Creation versus Evolution

The Other Side of the Story

Intro

In 1859, Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published, being well timed enough and eloquent enough to convince much of this society that evolution was a reality. Others had proposed similar theories, but Darwin’s explanation was “the right thing at the right time” which, within a few decades, caused evolution to become the view accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The irony of this situation is that much of what Darwin wrote is no longer believed even by authorities in evolutionary circles. Ernst Mayr, a rather well known biologist, for example, wrote that Darwin was “hopelessly confused.” Indeed, later editions of the Origin became increasingly contradictory, as Darwin sought to answer the numerous arguments being leveled at his theory. It may be said, then, that the very statements which originally caused evolution to be so widely accepted have since been found to be either incorrect or irrelevant.

Today, of course, it is commonly held that Darwin solved many of the questions related to our origins, and that since then all evidence has been in favor of evolution. Moreover, the general trend is for people to take for granted that no scientist believes in a literal six-day creation by Elohiym (“God” in Hebrew), nor doubts that the earth is millions and billions of years old. These last two assumptions are easily refuted, since one organization in the U.S. alone, the Creation Research Society, has several hundred members, each one having at least one post graduate degree in some scientific discipline. There are literally thousands of scientists around the world that have no use for evolutionary theory: they are creationists. As for which way the evidence points, hopefully the following will be helpful.

Can Life Arise from Chemicals by Natural Processes?

The Question of the Origin of Life on Earth

In the last century, Louis Pasteur went to great lengths to convince the scientific community, through ample experimental proof, that life only comes from life. Then, in the 1920s. A. I. Oparin put forth a theory that life arose spontaneously from inorganic chemicals, and, astonishingly, it has been readily accepted by many without any evidence to back it up. Darwin’s camp referred to the first life on earth as some sort of “simple cell,” which is undoubtedly one of the most outrageous misnomers in the history of modern science. To put it mildly, there could never have existed any living or functional “simple cell,” since the life of every cell depends on the integrated efforts of a host of ultra-complex components.

A molecular biologist (who is not a creationist), Michael Denton, has published some very amazing discoveries concerning cells. To better appreciate the wonder of living things, imagine that a cell was enlarged up to the size of New York City. If we could behold this, we would have before us a world of ultimate technology. Virtually every type of advanced machinery used by man would have some kind of analogy in this city of engineering marvels: computerized information storage and retrieval systems, robots, assembling and processing equipment, quality control systems, etc. The difference would be that in every case, the parts of the cell are far beyond human engineering capabilities.

For example, DNA, contained in every self-replicating cell, is a coded message that directs the development of all living organisms. This genetic code carries very large amounts of information in an almost incomprehensibly compact form. The smallest kind of self-replicating cell, like a typical bacterium, holds in its DNA message the equivalent of about 500 pages of an encyclopedia. The genetic information found in humans, though, is considerably more than this, being equal to the amount contained in about half a million pages. This message is stored in a string of chemicals inside the nucleus of every one of the trillions of self-replicating cells in the human body. Since a human cell is microscopic in size, while its nucleus contains about six feet of this DNA information, it is evident that modern technology's micro-chips are rather simple in comparison. In fact, DNA is about 45 trillion times more efficient in information storage per unit volume than a micro-chip. To believe that all this is the work of random events is, as Denton put it, an affront to reason.

Nevertheless, many have accepted this theory of life arising accidentally from a “prebiotic soup,” believing that somehow a mixture of chemicals in the ocean (or some other aquatic environment) joined to form organic compounds (in proper quantities and qualities), which in turn organized into the diverse components of a living entity, which then eventually came together to begin functioning as the first self-replicating organism. An article in New Scientist in 1985 briefly went over a popular version of this theory, and then asked, “But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.” The reason for this bewilderment becomes apparent when one honestly begins to think about some of the facts that oppose this idea. Consider, for example, the geologic evidence. The theory requires huge amounts of prebiotic soup to have existed for vast periods of time (on the order of many millions of years). If this had actually been the case, there would be some indication of its presence in the geologic record. Though some speak confidently of the prebiotic soup as a documented fact, no positive evidence of its existence has ever been found.

