” which, in turn, evolved into both animal and plant kinds. Evolutionists know that it is mathematically impossible for even one cell to form by random processes. And to complicate any cellular construction, life somehow materializing in a cell would be "miraculous."
10. Take your pick: reducing atmosphere; non-reducing atmosphere; water. All would kill any attempt for life to exist in any of these conditions. A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would not allow for the formation of an ozone layer—which is composed of oxygen. Both oxygen and water destroy DNA. That is why a trap was necessary in the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment—which, by the way, produced deadly tar amino acids, but no life-producing amino acids.
11. As mentioned above, evolutionary mechanisms had to exist in the first life forms. Among them were those to produce healing processes before any harm befell them (to stop bleeding from a puncture, infection, disease, etc.). How could evolution have prepared for the unknown?
12. The first and second laws of thermodynamics prohibit the existence of the '''Big Bang" and the development of lower forms into higher forms of life. The second law of thermodynamics, for example, reveals increasing entropy in every open or closed system. Crumbling buildings, rusting cars, and even the universe itself will all lose energy.
13. Vast gaps in the fossil record confront the macro-evolutionary dogma. Intermediate, linking transitional animals are required to connect one kind of animal into another kind. However, huge gaps appear between major kinds of animals (e.g. amoeba-to-man). Evolutionists point to a pitifully small amount of (disputed) transitional fossils as evidence, such as Australopithecus, Basilosaurus, Archaeopteryx, single/multi-toe horses, etc. However, ALL discovered fossils are fully formed and from one kind. Not one shows a transition from one kind into another kind. ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris pointed out that we see cats and dogs, but no cogs or dats.
Furthermore, evolutionists are at a loss to satisfactorily explain the "Cambrian Explosion". According to the evolutionist timeline, this explosion took place about 640 million years after Earth formed. Thus, single cell fossils in the Precambrian stratum somehow became multicellular, highly complex, and totally distinct animals in the succeeding Cambrian stratum. But NO transitional and connecting fossils exist between the two strata.
14. No evolution scientist can scientifically explain the origin of matter, the origin of the “Big Bang,” or any other cosmogony, let alone the origin of evolutionary mechanisms, or the origin of life. In fact, Charles Darwin wrote absolutely nothing about the origin of any species in his book, The Origin of Species! A.G. Fisher, contributor to the 2003 Grolier Encyclopedia, says, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown." (Emphasis in original.)
15. If macro-evolution is a scientifically demonstrable and observable fact, then many creation organizations advocating a young earth would have ceased to exist long ago, if at all.
16. Every creation scientist who has an earned a Ph.D. in any science discipline from a recognized secular university had to fulfill required scientific standards. Therefore, how can evolutionists claim that such creation scientists have no scientific credibility?
17. In addition to the above, more arguments against macro-evolution can be found at by placing the word "fossil," "evolution," "creation," "biology," or other science words into the ICR search engine.
18. No mention of God or the Bible is needed to refute evolution. Critical thinking and true scientific methodology in any science classroom are enough to discredit macro-evolution as a scientifically-valid explanation for the origins of the universe and life. Creation scientists have shown how macroevolution is scientifically bankrupt. Much of the verifying evidence can be found by doing the word searches as described in #17 above. Thus, the only answer as to why we exist is a Creator, specifically, the literal six-day creation account as described in the first chapter of Genesis.
19. Darwin conceived his theory of evolution with an ultimate objective: replace God with science. He believed that natural processes, along with scientific evidence, would convince humans that a Creator was not necessary for creating anything. Although Darwin was a good naturalist, his only earned degree was in theology, not science.
As a theologian, Darwin utterly failed to observe the most important lesson in theology: correctly interpreting Scripture. Inserting millions of years into his theory was a notion he picked up from reading geologist Charles Lyell’s 3 volumes of Principles of Geology, which introduced the concept of Uniformitarianism (e.g. gradual processes over vast periods of time).
Those who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution knowingly or unknowingly call the biblical Creator a liar. God declared that He made everything in six, literal days, as is testified in the opening chapter of Genesis. This striking contradiction in the timeline in these respective teachings will be discussed below in the theological section.
From Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about design
Bill Dembski [Intelligent Design Movement member], one of the organizers of the Mere Creation conference, has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. As a visiting scholar at Notre Dame, Dembski is investigating the foundations of design. The following remarks are those given after researching the origins issue and intelligent design:
1. DESIGN DETECTION. If the universe, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we know it? Do reliable methods for detecting design exist? What are they? Are such methods employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis? Could they conceivably detect design in biological systems?
2. RELEVANCE OF SETI. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that searches for signs of non-human intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise search for signs of non-human intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?
3. BIOLOGY’S INFORMATION PROBLEM. What explains the origin of complex information-rich patterns in biological systems? Could biological systems exhibit informational patterns that cannot be adequately explained by natural selection and other material mechanisms? What would such patterns look like?
4. MOLECULAR MACHINES. Can you give examples of structures in the cell that resemble machines designed by humans? Does the complexity of these molecular machines rival artifactual machines made by humans? Is there any solid evidence that such machines could have arisen apart from actual design?
5. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Are there complex biological systems whose parts are all indispensable for the systems to perform their functions? If so, are such “irreducibly complex” systems evidence of intelligent design? If not, why not?
6. REUSABLE PARTS. Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms likewise reuse of structures that work well (the camera eye, for example). Is this evidence for common descent, evolutionary convergence, common design, or a combination of these? How do we decide among these options?
7. REVERSE ENGINEERING. In trying to understand biological systems, molecular biologists need to “reverse engineer” them. In other words, they start with functional biological systems and then use their knowledge of engineering to determine how the systems could have been designed and built. Is this evidence that the systems were engineered to begin with?
8. PREDICTIONS. Do intelligent design theory and neo-Darwinian theory make different predictions? Consider, for instance, junk DNA. For which of the two theories would the idea that large stretches of DNA are junk be more plausible? Which theory is more likely to look for unknown uses of seemingly useless biological structures?
9. FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE. What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true and that Neo-Darwinism is false? Could such evidence even exist? What would it look like? If no such evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can Neo-Darwinism be a testable scientific theory?
10. IDENTIFYING THE DESIGNER. Can we determine whether an object is designed without knowing anything about its designer? If an unidentified intelligence was responsible for designing biological systems, how could we know it?
Other ICR WEB pages (below) furnish data on evidence for a young universe and Earth (click on the blue numbers):
Age (Dating, etc.)
• Good overall article Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
• Appearance of age in Bone Disease Simulating Ancient Age in "Pre-Human" Fossils
• Other articles related to dating
Here are several links to articles discussing the statistical problems with life originating spontaneously:
• Probability and Order Versus Evolution (#73)
• Evolution is Biologically Impossible (#317)
• The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (#37)
• Not According to Hoyle (#138)
Persecution and Bias
It is a given that secular scientific periodicals that advocate evolution are not about to present favorable views of creation science, let alone publish articles by creation scientists! How long is the job of an editor going to last if he/she publishes a (positive) creation science article? Or, what effect would such a published creation article have on that periodical’s readership? To use a related quote, Nobel Prize winner Sir Fred Hoyle said,
Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down (Horgan, J., Profile: Fred Hoyle, Scientific American 272(3):24–25, 1995).
Accusations and regarding the scientific integrity of peer-reviewed, creation science articles have been answered many times. One response to these accusations can be found in ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris’ online booklet entitled Creation and Its Critics. This booklet gives cogent answers to the most common charges made against biblical creation and its researchers with earned PhDs in a number of disciplines.
Past and Present Creation Scientists
From Over 100 Scientists Who Believed in the Creator we read,
One of the most serious fallacies of modern thought is the widespread notion that Biblical Christianity is in conflict with true science. In short, genuine scientists cannot believe the Bible. The scientific method is built on empirical testing of hypotheses, and since creation and other Biblical doctrines cannot be tested in the laboratory, they are considered nonscientific and must be taken strictly on faith. Furthermore, it is commonly believed that the Bible contains many scientific errors. In mainstream secular thinking, a scientist may be able to accept the spiritual teachings of the Bible if he wishes, but never its scientific and historical teachings.
Such a charge is tragically wrong, however, and has done untold damage. Many creation scientists have been and are Bible-believing Christians. As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science was initiated by those who embraced the authority of Scripture and a young earth.
