Apologetics Part 6: Scientific Facts About EVOLUTION

continued from Apologetics Part 5....

Every week, I learn so much that I think each lesson is my favorite until I hear the next week's topic. But I was especially thrilled to find out we were covering Evolution and Darwinism. I have never really understood either and because of that, I have shied away from any conversation concerning either topic. Why isn't evolution true? "Because God created the earth, that's why!" That has always been my response... until now! The last couple of posts, I talked about using science to prove the existence of God, and this one is the same. In fact, I think science is God's best creation yet... this information is so clear and so overwhelmingly in support of an intentionally created universe, it blows my mind! There is so much information, but I promise if you can get through it all, it will be worth it. Remember that this is taken from an hour long sermon, so that's why there is so much to read. I am going to do one long post so that the train of thought doesn't get interrupted. Here we go....

There are two kinds of science... Empirical Science (testing of regularities of every day happenings) and Forensic Science (looking at past occurrences to figure out what happened... think CSI). The basic tool of Forensic Science is the Principle of Uniformity. It says that causes in the past were like the causes we observe today. In other words, by the Principle of Uniformity, we assume that the world worked in the past just like it works today; especially when it comes to causes. If Natural Law can do the job today, then the perishable of Uniformity would lead us to conclude that Natural Laws do the job in the past. However, if intelligence can do the job today, and only intelligence.... then the same holds true for the past.

In A.E. Wilder-Smith's book, He Who Thinks Must Believe, he shares an story. It isn't written in my notes, so I will just write the bottom line of his analogy. Basically, he says that canned food is a contrary to evolution. A sealed can of food is void of life. Basically, there is nothing in it that will grow (hopefully). So, if you let that can sit for a long time unopened, it will not grow into something new. It will stay as it is unless someone comes along and adds life to it. Life cannot spring from non-life. That is common sense.

But our 'common sense' is actually the Principle of Uniformity. Thus, in accordance with the last two postings, Evolutionists must answer three questions:

1. How does something come from nothing?

2. How does complexity come from non-complexity?

3. How does life come from non-life?

There are no answers to these questions. So, there are three basic categories that the Darwin Model must deal with:

1. The Origin of the Universe

2. The Origin of Life

3. The Origin of New Life Forms

Before we look at these questions, lets look at one quote from a Darwinist (Richard Dawkins) on how they explain away complex design:

"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons- about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books in inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space.... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans." He then goes on to simply say no one designed it.

He states elsewhere, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, another Darwinist, sees the appearance of design so clearly that he warns that "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." They have to be careful that they don't turn into Creationists!

And how do they respond to the question of life coming from non-life? The argument is this, "Either there is an intelligent cause or a non-intelligent cause." Concerning a non-intelligent cause, Michael Denton, a Microbiologist and an atheist says, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that this is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."!!! That is from an atheist! Life on planet earth, according to Fred Hoyle, had to be created by an intelligent creator- aliens. Why? Because he calculated the probability of life arising by spontaneous generation was effectively zero. Yet, he refuses to point to the existence of God. Why? Well, that will be in next week's study.

Michael Behe, a Microbiologist, has said that the probability of getting one protein molecule from nothing is like sending a blind man into the Sahara Desert and asking him to find one grain of sand... three times!

So how do they respond, "It's just so." That is not science, that is faith. And their faith is contrary to proven scientific evidence.

Moving to the next question... that of new life forms or Macroevolution. Naturalistic Evolutionists claim that this one-celled amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation (i.e. without intelligent intervention) in a warm little pond somewhere on the very early earth. According to their theory, all biological life has evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This, of course, is the theory of Macroevolution: from the infantile, to the reptile, to the crocodile, to the Gentile. Or, from the goo to you via the zoo. So let's take a look and see if that theory has any scientific merit.

Defining EVOLUTION is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation vs. evolution controversy.

MICROEVOLUTION: Changes or variation within a species. It happens, science proves it. Example: Darwin's finches and bacteria mutation.

MACROEVOLUTION: Small successive changes over a long amount of time that lead to a new species. This has never been observed. Never has any species CHANGED FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER. Example: A cow to a whale, reptile to a bird, monkey to a man.

Evolutionists claim the mechanism by which a creature changes from one animal to another is through "Natural Selection". This is not the proper word to label this process, why? Since, in their words, the process is evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process. The term "natural selection" simply means the fittest creature survives.

Natural selection has never been observed to produce new life forms. Bacteria, even though it changed quite a bit, has always remained bacteria. The finches that Darwin observed always remained finches. They use microevolution to prove macroevolution.

The problem: Macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable microevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence from micro to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature. No matter how much something changes within its own species, it has never changed into a completely different species.

There are four reasons for this:

1. Genetic Limits: Artificial Selection vs. Natural Selection
Artificial Selection has an end in view, has an intelligent process, and has intelligent choices.
Natural Selection has no end, it is a blind process and has non-intelligent choices. Basically this means that nothing is done by a creator- its just chance. But the interesting thing is even when scientists intelligently manipulate creatures with an end in mind- which is the antithesis of blind Darwin process- macroevolution still doesn't work!

