In his pioneering work On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin believed that scientists would find fossils showing transitions from one kind of animal to another. Darwin assumed that strata (layers of sedimentary rock) are thick, continuous, and old with the oldest records in the lowest layers and the youngest in the uppermost layers. Life forms would be preserved in those layers having the same age as the life forms; hence, similar histories of strata in different locations, species emergence, transition forms, and extinction records could be correlated. Darwin was influenced by a geologist of his day, Sir Charles Lyell, who argued that the earth was quite old and that geology is explained by uniform gradual, not catastrophic, process currently observed. That is called uniformitarianism. However, Darwin argued that some geological changes occurred (in agreement with 20th century geologists) and isolated species environmentally. Darwin believed that this isolation might be important in the production of a new species.
Major geological changes can cause new environmental conditions, including isolated geographic regions, which might stress or favor a shift in surviving plant and animal biological populations. We ought to observe this shift by seeing fossils of transitional forms of plant and animals. In the 1850's, eighty years before geologists accepted the theory of continents splitting and drifting apart, Darwin speculated that this "splitting" had occurred. He proposed that the earth had a long history of land being "united", and "divided again", with far more change than from erosion, earthquakes and volcanoes.
With so much change, species were geographically isolated in new environments. Darwin thought these changes could have brought about new kinds of plants and animals by the "natural selection" of those that could survive. Key animals and plants unable to reproduce in new environments would die out. If this were true, we ought to find remains or traces of the continuously changing life forms, called "transitional life forms" by Darwin, over time in the fossil record.
Observations made of large, sometimes catastrophic, geological changes have led geologists to rethink the earth's history. Asteroid and meteorite impact, volcanoes, floods, atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns and temperatures, glaciations and tectonic plate collisions cause the catastrophic changes usually referred to. These events have been used to explain observations in geology and paleontology and have been cited as important in both the formation and extinction of species, especially the latter.
Dating of events in earth history is important in geology. Modern geologists have measured the approximate age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old (much, much older than Lyell and Darwin thought) using radioactive decays of various chemical elements present when the earth's crust was first formed. Dating of the inverted "upside down" strata presented some special problems because fossils were used to date strata. Usually younger layers of the earth's crust are on the top of the older layers but not always. For some time now, suspected upside down strata have been dated by the fossils found in the strata. Some geologists cited by Morris say that circular reasoning may flaw this approach, because evolutionary theory was assumed to date or sequence the fossils from youngest to oldest. Other geologists say that the process is not flawed. They claim that occurrence of these upside-down strata is rare, not the rule. The inverted strata are disclosed by using fossils as time markers whose sequence is already established by many examples of gradual deposited strata, not by any assumption of evolutionary theory.
Modern geologists have replaced Lyell's ideas held 150 years, of the earth's gradual change (uniformatarianism) with belief in dynamic change, incorporating both gradual and catastrophic change. These geologists say that the deposition of sediments is a dynamic, not a continuous process. Modern geology predicts that there will be an incomplete fossil record and that the diversity of species may be related to isolation of continents over time.
Darwin became aware that the geological record was insufficient and that its interpretation did not always support his views. As he put it, one problem, "namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being able to blend together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty." He wrote, "But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? This perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory . . . it cannot be doubted that the geologic record viewed as a whole is very imperfect." But Darwin recognized that not all species could be preserved. "No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Shells and bones decay and disappear when left on the bottom of the sea, where sediment is not accumulating."
ON THE FOSSIL RECORD: Professor D. S. Woodruff (University of California-San Diego) writes, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the [fossil] record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition" (Science, Vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
All creationists believe that God was the first cause in the earth's geological formation and development. Young-earth creationists challenge the findings and sometimes the methods of geology. They point out uncertainties in radiometric dating. Some say that the earth was created suddenly and recently with features that may appear to look old. They indicate that the Hebrew word yom is most often translated as "day". They attribute many present-day geological features (such as rapid formation of coal seams) to the flood of Noah in Genesis 6-9. Dr. Henry and John Morris, foremost advocates of the young-earth position are the founders of the Institute for Creation Research. They label its beliefs in flood geology and six 24-hour days creation as "creation science" or "scientific creationism" although some creationists did not believe that either evolution or creation was a science that could be proved.
