Big Lie presents:
In The Beginning
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22)..."
That there are whole libraries filled with books supposedly supporting the theory of evolution is simply further evidence of it being a BIG lie! Saying something, no matter how often or adamantly, doesn't make it so! Mr. Enlightenment (a character in The Pilgrim's Regress, by C.S. Lewis) seems to echo many evolutionists when he says, "This is called the inductive method. Hypothesis, my dear young friend, establishes itself by a cumulative process: or to use popular language, if you make the same guess often enough it ceases to be a guess and becomes Scientific Fact." When I hear someone say that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because they don't want religion shoved down their throat I bristle...I had so much evolution shoved down MY throat in school that until I was able to think for myself it had corrupted my entire world view. Thankfully, I did have a teacher or two that had the integrity to explain true scientific method, and stressed the point that evolution is a THEORY as opposed to a FACT. Since our origins are not observable, and are not reproducible, no idea concerning them can ever be more than theory. It all boils down to a matter of faith, whichever model of origins one may choose. The evidence may tend to support one or refute the other, but PROOF of what we believe in this regard is nonexistent. Evolution is part of a philosophy/belief system that's religious as surely as creationism is (An atheist's religious belief is that there is NO God, as opposed to a Christian's belief that there IS) and to say that it is any more scientific than creationism simply because it automatically presumes the LACK of a supernatural agent's involvement is illogical, demonstrating an ignorance of real science as well as an ignorance about the spiritual world! I personally find it easier to believe that an almighty, omnipotent God designed the universe and all things in it than to believe that it exists by pure chance, and I also believe the facts more readily support the creation model of origins. There are many reasons why.
The Anthropic principle implies a creative designer and effectively makes the random universe a dead letter. In essence, conditions are perfectly suited to human habitation on this planet, Earth being just the right distance from the sun so that we don't freeze or fry, having the ideal ratio of water to land, having the right atmosphere, etc. The odds of it all coming together here alone by pure chance would be staggering, and I wouldn't be taking any bets on it! The realization that the relationships between and values for all the universal physical constants needed to be in balance with one another in order for any kind of life (man in particular) anywhere to exist, and then to realize that they would have had to have been set since 10-43 seconds before existence was called into being is an humbling thing!
The first law of thermodynamics states that a constant amount of energy is maintained. All matter in the universe is some form of energy, and the amount of it overall never changes. It's never created by ANY NATURAL means, and cannot be destroyed. E=mc2!!!
The second law of thermodynamics states that a closed system (such as our universe) will lose available energy until it reaches entropy, or heat-death. If our universe was eternal, or even as old as evolutionists need for it to be, unless there's a "Cosmic Gas-Station Attendant", at the rate this whole mamma-jamma's using available energy, it would have wound down by now! Evidence points to a creation at a point in time from which time we've been in a period of conservation heading toward entropy. Energy can be put into a system to initialize a birth (or in other words, a creation), but from the moment of its conception (as in the ironic death of a seed to produce a flower or the collision of an egg and a sperm to produce a human being), it begins to die. "Conservation and disintigration", as opposed to "integration and development". This is in line with the scriptural account of a perfect creation that suffered from the fall of man more so than the evolutionist contention that we're on an upward spiral towards perfection from the muck.
Your own car is evidence of the laws concerning entropy in action! It was brand spanking new when it rolled off the assembly line (built by intelligent design, you'll note, and quite a bit less complex than a single organic cell...It didn't just appear there!), but no matter how hard you try, you can't keep it perfect forever. It's a constant process of washing and waxing, tuning and repair. The tires go bad even when you rotate them, and no matter how often you change the oil, there's always going to be some friction on the engine parts. I have a '91 Camaro that I try my best to keep in clean condition (I never drive it in the winter road salt, etc...A compulsion I got from my dad, who has the most pristine '67 Impala), but no matter what I do, I notice little pits or other defects. The universe, like my Camaro, though now in a period of conservation, is in an inexorable state of decline from its moment of creation. I've never had a car that evolved into a jet or a spaceship, but I've had plenty deteriorate into a pile of rust right out from under me!