As for observational evidence, it is true that certain experiments have produced small concentrations of amino acids, which are what make up functional proteins (important working parts of cells). Yet success has only been obtained in environments that have no free oxygen. If there is any appreciable mount of oxygen, not only do organic compounds (like amino acids) cease to form, but those that are formed quickly degrade and perish. For this reason, many believe that the early earth had little or no free oxygen. However, there is no evidence to support this belief. Further, if the early earth had no free oxygen, it would have lacked an ozone layer (since ozone is made up of oxygen), and so the amino acids being formed would have been destroyed by lethal doses of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Thus we have here a catch-22 situation: with oxygen present, organic compounds could not have formed, and without oxygen present they could not have formed either. This is known as the “oxygen-ultraviolet conundrum,” and it has yet to be solved.

With all the boasting of how amino acids can form spontaneously, and remarks like, “Amino acids are the building blocks of life,” some have neglected to consider that building blocks do not simply join together by themselves. It takes directed energy to bind amino acids together to form functional proteins. Those proteins which function in living cells are only known to be formed by a very elaborate process involving many different pre-existing parts of a living cell. Therefore to say that amino acids organized spontaneously to form functional proteins is just as ridiculous as saying that bricks can jump together to form elaborate mansions all by themselves.

It is well known, in fact, that in an environment of water it is thermodynamically impossible for amino acids to join spontaneously. Even small amounts of water are enough to inhibit the joining together of amino acids in any prebiotic situation, at all temperatures. This being the case, it is incomprehensible that nearly all naturalistic theories of the origin of life are thought to have occurred in some sort of aquatic environment; for a prebiotic ocean, lake or pond would effectively thwart the spontaneous assembly of functional proteins.

In the experiments, devices called "traps" are used to catch and protect the organic compounds that are being formed, since the same processes that can produce the compounds are in fact even more efficient at destroying them.Yet in the theorized prebiotic earth, obviously no one was there to strain out and protect the amino acids and other organic compounds. Thus there would have been no accumulation of organic compounds, since physical processes like heat, lightning and ultraviolet light would have destroyed them as quickly as they could have produced them. Moreover, chemicals floating freely in water would interact with each other in ways which would also destroy organic compounds or prevent their formation altogether. It is not chemically possible for the necessary parts of a cell to have formed in a "prebiotic soup" consisting of so many different substances.

It must be kept in mind that the origin of a living cell would not consist of merely separate problems that could be overcome one at a time; but rather no cell could function until all the necessary components were present and functioning simultaneously. For example, the life of any cell depends on many hundreds of proteins of various types, and yet proteins cannot reproduce themselves. They depend on the cell's DNA to supply the information necessary to build proteins. And of course the DNA cannot itself construct the proteins upon which it depends; it only holds the blueprints for making them. Moreover, the DNA does not carry this information to the construction sites; that job requires another highly complex type of molecular machinery known as the RNA. Certainly all of this activity uses up energy, and this energy is supplied in the cell by other advanced cellular components, without which the building of proteins and other necessary life functions could not continue. These are only a few of the systems which are all interdependent in a living cell, and it should also be pointed out that they must be held together by a highly complex membrane, which in a living cell consists of fatty acids and proteins.

Misleading and sometimes contradictory statements have been made about the assumed evolutionary development of the first self-replicating entity, such as the belief that such a system did not appear all at once fully operative, but rather was produced over long periods of time. Presumably this is meant to imply that the first fully functional cell evolved over many generations; yet of course not even one generation can occur without a functional replicatory system. For any origin-of-life scenario to state that the cell's ability to reproduce came into existence gradually over many generations is therefore an absurd contradiction in terms.

Other statements have been made to the effect that the first living cell was very primitive and “barely able to reproduce itself;” but this phrase as well makes very little sense. What is being said is that the first cell was “barely highly sophisticated,” or, “barely extremely complex.” Pause to consider the fact that automatic reproduction is something far beyond modern technology and in all probability will never be realized by human engineering capabilities. A cell unable to properly reproduce itself would quickly bring on its own self-destruction through copying, construction and maintenance errors. A cell able to build something like itself which also has the ability to reproduce itself requires a number of highly complex systems, all dependent upon each other. DNA, RNA, functional proteins, ribosomes (construction sites of proteins) and a power supply, all contained within a specifically designed membrane. Plus there is the need for systems of clean-up, maintenance and quality control (enzymes regularly double-check the construction of proteins and monitor the DNA chain for copying mistakes ), a system to bring in necessary materials and export waste, as well as packaging and storage centers for getting the waste together until it can be sent out. Is it accurate to call such an immensely complex system a "simple” cell?