Old-earth or "progressive" creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross accept current scientific dating methods. Old-earth adherents say that the Hebrew word yom is translated as a long period of time more than 60 times in the Bible. For example, a "day" of creation might be the Bible's way of referring to a longer, indefinite period, suggests chemist Robert Fischer in his book, God Did It, But How?
The Theory of Evolution is biological theory intended to describe the origin and development of life on Earth. However, the word evolution is used in astronomy to describe the origin of the universe and simply means "change" over time. Stellar evolution, the evolution of the stars, for example, describes star burning process during the life of a star, from "birth" to "death".
Many early scientists and philosophers thought the universe was static, continuous and unchanging. The current major theory offered for how the universe "evolved" is the Big Bang theory. This theory proposes that the entire universe, including the Milky Way galaxy containing our solar system, exploding from super-hot "point", some 15 billion years ago. The theory says that the universe continues to expand, as predicted by solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
If the Big Bang theory, proposed in 1917, explains the formation of the universe, we should see stars and planets moving away from each other like particles moving away from the point of an explosion. We should also still see some radiation from the Big Bang's fiery explosion, predicted by physicist George Gamow and his students, in the 1940's. Both of these effects have been observed exactly as predicted.
The Big Bang theory and general relativity predict that the universe had a beginning and that space and time were created at a point some 15 billion years ago. Scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang. They simply call it "the CAUSE".
Scientists observe that the universe is expanding and most likely had a fiery beginning. In 1914 astronomer Vesto Slipher, cited by Kitty Ferguson, observed that some galaxies are moving away from our Milky Way galaxy at enormous speeds as predicted subsequently by the Big Bang theory. In the late 1920's another astronomer, Edwin Hubble, measured the distance to and the velocity of many more of these galaxies establishing the expansion rate for the universe. Those galaxies farthest away, move at the greatest speeds. If we could look back in time, all the matter of the universe might appear in a very compact state at a very high temperature.
The universe is far from being static, as some philosophers and scientist proposed; rather, it is expanding. The Big Bang theory which predicted that traces of energy from and initial fiery explosion would remain today got a big boost in 1964 when two physicists, Amo Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Laboratories, measured this background radiation remnant. More than 25 years later, further measurements of this radiation by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE Satellite) fit the Big Bang theory's prediction perfectly.
Some scientists have resisted the Big Bang idea, possibly because it sounds too much like Biblical Creation. In the 1920's Albert Einstein proposed a rival theory of a static universe --- infinitely large and indefinitely old --- with no beginning (no Big Bang). He had to change the general relativity equations to obtain these results. However, this modified theory did not agree with actual observations. Later, Einstein was quoted as saying, "this was the greatest mistake of my life." Einstein finally accepted the necessity of a beginning and the presence of a superior reasoning power, but not a personal God.
In 1948 eminent astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and a few other scientists developed a continuous creation solution called the steady state model. However, observations now prove that the steady state model is impossible.
Currently the Big Bang theory, based upon many observations and proofs, is widely accepted by astronomers.
All creationists believe God created the heavens and the earth as the Bible says in Genesis. Many creationists accept the Big Bang theory as a description of "how" God created the universe. They say that this theory echoes what the Bible says about "the beginning" in Genesis 1. There are two major groups of creationists: "old-earth" creationists and "young-earth" creationists. Both groups believe that God set up the laws of physics to allow the universe to run in a predictable way.
The Theory of Evolution (sometimes referred to as macroevolution) states that all living things "all species" have come from a single ancestor through a process of natural selection of small variations or descent with modification over a long period of time.
Before Darwin, biologists classified living things on the basis of similarities in appearance. But Darwin proposed that kinds of animals (species) should be classified on the basis of ancestry, in the form of a family tree called phylogenetic tree. The most recent species to evolve would be like twigs at the ends of ancestral branches. These branches are attached to larger branches of still older ancestors, and then to a trunk representing the first living form which all were evolved.