As a matter of fact, authorization for the development of science and technology was specifically commissioned in God’s primeval mandate to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-28). And many early scientists, especially in England and America, viewed scientific research in just this way. The study of the world and its processes is best undertaken, as Kepler and other great scientists have maintained, by “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
Articles can be accessed that present past and present creation scientists. Among them are the following:
• ICR Scientists
• Famous Scientists Who Believed in Creation
• Do real scientists believe in Creation? -
• Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Creation Education
Do sincere creation organizations want to force creation science into public schools to the exclusion of other cosmologies that differ with them? Such a charge could not be farther from their educational goals. They exist solely to stress the scientific and theological evidences for a literal Genesis creation and do not want to force what they believe on anyone. It is up to the school board to choose whether creation science is to be taught. If any view is "forced" on the youth, it is evolution, with no other scientifically-supported cosmology allowed into the public-school system.
Those, including “old-earth” Christians who accept macro-evolution, regard young earth creationists as anti-intellectual, narrow-minded religious fanatics. Such views sometimes include charges (and fears) that creation science educators want to teach the Bible in public schools, which is certainly not true. They would not trust secular teachers to discuss Bible theology accurately and believe that students learn best when allowed to compare and discuss various options.
Secular headlines often declare that teaching creation science or intelligent design (ID) will cause students to enter a scientific dark age and become scientifically ignorant. Religion would reign, with “fundamentalist” Christian dictates turning America into a Taliban-like society. This is sheer propaganda used to distort the truth and subjugate the uneducated to conform to evolutionary dogma.
In truth, creation organizations desire that good science be taught in public and other evolution-centered schools. Good science should be able to verify either creation science or evolution. Both are faith-based theories, since both seek to interpret history, and cannot repeat the origins of either cosmogony. Both sides look at the same evidences, but interpret them from biased views (e.g. God or no God).
Good science should be able to examine the cosmological theories and models that propose how the universe and life began, and how life developed. Because of the lack of scientific verification, many theological cosmologies would be scientifically discredited; their adherents lack for scientific evidences that would verify their respective theories.
Such a requirement begs the question as to whether the evolution-based cosmological model is scientific or religious in nature. It cannot be observed (too slow), repeated (in the past), or tested. It can, however, be falsified; major scientific laws and evidences refute Darwinian evolution. Biogenesis, probability, chirality (only left-handed amino acids used in our bodies), the fossil record, irreducible complexity, and source of information are only a few challenges to evolution. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to accept evolution, which lacks scientific evidences to validate it. For this reason, ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris, has concluded that Evolution Is Religion – Not Science.
In truth, one does not need to refer to any theology to teach creation science in a secular classroom. As proposed above, applying sound scientific laws and supporting evidence to various models of origins will illuminate the students as to which model the evidence support best. Science books produced by creation and Intelligent Design publishers were written for secular classroom studies on origin-related material. However, those opposed to such books have ended such attempts, using vast amounts of money, propaganda, and the legal system.
By the way, Intelligent Design (ID), contrary to popular belief, is not a Christian creation organization. Its members, for the most part, are a group of non-Christians who found major inadequacies in evolution to explain the origin and complexity in life forms. Although the ID efforts to expose the inadequacies of Darwinian Evolution are commendable, they are not in the Genesis creation camp. Simply put, Intelligent Design advocates design, not a Designer. Their relationship with young earth advocates is best explained by the following information:
Design Is Not Enough!
The Design Revelation
The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design
"Natural" Selection versus "Supernatural" Design
Overall, creation scientists are not concerned about having all the answers to creation questions; they do, however, believe that all science is God’s science. Thus, good science will reveal the Creator (Romans 1:20). They do not need to prove that God exists. All things we examine through telescopes or microscopes reveal that a Creator indeed exists. As Psalms 19:1 points out, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.”
Benefits
As mentioned above, both creation scientists and secular scientists must use scientific methods in the present to research their respective scientific projects. It is interpretation of the results that has been used to persuade people regarding a philosophical viewpoint. However, Christianity is not a religion but a Person, namely Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Creator (see first chapters of John, Colossians, and Hebrews). And, as the Creator, Jesus put in place every scientific law, which all scientists must use in any research project. NOTE: It is impossible that the chaotic process of evolution could establish an orderly universe, let alone unyielding laws of science, as well as mathematical rules and equations.