These are some of the objections to the "abiogenesis" theory, that life arose spontaneously from non-life. In opposition to this is the law of biogenesis, which states that life only comes from life. (There are no known exceptions to the law of biogenesis). Space does not permit a thorough review of all the problems faced by abiogenesis, but the simple answer is that living beings do not and cannot arise spontaneously from chemicals mixing randomly in any "prebiotic soup.” The geological evidence is missing; the experimental and observational evidence is unconvincing, and theoretical considerations are actually hostile. In fact, the theories of an evolutionary origin of life have encountered so many obstacles that some have advocated the idea that life was brought here from another planet, a hypothesis referred to as "panspermia". As one author commented, “Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.”

Don’t Fossils Support Evolution?

Concerning Paleontology, the Study of the Fossil Record

Many are of the attitude that the very existence of fossils is evidence for evolution. Perhaps this is due to the popular belief that fossils and fossil fuels (like coal and oil) require millions of years to form. It may therefore come to some as a bit of a shock to learn how quickly fossilization can actually occur, as has recently been discovered. Under certain conditions, it has been demonstrated that fossils can form within a few weeks, and instances are known of fossilization being observed to occur within a period of several years or decades. As for fossil fuels, it has been known since the early 1970s that substances such as sewage, corn husks and other cellulosic materials can be converted into coal within weeks or hours; and using a slightly different process, the same materials can be made into good grade petroleum in twenty minutes.

But what does the fossil record itself actually show? It reveals in fact a consistent pattern of unbridged gaps between major groups of living organisms. Volumes could be written about this subject alone. We are not talking about the "missing links" between just ape and man, but rather the general trend between all major plant and animal groups. There are no “in-between species," for example, either living or fossilized, to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians, showing the pelvis and leg forming to be able to support the weight of their body. Some blunt statements made by dedicated evolutionists indicate this fact, that transitional forms are lacking. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them," wrote David B. Kitts of the U. of Oklahoma (School of Geology and Geophysics), in the periodical Evolution  E. J. H. Comer, after discussing plant fossils, stated, “But I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." Then there is Stephen Gould of Harvard, who wrote that smooth intermediates between basically different types of organisms are "almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record. . . ."

This lack of transitional forms is very important to this subject because Darwin’s theory depended on the discovery of them. He himself wrote, “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 serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” Darwin’s answer was “the extreme imperfection of the fossil record,” and he comforted himself with the hope that future search would indeed fill the gaps. Nevertheless, after 130 years, billions of fossils, and some 250,000 fossil species, the situation remains the same. In fact, some authors have them selves admitted that there may be even less support for gradual change in the fossil record than there was in Darwin’s time, because examples which once were used to support the theory later “have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” If therefore the state of the fossil record in Darwin’s time was “the most obvious and serious objection,” against evolution, and if in our time it is no better (and may in fact be worse) for the theory, it would seem rather dishonest to state that fossils are strong evidence in favor of evolution.

The full significance of this lack of intermediate forms may be better appreciated if one bears in mind a few points. First, the major groups of organisms are quite distinct. This can be illustrated by considering groups with which we are familiar, like the terrestrial vertebrates (land animals having a backbone). This includes birds, reptiles, amphibians and most mammals, and has been divided into 56 living orders. Examples from various orders reveal how diverse each one is from the other. Few would have trouble distinguishing an elephant from a lion, a mouse from a kangaroo or an ape from a bat. The same could be said for the various orders of birds or reptiles. Ostriches and ducks are readily distinguished, as are storks and kiwis, or turkeys and eagles. Likewise, turtles, alligators and snakes are fairly simple to tell apart. Thus each of these orders are separated from the others by differences that are both numerous and obvious.

Second, if evolution has occurred, the transitional forms between each major group should be expected to be rather numerous. Unless one believes that, for instance, a female wolf gave birth to a healthy baby whale (and of course few would entertain such a notion), then the only evolutionary alternative is to suggest wolves transformed into whales through a series of many steps. If one begins to estimate how many transitional forms would be needed to link up all the major groups, it quickly becomes apparent that the total would indeed be great. In fact, intermediates should easily have outnumbered the major groups that are known by a ratio of at least three or four to one. (Those who doubt this may tabulate on paper themselves some reasonable estimates of the number of links necessary to join the orders of terrestrial vertebrates.)