Similarly, there is a law of genetics that states that any closed gene pool will decrease (NOT increase) in the amount and complexity of available material. Earth is such a closed system! Adam and Eve were genetically superior to us in every way, and ever since they fell we've been going downhill.
In spite of its continually declining quality in successive progeny, DNA is still amazingly complex. The various components are all interdependent, and demand order, not random processes, to function properly (as is the case with all aspects of our weird and wonderful universe...Consider even the smallest components of matter visible with our current technology). Each of its parts would have had to evolve simultaneously in order for the whole to work at all as a unit. There is information encoded into DNA that tells an organism what to become, and nothing about it suggests that it's being told to change from the species that produced it to something else. Another common example used to site the interdependence of the parts of an organism is the eye. Each of its separate parts (the eye that gathers the light and information, the nerve that transmits it, and the section of the brain that receives, translates, and coordinates it, each decided by separate genes) would have needed to change/develop at the same time as ALL the others for ANY of it to work! How does natural selection explain this?
Mutation is often cited as a possible means of progression in changes, somehow happening in spurts of advance called punctuated equilibrium where one species magically advances to another species suddenly (In spite of the odds of one such occurrence, at least one other miracle of the opposite sex had to have happened in the same geographical location in order to propagate the species...Oddly enough, when we try to help the process of change from one species to another along, the results are generally sterile, as with the mule). Around 99.9% of all mutations are detrimental/fatal to the organisms they occur in, so they are a doubtful mechanism for evolutionary progression.
Some folks' contention that evolution is observable fact, when explored, shows that they confuse micro-evolution with macro-evolution. While variation within a species is observable (micro), change from one species to another (macro) is not! For example, there are many breeds of dogs, but they are all dogs (though exhibiting near endless variety WITHIN the species)...One has never been observed evolving into a cat. They reproduce after their own kind, as described in Genesis. To extrapolate from micro-evolution to claim macro-evolution as fact is faulty logic and bad science, generations of fruit-fly freaks aside!
The similarity of analogous structures is as much an evidence to a creationist of a common intelligent designer as it is to an evolutionist of common ancestors. That frogs have flippers, horses have shanks and humans have arms, and that in superficial ways they seem similar, can be seen as a case of them being made for a similar purpose as opposed to them showing kinship. I remember the old chart being wheeled out showing the stages a human child went through in the womb: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny...From the "blob of protoplasm" to the whole human, with all the supposed evolutionary branches represented in between, as a supposed microcosm of how the whole evolutionary shebang went (This was used as an argument for abortion for awhile. It was, they said, after all, only a blob of tissue or like a tadpole in those early stages). The only problem was that the gills they pointed to were genetically programmed to be something in no way analogous to gills, and those "flippers" were destined from conception to become hands and feet.
Most so-called vestigial organs (once thought to support evolution because they were thought to be "leftovers" or "wannabe's" in the evolutionary process, having no known purpose) generally have been found to actually have a purpose for the body's functioning (for glandular excretions, back-ups, body maintenance, etc.) as medical science has progressed. They are less an evidence of evolution than of what we DON'T know at at any given moment, no matter how much we think we DO!
There is a total lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record. Those examples pointed to as possible links can be considered one species or another, not something truly in-between (including archaeopteryx and all the supposed "stages" of man). It's no wonder evolutionists would desperately consider the tortured theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain this fact away. The whole, intact geologic column exists nowhere in the world. It is a human construct put together from bits and pieces. Dating methods are calibrated based on fossils' places in the geologic column, and then radiometric dating (the results suspect and erratic, relying on a handful of assumptions about the breakdown of radioactive materials) is used to arrange fossils in the column. This is a prime example of circular reasoning! Uniformitarianism doesn't explain the shape our planet is in nearly as well as the Genesis flood. Higher orders of creatures would have been able to escape the rising flood waters longer, thus explaining their general place in the true fossil record, and the great washing of sediment, heat, and pressure involved in such an event would account for the swift formation of the layers of rock they are found in. Considering how fossilization occurs, the flood also better accounts for the vast deposits of fossil fuels found so ubiquitously around the world.