Good science does not depend on evolution, because evolution is a religion and not science. ICR, the preeminent creation research organization, has continually provided solid scientific evidence for a young world. It has documented that there is no scientific evidence that supports evolution. A good article on the comparison of creation science and evolution is the Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation.
Therefore, technological advancement is enabled by scientists applying good science to their research. They do not, for example, say, “Now how would evolution or religion do this?” Rather, one must examine the life or physical research at hand, and then consider what scientific laws are to be used to develop it, control it, or eliminate a problem related to it.
However, it can be argued from history that, when scientific studies have been used to reveal the Biblical Creator and His purpose, many benefits for society have followed. For example, belief in creation science has caused many to fathom God’s Person and work in what He has made, according to Romans 1:20, which says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
Scientists who have used good science have produced many technologies that have created many jobs. Among them are those that have advanced medical benefits that have benefitted virtually all humans (as well as animals in veterinary clinics). And many medical products have cured diseases and curtailed expenses for those needing medical assistance, diabetes, smallpox, and polio being examples.
In a topic related to medical benefits, ICR research has convinced thousands of individuals to accept the truth that they are not merely animals with a hopeless existence. Because of creation organizations like ICR, multitudes have come to understand Who their Creator is and have a clear knowledge about their eternal destinies.
Creation scientists have persuaded many evolutionists that so-called vestigial organs (appendix, Coccyx, Wisdom teeth, Tonsils, etc.) were designed with purpose, and are still being used today. Tonsils and the appendix, for example have much to do with our immune system. Wisdom teeth are bunching together, because many no longer eat the tougher foods that exercise the jaw and gums. Rather, they—mainly westerners—eat soft and prepared foods, which do not exercise our teeth properly.
Those having accepted God’s prescription for their sinful condition, i.e. the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), have found that the Great Physician (Jesus Christ) has taken away a lot of stress. Thus, many people no longer need to spend money for prescriptions for stress-related drugs and therapy for psychotic disorders, including guilt, various phobias, and nervous conditions.
Reducing of stress-related “patients” has resulted in huge benefits in the business world; prominent among them are business execs who have Christian employees who have reduced days lost because of psychosomatic-caused illnesses. How much reduction in health insurance premiums would result if all employees adhered to biblical principles about taking care of one’s body and observing the Golden Rule? And let’s face it; no one enjoys listening to those who continually sing never-ending strains of woe-is-me and share the miseries of their worry-plagued lives. That could make you sick!
The physiological wellbeing of humans was a major topic by a medical doctor in his ICR article entitled Fit & Function: Design in Nature. In it, Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza says,
It's no surprise that psychological research shows that creation-based thinking comes naturally, while evolutionary thinking is not natural. This is an integral trait of every human—and it is never going away. When believers see the underlying attributes of design, they can communicate that to others to help them understand that what they see in nature was, in fact, designed.
He says further on,
Research shows that humans are naturally compelled to seek explanations of purpose, with "pleasure" areas in the brain being rewarded when it is discovered, but are left feeling frustrated when explanations are elusive. The process of discovering purpose is captivating and emotionally stimulating, similar to the experience of unwrapping a present [my emphasis].
The word “reality” can be substituted for present. To recognize the design in complex systems and accept that the Designer is none other than Jesus Christ has brought about great peace to millions seeking explanations to key questions, including Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my purpose in life? and What happens to me after death? The Apostle Thomas was given a concise answer to these questions: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Jesus emphatically declares that He IS the way, the truth, and the life; there is no alternative to the declarations of Jesus.
A good definition of reality has been given thusly: Reality is when you face it. And when millions are given the truth about their sin condition and their need to receive Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, they make excuses as to why they cannot—or do not, want that solution to remedy their greatest need in life: total forgiveness of sin and a guaranteed entrance into Heaven immediately after death. They ultimately do not want to face the reality that Jesus Christ is God and will judge all unforgiven sinners. Not only are they rejecting eternal life, they are inviting maladies that will induce many health and financial problems.
Contrarily, public schools are teaching an evolutionary worldview to students. And many students become teachers, professors, and pastors who, in many cases, teach their own children, students, and congregations that humans evolved from apelike creatures. In other words, their message is that we came from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo. And in so doing, millions go through life ignorant of Jesus Christ they have come to think of as historic figure who, after all, was just a man.