Darwin hoped that the fossil record would agree with and strengthen his theory by containing many transitional forms between species, filling out the branches of his hypothetical "tree." The record was very incomplete at the time but he expected additional discoveries to make it more complete. Darwin also expected to see only gradual changes, not abrupt changes such as Cambrian "explosion" of life, dated some 550 million years ago.
If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, we should see transitional forms in fossils showing gradual change. Instead gaps occurred because these transitions forms were not found.
Many explanations for gaps in fossil record are given. For one thing, fossilization is relatively rare, especially for land-dwelling animals. The vast majority of fossils are of animals that lived in the sea. Darwin expected fossils of the earliest ancestors to occur in the oldest layers of compacted sediments from sea bottoms.
In general we do not see fossils of transitional forms between different species of plant and animals. A few fossils that appear transitional have been reported, but major gaps remain. Most of the transitional forms (the missing links) Darwin expected to find are still missing. Despite the illustration in textbooks showing a gradual transition in the family tree of the horse or from ape to man, there is no hard evidence for it. In the case of ape to man, virtually every "missing link" has turned out to be either an ape or man, but not a transitional kind of ape-man. Some finds were deliberate hoaxes.
Another finding, the "Cambrian Explosion," seems to contradict Darwin's theory of gradual change over long periods of time. Layers of sediment from the Cambrian period, estimated to be about 550 million years ago, show a sudden appearance of about 100 phyla of plants and animals. Biochemist Michael Behe uses the phrase "the biological big bang" to describe this period thought to be less than five million years in duration.
Biologist Richard Dawkins, in commenting on the Cambrian Explosion in The Blind Watchmaker, said, that "It is as though they [these species] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." This mystery has caused some scientists to modify parts of Darwin's theory and adopt a new theory called punctuated equilibrium (or "punk eek"). Punk eek suggests that most transitions happened quickly in small isolated groups of animals so there never were transitional forms.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate fossil links? Darwin writes, "That our paleontological collections are very imperfect, is admitted by everyone." Nonetheless, fossilized shell species and vertebrate species fragments preserved in deposits are observed in nature, and from these, evolutionary sequences are assumed and proposed as evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. Paleontologist Stephen Gould writes, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Gould says further, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. . . . . The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Heribert Nilsson writes, "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks." Darwin, in a later book, the Decent of Man, proposed that man evolved from lower forms based on comparison of body dimensions, effects of environments, use and disuse of body parts, distinctive facial features, natural selection, social habits and intelligence. According to zoologist Percival Davis, Darwin did not cite a single reference to fossils in support of his belief in human evolution. Clearly his original idea of human evolution did not grow out of a study of human fossil evidence, but out of a previously held opinion about the origin of man.
Creationists believe the rarity of observed transitional forms is due to the rarity of actual transitional forms because natural evolution alone did not produce what we now observe. Most creationists regard the history of life on earth as following roughly in the same order and sequence given in Genesis 1. Young-earth creationists do not accept the geological timetable in general, nor its use to infer any dating of fossils, in particular. They believe in God's direct intervention in the creation of life and of major "kinds" of living things.
Old-earth creationists who accept the geological timetable also give God credit for the origin and development of living things. Creationists may differ on how much of the process was actively directed by God's hand. Research scientists Don Stoner, in his book A New Look at an Old Earth, says, This [Cambrian Explosion] is an interesting companion to the Bible's phrase, "Let the water teem with living things".
Darwinists believe that man evolved from the lower primates. Davis says, "Darwinists have been searching for fossil remains to establish their belief that man evolved. . . .fossil remains of hominids are not comparatively few in number, they are usually very fragmentary . . . . [And paleontologists] cannot agree on any scheme of evolution."