Third, it has been pointed out for years that the fossil record cannot any longer be called inadequate. Indeed, for all practical purposes, it can be argued that the record is very nearly complete. Of the above mentioned 56 orders of living terrestrial vertebrates, well over 90% have been found as fossils. Orders are divided up into families; and of the approximately 390 families of living terrestrial vertebrates, well over 70% have been discovered as fossils.Moreover, the fossils which have been found have yielded a consistent pattern: they are either similar to forms already known, or are so different from anything known that they need to be classified into new major groups which are equally unconnected by transitional forms.

Thus, if evolution has occurred, there ought to be several times more transitional forms than major groups that are known; yet while nearly all known major groups have now been discovered as fossils, the intermediates remain absent. The family trees we were shown in school "demonstrating” the theorized line of descent from a one-celled organism through invertebrates to fish, then to amphibians, next to reptiles, and finally via mammals to humans, are not in fact founded upon paleontological evidence. Rather, they are based largely on the assumption that evolution has happened, which turns out to be an unsupported statement of faith if none of the "connecting links" have been found as fossils. One would never guess, looking at these trees of descent, that there is no fossil evidence to support them, as glibly as they are set forth in the textbooks. Yet Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist for the British Museum of Natural History, stated, "If you ask, 'What is the evidence of continuity?' you would have to say, 'There isn't any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.'"

Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven?

Assessing the Known Facts

Imagine that you were about to build a complex machine, such as an automobile. You would not start, obviously, by putting parts together at random. Instead, you would begin by careful planning, such as writing out blueprints. These blueprints would specify the shape and size of the various parts, indicate how they should fit together, and give detailed instructions as to how the automobile should be assembled.

 Similarly, the construction of all known living organisms is directed by genetic blueprints, known as DNA. The development of a human being can be used to illustrate this process. Everyone begins life as a single cell, containing the genes from his or her parents. Step by step, these genetic instructions specify in great detail the formation of this human person. The DNA first directs the cell to divide into two cells, and gives precise instructions as to the manner in which this is to be carried out. The genes themselves are duplicated, so that each of the two resulting cells contains a complete set of the blueprints. This process is then repeated, producing four cells. These divisions continue, the cells being instructed at a certain point to differentiate. Some cells are directed to become involved in the formation of the nervous system, others are appointed to the development of bone or skin tissue, and so forth. Each cell then begins to produce the unique materials suitable for the needs of the particular organ or system it is instructed to help form. The DNA goes on to specify the characteristics of each part to be constructed. An arm bone, for instance, is formed according to exact specifications: its dimensions, its shape, the type of material of which it is to consist, precisely when and how it is to be connected to other tissue, etc. The other organs and systems are likewise specified in such detail by the genetic blueprints.

Thus, the physical characteristics which make up a living organism are determined by the information encoded in its DNA blueprints. It is therefore obvious that any substantially new inheritable trait, such as a new organ, a new system or a radical change in anatomy could only result through a change in the DNA. This understanding is often omitted in popular portrayals of evolution. Often in evolutionary scenarios, hypotheses are presented which assert that a particular transition occurred by means of a certain species beginning to practice a habit which, after many generations, produced some sort of change. One example could be the theory that perhaps a species of fish gradually evolved legs by coming up onto land more and more often over millions of years. Another could be the suggestion that the front legs of a reptile transformed into wings by its leaping, then gliding and eventually flying after insects. It is unclear, however, why anyone knowledgeable in biology would suggest such things, as the above discussion makes it clear that no animal could transform into another basically different kind unless its DNA code were altered; and this code is not affected by a change in habits. In other words, unless the genetic blueprints in a fish were re-written so that the information necessary to form fins changed into the information necessary to grow legs, a fish would never become an organism with legs: and no amount of flopping about on land would cause the genetic information of a fish to be so reprogrammed. Neither would the leaping of any reptile alter the genes containing the information coding for the growth of its front legs so that they would instead code for the formation of wings. No evolutionary transition, from one organism to any substantially different yet still viable type, could occur without the DNA code changing harmoniously from one program to another coherent program.