2. Clinical change: The changes in microevolution go in a cycle. It never turns into something completely new. For example, Darwin's finches' beaks got longer during a certain time of year and shorter during other times of the year- but they never changed into something besides beaks.

3. Irreducible Complexity: In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description. He could not see what we see now... this saying contradicts evolution and we now have proof of this. An irreducibly complex system is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively break down."

An example of this is blood clotting. If our blood did not clot in the precise way that it does, our blood would actually crystallize. So it could not have had an 'in between' stage while we were 'evolving' because this system is so complex. Irreducibly complex biochemical systems include: blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organism), and vision. This means that new life can't come into existence by the Darwin method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time.

Michael Behe, a leading authority on the subject says, "There is currently no experimental evidence to show that natural selection can get around irreducible complexity."

4. Non-viability of transitional forms: Since natural selection is slight, successive changes over a long period of time, there would be these transitional repti-birds, or cowhales, or mankeys. These guys would be useless while they are in that transitional phase.... a cow with a whale body? They would be weak... and natural selection eliminates things that aren't fit- so how did they survive? Its contradictory to the theory of survival of the fittest.

Some extra questions that come up regarding Evolution
What about the fossil record?
Darwin, although oblivious to the complexity of the cell, still faced a problem in facing the fossil record. He says concerning the lack of transitional fossils, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps is the most obvious and grave objection which can be argued against my theory." Those are Darwin's words. He is admitting there is no evidence of transitional forms, but he thought that with time, archaeologists would surely find some. They have never found even one.

Stephen J. Gould (an Evolutionist), the late Harvard Paleontologist states: "The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. The appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Therefore, there is no evidence for gradual transformation. So, he's saying that since it could not have happened gradually, it must've happened all at once! To him, the lack of evidence equals a new theory that doesn't need evidence.

Jonathan Wells writes, "The fossil record is so strong, and the event so dramatic, that it has become known as 'The Cambrian explosion', or Biology's Big Bang." This theory doesn't support evolution, it actually supports creationism. There was a big bang... we just happen to know that God was the one who created it.

Another question: What about the apparent progression of skulls from monkey to man?

Did you know that 99% of the biology of an organism in its soft anatomy? Which is inaccessible in a fossil? So, in a fossil, we only have 1% of the information that can be found about it.

Also, we have all seen the artistic renderings of skulls from monkey to man. But just because you line something up, doesn't mean that they progressed. For example, we can line up a teaspoon, tablespoon, cup and kettle, but it doesn't mean that they all evolved from a teaspoon. In fact, on the those posters, if you read the fine print, you will see the disclaimer that it is actually an artistic rendering rather than fact. The same with drawing the different stages of monkeys turning into men.

Furthermore, the fossil record is irrelevant to the question. Michael Behe writes, "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is continuous as that of U/S Presidents. And if there are gaps, it does no matter whether they can be explained plausibly. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interaction of 11 cts-retinal with with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodieterase [irreducibly complex systems] could have developed step by step." Basically, he's saying the fossils can't tell us anything about micobiological data.

So what about the Dating Methods that they use to carbon date fossils? It's faulty. Its only accurate to about 1000 years. They date the bones by which layer they are found in. But in Canada, they actually found more complex items in 'older' layers and more simple items in 'newer' layers.

What about dinosaurs? They definitely lived. Actually, they have found man's steps next to dinosaur steps. And in the book of Job, it talks about dinosaurs.

And what about the age of the Earth? I have one friend in particular who gets really upset about the age of the earth. He wants to know exactly how old it is and he can't accept that it is new. Even among Christians, there is a debate. But the point isn't necessarily how old it is, but the fact that a Creator created it rather than evolution. Getting caught up in the age is a side factor that distracts away from Creation vs. Evolution. We don't know how old it is and that's that. But we do know that GOD created it. But here's a trippy question that a friend of mine asked when I asked him about this... what if the earth was created with age built into it? Like how Adam was created as a full blown adult. Hmmm... interesting thought, isn't it?

So, if you have made it this far, you will be happy to know I am done! :) Like I said, this was a long post, but I think such a vital one! I found out last week that the fourth quarter curriculum for tenth grade science is Evolution! It's a theory, but it's taught as fact. And we need to know the real, scientific facts. Besides just being astounding, they are proof that Evolution could not possibly be true. And the proof is scientific, not based on our feelings or hopes. Science refutes Evolution, that's all there is to it.

At the end of the night, our pastor reminded us of two verses.

1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." Knowing scientific fact is good and interesting and profitable, but if we do not have love for others in our hearts, it does no good. We must start with loving others and from that a desire will grow to share the truth with them. God does not desire for us to smack people around with His Word or with the truth. He desires that we love people just as He loves us.

2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." When Paul wrote this book, he was at the end of his life- a life that he would lose because he was a follower and preacher of Christ. Yet, even though his time was coming to end, he encourages us to preach the Word. Preach the Word because we know it is sharper than a two edged sword, able to convince and convict even the hardest of hearts. And let us pray that it would be our earnest desire to redeem the time in these last days- that we would share hope to a dying and lost world. That we would not be content with our own salvation, but that we would love others more than our own time and desires. And let us pray for each other too that we would remain diligent in seeking after our Father and knowing what great and mighty things He has done and will do.