Is it any wonder why so many have a poor image of themselves, not to mention a philosophical outlook that predicts a hopeless future? A slime-over-time evaluation of one’s history does not bring forth self-worth, especially when one cannot compete with those who have better looks, a healthier and stronger body, placement in a culturally-superior environment, or a large bank account. Combinations of poor self-images, extremely difficult problems, and hopeless futures have no doubt contributed towards many suicides.
But the bright lining to such a bleak outlook on life is the transitional truth that there is indeed a biblical God who loves them and has accomplished everything necessary for them to become His children, experience His security, and have a permanent home in Heaven after death.
The Creator has called on every Christian to present His gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to those who do not know Him personally or His promised gift of salvation. Those who believe the gospel message from those who are unashamed to present it (Romans 1:16) will be able to say as Paul did in 2 Timothy 1:12b, “for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”
Morality
One of the greatest evils that creations are combating is the immorality caused by evolution. For example, a pertinent article can be found in the article entitled, Morals Decline Linked to Belief in Evolution, from one creation organization. (NOTE: You may be sent to an introduction by the website’s CEO. To skip this, just exit from the website and click on the link again.) Thus, we read in part,
For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible believers have known all along that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion. In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr. Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’
Creationist, David Catchpoole, adds to the above thoughts in his article, How to build a bomb in the public school system. (NOTE: You may be sent to an introduction by the website’s CEO. To skip this, just exit from the website and click on the link again.)
How could they shoot and kill their fellow students? That was the question asked following the shooting deaths of 15 people at Columbine High School in Colorado, USA, [in April of 1999]. Why would young people kill, destroy and bomb in a suicide attack? Their clothes may give a clue to the thinking of these teenage murderers. The autopsy report for one of the killers documents that on the day of the tragedy he was wearing black combat boots, a black glove on his right hand, and a white T-shirt with the inscription ‘Natural Selection’ on the front.
Answers in Genesis (AIG) published an article entitled, “Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview” (by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Jason Lisle on May 13, 2009). In the section, The Foundation of Morality, we read,
Even though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most humans adhere to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of Genesis. The Bible claims to be the revealed Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and that the biblical God is the ultimate authority and foundation for knowledge (Hebrews 6:13; Proverbs 1:7, 2:6; Colossians 2:3). The Bible tells us that God is the Creator of all things and, therefore, all things belong to Him (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 24:1). Thus, God as the Creator has the right to define absolute standards of behavior.
•••
In fact, many evolutionists are quite clear that evolution does not provide a basis for morality. William Provine, evolutionist and biology professor at Cornell University, states in referring to the implications of Darwinism, “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.2 Thus, if evolution is true, then there can be no universal moral code that all people should adhere to.
And Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, evolutionist and physics professor at the University of Texas, states, “I think that part of the historical mission of science has been to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention, that we can make our own way in the universe, and that we have to find our own sense of morality.” Again, if morality is determined by our own sense, then a universal moral code that all people should follow cannot be justified. [My note: See also Dr. Lisle’s related article entitled, Evolution and the Challenge of Morality.]
Therefore, a primary goal of creation science is to educate educators and those who seek objective scientific evidence for the meaning of life. They are not products of random processes. Nor should they believe (and behave) as mere animals in a culture dominated by those who dictate the dogmas of evolution to them. Good science must be taught, and evolution critically examined and exposed as a religion.
Theological Viewpoints
It must be stressed that the stand one takes for a young or old earth position has NO bearing one’s salvation; salvation is determined by what one does with the Creator God, Jesus Christ. It is a heretical teaching that one must accept a young earth position to be forgiven of all sins and enter Heaven.
However, is this indeed a young Earth? Did the Creator make everything in six literal days? The answer is ‘yes’. We have the unique languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and specific rules of interpretation (hermeneutics) to know the exact biblical understanding in theology, cultures, and historical events.
There are also scientific laws and rules to use to examine what we see in physical and life sciences. What is found is substantial evidence to verify that what we see in geology, climatology, and biology confirm Earth is no older than six to eight thousand years in age.
God’s definition for a day is given in Genesis 1:5 (with my emphasis): “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Without deviation, every time an ordinal number (e.g. first, second, third, etc.) is connected to “day,” a literal day is to be understood. The sun is not necessary; the day/evening cycles (as the earth turned in its twenty-four-hour rotation period) are exactly the same as for the rest of the week, as the context of Exodus 20:11 will verify.
