
|
Evolution
and Biblical Creationism are both faith-based systems. For me, a day
came when it was easier to believe the Bible's creation account than to
believe the theory of evolution. A critical factor to my unbelief lies
in evolution's propensity to abandon its own faith principles when
dealing with basic physical science. While I believe all longevity
models, and their accompanying evolutionary theories, have many glaring
problems, here are five massive ones. There are more.
1. Matter is Eternal
Evolutionists believe
everything comes from something - until everything is traced back to
the first thing. "Matter," saith the Evolutionist, "is eternal." By
halting their quest for origins at some incredibly dense blot of
matter, they not only make a faith declaration, but also a stunning
reversal in their science. This "blot" is the lone exception to
material science - that all material has a precursor.
Biblical Creationists believe there was a time matter did not exist.
God spoke it into existence - out of nothing. "I, the Lord, am the
maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and
spreading out the earth all alone ..." (Isa 44:24). "All things"
include matter. "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared
(formed) by the word (rhema) of God, so that what is seen was not made
out of things which are visible" (Heb 11:3). "In the beginning, God
created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). God is eternal - not
matter. The faith of the Biblical Creationist simply takes one step
past where the faith of the Evolutionist halts. The Creationist's faith
is based upon Bible assertions while the Evolutionist's faith rests on
a necessary violation of a basic tenet of their naturalistic system.
Neither choice yields to logic. For anything (or Anyone) to
just be there - is beyond comprehension. But to embrace inorganic
material as eternal is not as threatening as the faith of the Biblical
Creationist. That faith espouses a living, moral Being who knows
everything (Isa 40:13,14,28), sees everything (Pr 15:3), and is a God
"who cannot lie"(Tit 1:2). "Before Me, there was no God formed, and
there will be none after Me .... I am God. Even from eternity, I am He
.... I am the first and the last, and there is no God besides Me" (Isa
43:10b,12b, 13a.).
2. Spontaneous Generation
Before considering the origin of life, we must take a moment
to discuss the existence of our inorganic environment that supports
life. This planet's position in space and its chemical constitution is
absolutely astounding. While there is some tolerance for life to exist
in varied chemical and environmental conditions, the windows are
extremely narrow. For example, the earth's distance from the right kind
of sun is absolutely critical. And just a bit of an elliptical orbit
would still preclude any life. At one point of the ellipse, the water
planet would be the boiling-water planet. Then, a few months later, it
would be the block-of-ice planet. And this favorable orbit needed to be
in place for what - the last billion years or so? Then, consider our
atmosphere. It's density, composition, and temperature nurtures life -
while many of our neighboring planets are surrounded by a toxic brew.
Our skies even protect us from a life-giving sun that also produces
lethal radiation. Now, at the surface of the earth, other physical
requisites must be present for life to arise. For example, some
creatures can live in salt water, but once the salt reaches a certain
level, life ceases. Witness, the Dead Sea. But all this is just the
start of the inorganic story. All the correct elements had to be here,
too. If only metals were here, this would still be an inorganic world.
The physical requisite for an environment to be capable of birthing
life is astonishing. The point? To believe this physical environment
"just happened" takes a great faith. Indeed, that belief requires a
greater amount of faith than the Biblical Creationist needs for
attributing this environment to the activity of God. That is much
easier to believe. But let's grant that out of billions of stars our
planet did randomly arise. Now comes the back breaker. How did
inorganic elements give rise to living organisms? No element even hints
at possessing any of the stuff we call, "life." Carbon is not alive.
Iron is not alive. Calcium is not alive. Arsenic is not alive. Lead is
not alive. None of the other 23 elements which compose us are alive. In
fact, you can't even say they are dead. They are inorganic. Life is
absolutely absent from each and every element in the known universe.
The importance and gravity of this problem cannot be overemphasized.
So, herein lies the real problem for the Evolutionist. They have always
been, and are quite consistent in their assertion, that life does not
spontaneously arise. All living things came from previous life forms.
They consistently profess this belief for each present day life form as
they trace each one back a billion years - until they come face to face
with the first living "thing." It is at this critical moment, the
moment of truth on the origin of life, the Evolutionist makes another
stunning reversal - and spontaneous generation is embraced! And this is
the lone exception to an otherwise universal rule! "Life," saith the
Evolutionist, "spontaneously arose from nonliving matter - but only
with that first living thing." Mother earth takes on a literal meaning.