Darwin's theory stated that evolution can change one type of organism into another. He also thought the father's contribution "blended" with the mother;s, and that a trait which supports survival would become reproductively dominant over time. Darwin did not have a clear understanding of the laws of inheritance of such traits, because they were discovered a few years earlier by an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel. In the 1900 geneticists incorporated Mendel's four laws of inheritance into Darwin's theory. They called the new theory "neo-Darwinism" in which the individual units of inheritance were generation to generation. For example, when Mendel crossed a pea plant having round seeds with one having wrinkled seeds, all the offspring in the first generation were round peas, not "blended." The wrinkled seed gene was present, suppressed by the dominant round-seed gene. However, wrinkled peas appeared in one-quarter of the offspring in the second generation. Blended traits do not exist. Now we know that mutations cause chemicals changes to genes.
If neo-Darwinism were true we would expect to see strong evidence of change from one species to another (for example, ape to man, or descent with modification from a common ancestor). We should see the traits follow the genetic laws of Mendel and appear relatively stable from one generation to the next. However, dominant genes do not become more dominant as had been hoped by those favoring Darwinian evolution. Mendel's laws of inheritance only explain microevolution, such as natural or domestic breeding of desirable changes or variations within plant and animal species.
For macroevolution to occur we ought to see something which dramatically changes the genes, something like gene mutation, a proposed mechanism to provide an increase in species complexity. We should see the effects of beneficial mutation and natural selection making significant changes in species. While mutations can be increased by heat, chemicals and radiation, most mutations are harmful. Most lead to structural impairment, genetic diseases and death. (The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is at least 10,000 to one.)
We observe microevolution both in nature and through purposeful domestication within species. We do not observe macroevolution. Purposeful domestication (selective breeding) has been used to produce changes or desired variations within many species for more than 2000 years. Examples include cats, dogs, beef and milk cattle, race and plow horses, roses, wheat and corn. All have been changed through microevolution which follows Mendel's law of inheritance, not the concept of blending traits envisioned by Darwin. Scientists admit macroevolution cannot be observed under natural conditions. If it happened, it occurred in the distant past and would be too slow to observe now.
However, in laboratory experiments, fruit flies have been altered to grow legs from there heads, one of many freakish major mutations possible. These changes were produced by large doses of radiation to greatly increase the mutation rate and alter genes. These changes neither created a new structure (just altering existed ones) nor changing the fly into a new kind of insect. These flies may breed under laboratory conditions, but cannot survive in nature because of this harmful mutation.
Davis writes, "Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutations."
Some scientists promote evolution despite the lack of evidence. Others point out the failure of evolution. "There is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred," writes the National Academy of Science of the U.S. In 1995, the American National Association of Biology Teachers stated, "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of . . . descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance . . . and changing environments."
Many secular scientists disagree. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences writes, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Molecular biologist Michael Denton says, "The failure to validate the Darwinian model has implications which reach far beyond biology." Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes,"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written (Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Ferguson says, "Scientists are particularly loath to relinquish the last form of prejudice . . . It must be true because anything else would be unthinkable." For example, Dawkins says, " . . . the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and [we] both reject this alternative." (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, pp 229-230).
While accepting variations within species (microevolution, not Darwinian evolution), most creationists do not believe that new species have arisen through macroevolution and that honest scientific study proves this point. All creationists recognize God as the Creator of the universe and humans, believing that in some special way He made us in His own image. (Genesis 1:26) Morris objects to the term microevolution to describe "horizontal variations" of plants and animals at the same level of complexity because microevolution may give the impression that with enough time, it could become macroevolution. In their book, the Genesis flood, John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris show a diagram of how specially created "kind," horse and dog for example, may have become diversified from their common ancestral pairs from the beginning to the present. This has been called "creationist adaptation" (natural selection). Behe says "On a small scale, microevolution, Darwin's theory has triumphed" but it is at the level of macroevolution-of large jumps-that the theory evokes skepticism - Persuasive evidence to support that position has not been forthcoming." On mutations, Davis writes, "There is no evidence mutations create new structures. They merely alter existing ones" Mutations are quite rare. This is fortunate, for the vast majority are harmful, although some may be neutral. Some creationists explain the rapid speciation of the past as the six days which God created, and the present lack of speciation, as the "seventh day" in which God rests.