Some try to use astronomy to prove Genesis false. Though there is evidence of a young (6-10K yrs.) universe, the Bible makes it clear that it was created with the appearance of age (Adam and Eve were created as adults, not "zygotes", for example). A simple answer as to why the light from stars more than 7,000 light-years away is seen today is that God created them in all their endless variety with their light already in transit and visible here, since we're told that he made them to serve as signs, to gauge time, and to give us light (Gen. 1:14-18). An Almighty, Omnipotent God could certainly manage that, as well as inspiring Moses in his writing of Genesis!
I've often heard the story of Adam and Eve, or Genesis in general, described and tittered at as a myth. Let's talk some facts here! The odds of even the most simple replicating protein molecule forming by pure chance is 1 in 10450. The odds of the chance development of a whole cell has been calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle at 1 in 1040,000! According to Borel's "Single Law of Chance", when the odds go beyond 1 chance in 10200 the event will never happen, no matter how much time is involved. It becomes a mathematical impossibility. Noted scientists L. M. Murkhin, Francis Crick, and Carl Sagan have calculated that the odds of a man evolving by pure chance are 1 in 102,000,000,000. Talk about a myth!!!
Many will say that there's no reason why evolution and Genesis can't be compatible, attempting to reconcile them, but the two are fundamentally at odds with each other. Besides, theistic evolution doesn't work, even logically speaking! I thought I was being pretty clever way back in my college Human Biology class when I independently came up with the Day/Age Theory (The idea that with God, a day is as a thousand years so that the six days of creation might have described ages during which evolution, guided by God, worked it's magic...I'd never heard this theory before, though it seemed to make sense as a compromise back then!), but have since come to the conclusion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Beyond the many details that don't gibe between the two, it all boils down to this: Either man was created perfect in the image of God, fell (causing the rest of creation to fall with him bringing death into the world), and needs reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, or death and struggle reigned for billions of years before Adam ever showed his monkey-face! As a Christian, I'll take the word of God over Darwin any day (not in spite of reason, but with my faith bolstered by it). If the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then we have no authority to inform our belief as Christians. We're no better off than the world if all scripture is not (as it claims for itself in 2Tim. 3:16) given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works!
It's a shame that so many of the totalitarians who confuse the constitutional freedom OF religion for freedom FROM religion won't allow the more viable concept of creation as opposed to the stinking corpse of evolution to be taught in the public schools...So much for seeking the truth! The law of biogenesis says that life can't come from non-life, but that's exactly what evolution is all about. I remember laughing in science class that anyone could believe that flies would spontaneously generate from a hunk of rotting meat...I'm not laughing anymore!
Some good books on the subject:
Scientific Creationism
Edited by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., of the Institute for Creation Research (located in El Cajon, CA), published by Master Books.
Creation vs. Evolution
By Thomas F. Heinze, published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516
The Collapse of Evolution
By Scott M. Huse, published by Baker Book House
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
By Marvin L. Lubenow, published by Baker Books, A division of Baker Book House Co.
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
By Phillip E. Johnson, published by InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois
Not By Chance
By Dr. Lee Spetner, published by The Judaica Press, Inc., 123 Ditmas Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11218, 718-972-6200, 800-972-6201, JudaicaPr@aol.com
Links to creationist sites:
*INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH (I've been to their museum...Real nifty!!!)
*CREATION SCIENCE
*CLICK HERE to go to GOLGOTHA HOME
*BACK to BIG LIE
*See what DARWIN himself had to say at SCIENTIFIC MINDS
Entire written contents copyright© 2000 by Ed DeVore