Top 15

Evidences

for God

and Creation

***

Jason Browning

***

First Edition July 2013

***

All scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted

Preface

You can observe a lot just by watching. - Yogi Berra

***

Dear Reader,

“How did we get here?” is probably the most important question you could ever ask yourself. Was it really by a chance evolutionary process? Or do our lives have more meaning than that? I am here to tell you that the evidence for the existence of God and that He is the creator of all things is overwhelming. In fact, most of the evidence is not even religious, but can be seen through scientific study and even everyday observation. The good news is that you were created by a loving God for a purpose! God is a person you can know, not just a theory.

Come and see the tremendous evidence for yourself.

Jason Browning

About the Author

I have studied the creation-evolution debate intently for almost 30 years. This book represents a summary of the most important things I have learned during this time. It grew out a lecture of the same title that I have given to a variety of audiences (through my local creation organization, NJBibleScience.org).

As a professional computer scientist I routinely analyze difficult computer system problems to understand the key issues and how to solve them. I am not a biologist, physicist or geologist. But the creation-evolution subject encompasses a wide range of scientific disciplines and my engineering background allows me to delve into many areas to a good depth. This book is for the average person and describes the essence of many relevant topics in an easy to understand way.

As a Christian, church Elder, and teacher, I have had many years of experience in integrating biblical knowledge into apologetics from a scientific perspective, targeted at a Junior High through High School level. So I need to “keep it simple” (but not shallow).

I believe the deep and divisive question of creation-evolution is definitively and clearly answered by the top 15 evidences presented here. I hope the book helps you in your search for answers or to grow in your understanding of God as the creator. It is written in the spirit of the book of 1Peter chapter 3, verse 15 (3:15) which says:

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Contents

Preface

About the Author

Introduction

Top Evidences Overview

Evidence #1: The Bible’s Witness

Evidence #2: Information

Evidence #3: Formation of First Life

Evidence #4: Design and Beauty of Living Things

Evidence #5: Second Law of Thermodynamics

Evidence #6: Irreducible Complexity

Evidence #7: Existence of the Universe

Evidence #8: Fine-tuning of Physics

Evidence #9: Fine-tuning of Earth for Life

Evidence #10: Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record

Evidence #11: Human Consciousness and Language

Evidence #12: Human Reasoning and Logic

Evidence #13: Sexual Reproduction

Evidence #14: Morality

Evidence #15: Miracles

Wrapping Up!

Appendix A: Best Evidence for Evolution?

Appendix B: Common Objections

Appendix C: Further Study

Top Evidences Summary

Introduction

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. - Douglas J Futuyma[1]

***

I wanted to create a “top ten” list of the evidences for God and creation, but the best I could do was to settle on 15. Any one of the evidences alone is powerful, but putting all 15 together is unquestionably powerful.

All people, scientific or not, religious or not, are biased. We are biased by our parents, educational background and training, religious beliefs, and personal view of the world. It’s not that evolution is unbiased and creation is biased, but rather that evolution starts with a bias of “no God” and creation starts with a bias of “God.”

Image Credit: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-6-religion-and-social-values, accessed February 26, 2013

A 2012 Pew Forum (www.pewforum.org) survey shows that the number of young people having doubts about the existence of God has doubled during the past five years (from 17% in 2007 to 32% in 2012). To Christians, this is a troubling but not really surprising trend. After all, God is rarely treated seriously by cultural influencers such as television, movies and the internet. Atheists have also become more vocal in expressing their views in challenging religion in general, and especially Christianity in particular. On top of this, young people have been taught through High School and college that there is no need for God in explaining our origins. We are here simply as a link (perhaps the final one) in the long chain of evolution. Claims are made that the theory of evolution is scientific and well-proven, and the ideas can seem quite convincing. However, the counter-evidences and alternate explanations for the same data are rarely also presented to students in order for them to evaluate the arguments for both sides fairly.

The creation-evolution question is frequently in the news. For example, in an editorial in my local newspaper it said:

Evolution is not something one “believes” in, any more than one “believes” in Newton’s law of gravity. Evolution is not a matter of faith, but of well-demonstrated fact.[2]

But despite the confident sayings of evolutionary advocates the questions surrounding this idea just don’t go away.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Richard Dawkins, an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, England, is an outspoken and well-known atheist. His pro-evolution book The God Delusion[3] (one among his many books in support of evolution) claims that the scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that “God almost certainly does not exist.”

He also says in this book that

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of … the lack of evidence [for God]. (underlining added)

implying that people of “faith” have more or less left their brain at the church doorstep because there is a “lack of evidence for God.” Could it really be true that millions of people over many centuries are guilty of this?

In the final analysis there are only two ultimate views of reality.

God is: If there is a God, then it makes sense that He is the omnipotent (all-powerful) intelligence that created the world and us, and that He would have told us about Himself (the Bible) and set up the proper way for us to interact with Him (Christianity).

God isn’t: However, if there is no God, then some natural evolutionary process must have taken place, because here we are! And if this is true then all religion is man-made and false.

Another way of looking at the God/no God question is to ask not “who” but “what” is the ultimate reality. In the “no God”/evolutionary view, matter (and energy) alone is the ultimate reality.

However, you as the reader demonstrate attributes that matter does not possess, including consciousness, self-awareness, thinking, reasoning, and the ability to love. These are non-material attributes that point to a “mind” which lies beyond purely physical matter.

Can even well-evolved matter ever develop these non-material characteristics? Can you really get intelligence from a non-intelligent beginning? Hang on to this idea as several of the evidences deal with what is the best explanation for the non-material aspects of reality.

The evolutionist would have us believe that the concept of evolution is equivalent to scientific understanding, and that the concept of religion based on the existence of a creator God is a myth. Possibly a useful myth for the purposes of controlling society and giving people hope, but a myth nonetheless.

You can judge the merits of these two basic views for yourself as we go through the evidences.

Note that the words: evolution, materialism, naturalism, and atheism will all be used to describe the basic idea that there is no God, and that strictly natural forces are all that exist. Many people today want to define “science” in terms of naturalism only, but a better definition would be science as “the search for truth,” even if that truth sometimes involves an intelligent design explanation.

Top Evidences Overview

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

***

All top 15 evidences for God and creation are big, fundamental and timeless arguments. None of them will be suddenly overturned by some new scientific discovery. In fact, the more we learn about things like the complexity of the cell and DNA and the fine-tuning of the universe, the more solid these arguments are becoming. Naturalistic evolution is becoming less plausible every year, if not every week, as new scientific understandings are revealed. The top evidences are not based on a “God of the gaps” concept (where God is justified and used to fill gaps in our current scientific understanding), but are based on positive findings concerning what we do know. Many of the evidences have always been observed and noted (such as design in nature), but some are only now being fully appreciated in our scientific and technological age (such as “information”).

Briefly, the top 15 evidences are:

1. The Bible’s Witness: Were you there at the beginning? No, only someone present (God) is able to say what happened.

2. Information: The DNA in living cells houses information. Information comes only from a mind and never from a physical process alone. God is that mind.

3. Formation of First Life: The spontaneous generation of life from non-life is impossible.

4. Design and Beauty of Living Things: Complex caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis cannot evolve.

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics: All things naturally deteriorate, not improve.

6. Irreducible Complexity: All parts of a complex system are required, working together; evolution has no foresight to keep currently useless partial features.

7. Existence of the Universe: Could not have created itself from nothing.

8. Fine-tuning of Physics: Inter-related fundamental forces are finely balanced.

9. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life: The Earth is just right for life.

10. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record: The oldest fossils are already fully formed and don’t change much over time.

11. Human Consciousness and Language: The mind is more than the brain; human language is vastly different from animal grunting.

12. Human Reasoning and Logic: Random chemical reactions in different brains would not result in common reasoning and logic.

13. Sexual Reproduction: Asexual reproduction is enough while sexual reproduction has high cost.

14. Morality: Our inborn sense of right and wrong; “survival of the fittest” is anti-moral.

15. Miracles: Overrides of natural law reported by many reliable witnesses requires the reality of the supernatural.

Evidence #1:

The Bible’s Witness

For I [the Apostle Paul] am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes. - Romans 1:16

***

There is a tendency today for theistic apologists (defenders of God and religion) to start with the scientific evidences that point to God, and then follow that up with the religious-based evidence. In fact, the “intelligent design” community leaves it at the scientific case and doesn’t proceed beyond that (which has value as far as it goes). The idea and hope is that scientific evidence should be more appealing to the seeker, non-believer or doubter, so maybe we should start with science first.

However, the Bible is a book filled with powerful ideas. It is actually a collection of 66 separate books written by 40 authors over about 1,500 years[4], yet gives a consistent message in its contents. Christians believe these men wrote under God’s “inspiration” to accurately reveal and communicate about the nature of God, man, and the history of the world.

In Hebrews 4:12 it says:

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

It is said that God speaks through both:

Special revelation = the Bible, and

General revelation = nature

Evidence #1, the Bible’s Witness, belongs to special revelation. All the remaining evidences belong to general revelation.

We will begin with what the Bible has to say about how we got here.

It is interesting that the Bible does not try to prove that God exists. It simply starts with God’s creative activity (Genesis 1:1):

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There is certainly debate within Christendom as to whether this activity took place over six 24-hour days or over long periods of time, perhaps over billions of years[5]. For the purposes of Evidence #1 the main point is that God is the creator. He was the only one there in the beginning to know how it happened. No scientist was present! Well-known creationist Ken Ham likes to say “were you there?”

Let’s stop for a bit to describe what we mean by “God.” The Christian God of the Bible is a “triune” God. That is, He is both one yet three individual persons simultaneously, as the above diagram tries to depict. It is a hard concept to understand! It is said about God that He is “love.” Well, love needs someone to love and it is interesting that the trinity allows for love to flow within the Godhead itself, so that the love of God is more than a self-love.

The Son is Jesus, who is also called the “Word.” It is Jesus that performed the creative acts as described in John chapter 1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Jesus does the will of the Father. The Spirit, or “Holy Spirit” is also a person, who dwells with Christians to aid them in their daily struggles to lead a Godly life.

We are made in the “image of God” (meaning we have mind and personality as God does), as a separate creation from the animals. Therefore, in the biblical view, even though we may share much of the same biochemistry as animals (as we have to live in the same environment), we are fundamentally of a different nature. This is in stark contrast to the evolutionary view of man being simply a higher-order, more evolved animal.

Now, back to the Bible as a reliable witness for God…

Image Credit: Patton Seamount (3600 meters), NOAA

The Bible is not a book of science but when it does speak of a scientific idea Christians expect it to be correct. For example, Jonah (maybe you have heard the Bible story about a man swallowed by a whale in trying to get away from what God told him to do) speaks about mountains under the ocean, a scientific fact which seems to have been supernaturally revealed to Jonah as this was long before the age of submarines and sonar.

While not a book of science, the Bible is a book of history going all the way back to the beginning. How do we know this history is true? If the Bible can be shown to be a reliable document in general, then certainly its statements about history should be reliable as well. Many books have been written on the reliability of the Bible, covering many aspects. Here in Evidence #1 I will focus on only two major proofs of the Bible’s reliability:

1.       Fulfillment of prophecies recorded many years prior to coming true, and

2.       The martyrdom of those who knew Jesus best, His close apostles, who were eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, which is the most significant claim the Bible makes and upon which the truth of Christianity stands.

One of the most well-known fulfilled prophecies of the Bible concerns the predictions made by the prophet Isaiah about Jesus, several hundred years before Jesus was born. These predictions describe several key aspects of the life and death of Jesus, which would have been greatly unexpected by the Jewish people of Isaiah’s time (as they were expecting a much different type of conquering hero).

The Bible contains about 2,500 prophecies of which about 2,000 have been already fulfilled. While skeptics debate some of these, the sheer volume of clearly fulfilled events speaks to the reliability of the Bible.