And, to add insult to injury, these new births must also have a fully
operational reproductive system!
To believe
matter is eternal, and a Big Bang randomly created our inorganic
ecosystem, and inorganics spontaneously gave birth to living matter,
and those organics were birthed with a fully operational reproductive
system (that could also accommodate modest positive changes so
evolution actually occurs) - well, no religion requires a faith as
massive. With a faith this immense I think Evolutionists can believe
anything they want to believe - especially when they are so willing to
abandon their science to hold to their faith!
The
faith of the Biblical Creationist is steadfastly consistent with
itself, with no reversals to this point. God is eternal, He made
matter, and He created an inorganic system capable of sustaining life.
He then infused life into a collection of inorganic materials - even
though the elements that make up the living organic mass are still
inorganic in themselves.
3. A Hostile System of
Degeneration
How does life form in a system that
is so hostile to it? Even now, inorganic forces are constantly
attacking the fragile life on the supporting skin on this globe. Heat,
cold, fire, floods - given enough time, some inorganic force will
overcome each life-form - unless it is first eaten by another
life-form! But even developed inorganics have "a life-span" - like our
sun. Its "life" peaks as degeneration is king. But against all odds,
the Evolutionist believes life (though still without adequate origins
explanation) arose. Life swims upstream against a hostile environment,
and "wins" for an exceedingly short season before being reclaimed by
inorganics. The propensity of the observable universe argues against
such an occurrence. Even in our current, relatively benevolent-to-life
environment on earth, we find no pockets of spontaneous generation as
the environment is still very hostile to life. But at least, on this
point, Evolutionists have not made some kind of reversal in their
science or principle. Their problem is that everything in their
sciences speak against such a possibility.
On the
other hand, the Creation Account in Genesis says life was created in a
totally benevolent-to-life environment. Life was fully here, and
formed, before degeneracy (and death) entered the picture. It was
imposed upon a benevolent creation and pulls life down. As a man of
little faith, this is easier for me to believe.
Let's now look at some of the life on our planet. I will wave two more
red flags - but each of these flags have hundreds ... no, thousands ...
no, millions of attendant red flags. In fact, the world may not have
enough red cloth available to make all the needed flags.
4. Metamorphosis
A basic evolutionary principle
is that species progression occurs by incremental change through
profitable mutation. Let's visit my garden in early June.
On my tomato plant we find two caterpillars. They are slow moving,
pudgy, little creatures. Their main defense is a very good camouflage
and, except for the demolition of my tomato plant, they are harmless.
When plucked from the plant, they roll up into a little ball - as if
that could really help them. Once they rightly determine I'm not going
to eat them, they unroll and start moving their multitudinous stubby
little legs in a synchronized wave as they search for home. If we leave
them for a day and come back - it is amazing how they have grown! They
are obviously very successful creatures! They have secured a very
lucrative ecological niche and act, and react, in that environment
extremely well! But then, in the height of the growing season, they
disappear! There is plenty more to eat - or did a bird eat them? Then
we spot some strange "casings" hanging close by. As it turns out, they
have entombed themselves! As the weeks pass, they never come out - and
there is no exit hole anyway. By now, these hungry little fellas have
surely starved to death. As curious investigators, we open one of the
little coffins. There is no green caterpillar inside - just a glob of
goo where our fat, evolutionarily successful creature once was. Why did
this little guy entomb himself and disintegrate? This is a great
mystery. Scratching our heads, we depart. In the meantime ... the other
coffin ... is left alone.
A few weeks later, when
passing the remaining tomb - it moved ever so slightly. Then it moved
again! There is something alive inside that tomb! In awe, we are glued
to the unfolding scene. Something is desperately trying to get out!
Then, the tomb splits and a haggard, moist creature pulls itself out!
It soon dries out into a marvelous creature! But it is nothing like our
green caterpillar. So, where did it come from? And how did it get in
our green caterpillar's tomb? Is it an invader of some sort? Questions,
questions, questions! Well, after some time of discovery and analysis,
we figure out what happened - sort of. The caterpillar never did die.
It did disintegrate, in a manner of speaking, but not with any rotting
in view. It changed - it metamorphosed! Here is a partial list of what
went in that "tomb" and what came out.
? The
caterpillar had a head and twelve body "rings." The butterfly has three
distinct body parts.