The Hebrew language—in the context of Genesis—does not allow for anything but a literal interpretation for each day. The highly scientific application of rules in interpretation (hermeneutics) prohibits long ages. If one cannot understand “day” in Genesis, how does one know the meaning any other word in Scripture? Christians must compromise the integrity of God to believe that He used evolution. Even evolutionists know this:
Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of god to whom anyone would be inclined to pray (Hull, David L., “The God of the Galápagos,” review of Darwin on Trial, by Philip Johnson (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991, 195 pp.), Nature, vol. 352 (August 8, 1991), p. 486. Hull is in the Department of Philosophy, Northwestern University.1)
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! (Bozarth, G. Richard, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978), page 30.1)
1 Quotes are taken from Dr. Henry M. Morris' book, That Their Words May Be Used against Them.
Every time an ordinal number (e.g., first, second, third, etc.) is connected to a day/s (Heb. yom, yomim), “day” is always to be understood as a solar day (the first three days having the “light” on the first day to illuminate a rotating earth for twenty-four hours). The definitive boundaries of “evening and morning”, as used in the first six Genesis creation days, clearly establishes that everything was created within six literal days.
The fourth commandment in Exodus 20:11, etched in stone, declares, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Thus, the creation week consisted of seven literal days, with absolutely no provision of long ages between each day.
Past ICR President Dr. John Morris says the following in his article entitled When Is a Day Not a Day?
In Genesis chapter one, God apparently went out of His way to make sure we didn't misunderstand, for He defined yom the first time He used it. On Day One, after creating the heavens and the earth, God created light (v.3), and "God divided the light from the darkness" (v.4). This light/dark cycle was further identified when "God called the light Day [yom], and the darkness He called Night" (v.5). Throughout the rest of the passage He uses the term for the First Day through the Seventh Day.
The door to misinterpretation is closed in Exodus 20:11, where God wrote in stone some things He really didn't want us to misinterpret. The fourth of the Ten Commandments concerns our work week, where we are commanded to work six days and rest on the seventh, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Same word, yom, same context, same modifiers, same tablet of stone, same Author, same finger which wrote it. If words have meaning, then God created in six days just like our days. His work of creation becomes the pattern for our work week.
"Day" can mean a period of time when the context demands, but in the creation account "day" means a real "day." Christians need to allow the unchangeable Scripture to define its own terms and not rely on the temporal musings of men.
God did not try to fake us out by making Earth with appearance of age. However, He did construct a mature world upon creation of what was necessary for life to survive. There was top soil in which vegetation could grow; there were abundant plants and fruit for man and animals to eat; Adam and Eve were in mature stages, so that they could “be fruitful and multiply.”
However, Adam sinned, which reaped the consequence of God’s curse upon humans and the Earth. Catastrophic processes reshaped the Earth’s geology, geography, and climate. It is the evolutionist interpretation of the geological formations (uniformitarianism) that has caused many to think in terms of the slow layering of strata. Thus, another declaration presents itself: It is the evolutionists’ interpretation of Earth’s geology that is faking out millions and brainwashing them with the notion that the biblical creation record is false.
Theologians compromised Scripture when they panicked at the published Origin of the Species (1859), by Charles Darwin. Not wanting to look foolish in a scientific world, they inserted millions and billions of years into the Genesis creation. These compromising theologians gave in to the word of secular, Darwinian scientists. They failed to correctly interpret the Genesis account and stand firm on God’s authoritative declaration that the universe and all things in it took only six literal days to make. Unfortunately, they mislead their congregations and teach the Gap Theory, Day-age Theory, Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution, as viable cosmologies.
Crevolutionists (i.e., Christians who believe in evolutionary processes) would do well to study the scientific principles used to interpret Scripture, namely hermeneutics. They would discover that, when it comes to the study of the word, “day,” may have different meanings according to the context in which the word “day” is placed. The context and figures of speech are often overlooked when considering the meaning of Scripture. When it comes to the Genesis creation account, “day” must be interpreted as a literal, twenty-four-hour, solar day.