Another attention worthy consideration of the truth of the Bible is the fact that the men closest to Jesus all willingly died horrible deaths because they believed and insisted that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Would any of these men have really been willing to die for a known lie, in support of a cause which had a small following at that time and which had not achieved the desired goal of the Jewish people to be freed from their Roman bondage?

The deaths of these men are unlike those of the religious extremists of other religions, whose martyrdom is based on the promise of personal rewards.

Indeed, these Christian apostles had seen the power of God firsthand and their insistence on this has changed the world to this day.

In the biblical text given here, the apostle Paul (the author of the book of Romans) makes a convicting statement which shows that he understood, well before Darwin, the tendency of people to want to deny God and to elevate the creation itself into the place rightly reserved for God. Paul says that design in nature (evidence #4) clearly shows the power of God so that all of us are “without excuse.” This basically means that no one will be able to meet God on the judgment day and say “I surely would have believed, if you had only given me some evidence.” Then God will say “did you not look around and notice nature or see yourself, a complex being, in the mirror?”

In the second part of the verse, Paul pretty accurately describes the modern evolutionary advocate who denies any role for a god: they claim to be “wise” and through their work are essentially “worshipping and serving created things,” giving a power to nature which it does not possess – the power to create life.

An important thing to recognize is the difference between “operational science” and “historical science.”

In our modern world we have a lot of appreciation for science, which has produced many useful things to make our lives better. “Operational science,” which puts a man on the moon, follows the scientific method and is observable and repeatable. This category of science deserves respect and no creationist denies this.

On the other hand, “historical science,” which attempts to reconstruct the past based on evidence available today, is not observable or repeatable and tends to be highly influenced by starting assumptions and biases. The question of origins falls into the category of historical science.

Even in the category of operational science, many scientific beliefs from 100 years ago have changed (such as the discovery that the universe is expanding and is not static). Many things we think we know today may very well be invalidated 100 years from now. The point is that scientific understanding is always changing, hopefully in a self-correcting direction. Many religious people seem to be ready to always try to adapt the Bible to the latest scientific findings, but maybe it would be more fruitful to regard the Bible as the anchor around which to base our science?

Most people do not know that many of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were Christians who had a high view of God (such as Georges Cuvier [Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Paleontology], Michael Farady [Electro-Magnetics], Lord Kelvin [Thermodynamics], Johan Kepler [Astronomy], Carolus Linnaeus [Systematic Biology], Gregor Mendel [Genetics], Isaac Newton [Calculus], Louis Pasteur [Bacteriology], and many others). They were looking to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” For example, Issac Newton said:

Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch'd, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?[6]

These men accepted that a creator God exists. With this understanding there is still plenty of scientific work to be done! Following the creation of nature, God initiated scientific study when He said:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” – Genesis 1:28

To subdue the earth and to rule over the creatures requires that we learn about nature, which is what we call “science.” Christians are called to be the best scientists and environmentalists, because we are trying to understand and care for what the owner has created.

Image Credit: Meteor shower, astronomycentral.co.uk

The Bible says that ordinary observation alone declares God’s existence, and that this evidence has always been available to all people living everywhere at all times in the past and today. This is at least a partial answer to those who ask “what about people living the middle of a jungle somewhere?” Will God hold them accountable also? The answer is yes.

Image Credit: NASA

For our modern scientific age, when we have a high view of our own intelligence, God has made even more observational evidence only now seen with our new technology. The night sky is interesting – the universe is amazing. The more we study, the deeper we dig, the greater we are able to see the evidence for God.

Evidence #2:

Information

The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any other known system; it is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. - Michael Denton[7]

***

The concept of “information” is fundamental to the question of origins. If you grasp this concept then no additional evidences are really needed, because as we will see, evolution is impossible without a material or naturalistic source to create genetic information. In fact, many of the other evidences can be recast as a question related to information. In a nutshell, life is based on information, which always originates from a mind and never from a physical process alone.

Even non-creation scientists understand quite well that life is all about information:

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created - Bill Gates

The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information - Origin-of-life researcher Bernd-Olaf Kuppers

So this point is not controversial.

We need to start by defining what is meant by “information.” One way to think about information is as a set of instructions, or a blueprint. For example, the instruction manual that comes with a set of children’s building blocks will typically show step by step pictures of how to build a simple house with the blocks. The instruction manual contains information.

The more complex something is, the more information it contains. That is, a longer set of instructions is needed to build it, or more words are needed to describe it. For example, the blueprints for the Empire State building in New York would consist of more pages than the blueprints for your house.

Image Credits: Wikipedia, www.biologycorner.com

Just as blueprints are needed to build a building, blueprints are needed to build a living organism. And just as a building is not put together haphazardly, the unfolding of life from a single fertilized egg cell to an adult is a precisely controlled process. The instructions (information) for how to build life are coded in the DNA, along with how to operate it (controlling the active body processes), and repair it.

Image Credit: genome.gov

To demonstrate that life is indeed information, consider that DNA sequencing is now commonplace and an animal or plant can be described by its sequence of the genetic letters T, A, G and C. The human genome consists of about 3.2 billion pairs of these letters (base pairs). In a book form, this would be over three thousand books each having one thousand pages. That is a lot of information!

The evolutionary process has two main components: spontaneous variation (mutation) and natural selection (differential reproduction). It also requires heredity, to pass variations to offspring.

Can this process explain the origin of the tremendous amount of coded information in the DNA? If true it must because evolution starts with no coded information.

We also now know that DNA is not the entire answer. Information outside of the DNA, “epigenetic” higher-level assembly instructions, are needed for life to develop. Distinctive cell types are made of specialized proteins, organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues, and body plans consist of specific arrangements of specialized organs. But DNA is not wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops, so the mutation of DNA can never produce a new body plan. The origin and advancement of this non-genetic, epigenetic information is an even harder task for evolution to explain.

As the name implies, natural selection alone is not a creative process, it only “selects” among the available traits for a feature, favoring those that provide a survival advantage in the current environment. For example, for the dog genetic trait of hair length, dogs in the arctic having longer hair will be favored for survival over those having shorter hair. Over time all wild dogs in the arctic will have long hair. This makes sense and we can see the effects of natural selection (it is operational science). Natural selection does not produce new information, as it is only “selecting” not “creating.”

Note that natural selection is not actually an active process as there is no actor or intelligence involved (the environment is simply present and is not an active player or “mind”). Natural selection is no more than a name given to the fact that animals or plants better adapted to their current environment are more likely to survive and pass their genetically dominant traits on to their offspring.

Studies are revealing that it may be the animals and plants themselves that are the active players, sensing changes in the environment and perhaps inducing mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells to produce variations in their offspring that may help the species survive better. That is, the cell’s biology has been pre-programmed to reach a number of likely beneficial configurations. This programming is used to appropriately channel mutations in the right direction.[8]

University of Chicago geneticist James Shapiro describes the cell as “a powerful real-time distributed computing system” implementing various “if-then” subroutines to direct genetic changes needed to remain viable in a range of environmental conditions.[9] The question of course, is where did this programming come from?

Spontaneous variation (mutation) is the engine that is said to produce the “novel features” for natural section to operate on. However, as we all know, mutation is normally a bad thing, and evolutionists agree that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental (which is why you wear the heavy shielding blanket when getting your teeth X-rayed at the dentist). The claim is made that a small percentage of mutations are beneficial and increase information. It is definitely true that some mutations are beneficial in certain environments, but always at the cost of weakening the overall health of the organism. Even beneficial mutations do not increase information, but always involve a loss of information.

Even if beneficial mutations did increase DNA information a little, the number of identified beneficial mutations is small, whereas it would take billions of such mutations to generate the information content of the human genome. We should be inundated with reports of beneficial mutations but we are not.

Even worse for the viability of upward evolution, as the number of bad mutations vastly exceeds the number of beneficial ones, it is well-documented that all genomes are degrading over time due to the build-up of bad mutations. The human mutation rate is estimated to be 200 to 600 mutations per person per generation, with up to several thousand nucleotide changes[10]. In reality, most of these mutations are neutral, neither good nor bad, but the long term, unavoidable trend is towards genetic decay (sorry to ruin your day!).

Expecting upward evolution (from an increase of information) when the bad mutations outweigh the beneficial by a very large margin is like expecting to become a millionaire by investing in a scheme where one dollar is lost for every cent made. It cannot work.

Image Credit: answersingenesis.org

Sometimes the true, observable concept of natural selection is used as a proof of evolution in action. But it is not. Natural selection is not evolution. As shown in the illustration, if we start with wild dogs having genes for both long and short fur, over many generations, dogs having only the genes for short fur will thrive in hot environments while those having only the genes for long fur will thrive in cold environments. Once the population has only genes for short fur, their offspring will continually have just short fur as the genes for long fur have been lost (or are effectively lost, being permanently recessive). Natural selection has resulted in a loss of information in this population. Specialization is always due to a loss of existing information, and not from the introduction of new information.

Natural selection actually operates against evolutionary advancement by weeding out deformed or useless features resulting from mutation, keeping the population in line with the norm. There is no foresight (a trait of intelligence) to know that a currently useless feature will later become useful when and if certain other mutations occur. In fact, most evolutionary transitional intermediates would be unsuited to the environment – how does a creature having one-half scales, one-half wings even survive? It is not fully protected and cannot fly away.

The evolution of body plans has been described by John F. McDonald as “the great Darwinian Paradox”:

The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those [genes] that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those [genes] that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.[11]

In other words, the variations we see are not the ones Darwin’s theory needs, and the ones it needs we don’t see.

Body plans are built stepwise. For an evolutionary advancement to be introduced, it needs to be an early change (before the basic body plan is fully laid out) which is viable and transmitted. But early-acting changes have been shown to be those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. In fact, fruit fly experiments trying to force evolution end up with 1) normal flies, 2) sick flies or 3) dead flies.[12]

At this point a very important idea needs to be introduced: the DNA physically houses the information of life, but it is not the information itself! An analogy here is in order. For example, this book contains information – words and ideas that convey meaning to the reader for a purpose. However, the information (this book) can be consumed or stored via many different physical representations. It can be viewed on an e-reader or computer screen, read on printed pages of paper, or stored on a CD, USB flash drive or a computer hard drive. In all of these cases the information content is the same. This demonstrates that the information itself and its physical representation are two different things.

The huge conceptual difference between information and its physical storage is not commonly understood, and most people (even scientists) think of the DNA and the information of life as one and the same. They therefore incorrectly think that altering the physical representation (mutating the DNA) can produce new information. The truth is that the information of life came from the mind of God, but is physically housed as codes in the DNA.

Here are some other examples to see that this difference is true. Will changing the physical distribution of ink on a newspaper ever make a better story? Of course not.

Or will scratching a music CD, modifying the physical housing of the music information, ever make a better song? No way.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Similarly, mutating the DNA will never make a better organism. Yet this is exactly how new information is supposed to have originated!

With our modern genetic engineering technology we can modify the genome to remove mistakes or even add known information, but this is an intelligent design activity, similar to editing a book. This is unlike mutation, which would be similar to randomly deleting or inserting a letter here or there in the book (which will never make the book better).

If we compare the evolutionary and creation views of the origin of coded genetic information, we see that they are exactly opposite of each other. Evolution starts with no information and is said to have produced vast amounts of information via mutation (without any intelligence involved).

On the other hand, the Bible says that God created each “kind” to reproduce after itself (a kind is probably about equivalent to the “family” level in the biological classification hierarchy, which is above the species and genus levels). Biblical creation does allow for diversification of the original kinds into various species, but this is not evolution. What is happening is that each species is expressing a somewhat different subset of the original information present in the kind. Species development according to biblical creation is via differentiation/variation, degradation, or loss of originally present information, which is the opposite of the evolutionary scenario.

So how do evolutionists answer the question of the origin of the coded genetic information? Probably the most touted answer comes from Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker.[13] It is interesting that he starts his book by saying that nature does indeed appear to have been designed for a purpose. But the rest of his book goes on to try to show that this is only an appearance of design and not real design.