These considerations demonstrate that evolutionary theory is essentially the belief that new, complex genetic information can arise spontaneously. Any disagreement with this statement can be countered by pointing out that to go from chemicals floating freely in water (i.e., zero genes) to a self-replicating bacterium (typically containing about 2,000 genes) is certainly an increase in genetic information; and to go from this to a human being (containing around 100,000 genes) likewise represents an increase in complex, genetic information. If the heart, or insect wings, or any of the other complex organs found in the living world have been produced by evolution, then at some point the genes necessary for their formation had to appear spontaneously.

 Thus, if natural processes can be shown to produce truly novel genetic information (that is, new, largely distinct genes), the theory of evolution would be substantiated. This is not as tall of an order as it first sounds. If the theory is true, then new, radically different genes have appeared spontaneously probably many millions of times; and so it should be a simple matter for competent biologists to uncover and demonstrate how natural processes could effect this. If, on the other hand, spontaneous natural processes, unguided by intelligence, can be conclusively demonstrated to be incapable of generating new, complex genetic information, then evolution is ruled out. It is at exactly this point that evolutionary theories break down, for no natural processes are known that do in fact produce new, complex genetic blueprints.

 Not that there is a lack of speculation. The conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory states that during the course of reproduction, a mistake occurs in the formation of the genetic blueprints, which produces a change in the developing offspring. These mistakes are known as “genetic mutations;” and they do happen, although they are relatively rare. However, they do not create more complex characteristics, such as new organs, new systems or new genes. Actually, they cause harm, which is to be expected from any random process which tampers with specific information. In our analogy of the automobile construction, it would be as when some of the information contained in the blueprints is lost or garbled due to a copying mistake. Evolutionists hold out the hope, though, that at least some genetic mutations may cause the DNA of the offspring to be altered in such a way that something new and even helpful could be produced. This hypothetical event is referred to as a “beneficial mutation.” Further, if this new characteristic gives some advantage to the creature that possesses it, then it has a greater chance of living longer, and having more offspring than those of its species which lack the new trait. According to the theory, this process continues very gradually, over many generations and millions of years, until a radically different type of living organism is produced.

In the real world, however, genetic mutations are either harmful or lethal, producing many hundreds of unhealthy conditions (such as deformations, hemophilia, etc.); while others are neutral, having little or no effect. Still others may cause very minor variations in genes already present; but mutations do not produce truly novel genetic information. It has never been observed that they do, and it is theoretically inconceivable that they could. Mutations are relatively rare to begin with; “beneficial mutations,” if they exist at all, are rarer still, and thus numerous harmonious beneficial mutations occurring in one individual would be an event so rare as to be quite beyond our imagination. DNA blueprints being recopied to accidentally produce an increase in complex information is analogous to having a sentence that makes good sense become a paragraph that makes good sense by means of typing errors.Mutations, like tornadoes, do not produce complexity; they cause damage.

Consider also that genetic information changing gradually from one program to another substantially different one would pass through a stage in which the DNA would be useless garble until other compensatory changes could be made, which is true for any assemblage of information. For example, take a paragraph from a book and try to alter it, either by one or two letters at a time or one or two words at a time, into a paragraph saying something greatly different. Some minor changes can of course be made (e.g., changing “he” to “she” or “sit” to “stand”), but invariably a point is reached where no further changes can be made without either rewriting a large portion of the paragraph at once or destroying the sense. It would be unrealistic to think the DNA programs of living things are not subject to the same limitations, knowing that disastrous results are so often produced by very minor genetic changes and that the major categories of organisms are separated by large amounts of genetic information.

The genes themselves do not allow for very much change; their main function seems to be to prevent new forms from arising. Darwin knew nothing about genetics; that information was not widely known until the early 1900s. In his book Origins, he documented a host of examples of slight variations, like that observed in the crossbreeding of plants and of animals, and he extrapolated (carried it further in his imagination). It seems he thought there was no limit to the possible changes. Experienced breeders, however, flatly disagree. You can breed horses to be faster, and sugar beets to be sweeter, but only up to a point.  Not only are there definite limits as to how much variation is possible, but the tendency is for organisms to return to a median. Artificially produced breeds left to their own devices generally die out (because they are sterile or less robust), or revert back to the norm in following generations. This resistance to change has been called “genetic homeostasis,” a term advocated by Ernst Mayr (1970). In an experiment that demonstrated this point (though it was not the purpose of the experiment), the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster was mutated and paired, and a strain of flies was produced which had no eyes. These were inbred, and so for several generations the strain continued eyeless. Then, contrary to all expectations, flies were produced which had eyes! The genetic code evidently had a built-in repair mechanism that re-established the eye genes.