? The caterpillar had six eye spots. The
butterfly has a phenomenally complex compound eye, with as many as
20,000 eyes close together!
? The caterpillar had mandibles
and chewed plants for food. Plants would have run away from them if
they could. But the butterfly cannot chew anything. It sucks nectar and
is even a friend to plants. Plants want to attract the butterfly. The
digestive systems of caterpillar and butterfly are radically different.
? The caterpillar had all kinds of stubby little legs. The butterfly
has six long delicate legs.
? Our caterpillar had a bald
little head. The butterfly has two antennae, and it turns out these are
very sensitive sensory preceptors - possibly even radar capable!
? The caterpillar grew very rapidly. The butterfly never grows.
? The caterpillar regularly sheds its skin. The exoskeleton of the
butterfly never changes.
? Oh, yeah. One other little
observation. The butterfly - can fly! It changed from a slow lumbering
creature to a nimble aerial artist. An incremental development, right?
At this point, Evolutionists grab this stunning creature and
pull it under the umbrella of Evolution. Hold on a minute! What
happened to the fundamental teaching of incremental change? What is
incremental about a creature completely transforming itself into an
entirely different creature - in a matter of weeks?!? Both creatures
act and react extremely well in completely different ecological niches.
What could possibly possess the caterpillar to reinvent itself - and
how could it anyway? It would be easier to learn how to lay eggs. But
it "decided" on another route. "I've had enough of this life of Riley.
I'm going to turn into a flying marvel - and get off this tomato
plant!" This whole deal is bazaar. There are all kinds of worms who are
happy to be worms, live as worms, and die as worms. Quite seriously,
even though metamorphosis occurs "naturally" all over the globe, it is
not natural. Evolution must jettison its foundational, incremental
progression principle when attempting to deal with miraculous
metamorphosis.
If you are an Evolutionist, you
need to take a second look at your beliefs. Have your leading advocates
ever talked about their massive reversals in fundamental principles?
Have they admitted these reversals are faith statements - that
contradict original faith positions? Or do they even acknowledge the
difference between faith statements and empirical science? But, I do
have one more red flag I must wave.
5. The
Bombardier Beetle - "But, wait! You can't use that example!" Well,
let's see.
The stink of a Bombardier Beetle is
created by an extremely complex system. There are two separate storage
chambers with a different chemical in each. When threatened, the beetle
sends the chemical from each storage chamber into its own combustion
tube. An enzyme is then added to each chemical. This creates an
explosion in one tube and a terribly noxious smelling chemical in the
other. A "mysterious inhibitor" is added to prevent oxidization. Both
tubes open at the same time and an exploding gas is jettisoned at up to
212 degrees Fahrenheit - the boiling point of water! This requires
perfectly timed muscular activity. Here is the point. Each part of this
complex system is of no use until every part of it is developed and
working together - with exact timing! No evolutionary principle can
explain how such a system could be developed by increments.
Intermediate beetles would have had to mutate, and then retain, parts
of a system that gave them no advantage to any contemporaries.
Something would have to be guiding the beetles in this progression -
when no advantage would be seen until the entire system came on line!
Honest anatomical studies on every species around us exposes systems
that defy incremental development. Here, a defense mechanism, there,
some component of the reproductive cycle, elsewhere, a radar capacity
... on and on infinitely. The exceedingly complex defense mechanism
possessed by this insignificant little stink bug is but the top
snowflake on an iceberg.
These red flags are but
the first of many. For example, how were dinosaur fossils made? Today,
everything that dies in the tropics either rots or is eaten by
scavengers. Or what is the mathematical possibility of amino acids
randomly lining up to create a functioning protein - much less, a DNA
molecule? And mutations seem to be overwhelmingly detrimental to the
creature that develops them. Where have all the good ones gone? Maybe
the real question is, "Have there ever even been any good ones?"
Honestly, an Evolutionist puts his/her faith in scenarios that present
day, objective observation just does not support!
Now For the Evolutionist's Biggest Error - The Mother of All Errors
Along with matter being eternal, Evolutionists also believe
the earth and universe are very old. Some say our universe is twenty
billion years old - and earth about five billion. Geologists measure
the ages of rocks in millions of years. Astronomers believe the light
they are seeing from far away stars is millions of years old. And it is
true that many of the laws of the current age do support these beliefs.