Richard Dawkins says the answer lies in a process he calls “cumulative selection,” which essentially involves saving a “little bit of luck” obtained in each generation and stringing this luck end to end over many generations to produce a significant change. An evolutionist cannot propose a lot of luck at one time (like a bird coming out of a reptile egg), because this would actually be a “miracle,” not a scientific happening (although some evolutionists have in fact proposed that “hopeful monsters” are one way evolution could have proceeded). The orthodox Darwinian story is that evolution proceeds small step by small step.

This example shows a computer simulation of cumulative selection in operation. We start with a random sequence of letters (representing existing material which can potentially become information). We have a target phrase, in this case the sentence “methinks it is like a weasel” (representing the information for some new beneficial feature, like a body organ or a wing). In each generation the existing phrase is “reproduced” – duplicated with a certain chance of random error in the copying (that is, mutations are introduced). The “progeny” of the original phrase (copied phrases with some letters changes) are examined and the one which most closely resembles the target phrase, however slightly, is kept as the starting point for the next generation, mimicking the process of natural selection.

In this example it takes only 43 generations for the target phase to be reached. It may take more or less generations each time the program is run, but it will always eventually succeed in matching the target phrase.

However, upon close examination, it can be easily seen that the concept of cumulative selection does not do what Richard Dawkins claims it can do – which is to produce new information to drive upward evolution. Consider that:

•        Evolution is a blind and unintelligent process that has no particular targets in mind. In contrast, during the cumulative selection process, each generation’s progeny are repeatedly compared against a target, which in real evolution is unknown.

•        The selective advantage of a small change is doubtful, just like there is no benefit to a word that has only one or two correct letters. It is still not a real word that can be used to communicate meaning. The evolutionary analogy is “what good is a half-scale, half-wing,” as the creature is now not suited for either its old environment or its new environment. In fact, a partial transition feature like this will be a hindrance that will be selected against. Natural selection actually works to eliminate oddities from the norm.

•        In nature, mutation is just as likely to strike and change “letters” already in the right position, in which case a beneficial mutation (for the future complete word) might not be kept.

•        Finally and most importantly, as mentioned earlier, information is not the same as its physical container. Information is always the result of mental activity. A coded sequence is not information unless it has a purpose. For life, a DNA sequence is useless without all of the additional complex machinery to read the information and use it to build life and perform bodily functions.

In this and all other computer simulations purporting to demonstrate evolution in action, upon close examination, you will find that the information supposedly being generated has in fact been “smuggled” into the program, frequently as the “fitness rules” used to decide whether a randomly induced change is beneficial or not. For cumulative selection the fitness rule is knowledge of and comparison against the target phrase. In a real biological setting, evolution has no foresight and therefore no knowledge of a target. Thus the cumulative selection idea and similar computer simulations have no bearing on the question of how information might originate in a naturalistic scenario.

This quote by Stephan Meyer (a leading intelligent design advocate) nicely summarizes what evolutionists would have you believe:

Overall, what evolutionary biologists have in mind is something like trying to produce a new book by copying the pages of an existing book (gene duplication, lateral gene transfer, and transfer of mobile genetic elements), rearranging blocks of text on each page (exon shuffling, retropositioning, and gene fusion), making random spelling changes to words in each block of text (point mutations), and then randomly rearranging the new pages. Clearly, such random rearrangements and changes will have no realistic chance of generating a literary masterpiece, let alone a coherent read.[14]

The big ideas behind evidence #2 (the first of the general revelation scientific evidences) are summarized above. With this most basic and fundamental concept now understood you can never be fooled into thinking that evolution is somehow true. It is not even scientifically possible!

We could stop now but there are many other scientific reasons in support of God as the creator.

Evidence #3:

Formation of First Life

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way [through the chance assembly of genes] is comparable with the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” – Sir Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)[15]

***

The formation of the first living organism is acknowledged by evolutionists as a mystery. In fact it is the biggest mystery. We already now have insight as to why it is such a difficult problem – you need a large amount of information for even the simplest reproducing life form to exist.

Every school child learns in science class about Louis Pasteur’s famous experiment where he proved that the emergent growth of bacteria in a broth was not due to spontaneous generation but rather was caused by micro-organisms present in the air. Thus we have the biological law of Biogenesis (“all life is from life”).

Interestingly, in the same science book children will read that at one point in the distant past this law was in fact violated, when somehow non-living chemicals became alive on their own. They separate these chapters with a lot of other science stuff hoping the child will not notice the inconsistency.

Either Biogenesis is a law or it is not. All observed experiments have shown it to be a law. But somehow the unobserved idea that the first life came from non-life is given a pass. Go figure. Such is the power of evolution to violate fundamental well-proven laws of science!

Image Credit: Wikipedia

In Darwin’s day the cell was regarded as a simple blob of jelly. They gave it the name “protoplasm.” I guess it didn’t seem too hard for a blob of jelly to evolve. Today, however, we know better. The cell is actually like a miniature factory, with many active processes in continual motion. It is a collection of nano-machines controlled by information processing. Biochemist Michael Denton says concerning the cell:

Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.[16]

Image Credit: www.youtube.com, “Kinesin protein walking on microtubule”

We now know about many molecular “machines.” One such machine is the Kinesin motor protein illustrated here. Do you know that each cell literally contains “roads” on which these very tiny “robots” walk, carrying needed nutrients and materials from one part of the cell to another? Something like this evolving by itself defies the imagination!

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Another example is the bacterial flagellum, which is very similar structurally to a modern outboard motor of a boat (except this motor runs at 20,000 rpm while our outboard motors top out around 6,000 rpm!). We don’t have the technology to make a motor anywhere near this small. Our bodies are full of many marvelous nano-scale biological machines. Random processes don’t build machines!

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Scientists have tried to create “life in a test tube” for many years. The most famous experiment was conducted in 1952 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago. The experiment was able to produce some of the 20 amino acids, which are the low-level building blocks of life. Even today you will find this experiment displayed on museum walls as if it provides the answer to the question of how life first formed. Let’s note that if an experiment from over 50 years ago is the best evidence we have for the naturalistic formation of life, then something is odd, given our vast improvements in technology and understanding over the last 50 years!

Even though some amino acids were produced, what is not typically stated is that the experiment had many severe problems, the main ones of which are noted above. One problem is the researchers “cheated” by collecting the amino acids in a trap so that they wouldn’t be destroyed by the same spark which formed them. In a natural environment there would be no trap.

In short, simulation experiments have not been able to produce life – not even close. At best, a very tiny step on a road a mile long. Some recent work tries to claim that “artificial life” has been created, but these efforts always start with components from existing life and require tremendous technology and intellectual skill to execute. These results actually prove that life is very difficult to produce, which is the opposite of their intent – to show that life could have happened by itself out there in the dirt or water.

Even if all the needed amino acids could be formed naturally there is still the problem of how they might get together as long strings, in a proper order, to form functional proteins. Even with oceans full of amino acids the probability of building a minimally complex cell, or even just one of its many needed proteins by chance is zero. The odds of forming one functional protein by chance linkage of amino acids in the right sequence is many orders of magnitude less than the odds of correctly choosing one marked atom in the entire universe!

DNA site-based mutagenesis experiments by Doug Axe have validated the view that a chance formation of life is impossible. The goal was to see how many amino-acid sequences would be capable of folding into a stable protein (a protein fold is the lowest-level structural element in building an animal). His research showed that for sequences 150 amino acids long, only 1 in 10**74 sequences will work.[17] As it is estimated that a total of about 10**40 organisms have ever lived on earth, it means that the formation of even just one foldable sequence having arisen by chance is impossible. Evolution says that a single cell organism eventually became a person, but is incapable of generating even one occurrence of the lowest-level structural element!

Sometimes skeptics will appeal to the idea that “given enough time anything can and will happen.” George Wald (Professor of Biology at Harvard University) once said:

Given so much time [on the order of two billion years], the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.[18]

However, we know that the universe is limited in space and in time. This places a real constraint (sometimes referred to as “probabilistic resources”) on the odds of what can actually realistically happen. The chance origin of life is not possible.

Mathematicians Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of life as 10**40,000to 1! (that is the number ten multiplied by itself forty thousand times). Expressed as an analogy we can relate to, this is about as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a working and running Boeing 747! (See the quote at the start of this chapter.)

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Diagram adapted from Meyer, Signature in the Cell, Figure 14.2.

Given the recognized tremendous problems explaining the origin of DNA, many scientists now believe that DNA was preceded by an “RNA world,” as RNA is simpler than DNA. The steps of such an imagined scenario are outlined above.

However, the “DNA world” theory also has many severe problems, some of which are listed above. As with “DNA first,” the “RNA first” scenario also has the major and unsolvable issue of how coded genetic information came to be.

The development of life is also filled with many “chicken and egg” dilemmas for evolution, as the general pattern of life is that the biosynthesis of ‘x’ requires ‘x’. For example, the synthesis of cystine, an amino acid which helps determine the 3D structure of most proteins, requires cystine. You cannot evolve a product using a process which requires the product you are trying to evolve![19]

In the end we see that the only realistic and viable explanation for life is in line with the Biogenetic law of “life from life.” The first life was imparted to man (and all living creatures) from the life of God Himself as we are told in Genesis. This was a one-time set of events in the formation of man, woman, and every kind of creature. Being designed to reproduce after their kind, their life has been passed from generation to generation, like a candle being lit once and then passing its flame to other candles. It is pretty amazing to think that the life of the first man now flows in us, and even more amazing, that this life is not just Adam’s life but the very life of God Himself! That is a thought to make your day!

Evidence #4:

Design and Beauty of Living Things

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. - Psalm 139:14

***

The most timeless argument for God has been the design seen in nature, as it is all around us and doesn’t require any scientific understanding, simply everyday observation. Beauty is also hard to explain as a result of evolution because in most cases it does not seem to impart any survival advantage.

However, not everything about nature is very nice – poisonous snakes, bed bugs, stinging jelly fish, alligators, well you get the idea. The short answer is that the Bible tells us that the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God by eating the fruit they were told not to eat. If they had obeyed God they would have lived forever, which was God’s ideal intent. But because they did not obey, God told them that they would begin to die. But he also cursed the earth so that it would not be quite as perfect anymore. It is believed that latent capabilities (built-in but unexpressed) of a harmful nature began to emerge in numerous animals and plants at that time. This topic can be further explored in Appendix B: “Common Objections.”

Some evolutionists (like Richard Dawkins) will admit that there is at least an appearance of design in nature. Others will flat out deny any signs of design at all. However, if we step back a bit, I think all of us are pretty good at determining whether something has been designed by an intelligence or not (although we may wonder how much intelligence was put into the design of some of our high-tech products like the remote control with 50 buttons!).

Consider the arrow head pictured above. It is just a shaped rock. There could hardly be anything simpler. Yet everyone instantly identifies it as a designed object. We are even good at spotting design when we don’t understand what we are looking at, such as the hieroglyphics shown above.

Would anyone ever think that this rock formation was natural? Of course not. The Discovery Institute (discovery.org), the leading intelligent design community, states that design can be inferred when three characteristics are met:

1.  Contingency: the object in question is not the result of an automatic process that had no choice in its production.

2.  Complexity: the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance.

3.  Specification: the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristic of intelligence.

Applying these criteria to this rock formation we would say that 1) there is no known automatic process that carves faces onto rocks (contingency), 2) faces are not simple to carve (complexity), and 3) these rocks exhibit a pattern characteristic of intelligence (specification), as these are recognized portrayals of well-known human faces. We can say with high confidence that the Mount Rushmore rock formation was produced by intelligence. And we would have this confidence even if we didn’t know who made it or how they did it.

Image Credits: Wikipedia

A similar argument was made by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature. Paley wrote that if a pocket watch is found on a hearth, it is most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by a watchmaker, and not by natural forces. It is a classic argument for the existence of God (called the “Teleological argument,” that evidence of design proves the existence of a Designer).