There are only two choices for origins. The first possibility is that God created the earth, the universe, and all of life without any form of evolution (for many scientific and theological reasons). As stated above, many Christians ignorantly or willfully interpret the Genesis creation as a metaphorical or allegorical story. Others insert long ages into the Genesis creation week by way of the alternative theories listed above. The origin of everything is the Big Bang, which replaces a supernatural beginning by an omnipotent Creator.
The second possibility is that the universe, the earth, and all of life developed over time by chance from nothing (from the “Big Bang” scenario). However, every non-Biblical cosmogony based on evolution and its uniformitarianism processes are devoid of scientific evidences to validate them. As noted above, there are many science evidences for a young world. Another example against evolution is the article written by ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris entitled, Probability and Order Versus Evolution. He says in part,
It is clear by beyond any rational argument that chance processes could never have produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all.
So, why such an uproar about this topic of our true origins? The answer is simple: The Person and work of Jesus Christ. As the Word of God and Creator (John 1:1-3), Jesus authored the Bible, the essence of how one can know with certainty that salvation from all sins can be granted as a gift without any works, and that entrance into heaven takes place immediately after death for the true believer (1 Cor. 15:2-3; Rom. 10:9-10; John 1:12; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Jn. 5:11-13). In short, Jesus Christ, the second Person in the Trinity (before He became “Jesus” when He became the Incarnate God) is the Creator of Genesis 1:1 and in Colossians 1:16.
To the point: if God used progressive creation, theistic evolution, day-age or Gap theories, or any other cosmology that incorporates long ages, then God will be made to be anything but the God of truth and love as is portrayed in Scripture. He would be a liar, who falsely told us how everything was made in six literal days, when, if, in fact He use evolution. God would also be immoral, since death would have been declared, “very good,” which is opposite to what 1 Corinthians 15:2 says. Thus, the rampant ruination, disease, and slaughtering of innocent life we see was a part of God’s evolutionary process.
Theological Reasons that Prevent God from Using any Form of Evolution
1. Evolution could not be used by God by its own definition, which is the result of time (~13.8 billion years), random combinations, and mutations by way of natural selection. The Biblical God is not a God of chance or confusion, nor the God of "survival of the fittest." Furthermore, such a process would conflict with the Biblical gospel of salvation, as is seen in the following articles: Gospel of Creation-Anti-Gospel of Evolution and Creation is the Foundation. In the later Impact article Dr. Morris says (with my bold emphasis),
It is high time that people in general, and Bible-believing Christians in particular, recognize the foundational significance of special creation. Creation is not merely a religious doctrine of only peripheral importance, as many people (even many evangelical Christians) seem to assume. Rather, it is the basis of all true science, of true Americanism, and of true Christianity. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is actually a pseudo-science masquerading as science. As such, it has been acclaimed as the "scientific" foundation of atheism, humanism, communism, fascism, imperialism, racism, laissez-faire capitalism, and a variety of cultic, ethnic and so-called liberal religions, by the respective founders and advocates of these systems. The creation/evolution issue is, in a very real sense, the most fundamental issue of all....
Many Christians, who either ignore or compromise the Biblical doctrine of creation, have urged creationists just to "preach the Gospel-not creation!" But this is impossible, because the saving Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is squarely founded on creation. The wonderful threefold work of Christ (creation, conservation, consummation) as outlined in Colossians 1:16-20, is identified as "the gospel" in Colossians 1:23. The very last reference to the Gospel in the Bible (Rev. 14:6, 7) calls it the everlasting Gospel (thus, it could never have been any different) and its message is to "worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
While it is surely true that the central focus of the Gospel is on the substitutionary atonement and victorious bodily resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4), it also includes His coming kingdom (Matt. 4:23) and His great creation. Any other gospel is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6) and is not the true gospel. Without the creation, a supposed gospel would have no foundation; without the promised consummation, it offers no hope; without the cross and empty tomb, it has no saving power. But when we preach the true Gospel, with the complete Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ as they really are, we build on a "sure foundation," can promise a "blessed hope," and have available "all power in heaven and earth" through Christ who, in all His fullness, is "with us, even to the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20).
2. What kind of God would evolve animals to the point of apes, and then form humans from "the dust of the earth, not from monkeys, according to the second chapter of Genesis? It must be remembered that God created both apes/monkeys AND man on the sixth day.