With the discovery of DNA, the genetic data bank, evolutionists were given new hope that they might find evidence supporting evolution of molecules. Darwin developed his theory at a time when little was known about the chemical composition of plants and animals, even less about chemical reactions within living cells, and nothing about the chemistry of genes (DNA) and gene products (proteins).
The double helix structure of DNA, discovered in 1953, almost 100 years after Darwin's pioneering work, cleared up many mysteries. Now we know that each gene is a section of a long DNA molecule containing many genes. Genetic information can exist in stable form for thousands of years, yet can be copied easily when cells divide. Knowledge unavailable to Darwin enables genetic engineers to manipulate DNA, transform it from one species to another, and even clone animals. Therefore, artificially (or directed) as well as naturally (or random) occurring mutations on a single part of a DNA molecule are possible sources of biological variation.
Evolutionists say that evolution needs to make sense at the molecular level. If evolution were true, we ought to observe and explain many things, including the following:
Microevolution is now observed in molecules, yet an orderly progression from one species to another is not clearly supported by biochemistry. Many mutations are known to be changes in a single letter in a message "written" on a long DNA molecule. For example, a person can become quite sick from having a slightly different form of some protein, like hemoglobin (the molecule that carries oxygen in our red blood cells). Biochemists can detect which part of the molecule differs from the normal protein and even pin the blame on a specific chemical change in the DNA of the gene for hemoglobin structure.
Can scientists prove that two kinds of animals are related by observing DNA? Molecular biologist Christian Schwabe writes, "Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist in the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message." Some molecular biologists speak of evidence of directed evolution, not Darwinian evolution.
Evolutionists expected that an improved understanding of mutations, amino acids and DNA should put their theory on firmer ground, but instead biochemistry has raised challenging new questions. Biochemistry has not confirmed macroevolution. Attempts have been made to use molecular clocks to tell us how long ago each species branched off from its common ancestor of a proposed evolutionary tree. But, these molecular clocks run at different rates for different species and for different positions along the DNA molecule. These differences produce very large uncertainties in time, and the data have not compared well to fossil records, so the molecular clocks usefulness is questionable.
Denton says, "The really significant findings that come to light from comparing the protein's amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series. Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared to hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence. In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed "intermediate", "ancestral", or "primitive" by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, shows any signs of supposed intermediate status." Davis says, "it has proved impossible to arrange protein sequences in a macroevolution series corresponding to the expected transitions, from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal."
Creationists credit God with creation of everything that exists, down to the molecular level and even the subatomic level. A DNA molecule contains massive and complex "genetic information" which, like a blueprint, specifies how one living cell is put together. Molecular biologists speak of "messages" and whole libraries with information "written" in the "DNA code" or the "language of the proteins." Lindsay wrote that the "information in one cell would fill a thousand 600-page books; and, this one cell can be used to reassemble the whole body"
Davis says, "Darwinists have help such high expectations that biochemistry would provide evidence of gradual change between taxonomic groups. However, biochemistry has not provided that kind of evidence."
Behe points to the structure of an organ, the human eye, which would not work unless all its many components were integrated. To illustrate the concept, Behe uses a simple mousetrap comprised of five "well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." Behe argues that no feasible evolutionary explanation exists for some "irreducibly complex systems" [not only in organs, but] in even the simplest cells and molecular systems." Behe argues that this challenges the whole idea of molecular evolution.
Scientists can calculate the probabilities of certain biological changes occurring over a given time. Evolutionists assume there was enough time (4.5 billion years) to originate pre-biological life and to evolve complex life from the first living cell.
They think lifeless chemicals were somehow changed into life according to chemical laws that we can observe today. They propose that small molecules combined to form larger molecules which organized themselves into a one-celled living organism. But, this simple self-replicating organism (requiring dozens of molecules) would be extremely difficult to assemble by natural process. While evolutionary biology is not very quantitive, some laws of chemistry and genetics can be expressed in the form of equations which provide probability of change over time. This means that scientists can estimate the amount of time it would take to originate a single cell and the time needed to evolve complex life forms from it.