This was a good argument then and remains a good argument today. Critics claim that the analogy is incomplete and inexact because we are comparing a human artifact with natural artifacts, and they say that the Darwinian process is able to produce complexity. They also point out that natural objects such as snowflakes and crystals exhibit order and structure without design. However, the three characteristics of intelligent design (contingency, complexity, specification) do not distinguish between, or care about, whether man-made or natural objects are in question. If these criteria are met, design is confirmed. It is irrelevant whether or not a human observed the natural object being created (just like most of us did not personally witness Mount Rushmore being carved). We know the carver of Mount Rushmore from historical records. We know the maker of living objects from historical records (the Bible).

Concerning the question of snowflakes and crystals, these do not pass the contingency criteria for design, as there is a known automatic process that forces their order and structure based on their chemical properties. They do not void the watchmaker argument.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

A famous saying of Charles Darwin is quoted above, where he makes a strong challenge to the design argument. He says he can find “no such case” (where evolution could not produce a complex organ). It doesn’t seem he looked very hard!

Image Credit: www.thefreedictionary.com/metamorphosis, Elizabeth Morales

My favorite example of an impossible complexity for an evolutionary process to produce is the life cycle of the Monarch Butterfly. If I had just two minutes to convince you of God and creation I would use this example. Why? Because it is a familiar story to most people and the impossibility of evolving through the Chrysalis stage is immediately apparent when pointed out.

We start with the egg, from which a caterpillar grows. After a couple of weeks the caterpillar attaches itself to a leaf. Then an amazing process begins, which even today is not fully understood by scientists. The caterpillar literally dissolves itself chemically and re-forms its components into the tissues of the butterfly. When this re-formation is complete the butterfly emerges. And it is the butterfly that lays the egg to begin the cycle again.

Think about this: if the caterpillar cannot evolve through the entire Chrysalis stage in one generation, this means – no butterfly, no egg, no new caterpillars. That’s it. End of the line. Darwin’s challenge has been met!

Go ahead and search the Internet looking for an evolutionary explanation. All you will find is the obvious statement that it must have come from a simpler process. You will not find details. And why would a caterpillar, surviving just fine, even start on a path to being something totally different? It makes no sense. For that matter, bacteria (said to be the oldest life form) are surviving just fine. Why would they need to become more than that? Why are bacteria even needed? You see where I am going… why does anything need to exist? Our universe, animals, and people only exist because God wanted and willed them to exist.

Image Credit: www.fs.fed.us

As if the life cycle of the Monarch were not amazing enough, the species also undergoes a tremendous navigational feat in traveling thousands of miles to a preferred location in Mexico. The evolution of this type of migration (which is not unique to the Monarch) is difficult to envision.

Image Credit: Thomas Eisner

Another good example of an impossible complexity for an evolutionary process to produce is the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle. This will be covered further in evidence #6 on Irreducible Complexity.

The beauty possessed by many living things is unexpected by evolution. Evolution is said to be driven by survival of the fittest. Unless beauty contributes to survival it should not be kept by natural selection. An argument is made that some cases of beauty, like the feathers of a peacock, do in fact contribute to survival, where females are more likely to be attracted to more beautiful males. However, the majority of the cases of stunning beauty and variety seem to provide no significant survival advantage. It is not necessary to have over 15,000 species of orchids.

On the other hand, God loves beauty and variety, giving us a world far more interesting that one that simply meets our need for survival. God has endowed us with creativity and a love of variety and interesting things, just like Himself.

Evidence #5:

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.” Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about. – Isaac Asimov[20]

They [the earth and the heavens/stars] will perish, but you [God] remain; they will all wear out like a garment. - Hebrews 1:11

***

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is perhaps the most proven law in science.

What does this important sounding law mean? It is simply the everyday and scientific observation that everything naturally, on its own, moves continually towards irreversible mixing and decay. If you don’t paint your house, the wood will rot. If you don’t tend to your garden, weeds will grow (mixing plants you want with plants you don’t want). Eventually (if God were to let it go that long) the stars would release all of their energy and the universe would die a “heat death,” where every place would be at the same (very cold) temperature and no work could be done (the scientific definition of “work” is the transfer of energy from one object to another).

The only way to overcome this universal law is by the application of directed energy for a purpose. For example, the directed energy of you painting your house, or you weeding your garden, intentionally separating the plants you want from those you don’t.

The Second Law is sometimes referred to as “Time’s Arrow,” meaning that as time moves forward, inevitable mixing takes place resulting in a decrease of “entropy” (the scientific definition of the amount of energy that is not available for work). A “closed system” (nothing comes in or goes out) always moves towards a state of maximum entropy (equalized dispersal of energy). For example, cream put in coffee doesn’t stay by itself but instead spreads throughout the coffee. This happens because the molecular motional energy of all the minute particles in the coffee and cream is being dispersed and equalized.

Time’s arrow says that over time, established order, complexity, and the structures housing information will tend to decay. However, evolution postulates just the opposite that over time the universe moved from a high entropy state of disorder (the random energy from the Big Bang singularity) to a lower entropy state with the formation of stars, groupings of stars into galaxies and even larger-scale structures, solar systems, planets, first life, advanced life, and the human brain.

So evolution is directly opposed to the most proven law of science! One of the most basic tenets of science has been repeatedly and continuously violated on a grand scale!

Evolutionists try to get around this problem by claiming that the earth is not a closed system and therefore, the entropy decrease associated with evolution (increasing order and complexity) is not violating the Second Law. They say that the energy expelled by the Sun (an entropy increase) more than balances the equation and therefore the Sun-Earth system, as a single unit has obeyed the Second Law.

The problem is that when an entropy decrease is proposed (like evolution taking place), there must be a mechanism, machine or external influence/mind, not just an energy flow, that causes this increase in order and complexity (entropy decrease) to occur. Evolution has no directing/intelligent external influence to overcome the effects of the Second Law. An energy flow like that provided by the sun is necessary, but not sufficient, for the Second Law to be overcome. For example, if I want to assemble a bicycle from its parts, it won’t do to take a blow torch to them, which is a large energy flow. Energy is needed, yes, but it must be energy directed for a purpose (me with some pliers and a screw driver). The process that makes the Sun’s energy useful for biological work is “photosynthesis.” As this is a very complex chemical process, it would have taken a long time to evolve (if that were possible) and would not have been present on the early earth. Evolution has no machine/mind to overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Evidence #6:

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducibly complex systems like mousetraps, Rube Goldberg machines, and the intracellular transport system cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. You can’t start with a platform, catch a few mice, add a spring, catch a few more mice, add a hammer, catch a few more mice, and so on. The whole system has to be put together at once or the mice get away. - Michael J. Behe[21]

***

“Irreducible complexity” – fancy words, what do they mean? The idea is that for a complex system to work, all the parts must be available in the right spot at the same time, and working together.

Behe’s classic example is the old-fashioned mousetrap (I still buy these in the dollar store). If you bought one of these and noticed it was missing one of the parts, such as the holding bar, you would return it to the store as defective. Why? Because without the holding bar you won’t catch any mice. If you are missing any one of the parts it no longer functions for its intended purpose – it is an “irreducibly complex” system.

Many of the active processes in the cell are irreducibly complex. At a larger scale we can ask “what good is a heart without a circulatory system?” and many, many similar questions. Both the heart and the circulatory system must be in basic working order at the same time for either of them to be useful. Natural selection (along with mutation) is the basic process of evolution, retaining slight advantages, but its “other side” is that it also works to weed out useless variations, and there is no advantage for a half-finished heart or circulatory system to exist.

Image Credit: www.apologeticspress.org, “Bombardier Beetles and Airplane Engines”

In evidence #4 (design and beauty of living things) I mentioned the Bombardier Beetle. This creature illustrates the concept of irreducible complexity in an extreme fashion. The beetle, to fight off its enemies, releases hot noxious gases with a loud pop. A Time magazine article explains:

Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a tommy gun. When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explode from its body at a boiling 212°F. What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated like a B-17’s gun turret, to hit a hungry ant or frog with bull’s-eye accuracy.[22]

Evolutionists have given a hypothetical explanation[23] for how this complex design could have arisen by a chance process, but the steps are still high-level, giving a “just so” story which can sound reasonable on the surface while overlooking the tremendous complications underneath. For example, at step 14 it is claimed:

… the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber.

Muscles shaping themselves into a reaction chamber? How exactly is not stated of course, as if it were trivial. The problems start right at step 1:

Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods.

This is not an explanation for the origin of this chemical. Both the origin and the assembly of the components must be explained for the scenario to be realistic.

The following Creation magazine quote nicely summarizes the problem for evolution:

From twin “exhaust tubes” at his tail, [the Bombardier] beetle fires into the face of his enemies boiling-hot noxious gases with a loud pop. … Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five “bombs” in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for “Bomby” and his children would have exploded![24]

As mousetraps, hearts, and beetles illustrate, unless all of the components of a complex system are ready and in place at the same time, the system will not be functional. Evolution posits that all of these components developed gradually over time, yet evolution has no foresight into future uses and natural selection works to eliminate any variations not having an immediate advantage.

Evidence #7:

Existence of the Universe

If 0 = (+ 1) + (- 1), then something which is 0 might just as well become +1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it. – Isaac Asimov[25]

Alice laughed. “There's no use trying,” she said: “one CAN'T believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven't had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – Lewis Carroll[26]

***

The most basic origins question is “how did the universe get here?” There is a simple but profound sequence of statements which produce the logical outcome that there must be a God.

Follow the sequence of statements above.

Fact 1 – Nothing cannot produce something. This would seem to be self-evident.

Fact 2 – We have something. We have you, we have this book, we have the earth, we have lot’s of things.

Since you cannot get something from nothing (fact 1), it leads to the conclusion that something is eternal (has existed forever). Because if there was ever a time when there was nothing, we would always have nothing (because nothing cannot produce something).

Fact 3 – Science has shown that the universe itself had a beginning and is therefore not eternal.

Our conclusion is that something (or someone) greater than and outside of the universe must be eternal. That someone we call “God.”

How does the materialist answer this argument? They doubt Fact 1 and try to claim that there was a “quantum fluctuation” of nothing which produced something! And not just any old thing, but the beginning of an entire universe. Not just a small particle appearing out of the nothing, but the entire mass of the whole universe!

Another way of thinking about the origin of the universe is to consider the concept of cause and effect.

Classically, this is known as the kalam cosmological argument which says:

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.  The universe began to exist.

3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The idea is that all effects must always have a cause sufficient enough to produce the effect. Or stated another way, a copy (the effect) cannot be better than the original (the cause).

Rolling a marble for example, requires only a small cause, but looking back in time to the formation of the earth, the formation of the Solar System and ultimately the formation of the universe itself requires larger and larger, more powerful causes. This principle would seem to dictate that there must be a great First Cause, sufficient and powerful enough to form a universe. That great First Cause we call “God.” We also know that since space/time came into existence with the universe, the great First Cause must exist outside of and beyond space/time, in some eternal timeless environment.

Image Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team

The standard model of the origin of the universe, the “Big Bang” theory is illustrated above. Notice the question mark at the “dawn of time.” That is the trouble spot. The following quote by David Darling in New Scientist magazine nicely summarizes this trouble:

What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing.

Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning,” they will say, “there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which …” Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.

You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.[27]

You can decide to believe in something from nothing if you want to – good luck with that!

If the universe did emerge from a quantum vacuum or any other something, the origin of that something would again demand an explanation.

Many theists like to use the Big Bang as an argument in support of the existence of God. I will not dwell on it here, but want to note that the Bible really doesn’t support the sequence of events as proposed in the Big Bang scenario, as shown above.

However, the Bible does have a number of references to God “stretching out” the heavens (such as Isaiah 45:12 “My own hands stretched out the heavens”). Based on these verses, some creation scientists believe that God started His creation in a central location (which is now the Earth or our Solar System) and expanded His creative activity from this spot, thereby producing similar expanding universe observations as those used in support of the Big Bang.