Despite these results, the common view is that variation among a given population of living things is evidence of evolution in action. For instance, the numerous varieties of dogs in the world, difference in moth coloration, and insects’ resistance to pesticides are often cited as examples of evolution being observed. This type of relatively minor variation within a population is termed “micro-evolution.” Really major transitions, such as the fish-to-amphibian idea, are referred to as “macro-evolution.” Darwinists have long held that the observed minor variations within populations can, over long periods of time, accumulate to produce macro-evolutionary changes, just as Darwin himself believed over a century ago. More recent advances, however, have caused many biologists to doubt the conventional wisdom. A conference of over 150 scientists took place in Chicago in 1980 to discuss this topic, and the consensus was reported in the periodical Science: The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution,” and concluded, “the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

The reason for this “clear no” becomes obvious when we recall that macro-evolution means the production of new, complex genetic information, while that which is called “micro-evolution” involves merely the expression of previously existing genes. If two dark-haired people have a blond child, is that an example of evolution? No, it is not. It is rather just recessive genes in both parents being expressed in the child. In the same way, two original wolf-like canines, both containing a large amount of diverse genetic variation, could have produced the different types of dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. that we have today, as their descendants inherited various combinations of genetic information.

The peppered moths in England are a case in point. Evolutionists have repeatedly brought up the fact that the dark moths increased in number, and the light-colored moths decreased, when the lichen on which they rested became darkened from pollution It is often ignored, though, that both light and dark moths existed both before and after this event. Thus, nothing new at all was produced, and the only change was in the ratio of light to dark moths. The same is true of toxin resistance in insects. The genetic variants responsible for this resistance were apparently already present in the populations exposed to the pesticides. 

Some have claimed substantial changes in the fruit fly Drosophila experiments, but these claims have no basis in fact. This is significant, since over 3,000 consecutive generations have been experimented on, often with various strengths and frequencies of X-rays being employed In an effort to speed up the mutation rate. Yet a truly new kind of organism has never been observed to emerge nor even a new gene or enzyme.

Thus, in all these and many other cited cases, we have instances of nothing more than the expression or selection of genetic information that already existed. To use these as examples of evolution represents a basic misunderstanding of what is actually occurring; and thus to use them as evidence for macro-evolutionary transitions, such as the idea that invertebrates were transformed into fish, is indefensible.

In summary, to substantiate that evolution is possible, it must be shown that new DNA blueprints, able to specify the development of complex organs and systems, can arise by natural, spontaneous processes. This has never been observed. The examples which are used to support this claim are irrelevant to the topic. Furthermore, the statements which have been put forth to explain how it may have happened, such as the point mutation theories discussed above, are highly implausible. This will come into sharper focus in the following sections.

Can Something Come From Nothing?

Concerning Thermodynamics

Let us now review some facts about the universe in which we live. Considering all reasonable possibilities, it becomes apparent that there are only three explanations for our existence:

(1)       the universe and everything in it has always existed, i.e., it is eternal;

(2)       the universe and everything in it got here spontaneously, i.e., through natural processes all by itself (as many evolutionists believe), or

(3)       the universe and everything in it was created by some supernatural power through intelligent design. Some may believe in a combination of some or all of these,         but it is very difficult to think of anything that falls completely outside of the three above possibilities.

The first possibility can be ruled out automatically. The universe is running down, just like a wind-up clock runs down. Every second incredible amounts of energy are being used up, and none of it is being replenished or renewed. Note that this energy is not becoming non-existent, but rather that it is randomizing, i.e., it is becoming unavailable for future use. For example, the heat of a burning candle does not cease to exist, but in stead becomes more and more evenly distributed throughout the universe as time proceeds, and can no longer be used for work.