If life originated from chemicals by chance, then under laboratory conditions, we should be able to see chemicals changing into living organisms today. Mathematics should be able to show with reasonable probability that there is adequate time for chemicals to combine to produce life and cause complex life forms to arise from "primordial soup." If some event, such as a specific mutation in a DNA molecule has a mathematical probability greater than zero, the chance that it will occur increases by time. (Similarly, your chances of having a bicycle accident increase with the amount of time you spend on a bike.) Even if the probability of occurrence is extremely small, it can happen, given enough time. Scientists were elated in 1952 when Stanley Miller showed that two organic molecules (such as amino acids, the building blocks of proteins) form when a mixture of simple gasses is exposed to a spark source of energy. The hope that these molecules would accumulate into a rich organic "soup" that would produce life was dashed by decades of subsequent research showing the strong improbability of this soup-to-life theory.
Scientist show that the probability of complex life (such as plants and animals on earth) evolving by Darwin's evolutionary model is extremely small, zero statistically. According to most mathematical calculations, a universe 100 billion years old is still not old enough for a simple single cell to have developed on earth. Even attempts to synthesize RNA, an information carrying molecule, in the laboratory have also been unsuccessful. Life has not been explained through chemical origins.
Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist, compared the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell with the number of interactions available since the beginning of the universe. The mathematical probabilities are so small that we ought to see no life at all at this stage of the earth's history. The probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is also too small to consider possible. Random assembly is therefore ruled out of the question.
Hoyle comments, "The current scenario of the origins of life is about as likely as the assembly of a fully functional (Boeing) 747 by a tornado whirling about in a junkyard." The Darwinian theory of evolution fails to predict what we actually currently observe. Schutzenberger, a mathematician writes, "There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe the gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged by the current conception of biology."
Hubert Yuckey, an information theorist, argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance; he suggests that life be considered a given "quantity," like matter or energy. He and some other mathematicians have challenged evolutionary biologists with the extreme improbability of the origin of life by chance chemical reactions, and of the improbability of the origin of all known species by random mutations. If the real "units of life" are bits of information (that is, the messages coded on DNA rather than the DNA molecule itself), evolutionary biology may take quite a different turn in the future.
A very mathematical "information theory" has been developed to solve problems in storing and transmitting information, as do computers and telecommunication systems. Some scientists are applying information theory to help unravel certain unsolved problems in biology, such as prebiological selection, similar in concept to the biological natural selection of Darwinism. They are also studying the self-organized properties of complex chemical systems, and searching for ways to reduce the minimum complexity needed for life. The goal is to find a sensible plausible theory to explain the origin of life. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick writes, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going."
ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).
Creationists agree with scientists and mathematicians that the formation of life through evolution is extremely impossible, in fact, statistically impossible. Creationists believe that God is the author of the whole universe and also of the messages written on the DNA molecules of all living things.
How did those DNA messages get there in the first place? Some scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers are working on a theory of "intelligent design" (ID) claiming that the first life was designed and could not have been produced by an unintelligent naturalistic process. Most proponents of ID think "God did it" but do not include this claim in their theories. Scientific evidence for an intelligent designer is discussed by J. P. Moreland and others. They are trying to find new ways to explore the origin and transformation of biological information, believing firmly that God is the ultimate source of the information.
The Bible states, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which were seen were not made of things that do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) and, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:11)
It takes more faith to struggle with the forced supposition of evolution than it does to recognize the amazing intricacy of life joined with a fathomless balance of nature and admit that it could not have happened by chance. In what have you placed your faith and why?
"The scientist is possessed with universal causation....his religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly and insignificant reflection." - Albert Einstein Princeton University Press
The information shown in the disciplines above is our attempt to briefly, yet honestly show each side of the disciplines listed. Some of you have contacted us with corrections and additional information and we thank you for your help to this end. Below you will find our personal viewpoint from an admittedly biased position. However, we do believe our theory holds more evidence toward scientific and rational observation than does the majority of teaching today.
"It is absolutely not possible for one DNA molecule to have been created by chance, and modern science has admitted this as fact."
Academic science of today often does not abide by true scientific law, but propitiates slanted study that under its own scrutiny fails. Most study on ultimate origins has been done with the intent of denying intelligent design, treating the "Theory of Evolution" as fact even though it has been proven scientifically impossible.