In the end, why is there “something” at all? It is because of the “plan of him [God] who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).

Evidence #8:

Fine-tuning of Physics

God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. – Sir Fred Hoyle

***

The physics that controls the universe and allow for life is finely tuned to a high degree, which is very unexpected from the random energy interactions of a primordial Big Bang beginning. This fact is acknowledged by evolutionary cosmologists who are forced into the position that there must be many universes and we just happen to live in one which allows for life, which is a philosophical and not a scientific statement.

This chart lists some of the important universal physical constants that are “just right” for a universe capable of supporting life. It is not just the absolute values of these constants which are just right, but also their relative strengths. Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross of the Reasons to Believe organization (reasons.org) has identified almost 100 characteristics that point to divine fine-tuning to support life in the universe[28].

For example, one of the fundamental forces is the “strong nuclear force,” about which Hugh Ross says:

Protons and neutrons are like people. There is a just-right separation distance between them to foster the best possible chemistry. Put them either too close or too far apart and their capacity to interact with one another will sharply diminish. To get the just-right interactions between protons and neutrons so that stable atoms, molecules, and chemistry are possible, it is critical that the strong nuclear force be exquisitely fine-tuned in several different ways.[29]

Evolutionary cosmologists have recognized the fine-tuning problem and their strongest, most common answer is the “multiverse” theory (there are actually several different theories), that there are many universes, even an almost infinitely large number of them. And with that many universes, there are bound to be some, or at least one, having the necessary physics to eventually allow life to evolve. And we must be in one such universe, otherwise we would not be having this discussion! This is known as the “anthropic principle” (the philosophy that observation of the universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it). This makes sense of course - there will only be intelligent beings in a universe if the universe has the right properties to allow such beings to exist.

The basic problem, which you have probably already surmised as an intelligent reader, is that science can only verify things happening in the only universe we know for sure actually exists – ours. So while the multiverse idea may be an interesting philosophical discussion, it is clearly outside the realm of science and has entered the world of science fiction! (Or certainly the realm of “philosophy,” which doesn’t sound so harsh.)

Naturalists talk as if the existence of scientific or “natural” laws does away with the need for God. This is not the case at all! First of all, scientific laws themselves do not cause anything. They describe how events will unfold but do not explain how those events originated. That is, immaterial things (laws) cannot move atoms (matter).

It is also interesting that when you compare the attributes of scientific laws with the attributes of God, as shown in the above chart, you see that scientific laws are really expressions we have discovered of how God upholds the operation of the universe. It is this regularity of God that allows for scientific study.

For that matter, what is “gravity” or the “strong nuclear force” really? These are phenomenons which have been given a name and description, but why they exist and what they really are is another question. The Bible answers this question. In Colossians 1:17 it says:

In him [God the Son] all things hold together.

It is literally the will and power of God Himself that underlies the universe!

As Nobel prize winning theoretical physicist and mathematician Eugene Wigner said:

It is not at all natural that “laws of nature” exist, much less that man is able to discover them.[30]

Evidence #9:

Fine-tuning of Earth for Life

The Earth is remarkable for its precisely-tuned amount of water, not too much to cover the mountains, and not so little that it's a dry desert, as are Mars and Venus, our “sister” planets. - Geoffrey Marcy (astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley)

***

Evidence #8 was that the physics of the universe must be fine-tuned to allow life to exist (which doesn’t necessarily mean that it will). Evidence #9 is that the universe indeed has such a place where life actually can and does exist, our planet Earth.

It turns out that the probability of even one planet suitable for life existing in the universe is impossibly small. According to Hugh Ross there is a

less than 1 chance in 10**282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.[31]

This probability falls tremendously below the scientific definition of “impossible” which is somewhere in the range of one chance in 10**50 to 10**80 (the estimated number of atoms in the universe).

Some of the major fine-tuning parameters for the Earth are given above. Ross has identified over 150 such characteristics[32].

For example, for a planet to support life it must have liquid water, meaning its orbit around the Sun must be nearly circular and the planet must be within a narrow range of distance from the Sun. Too close, and too much water enters the atmosphere, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. Too far, and too much water freezes, leading to runaway glaciation.

Some other finely tuned parameters given by Ross are:

Galaxy mass distribution:

- if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation

- if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms

Parent star mass:

- if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly

- if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen

Jupiter distance:

- if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth

- if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable

Surface gravity (escape velocity):

- if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane

- if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water

Axial tilt:

- if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great

- if less: surface temperature differences would be too great

Rotation period:

- if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great

- if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great

Oxygen quantity in atmosphere:

- if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily

- if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe

Gravitational interaction with the moon:

- if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe

- if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficent; magnetic field would be too weak

Magnetic field:

- if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe; too few cosmic ray protons would reach planet’s troposphere which would inhibit adequate cloud formation

- if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation

Rate of sedimentary loading at crustal subduction zones:

- if smaller: too few instabilities to trigger the movement of crustal plates into the mantle thereby disrupting carbonate-silicate cycle

- if larger: too many instabilities triggering too many crustal plates to move down into the mantle thereby disrupting carbonate-silicate cycle

As is says in Isaiah 45:18 the Earth is indeed a special place, and based on the probabilities given above, the only such place in the entire universe:

For this is what the Lord says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited. (underlining added)

Evidence #10:

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record

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. - Stephen Jay Gould[33]

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life. - Stephen Jay Gould[34]

The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin. – Lyall Watson[35]

***

The fossil record captures the history of life on earth, and if evolution has occurred it should be very obvious from this record. Indeed, the “geologic column” that appears in every geology textbook illustrates evolution as a fact by the apparent progression over time of simpler life forms to more advanced life forms.

Creationists agree that the fossil record portrays this generally simpler to more advanced tendency, but attribute the historical explanation to the worldwide flood of Noah’s time (Genesis 6-9), and not as the documentation of evolution, noting that the effects of a global flood would produce what is seen in the geologic column. In fact, I have heard it said that if the Bible did not describe such a flood, creationists would have to postulate that there was one in order to explain the fossil record!

This chapter will first show that the fossil record actually exposes difficulties for evolution, and then goes on to describe how the global flood provides a better explanation. This eliminates the need for the geologic column to represent millions of years of time, and there are interesting geologic facts that cast doubt on the long ages view.

There are two big issues with using the fossil record to support evolution:

1.  All major body plans appear in the rocks within a small window of geologic time, with no traces of any prior simpler forms. This is commonly referred to as the “Cambrian explosion” of life. The Cambrian period is the oldest rock layer containing any significant amount of fossils.

2.  The oldest fossils, whether found in the Cambrian layer or later, are already fully-formed and tend to change very little after that. As Gould states in the quote at the beginning of this chapter, there is an “extreme rarity” of transitional forms. For example, the transition from a reptile to a bird, from the scales of the reptile to the feathers of the bird, is a large change and must have certainly taken a long time to evolve. Yet not a single fossil has ever been found showing a half-scale, half-feather animal.

Even Darwin himself recognized the problem of the Cambrian explosion:

On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.…

To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods [recording the progenitor fossils], I can give no satisfactory answer.…

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.[36]

He hoped that further exploration would uncover the progenitors, but such has not been the case.

Image Credit: Creationwiki.org

A central evolutionary concept is “descent from a common ancestor” and these types of illustrations appear in all evolutionary textbooks. What is significant to note in these diagrams is that there is actual existing or fossil data only at the leaf nodes, or tips of the branches! If anything is shown at a branching point, it is typically a hypothetical plant or animal. The actual scientific-fossil data reflects not the pattern of a large single tree as shown above, but rather a “forest of individual trees” representing the originally created kinds that have diversified to the extent that their genetic potential allows.

In fact, the pattern in the fossil record is not “bottom-up” as the tree of life illustrates, but rather is “top-down,” where large-scale diversity (the phylum) comes first (in the Cambrian) and proceeds over time into smaller-scale diversity of classes and then species. Again, this is consistent with the biblical view of starting with created kinds which then vary some over time.

The “missing links” are really missing. Not just between apes and humans, but between every major classification.

Here is a typical representation of the geologic column. Note the Cambrian layer near the bottom. Each rock layer is said to correspond to an era of time which is characterized by the presence of certain “index fossils” of plants and animals which evolved during that era. For example, the Jurassic period is the time of the dinosaurs and is the reason the movie “Jurassic Park” has that name.

Creationists point out that there is some circular reasoning involved in the definition of this column, which is that the rocks are frequently dated by the fossils they contain, but that these periods were originally defined with assumed evolutionary relationships in mind. So the fossils date the rocks, but rocks date the fossils! Thus the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution.

It is also true that this column is an idealized view found in textbooks but almost never in real geology. Only one percent of the earth’s surface has all the geological periods represented, while two-thirds of the earth’s surface has only five or fewer represented[37]. Our naïve view is that the earth is like an onion where I can dig almost anywhere to a certain depth and there I will find the layer I want, but such is not the case. There are also many cases where entire intervening layers are missing, and where layers are found in the wrong order. So the fossil succession of the geologic column is a reality only to a limited extent.

The Cambrian explosion is an enigma for evolution. There are few signs of life in the rocks during the Pre-Cambrian period. Then, around 530 million years ago, within 5-20 million years, the vast majority of phyla (30-40 major animal groups) appear, fully-formed.[38]

If all animals did evolve from a common ancestor, the main branches of the entire evolutionary tree of animals (the precursors) must have evolved before the Cambrian (as the Cambrian shows fully-formed phyla). Yet the lower, Pre-Cambrian layer has only fossil bacteria, microscopic animal embryos, and some bizarre organisms (the Ediacaran fauna) much different from Cambrian animals. Since even single cells are preserved in Pre-Cambrian rocks, surely the Cambrian ancestors would have been preserved if they really existed.

Evolutionists even admit that the predominate mode of the fossil record is one of “sudden appearance” followed by “stasis” (no change). Because of this, American paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium” in 1972 to contrast phyletic gradualism, the traditional evolutionary belief where evolution is said to happen smoothly and continuously. Biology-online.org defines Punctuated Equilibrium as:

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.

Well, this seems mighty convenient that evolution really did occur, but it happens quickly in local areas so it is unlikely we will ever find the fossils to support it! So even when the scientific evidence disproves evolution, the answer is not “gee maybe I should become a creationist,” but to come up with a new theory of evolution, counter to traditional Darwinism, which conveniently makes the evolutionary record in the rocks basically un-falsifiable.

The basic mechanism in support of punctuated equilibrium is “species selection,” where the species, not individuals, become the unit of selection. The idea is to allow evolutionary change to take place in bigger, more discrete jumps. In the final analysis however, the origin of new traits in the punctuated equilibrium model comes from natural selection acting on random mutations and variations – the standard neo-Darwinian model, and so has the same difficulties.

Here is a picture of one of the creatures found in the Cambrian period – a trilobite (they are now extinct). Many thousands of fossils of fully-formed trilobites are found without a trace of simpler ancestors. And these creatures are not simple by any definition. In fact, the eye of the trilobite is very complex and unique, being made of inorganic calcite.

From Gish in The Amazing Story of Creation:

The first significant thing about these eyes is that they have a double lens. Each one of our eyes has only a single lens. In order to see under water without distortion, however, you must have double lens in each eye, and that is precisely what the trilobite had. The most incredible thing about the trilobite eye, however, is the fact that it produced perfect, undistorted vision. Dr. Levi-Setti discovered that the trilobites had “solved” Abbe’s Sine Law, Fermat’s Principle, and other laws and principles of optics, and had perfectly constructed crystalline lenses so that there was no distortion at all. The scientists studying these eyes proclaimed that these eyes looked as if they had been designed by a physicist![39]

One of the places on earth where much of the fossil record is exposed for analysis is the Grand Canyon. A basic question we could ask about the canyon is whether it was formed slowly by a little flow of water over a very long time, as standard geology states, or that maybe it could have been formed very quickly by a large flow of water? Something like a great flood perhaps? Creation scientists say that Grand Canyon was formed quickly by the breaching of a dam of water near the end of or shortly after Noah’s flood.