Thus the universe has an end awaiting it, a time when (barring prior Divine intervention) all available energy would be dissipated; just as a wind-up clock, left to itself, always eventually runs out of energy. If then the universe had begun too long ago, all of its energy would already be evenly distributed. The sun and the stars would have burned out, life would have ceased, all energy would have become unavailable and the universe would be the same temperature throughout. This fact, that everything in the universe is running down and decaying, is known as "the second law of thermodynamics." We see it all around us: things get dirty and disorganized, machines break down and wax old, objects become corroded and worn, and all types of fuels (like gasoline, oil, wax, and food) get used up. Plants, which are directly or indirectly the source of energy for all humans, get their energy from the sun, the energy of which is also being used up. The conclusion is that the universe must have had a beginning at some definite time in the past, for otherwise it would already have burned out and would not exist as it is.

The second possibility, that the universe formed by natural processes, is also ruled out, but this time by the first law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy cannot be created by any natural or man-made process. Machines that produce electricity do not actually create energy; rather, one type of energy, like heat or solar power, is being converted into another. In order to create energy, one would have to find a way to turn absolutely nothing into energy. It is not humanly possible — how much more implausible is it that this happened by chance and natural processes?

These two laws support certain conclusions: the first possibility, that the universe has always existed, is refuted by the second law of thermodynamics (everything is decaying and moving towards its end); and the second possibility, that natural processes formed the universe and everything in it, is disproved by the first law of thermodynamics (natural forces cannot create energy or matter). This only leaves one other possibility: “In the beginning Elohiym (God in Hebrew) created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:l)

This Creator must be eternal, or else some other being that was eternal would have had to have created Him. This Creator must be a being separate from the universe (contrary to the belief that we, and all things combined, make up Elohiym), for otherwise He would not have been eternal. (In other words, if the universe is Elohiym, and the universe had a beginning, then there would have had to have been a time when Elohiym did not exist — and how could a nonexistent Creator create Himself?)

How do scientists that believe in evolution get around this conclusion, that only a supernatural Creator could have made all things? The late Isaac Asimov, one of the more famous scientists of our time, gave an excellent example of the amazing side-stepping that some perform. He wrote in an article that the universe began in a condition of high order, and departed from this order to become the universe in which we now live, “in accordance with the second law” of thermodynamics. Elsewhere he referred to a "cosmic egg"; i.e., a primordial universe which existed prior to this one. Two objections immediately stand out. The first is that there is, of course, no available evidence for this “primordial universe” of higher order than ours. The second is that even if it had existed, and had broken down to become our known universe, it is evident that the primordial universe was also governed by the very same laws of thermodynamics. That is, it was not eternal either, nor could have formed by natural processes. So he succeeded only in pushing the problem one step back. One author referred to this kind of reasoning as “mental gymnastics.”

Another point should be made concerning physical reality. Evolutionary thought has been continually presented as fact in our society. One result of this effort is the now generally accepted notion that the natural tendency of matter is to spontaneously organize into higher states of complexity. One can only wonder at the persistence of this popular myth, since well-known principles of physics dictate the exact opposite. The second law of thermodynamics states that the natural tendency of physical things, in any spontaneous process, is to move towards equilibrium: to break down, wear out, fall apart and go to its most probable condition. This principle was recognized over 150 years ago, has been tested repeatedly since, and has not been contradicted in any recorded experiment in the history of science. An example may help to illustrate the difference between physical laws and popular mythology.

If you dump a box full of building blocks onto the floor, they will not arrange themselves into organized structures of high complexity. And if someone were to organize them so, the natural tendency would be for the blocks to disorganize — eventually the structures would come apart. To put together any complex structure, an intelligently guided process is necessary. Spontaneous processes, unguided by intelligently developed f programs, only break down complex structures. Thus, in the light of the second law of thermodynamics, the idea that chemicals floating freely in the ocean could organize themselves by natural processes into a living cell is patently absurd. Further, the belief that a single cell could have spontaneously advanced in complexity and organization into all the higher forms of life is also found to be untenable. The astronomer Fred Hoyle has even likened these ideas to the chances of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and constructing a Boeing 747 airplane.

Some have sought to counter this use of the second law by imagining that the energy of the sun could perhaps drive the evolutionary process forward. Is the sun's energy really sufficient to overcome the second law? By itself, no. If there is a mechanism available to harness this energy, such as a solar panel, and if there is a program to direct that energy, then yes, organization and construction of complex structures can occur. However, until all the equipment is together in one place and functioning properly, no benefit will be gained from the energy. For instance, if only 1/3 of the biological parts necessary for a plant's photosynthesis is present, the energy of the sun will be of no help. The fact of the matter is that sunlight itself only breaks things down, in accordance with the second law, unless some means is present to convert the energy into useful work.