It takes more faith to believe in the absence of a divine hand than it does to recognize the intricate balance of all things physical and appreciate the scientific reasoning that it could not have happened by chance, that "Intelligent Design" had to be involved. Imagine putting the pieces of a million fine wrist watches in a paper bag (a big bag). Now shake this bag for 6 billion years and expect the watches to be running and on perfect time when you are finished. Preposterous, isn't it? Yet we are to have faith that our intricately designed universe came about by a "Big Bang," a feat that is statistically impossible without "Intelligent Design" as part of the equation.
It is more probable statistically that lightning struck in the bog next to the landing pad at Cape Canaveral resulting in the creation of the Space Shuttle, than it is for simple life to have come into being as the Theory of Evolution claims. One DNA molecule is a million times more intricate than the most advanced computer that man has created. It is absolutely not possible for one of these molecules to have been created by chance, and modern science has admitted this as fact. Yet we see continued presentation of these untruths by the established scientific community. The Theory of Intelligent Design actually holds more rational evidence than does the Theory of Evolution, yet there is a concerted effort to deny it as even a possibility.
Firstly, it would require rewriting and rethinking most of what today's educators have been taught.
Secondly, today's humanistic science of Evolution (Macroevolution) and Natural Selection as slanted toward Darwinism (Microevolution and Natural Selection in themselves are valid sciences) was devised with the intent of finding a replacement for the science of Intelligent Design.
Thirdly, when man denies the existence of a supreme being, a creator of all the miracles of life, it is many times done to release himself of all responsibility to the creator. Such a man wants responsibility to man alone and usually maintains that this type of faith is a crutch and a weakness. The basis of thinking that often follows is; "after all, who could possibly be greater than man?"
Why do many scientists and educators continue to make every effort to prove that Darwin was correct? The fact is that most past scientific study has been done with the presupposition of evolution and was bent on proving something that was flawed for the primary purpose of providing an alternative to the teaching of a marvelously created universe. Humanism and Darwinism can be considered the religion of the man-god. Is Evolution a Religion? Click Here
Radiometric dating methods have no real scientific basis when the standard for age is assumed and not proven. Normal scientific law requires this proof before a standard can be set. Every time we hear the statement "6 billion years ago" we should realize this conclusion to be based on the same reasoning that produced the Theory of Evolution. The reasoning being "after all, given enough time anything is possible." This is mere speculation and humanistic hopefulness that natural miraculous forces were involved rather than a Creator. What are natural miraculous forces anyway, other than a poor substitute for the overwhelming evidences of Intelligent Design? If it is statistically impossible that it happened by chance, then what is more realistic, that it was purposefully fashioned and designed or that mother nature caused it to happen? Humanism (man is god), 6 billion years ago, mother nature, happened by chance, evolution, carbon dating, man came from a monkey who came from a reptile who came from a fish who came from an amoeba. This is taught in our schools in most cases as fact and one is made to feel as a fool for questioning these areas.
Unbiased archeological studies prove the Global Flood Account over and over again. Most past study has been done with the purpose of proving the Old Earth Theory with total slant toward that intent.
Study of the more than 300 fulfilled prophecies and scientific evidences in scripture gives credence to the new earth claim as well as the Biblical account of creation.
Answers to All Your Science Related Questions Click Here
"Intelligent Design" Scientist Bios: Click Here
With the recent terrorism and global catastrophe, we see a glimmers of man possibly turning toward God. Even the staunchest of atheists muster some hope for a creator in the worst of times. Is it right that we do good things, help and care for one another and strive to together overcome this type of awful situation? Absolutely, but man so easily forgets, finds comfort in his own goodness and pushes God aside for possibly the next catastrophe.
The heavens declare the glory of God. Science declares the glory of God. Our souls were created with an intense desire to cry out; "Abba Father, thank you for the privilege of breath and now Lord, what can I do to serve You?"
Can mankind have a daily, minute by minute relationship/friendship with the creator of the universe?
Can persons know that they have eternal life?