A very important idea not yet discussed, which is very much at the heart of the evolution-creation controversy, is the recognition that “data” and “facts” do not speak for themselves, but are always interpreted within the framework of a theory or worldview. A rock is just that – a rock. It does not come with a label saying how or when it was formed. People having different worldviews can, and do, come up with very different interpretations of the same raw data. Take a political issue such as poverty or immigration, and as you know, Democrats and Republicans will have very different answers to the same problem.

The same is true in science. The evolutionist “knows” that evolution is true and so tries hard to fit all data and facts into that framework, even when they don’t quite fit. Data and facts too far afield are typically ignored. Creationists are no different. We “know” that God exists and that He is the creator, so we try hard to fit all data and facts into that framework, even when there are puzzling aspects to it. Same scientific data and facts – wildly different interpretations. It’s not that evolutionists are “scientific” and creationists are “religious,” both camps are equally scientific and religious in their beliefs. They just have very different frameworks. Sometimes even evolutionists have this awareness as illustrated by the following quote:

With frightening certainty, the history of science teaches us that the facts we observe are sometimes dictated by what we expect to observe.[40]

Unfortunately many times it is more expedient to take the “I’m doing science, you’re doing religion” stance to minimize the validity of the creation science/intelligent design viewpoint.

We have just discussed the difficulties of the geologic column for evolution. The creationist position is that the geologic column has some truth as a general tendency of fossil succession, but with a vastly reduced time scale. The claim is that the column was predominately laid down during the one year of the global flood. However, most of the mammal fossils were probably deposited during the Ice Age which followed the flood.

Certainly from a large-scale view, what you would expect from a global flood is lots of dead things buried in a fairly thick layer over all the earth, which is exactly what we find. So the real question is, do the more detailed aspects of the column align with expectations from a global flood? The answer seems to be yes. The above chart gives three scientific explanations as to why the flood would produce a column giving an appearance of an evolutionary progression.

The first and primary explanation is easy to understand, the mobility of animals. The smarter and more mobile the animal (that is, the more advanced from an evolutionary perspective), the earlier they would recognize a problem is happening and would escape the flood waters longer by moving to higher ground, floating on natural rafts, etc., eventually succumbing but being buried in a higher layer.

A second explanation is ecological zones. As the flood waters rose, creatures living in shallow sea areas (like the Trilobites) or near the oceans would be buried before those living inland. This makes sense of the fact that 95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. In fact, the relative amount of land vertebrate fossils consisting of more than one bone is very small. In order words, the number of individuals represented in the geologic column is very heavily weighted towards the bottom, which indicates that the column is best understood as being formed by a marine cataclysm that annihilated the continents and land dwellers.

A third explanation is the sorting action water. Flume studies have shown that mixed sediments get sorted out into layers, with objects (think organisms) having simpler shapes sinking out first.

So the apparent evolutionary progression is really an expected artifact of the global flood.

This chart summarizes the competing views of the geologic column. The main point is that a flood explanation is an equally valid, scientific interpretation of the actual data and facts. The fossil record is not “hands down” evidence for evolution.

Image Credit: Steve Austin, Institute for Creation Research

The idea of the flood producing the Grand Canyon (as a cutaway example of the geologic column) was reinforced by the effects of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State, USA in 1980. What was produced was a 1/40’th scale “mini Grand Canyon” which was formed in days if not hours. It also demonstrated that sediments can get finely layered very quickly. These layers don’t represent individual years, but represent pulses in the carving flow.

Along these lines, a striking evidence for the conclusion that individual layers of sediment do not necessarily correspond to long periods of years is the existence of “polystrate” fossils. An example of a polystrate fossil is a single fossilized tree embedded in multiple age rock strata, as shown above. It is absolutely certain that this tree was not sitting in place over millions of years while sediments collected around it.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Another interesting clue that maybe the millions of years of the column is not really true is the existence of so-called “living fossils.” They are given that name because representatives living today look amazingly identical to representatives found as fossils from supposedly millions of years ago. We might ask “where is the evolution?” Probably the most famous living fossil is the Coelacanth fish, which for a long time was thought to be extinct for over 65 million years, until one was captured off the coast of South Africa in 1938.

Comparing insects trapped in ancient amber always shows that they have not evolved.

So it seems entirely plausible that the Grand Canyon (and hence the geologic column/fossil record) really represents the results of a global flood occurring only about 4,500 years ago, as the history of the Bible documents, and is not the result of gradual build-up over long ages, documenting an evolutionary progression.

Evidence #11:

Human Consciousness and Language

Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world. – Noam Chomsky[41]

***

Humans possess two features that represent a vast divide with the animals: self-awareness (consciousness) and language. These features point to humans being a separate, different creation and not merely a more advanced animal.

According to evolutionists there is nothing more to a human beyond our physical components. No spirit. No soul. Free will, the ability to choose and make decisions, is just an illusion. Our lives are supposedly driven by the random interaction of chemicals and electrical impulses in our brain. We are basically a machine.

The problem is that this does not square very well with our own personal experiences. We know that we think. We know that we have the ability to choose and decide. Was I forced by my swirling chemicals and impulses to write this book? Of course not! If there is no creator God, evolutionists are logically forced to deny our very humanness. But I doubt if even they, really deep down, can deny this humanness.

According to the Bible, animals and people are separate creations. In Genesis 1:24 it says “And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds.’” Shortly after this the first people were made. In Genesis 1:26 it says “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.” Therefore people are endowed with traits and abilities that animals don’t have, characteristics modeled after what God is like, things like consciousness, self-awareness, and the ability to communicate using language. We do have many biological aspects in common with animals, but this is to be expected as we both need to live in the same environment eating and digesting the same food sources. Many animals are able to communicate with each other via meaningful sounds/gestures/signals, but this is a far cry from the spoken language of humans and even further removed from the written language of humans.

Evolutionists have no viable explanation or evidence that animal grunting has ever or could have ever advanced to the stage of human language. God endowed us with language so that we could choose to praise Him, love Him, and communicate about Him (sometimes people in the Bible even spoke directly with God).

The history of the Bible also provides an explanation for why there are different languages and why it’s possible that we can successfully translate between them. After the flood God wanted people to disperse and repopulate the entire earth, but the people did not want to do this. They chose to hang around together in the city of Babel and decided to build a “tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves.” In order to prod them to move on God confused their language so they could not work together any more. But this confusion was just a surface level difference and not a fundamental difference in language capabilities, making translation possible.

By the way, this dispersion of groups would lead to inter-breeding within small populations, thereby establishing different dominant traits due to the limited genetic variation available. This is an excellent explanation for the appearance of different races in different regions of the world, each having some different characteristics. The word “races” is actually a bad choice of words as according to the Bible there is only one race, the human race. What we have are different “people groups” with trivial surface-level physical differences, which rapidly disappear when people from different groups marry and the previously separated genetic pools start to mingle again.

Man is indeed a unique creation and not just a higher animal!

Evidence #12:

Human Reasoning and Logic

And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. – Issac Asimov[42]

***

Similar to human consciousness and language, the capacity to reason and think logically is an ability only possessed by humans, not animals.

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include, for example, the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at the same time and in the same relationship (e.g. “I am reading this book, and it is not the case that I am reading this book” is necessarily false). The two other classical laws of logic are the “law of identity” (every thing is the same with itself and different from another) and “the law of excluded middle” (every thing must be a member of either A or not-A). There are also “rules of inference” which allow us to draw conclusions based on premises, and mathematical logic. The laws of logic are necessary for logical reasoning.

However, reasoning and logic are not physical traits, and as with the concept of information, logic is an immaterial entity which cannot be explained as originating from matter.

Think about this (which is proving my point): if our thoughts are nothing but the result of random chemical interactions and electrical impulses swirling around in our brains, why would we expect that such thoughts in your brain and my brain would be producing consistent ideas that we can both understand?

Theists will often point out that the evolutionist/materialist/atheist, in the act of debating whether there is a God or not, is in fact proving that there is! Why? Because they are relying on the assumption that people’s brains are not filled with randomness but are endowed for common understanding with the ability to reason and think logically. They have unwittingly borrowed this basic prerequisite from a “God is the creator” worldview.

Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis explains further:

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.[43]

C. S. Lewis said “the argument from reason” is “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism,” the title of chapter three of his book Miracles. In this chapter he says:

All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them--if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work-then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound--a proof that there are no such things as proofs--which is nonsense.

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (Possible Worlds, p. 209)[44]

God gave us the ability to think and reason so that we could freely choose to love Him (or not). Reasoning is only possible because God exists!

Evidence #13:

Sexual Reproduction

Biologists have an adolescent fascination with sex. Like teenagers, they are embarrassed by the subject because of their ignorance. What sex is, why it evolved and how it works are the biggest unsolved problems in biology. – Steve Jones[45]

***

Sex! If you believe television comedies it is pretty much what most people are thinking about most of the time. It is certainly a powerful drive, and rightly so as the continuation of every animal kind and humans depends on it. But is also a huge mystery for evolutionists to explain.

The first big issue from an evolutionary perspective is why sexual reproduction even exists. Reproduction is of course necessary, but some animals and plants survive just fine using asexual reproduction, in which offspring arise from a single parent and inherit the genes of that parent only. One example is hammerhead sharks, which use a method called “parthenogenesis,” where the eggs produced by the female develop into adult individuals without getting fertilized.

It seems clear that asexual reproduction, being a simpler process, must have evolved first. The question is why would sexual reproduction even need to start to develop if creatures are reproducing fine asexually? We have to envision that at some point a population of asexually reproducing organisms somehow began a transition into a mode of sexual reproduction having both male and female forms.

The second big issue from an evolutionary perspective is how such a transition could possibly happen. Remember that evolution is said to work by keeping slight improvements which impart some survival advantage, repeated over many generations. It is not a “slight improvement” to move from unisex to male and female. Also remember that evolution has no foresight to know that a future mode of sexual reproduction would be beneficial. It boggles the mind to even think of how a unisex to male and female transition might take place.

Not only is getting the first male and female forms a big problem, but these would presumably be primitive male and female forms subject to further evolutionary advancement. While each form is advancing, the male and female forms must always remain mutually compatible or that is the end of the species. How can such coordinated changes take place when there is no coordinator?

When evolutionists talk about sexual reproduction they almost always do so it terms of the benefits it provides. The main benefit is that sexual reproduction allows more rapid generation of genetic diversity to aid in adaptation to changing environments.

However, as shown above, a sexual mode of reproduction has many disadvantages from an evolutionary perspective. The main disadvantage is that there is only a 50-50 chance that offspring will inherit a beneficial mutation existing in one of its parents. But as the spread of beneficial mutations to become eventually fixed throughout the population is a basic requirement of the evolutionary process, sexual reproduction is counter-productive to one of the most basic needs of evolution!

When established, sex does offer many advantages, but touting these advantages is not the same as explaining how they originated. Indeed, God having created them “male and female” right from the start is what makes the most sense.

Evidence #14:

Morality

[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms…. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution. – Jacques Monod[46]

***

We have already talked about some realities that are immaterial in essence (not properties of matter) such as information, consciousness, and logic/reasoning. Another one is morality. Morality is not just unexpected from evolution; it is counter to the fundamental slogan of evolution which is “survival of the fittest.”

Evolution is all about survival, period. All inclinations are towards my survival, because it is the only survival I might have some control over. Putting myself in danger or sharing my resources to help another creature is anti-survival.

Evolutionists have struggled to explain morality because the benefits tend to be group oriented, towards survival of the species as a whole. Or the benefits are future-oriented, where my sacrifice today leads to a better existence for others down the road, but the evolutionary process again has no foresight and non-conscious animals don’t ponder the future.