For example, light does travel - and "simple" mathematics confirms the
light of a star that is a million light years away - is a million years
old. But, herein lies the biggest error Evolutionists make - the Mother
of all their errors. They assume the current laws of nature have always
been in place! The Bible refutes this assumption. It teaches that our
current natural laws began at Adam's Judgement. It is error to take
current natural laws and impose them on the Creation Account because
all the activity of the Creation Account occurred before the fall - and
Judgements - of Adam! I address some of these changes in natural law
elsewhere ("Death and the Bible" pgs 16-23), but for now, let's just
look at a couple of things. For example, the "birth" of Adam. Was he
born? As a Creation Account literalist, I do not believe he was. God
formed him on the sixth day - as an adult. At one minute old, he
probably looked thirty years old! When Eve was "born," she probably
looked thirty, too. They both had an appearance of age - at "birth."
This is also true of all the animals and all the plants in the original
created order. They were created mature. This is sometimes referred to
as Special Creation, and is called the Pro-chronic or Ideal Time
theory. Concerning the stars, He says He made them "to give light on
the earth" (Gen 1:15). That is the purpose for them. For Him to set
them in varied places of the heavens with their light already here from
the moment of creation - well, what's the big deal? In a totally
consistent fashion, they, like Adam and Eve, had an appearance of age
at "birth!" And the same goes for the rocks. We also may find that at
the fall, time (in a degenerative sense) began. Half-lives began, along
with all kinds of other scientific laws, that were not in the original
created order. When this age concludes, we may find this has been the
fatal flaw in current science: scientists assumed the natural laws of
this order were eternal laws when they were actually temporal laws -
coming into existence about ten thousand years ago. They began the
exact moment God judged Adam. I am certain many of our scientific laws
are peculiar only to this age and will eternally disappear when this
order is closed. And one other thought. Maybe the "supernatural acts"
(miracles) recorded in the Bible are actually exhibitions of the
natural scientific laws of eternity. Miracles might be little
insertions of the real laws operating outside this bubble of
degeneration. They might be samples of what awaits us! I can't wait to
study them! Yes, the natural laws of this fallen order may indeed be
the aberrant "natural" laws. They, like death, are actually unnatural.
Wow!
Evolution is Dead
At
critical points, Evolutionists abandon principles they otherwise hold
as universal constants. This creates self inflicted wounds. But, in
fairness, these are unavoidable wounds as the alternative is to believe
in some Creationism formula. Therefore, many an Evolutionist still
clings to his/her faith in the face of these faith-killing evidences.
Theories are easily released when contrary factual material arises. But
faith positions are not. This is because the believer is emotionally
vested. Belief in Evolution is a faith.
At what
point does a well intentioned, errant faith become relegated to the
realm of a fairy tale? The Greek gods and goddesses crossed that line
at some point. I wonder when Evolution will be recognized in the same
manner? One of my first college courses was, "Introduction to Physical
Anthropology." I believed in Evolution. I really did. I loved it. But I
now see it as fairy tale. Error, in any realm, can only survive for a
season. Eventually, it is exposed, and falls. Many believed the earth
was flat. Many believed if man went a certain speed, he would explode.
These beliefs had a season, but then went the way of the Greek gods.
Evolution, being mathematically impossible and refuted by nature, has
always been dead. While some may still consider Evolution to be
metaphysically viable, as far as being scientifically viable - well,
the life that some have tried to breathe into it never took.
Evolutionists are indeed a people of the greatest of faiths, but I've
always understood that a faith adhered to that is contradicted by facts
is a call to - a blind faith.
Copyright 2006
Robin - BA Bus.Admin (Milligan College '90) and Master of Divinity (Emmanuel School of Religion '92). Free Christian Ebooks at Free Online Articles at http://www.freelygive-n.com/Free_Christian_Ebook_Home.html ! Mental Adventurers Welcome!
Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS-MAKE A WEBSITE
Copyright ©
2007 by "Wbisbill" · All Rights
reserved · E-Mail: postit@bestknow.info |
A Rock and a Hard Place There's an old saying about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Have you ever wondered just exactly what that means?
Why Can't The Theories of Evolution And Creationism Co-Exist but if there is a god why can't his, her or it's day be a thousand or a million or even several billion of our years.
Just some skin, bones and a bag of dust God looks at us and perhaps wonders why do we look at our or others achievements and forget that it all comes from Him, our Creator?