What does it mean to be born again?
For answers to these questions...Click Here
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” ( Matthew 22:29 ).
When the Sadducees, who were the theological, philosophical, and scientific elite of the day, came to Jesus with a trick question in an attempt to discredit Him, He responded with the stinging rebuke in our text. While His response dealt specifically with the fact of resurrection and the nature of the after-life, His two-fold evaluation of self-reliant scholars still fits today, particularly in regard to evolutionary speculations.
By the time Darwin had published his book, Orgin of Species, attributing evolutionary progression to natural selection, he had probably become an athesist and so set about to ascribe creation to natural causes. He attributed to nature, abilities which clearly belong to God alone. He knew something of the Scriptures, but his memoirs show that he had little understanding of basic Biblical teachings. He felt that if there was a God, He had little power or had not been involved in the affairs of this earth. Most atheistic evolutionists today follow Darwin’s intellectual footsteps.
But what of Christian intellectuals, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, or advocates of the framework hypothesis, who claim to know god but deny His awesome power in creation? They too reject the clear teaching of Scripture regarding creation, regulating God to the mundane task of overseeing the evolutionary process, reducing His power to something potentially accomplishable by man. Peter aptly describes this attitude when he calls it willful ignorance (II Peter 3:5).
It has been suggested by some that all human error can be traced to one or both of these categories: not knowing ( and/or believing) the Scriptures and understanding the power of God.
John D. Morris
“He who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:3-4)
Perhaps the single greatest category of evidence for supernatural creation is in the nature of the creation itself, which everywhere shows such intricate design that it could not have come by random chance. Consider the earth: Its size, mass, distance from the moon, rotational wobble, chemical make-up, ect., are critical within very narrow limits. Any significant deviation in any of these, or other characteristics, would make life impossible.
But inorganic molecules, planets, galaxies are simpler by several orders of magnitude then even the tiniest living organism. The marvelous genetic code which regulates life, growth, and reproduction, is so unthinkably complex, so obliviously designed, that it would take a “willingly ignorant” (II Peter 3:5 ) mind to conclude a naturalistic origin for it. Life at every stage and at every level of investigation shows symmetry in its order, purpose in its function and interdependence between its parts; all of these are clear marks of design by an intelligent designer.
The evidence speaks so eloquently that even “the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”( Romans 1:20) if they choose not to believe, and therefore to merit and face His wrath (v. 18 ).
“All things were created by Him and for Him” ( Colossians 1:16 ). Mankind can take no pride in it nor rebellious solace in the idea of naturalistic origin, for “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are created” ( Revelation 4:11).
John D. Morris
The war in Iraq is not the only place where battles have been
occurring. The Spring 2003 issue of the National Science Teachers
Association recommends an anti-creation book, authored by three
evolutionists, entitled, The Creation Controversy & the Science
Classroom. Talk about saber-rattling! In the single paragraph that
extols this surprisingly brief (64-page) book, confrontational words
such as opposition, debate, ammunition,
forceful, arms and strategies are found. Ironically,
a quote from an elementary school teacher in Cabot, Pennsylvania, on
the same page says the book is written in "neutral terms"!
Did God use vast ages of time, even millions and billions of years, to
bring the universe and the world to its present form? Many Christians
have adopted this view during the past two centuries in order to bring
the Bible into harmony with the consensus of contemporary scientific
Contrary to what many feel about "those crazy Californians," there are still many within the Golden State who are not convinced that they came from a fish.
twenty-day ICR Loop Tour throughout central and northern California,
staff members Bruce Wood and zoologist Frank Sherwin ministered to
several thousand enthusiastic adults and youth.
Van Andel Creation Research Center:
VACRC: A Unique Creationist Resource
Answers in Genesis Online
Center for Creation Science
Creation Research Society
Geoscience Research Institute An SDA oriented site, some excellent articles on creationism (especially by Gerhard Hassel)
Phillip E. Johnson Home Page Leading Creationist apologist from a philosophic and logical perspective. Good resources here.
Complaints, Criticism, Suggestions or Supportive Readings - firstname.lastname@example.org