The root problem is that there is no morality in matter. It is simply there, as is.

Evolutionists will point out that animals and people tend to survive better when living in groups or colonies and that this forces cooperation and restraint which are moral behaviors. “Group selection” is an evolutionary theory that mutations can become fixed in a population because of the benefits they bestow on the group as a whole and not just the individual.

It is true that there are many benefits associated with groups. However, we are applying our human view, understanding, and appreciation of group dynamics and benefits to animals (or even hominids, the supposed early evolutionary ancestors of modern humans) that could not have possessed such a view. Animals operate with “instincts,” but how did these evolve? Are “knowing danger,” “where to find food,” “it’s time to migrate now” or “I should live with a group” strictly genetic traits? Acquired behaviors and learning cannot be transmitted genetically to subsequent generations, yet instincts are present from birth. Even Darwin himself struggled with the idea that somehow instincts could have evolved together with living things. He wrote:

Can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?[47]

Another idea developed to aid in this evolutionary conundrum is called “memes.” Coined by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene[48], a meme is said to be an idea or behavior that spreads from person to person within a community. They are regarded as analogous in some sense to genes, in that memes are inherited, self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. However, critics question whether cultural concepts/ideas/behaviors can be categorized as quantifiable discrete units, and unlike genetic transmission, meme transmission does not necessarily require a physical medium. So while it is an interesting and controversial concept, it would seem in the end to have little relevance to the question of the origin of moral behaviors from purely physical processes. In fact, the theory really addresses the continued transmission of cultural/moral ideas/behaviors and not their original development.

There is no question that people are born already possessing a sense and standard of right and wrong. The Bible says it is “woven into our very fabric.” There is no other explanation. Morality is a non-material reality that could never have arisen from matter alone.

Evidence #15:

Miracles

Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see. - C.S. Lewis

The whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen. - Luke 19:37

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29, Jesus speaking after his resurrection to “doubting Thomas.”

***

Miracles are overrides of natural law which demand a supernatural cause. They are not “violations” of natural law, as God designed the world to have regularities[49] (which allows science to operate) but He is not a prisoner of these regularities. Miracles are surprising to us but are in harmony with biblical teaching, and the unfolding of God’s plan will sometimes require them. They can be thought of as “external inputs” into the system.

Certainly the Bible describes many miracles and Jesus is recorded as performing many miracles. But there are also many accounts of past and modern-day miracles as reported by reliable witnesses. Simply typing “miracle stories” into an Internet search engine will produce many links to sites where people have documented their seemingly miraculous events.

A recounting is told of how God protected George Washington in a battle on July 9, 1755:

God's hand can be seen protecting George Washington while he was busy going back and forth across the battle field completely exposed, carrying out General Braddock's orders. One soldier observing Washington, stated:

“I expected every moment to see him fall. Nothing but the superintending care of Providence could have saved him.”

Indians testified later, that they had singled him out, but their bullets had no effect on him. They were convinced that an Invisible Power was protecting him.

Washington had two horses shot out from under him, and four bullet holes in his coat. Yet he himself was untouched by bullet, bayonet, tomahawk, or arrow. Scores of victims had fallen beside him, yet he went unharmed.[50]

God has a plan for human history and sometimes He uses miraculous methods to carry it out.

We don’t really know the extent of supernatural involvement in our day to day life. There is an interesting event from 2 Kings 15-17:

When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh no, my lord! What shall we do?” the servant asked.

“Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

The hills were full of angels watching and ready to help out, unbeknownst to the servant and any of the other people there.

As we drive our cars at 65 mph down the freeway, just a few feet from each other, who knows if there are not angels nudging cars here and there to keep them from accidents?

Life is filled with many “coincidences” that we may rightly attribute to the providence of God and the working of His plans. I have personally experienced such things, as perhaps you have.

Of course the skeptics will look for natural explanations of these things, and sometimes they will be right. God has set up the world to operate in an orderly manner and we don’t need to look for a miracle at every turn. However, the combined weight of many such events happening to many people seems hard to ignore.

A few of the well-known miracles performed by Jesus are listed above, which were attested to by multiple eye-witnesses. The Bible records 37 miracles of Jesus, but John 21:25 states that:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

So it seems Jesus kept busy! It is interesting that even Jesus did not try to heal everyone, which helps us to recognize that we do not have to try to meet every need either - but we can meet some of the needs God has placed in our view.

Of course, the biggest miracle of the Bible, on which the entire Christian faith rests, is the resurrection of Jesus from dead. Jesus appeared to many people after His death and resurrection and the writers of the Bible make it clear that many of these witnesses were still alive at the time of the writing, so that doubters could check the facts for themselves directly with these people.

The resurrection demonstrates the power of God over the universe, that He even has power over death. Only He that created life can resurrect it after death. It reminds us of His absolute sovereignty over our life and death. In the Bible it says (in Isaiah 25:8) that God “will swallow up death forever” at the end of time.

The resurrection of Jesus is also a testimony to the resurrection of human beings, a basic tenet of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that if Christ was not resurrected then the Christian faith is “useless” and Christians are “liars,” and in verse 19:

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

And in verse 32:

If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul presents the clear truth in verse 22 that:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Miracles are evidence of God, and the greatest miracle of them all, the resurrection of Jesus, is of prime importance. Every person must have a response to this fact. This event was the pivotal point of all history and its significance is of critical importance to your life now and for your future. A future which will be in one of two places for eternity: in Heaven with God, or in Hell without God. God does not send anyone to Hell. People go to Hell because for all of their lives they said “no” to God, and in Hell God has finally abandoned His chase and says “alright, you have gotten what you want,” which is life away from Me. A sad ending realized too late.

Wrapping Up!

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon. – Sir Fred Hoyle[51]

***

Ideas have consequences! I will claim that Darwin’s idea has had many bad consequences, including:

•         Social Darwinism, “might makes right,” applying survival of the fittest to society,

•         Support for communism, where the struggle of “class” is viewed as an evolutionary struggle,

•         Used by Hitler in justifying the creation of a “master race,”

•         Support for eugenics (the forced elimination of the “unfit”),

•         Cheapening of human life (abortion, euthanasia),

•         Unwarranted elevation of animal life,

•         Encouraging relativistic thinking where “change” is the norm, frequently based on popular will.

And science, equating itself with evolutionary naturalism, leads us to thinking that only “empirically verifiable statements are important,” and that “whatever is true, beautiful, just, noble, kind, compassionate, or merciful is unconsciously determined to be ‘subjective and trivial’”[52], denying these things as essential elements of our humanity.

So it is important to correctly conclude whether this idea of evolution is true, or whether the idea of God as creator is the better explanation for our world.

The top evidences for evolution, according to Stephen Jay Gould, are:

1.  We observe that organisms can change a little due to natural selection, and can extrapolate this to envision large-scale change over a long period of time.

2.  The fossil record shows a progression of advancement to higher-order forms from older rocks to younger rocks.

3.  There are many imperfections in nature, and God would not have created imperfections.

But there are solid creation-based counter-arguments:

1.  Change is limited by the available coded genetic information.

2.  The fossilized creatures found in the oldest rocks are already very advanced, with no record of prior progenitors.

3.  The world is not the perfect place it was originally created to be, so some imperfections now exist, but many so-called imperfections are simply due to our lack of understanding of the reasons for the design we see.

This subject is explored further in Appendix A: “Best Evidence for Evolution?”

However, in the end we see that the evidences for God and creation are quite strong - fundamental and timeless arguments not subject to being overturned by new scientific findings, while upon close examination the top evidences for evolution are not as strong as they are said to be.

God is real. He is the creator. The Bible and Christianity are relevant, even for us today in our modern age. Operational science is good (when used for good purposes). But evolution is a myth and it is a shame that so much scientific and intellectual effort has been wasted on this false idea. As new scientific discoveries and deeper understandings make it even clearer, it is my hope that science warms up to “intelligent design” and that more scientists might even embrace the designer Himself – Jesus Christ.

At times I wonder why does anyone even want to be descended from an ape? It is of course because they want to do their own thing without being accountable to anyone. We all have this tendency, and even Christians struggle with “letting go and letting God.” But in the final analysis, isn’t knowing that you are a special creation of a loving God a much more satisfying thought? Consider it!

You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there. - Yogi Berra

So long as we imagine it is we who have to look for God, we must often lose heart. But is it the other way about – He is looking for us. - Simon Tugwell[53]

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

***

The Bible makes it clear that in our natural state we are not all that we should be. We are not just “sick” but are actually “dead”:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins. (Ephesians 2:1)

It is not enough to simply believe that God exists, although that is a good and necessary start. The key question is “who do you say Jesus is?” To acknowledge Him as Lord and savior is the most important decision you could ever make in this life, and will entitle you to be with God forever in Heaven after your death.

The “good news” (which is what the word “gospel” means) is that God has made it quite simple to become a Christian. You just need to want to do it with a sincere heart and mind. Follow the simple steps above. Do it now, you won’t regret it! God does not promise you an easy life, but you will have a purposeful and fulfilling life. We all want that. See you in heaven! God bless. – Jason

Appendix A: Best Evidence for Evolution?

Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data that fall, roughly, into three great classes. First, we have the direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled laboratory experiments of the past hundred years … Second, we have direct evidence for large-scale changes, based upon sequences in the fossil record. … Third, and most persuasive in its ubiquity, we have the signs of history preserved within every organism, every ecosystem, and every pattern of biogeographic distribution, by those pervasive quirks, oddities, and imperfections that record pathways of historical descent. - Stephen Jay Gould[54]

***

It is only fair to contrast the evidences for God and creation against the best evidences in support of evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould was a leading spokesperson for evolution some years ago. Even though he is now passed away, the evidences he gives are still very relevant and frequently touted today.

He pointed to three areas. First, everyone agrees that plants and animals have some adaptability to new environments. An over-arching theme of evolution is that small changes can be extrapolated over time, continuing indefinitely, leading to large changes. The small changes are observable science but the extrapolation is not. In fact, artificial breeding always hits a limit beyond which no more change can be forced. Many varieties of dogs have been bred for many centuries, but breeders cannot produce a one-inch tall dog or a ten-foot tall dog. Change is limited by the available information. Flower growers have never produced a blue rose because of genetic limitations. The ability for plants and animals to change some in adapting to a different environment is actually a design feature. Just like engineers put “expansion joints” in a bridge so the roadway sections can expand and contract due to heat and cold, God designed his creations to also be adaptable. In the final analysis, if intelligent breeders cannot force infinite change, why would we expect it to happen by itself?

The second touted evidence is the fossil record. It is true that the geologic column shows a general progression of “simpler” to more advanced forms. However, as we saw for evidence #10, the challenge of the fossil record for evolutionists is that, as Gould recognized and tried to account for with the idea of “punctuated equilibrium,” what is actually seen is abrupt appearance followed by stasis. The global flood of the Bible would be expected to also produce such a general progression. At best this is a “tie.”

The third claimed evidence in support of evolution is imperfections in nature. Once again, everyone agrees that some degree of imperfection exists. However, the definition of an imperfection can be debatable, as it is easy to say “God would not have created it that way.” Sometimes we just don’t understand yet the reason behind the design. We also know from the Bible that we should not expect to find perfection, as God also cursed the earth when Adam and Eve sinned. Gould liked to use the Panda’s thumb as a prime example of poor design - that God wouldn’t have given an animal the unusual type of thumb that a Panda has (which is not really a thumb at all). But it seems to me that Panda’s are still alive and doing ok for themselves.

Today, similarity at a genetic level is pointed to as evidence for evolutionary relationships. However, given the need for all plants and animals to live in the same environments, we would expect a designer to reuse many of the same low-level building blocks. Even finding the same mutation in different organisms does not necessarily mean that they inherited this mutation from a common ancestor. It could simply mean that this particular gene has a hot spot which is prone to the same mutation.