3. In any theory of spontaneous life (abiogenesis, or life from non-living chemicals), evolution must begin with solitary cell. This “Proto-cell” became the progenitor of both plant and animal life. Thus, for the biblical God to use evolutionary processes in any theory (Gap Theory, Day-age Theory, Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution, etc.) would contradict His Word. That is, if all living systems began with one cell, then the independent “kinds” of life made on various days could not have been made according to the Genesis narrative. Examples would be plants on the third day (before the sun); aquatic and birds on the fourth day (devoid of any land life); Mankind and dinosaurs, and all other land creatures on the sixth day. (Note that humans did not evolve from apes, and dinosaurs did not evolve into birds, since birds were made on the previous day.)
4 Perhaps the greatest reason against God's use of evolution is that death would have existed before Adam's sin (Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:15-17). Thus, millions of years of evolutionary animal death would have occurred, "survival of the fittest" being the rule to live by. God's pronouncement to Adam, that death would result should the forbidden fruit be eaten, would be meaningless (as well as a lie).
If there was no "original sin,” then what was the purpose of Christ’s death? There would be no "death" to defeat (1 Corinthians 15: 54 - 56). And, how could God call death "good," according to the Genesis account (Gen. 1:31 - 2:3)? Scripture presents death as a punishment and penalty, and never used for good (cf. Genesis 2:15-17; Romans 5:12). Furthermore, Paul says, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26; emphasis mine). The Impact article, Death Before Sin? stresses the importance of Biblical creation regarding this important matter.
There is no reason for biblical creationists to fear truth. God is truth (John 14:6), and God's Son, Jesus Christ, was the Word Who created all things (John 1; Phil. 2; Col. 1; Heb. 1) in six literal days (Gen 1; Ex. 20:11). Would to God that all Christians would accept the literal Genesis creation account, so that the religion of evolution will not mislead humans to believe they are mere animals or are the product of death and struggle for life (devised by God) over many millennia.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, what Jesus taught His disciples about creation was that God created everything in six literal days (Ex. 20:11), since He is God, the Creator, "the Word of God" (John 1:1-3), Who cannot lie or alter the truth of any Scriptural doctrine (John 14:6). The true gospel of Jesus Christ must have the foundation of a literal Genesis creation. Keep in mind, as Dr. Henry Morris notes in Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past,
[They] believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.
It is fitting that Dr. Morris, in his article Evolution Is Religion--Not Science should end this paper with his brief reply to the evolutionist/atheist accusations against the Creator:
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that [non-Christian] evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
Related articles:
The Principles of Creationism
Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column (excellent)
Evidence for a Young World
Evolution is Biologically Impossible
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (excellent)
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy
Not According to Hoyle (mathematical odds against evolution)
Excellent overall article Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
The Scientific Case Against Evolution – a free online booklet by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Is God an Evolutionist?
The Gospel of Creation and the Anti-Gospel of Evolution
Things You May Not Know About Evolution
The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins
Evolution and the Bible
Can Order Come Out Of Chaos?
The Anti-Creationists
Creation and its Critics: Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Epilog
The above information is meant to help you better understand the differences between creation science and evolution. As was evidenced, the philosophy of evolution has caused serious devastation in moral and ethical standards; it has also contributed heavily to devaluing one’s life by those who have accepted the philosophy of evolution.
I hope that the above information has also help to clarify the meaning of the literal creation week by our Creator. The Creator is indeed Jesus Christ. My overall objective has been to better acquaint Christians and non-Christians with Him and have confidence in what He has to say about His acceptance of anyone who have come to realize their need for complete forgiveness of all sins against God, total acceptance by Him, and entrance into Heaven immediately after death.
No better Scripture can be found that gives such assurance that all can KNOW they will enter Heaven IMMEDIATELY after death than in 1 John 5:13 (with my emphasis):
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
Your servant in Christ Jesus,
Bruce Wood, BA, BS, MA
and Administrator
WWW.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- getroman com reviews
- acurafinancialservices.com account management
- acurafinancialservices.com account ma
- getroman.com tv
- http cashier.95516.com bing
- http cashier.95516.com bingprivacy notice.pdf
- connected mcgraw hill com lausd
- education.com games play
- rushmorelm.com one time payment
- autotrader.com used cars
- b com 2nd year syllabus
- gmail.com sign in