The Biologos organization (biologos.org) consists of Christians who believe God created through the process of evolution. They point to the following scientific evidence in support of their position:

•        The fossil record “tells us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history” and “provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution.”

•        Genetics “shows how the physical traits of living things are handed down and modified from one generation to the next,” and “by comparing the DNA of many organisms, scientists can map the relationships between species, and this map is in remarkable agreement with Darwin’s predictions.”

•        Similar anatomy of creatures points to common descent.

•        Biogeography of isolated islands filled with unique species.

•        Embryonic development proceeds through stages similar to that of evolutionary ancestors.

Most of these points have already been rebutted. The last point (embryonic development) is an “icon of evolution” that has been disproved[55]. Note the use of the word “species” in the above list. Modern creationists believe that the original created kinds were above the species level, and that many species diversified from one kind. So showing that species have developed and changed is fully a creationist concept and is not much support for evolution.

Appendix B: Common Objections

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. - Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic).

***

Possibly the most common objection people have is they want to know “who made God?”

Although this seems like a great question, it is actually a poor question. As stated above, we know from science that space and time are related – no space, no time. Therefore before the universe existed, there was no space and consequently no time. There was just an eternal “timeless” environment. It is hard for us to imagine such a thing, as we are time-based creatures. But the logic is straightforward: “who made God?” (when did God begin) is asking a time-based question which makes no sense when applied to a timeless environment. Take some time to think about this a bit! This question fits with evidence #7, that since the universe is not eternal, something/someone outside of and greater than the universe must be eternal – that would be God.

If the evidence for God and creation is so clear, why is it sometimes rejected? Probably the most common objection is the question of evil and suffering. Evil refers to the active things (people or events) that harm us, while suffering refers to the passive enduring of the results of evil. Evil is perhaps the greatest mystery in human life, and our greatest challenge in the modern world. We want to know “why me?” and “how do I stand it?” and if there is a God, “where is He?”

The argument against God based on evil is quite straightforward, as shown above, and as far as it goes is a good argument which demands a response.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

The response to the question of evil and suffering is two-fold. First, true love requires free will. God could have made us like robots, running around saying “I love you God” quite often. But of course this would not really be love. The fact that God gave us free will means that some people will decide not to be good, and will harm at times those who do want to be good. So in a world of free will, some evil and suffering is expected. This is not God’s fault; it is man’s fault in choosing to do evil. God allows evil and suffering so that we can have true free will.

Image Credit: answersingenesis.org

The second explanation for evil and suffering is that our world is not the perfect place it was originally intended to be. Even many Christians do not realize that at the time of the sin of Adam and Eve, God not only told them they would begin to die, but He cursed the earth itself. Now we have physical evils such as tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, and other natural disasters.

Image Credit: answersingenesis.org

The Bible verses describing the cursing of the earth by God are quoted above. That was not a good day for mankind!

These two explanations for evil and suffering may not make you feel much better when you or someone you know is experiencing very real suffering, but at least there are explanations which may satisfy our minds a bit. If we understand the “why” we may endure the “how” a little better.

As these Bible verses point out, even Jesus Himself said that life is not perfect. But we take heart that God has a master plan, and is working with and through all things, even the bad things, for ultimate good. How many times have we looked back at a bad thing and realized that in the end, it turned out to be a good thing for us? Maybe we lost a job only to end up with a better one, or being more thankful for our next job. Maybe we suffered through an injury but learned how to take better care of ourselves after that? Unfortunately, it seems we only tend to learn and grow the most from our mistakes and times of suffering. Jesus has indeed “overcome the world” and God will not let this era of a broken earth continue forever. Evil will only have it’s say for a time. That may be one reason why human life spans are limited – to limit the amount of evil any one man can inflict.

In the end we cannot fully understand why we suffer and must rely on the presence of God as enough for now:

God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.” (Hebrews 13:5-6)

This is what Jesus did in anticipating his death on the cross, saying

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

For he knew his suffering would be great, as the Bible records that

Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)

But for Christians final relief will come in Heaven (on the new Earth), where life will be always good:

“He [God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death” or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)

Appendix C: Further Study

The following websites are highly recommended:

Answers In Genesis: http://answersingenesis.org

Creation Ministries International: http://creation.com

Creation Research Society: http://creationresearch.org

Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/csc

Institute for Creation Research: http://icr.org

The following books are highly recommended:

Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Werner Gitt, Without Excuse (a scientific formulation on information as the foundation of life)

Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt

Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell

Jonathan Safarti, Refuting Evolution 2

John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy

Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment

Top Evidences Summary

1.       The Bible’s Witness: There are many historical, textual, and other reasons to believe the Bible is a reliable document. It contains the only “eye witness” account of our beginnings and therefore speaks with authority on how life began.

2.       Information: Our DNA is the blueprint for life, containing much information. Information has a non-material reality and only originates from a mind and never from a purely physical process.

3.       Formation of first life: The impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life is a well-known scientific fact. Yet evolution requires that non-living chemicals did indeed become alive on their own at some time in the past.

4.       Design and beauty of living things: Even evolutionists admit that the world is full of living things that appear to be designed. However it is not just an appearance of design, it is actual real design, as can be seen for example in the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly, an extremely complex and evolution-defying transition.

5.       Second Law of Thermodynamics: Said to be possibly the most proven law of science, this law states that things naturally deteriorate when left to themselves. Yet evolution postulates just the opposite, that things have naturally, by themselves, become more complex and organized over time.

6.       Irreducible complexity: This scientific-sounding term simply means that all parts of a complex system must be in their proper place at the same time in order for the overall function to work, yet evolution has no foresight to develop or retain parts that will only be useful at a later time.

7.       Existence of the universe: Because “something” cannot come from “nothing,” something must be eternal. It is either the universe itself or something bigger and outside of the universe (i.e. God), and science has shown that the components of the universe are deteriorating and are not eternal.

8.       Fine-tuning of physics: The fundamental forces that hold the universe together (such as the nuclear forces and gravity) are very finely tuned in relation to one another, which has an impossibly small probability of happening from a random chance beginning.

9.       Fine-tuning of Earth for life: There are many factors that make life possible on planet Earth (such as being at the right distance from the Sun). Similar to the fine-tuning of physics, the combination of all these factors being true for one planet at the same time has an impossibly small probability of occurring by chance.

10.   Abrupt appearance in the fossil record: The fossil record of Earth’s history should show continual transitions from simple to more complex forms, but instead shows the sudden appearance of fully-formed plants and animals that then change very little, if at all.

11.   Human consciousness and language: The existence of human consciousness and self-awareness are hard to explain from just chemicals randomly swirling around in our brains. Indeed our minds are more than just our physical brain, and the ultimate expression of our minds is the use of language to communicate far beyond that of any animal grunting or sounds.

12.   Human reasoning and logic: If our minds are really just the result of random chemical interactions, we have no basis upon which to expect that the random interactions in different minds would produce consistent ideas, concepts and logic that allow us to communicate with common understanding.

13.   Sexual reproduction: Sexual reproduction is unexpected by evolution because it has a high cost (for example, a beneficial mutation has only a 50% chance of being retained by your offspring). A gradual change from asexual to sexual reproduction that consistently maintains mutually-compatible male and female forms defies the imagination.

14.   Morality: People have an inborn sense of what is right and wrong, which is unexpected and difficult to explain by evolution. Evolution’s motto, “survival of the fittest,” offers no standard of morality and is the opposite of religious teachings which inspire us to help the down-trodden and frail.

15.   Miracles: Many reliable people have reported happenings which defy a natural explanation and point to the presence of a world beyond us, with the well-attested-to raising of Jesus from the dead being the greatest miracle of all time.

Endnotes

[1] Douglas J Futuyma, Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books, 1983), 197.

[2] Asbury Park Press, May 22, 2012.

[3] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008).

[4] The earliest writings were set down about 1,400 BC. The last Old Testament book, Malachi, was written about 450 BC. Then there is a 500 year gap. The New Testament was written during the last half of the first century AD, with the apostle John completing the book of Revelation around 95 AD.

[5] There are three main camps which Christians belong to in explaining the history of our origins: 1. “Young Earth Creationists” interpret the Bible in a straightforward way and therefore, based on the genealogies of the Bible, conclude that the Earth is about 6,000 years old (however, relativistic theories such as those of Russ Humphreys allow for clocks ticking in the universe to perhaps have recorded billions of years of time, as a way of explaining distant starlight – see his book or DVD Starlight & Time). 2. “Progressive Creationists” (such as Hugh Ross, reasons.org) take the standard secular datings at face value, but say that God repeatedly “stepped in” to move things along (including imparting a soul into existing hominids to create Adam & Eve). 3. “Theistic Evolutionists” (such as biologos.org) adhere to evolution as a historical reality but with the caveat that God is behind it. This of course contradicts the standard view that evolution is “unguided,” and has God guiding an unguided process. My view, and the presumption of this book, is that theistic evolution is an unneeded attempt to reconcile science and faith.

[6] Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), 369–370.

[7] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, Ltd., 1985), 334.

[8] Jonathan Bartlett, “Can Mutations Add Information?,” Creation Matters, Volume 17 Number 6, November/December 2012.

[9] As quoted in Stephan Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt (New York: HarperCollins, 2013), 334.

[10] Dr. John C. Stanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (Lima, New York: Elim Publishing, 2005), 37.

[11] John F. McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaption: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observations,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 1983 14:93).

[12] Eric Davidson, 2011.

[13] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W W Norton & Company, 1987).

[14] Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 219.

[15] Anonymous, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, vol. 294 (November 12, 1981), 105.

[16] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland:Adler & Adler, 1986).

[17] See Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, Chapter 10: The Origin of Genes and Proteins.

[18] George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, 48.

[19] See bio-complexity.org, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, for many articles on the merits of the necessity of intelligent design in explaining life.

[20] Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal (June 1970), 10.

[21] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 111.

[22] “Drafting the Bombardier Beetle,” Time, February 25, 1985, 70.

[23] See www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

[24] Creation 12(1), December 29, 1989.

[25] Isaac Asimov, Isaac, “What is Beyond the Universe?,” Science Digest, vol. 69 (April 1974), 69.

[26] Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, chapter 5.

[27] David Darling, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996), 49.

[28] See www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe

[29] See www.reasons.org/articles/multifaceted-design-of-the-strong-nuclear-force

[30] See www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

[31] See www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth

[32] See www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-june-2004

[33] Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1977), 14.

[34] Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life on Earth,” Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), 89.

[35] Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, vol. 90 (May 1982), 44.

[36] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.

[37] John Woodmorappe, Studies in Flood Geology compilation, “The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment,” originally published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18 (June, 1981), 46.

[38] See Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, Figure 2.5 which states that 20 animal phyla first appear in the Cambrian, with three possibly appearing in the Precambrian, four in later periods, and nine that do not appear in the fossil record.

[39] Duane Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 104.

[40] James N. Thompson Jr., and R. C. Woodruff, “Mutator Genes—Pacemakers of Evolution,” Nature, vol. 274 (July 27, 1978), 318.

[41] Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972), 67. Chomsky is Professor of Linguistics, MIT. He is said by Dr. John Oller, Chairman of Linguistics, New Mexico University, to be the “world’s foremost linguist.”

[42] Ibid. 20.

[43] See www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational

[44] See www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Intro/csl3.html

[45] Steve Jones, The Language of Genes (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 84.

[46] Jacques Monod, The Secret of Life, Interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Co., June 10, 1976 (shortly before his death).

[47] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter 6.

[48] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).

[49] For example Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”

[50] See www.therealamericanhis-story.com/gw

[51] Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 20-21.

[52] Michael Matheson Miller, “C. S. Lewis, Scientism, and the Moral Imagination,” in The Magician’s Twin (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2012), 313.

[53] Simon Tugwell, as quoted in Curtis, Brent & Eldredge, John, The Sacred Romance (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 69.

[54] Stephen Jay Gould, “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,” Discover (January 1987), 65-68.

[55] See www.iconsofevolution.org