These statements can be tested by setting objects such as bricks, metal parts and other construction materials in the sun to see whether they break down or organize into higher states of complexity. Another test could be pouring gasoline on the objects and lighting it. Energy will be released, but no structures of high complexity will emerge. Some may object that biological entities cannot be compared with non-biological materials. In that case, we can alter the experiment by running through a blender leaves, grass, mold and other living things, sterilizing them, sealing them within an airtight transparent container, and setting the container in sunlight. Since the biological forms are no longer living, and thus any mechanisms they may have had to convert energy into work are no longer functioning, it is obvious the sun's light will never cause them to organize into more complex structures. These tests may appear ridiculous, but they are mentioned to point out just how nonsensical it is to believe that sunlight and natural processes could produce instruments of complex design like those existing in living things.

Another evolutionary response is to mention crystals, but this is another misunderstanding. In crystal formation, the molecules attain their most stable arrangement, and the repeating pattern they form is inert, capable in itself of no function. Moreover, when a crystal is broken up, the smaller pieces are chemically and physically identical to the original. Living things are none of the above. Firstly, because they are not in any way stable, but rather constantly functioning. The nature of their parts is like a constant juggling act; when the molecules of an organism reach a stable condition, that organism is dead. Secondly, living things do not consist of repeating patterns, but of hosts of unique, complex components. Finally, when a part from a living being is broken up, such as a functional protein or gene, the smaller pieces each contain only a fraction of the original information. They are not chemically or physically identical to the original. Thus, to compare crystals and living organisms as if they could be formed by similar processes is illogical. Crystals are the result of molecules moving toward stability and an inert state, while living things are functioning, dynamic and highly complex.

The second law of thermodynamics, then, states that the natural tendency of spontaneous processes is to cause structures to break down and move towards randomness, equilibrium. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, claims that chemicals spontaneously organized into a complex living organism, and that this single cell developed by spontaneous processes into more and more complex forms of life, including humans. One of these statements is incorrect. One may hold to the belief that perhaps somehow the "molecules to man" theory is correct, and that there may be some unknown exceptions to the second law, but again, this would be a statement of faith, not fact. A statement of fact is that after a century and a half of careful measurement, the second law has never been observed to be incorrect, nor are any exceptions known.

Can Creation Defend Itself Against Knowledgeable Evolutionists?

Dialogue Between Creationist Scientists And Evolutionist Scientists

Luther Sunderland, a scientist accepting creation, has published a series of interviews with officials of museums which have some of the largest fossil collections in the world: Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in NYC, David Raup of the field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, and anthropologist David Pilbeam of Yale's Peabody Museum. He also interviewed the New York State Education Department's expert on paleontology, Donald Fisher. The interviews are interesting because, since Sunderland was rather informed in these matters, the officials could not get away with saying irresponsible things; so the statements they made were often quite candid. When Patterson was asked about the possibility of the DNA code originating by chance, he replied simply that it could not have. Eldredge likewise stated he would not try to argue that the code had in fact originated by chance. When various officials were asked if they knew of any transitional forms, Patterson’s answer was, “No, I don’t, not any that I would try to defend. No.” David Raup responded to the question with literal silence. Donald Fisher attributed the lack of transitions to “bad luck,” and David Pilbeam knew of no example which he could affirm as an intermediate with confidence. As for the alleged “missing links” known as the Australopithecines (including A. afarensis, i.e. “Lucy”), Pilbeam was uncommitted, one official declined to give an opinion and the other who was asked stated only, “There is no way of knowing if it is ancestral to anything or not.” The renowned “horse series,” put forth as showing the evolution of the horse, was likewise not regarded as being convincing. Eldredge made the statement during his interview that he thought that it was “lamentable” that the horse series has been “presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook.” These five interviews can be found in libraries throughout the country (just ask for the ERIC microfiche document ED 228 056), and show fairly well how bankrupt evolutionary theory is under scrutiny. Indeed, it is legitimate to ask if evolution can be defended against knowledgeable anti-evolutionists.

It is true, though not well known, that a growing number of biologists, geologists, geneticists and many other types of scientists who have actually considered the evidence have concluded that macro-evolutionary theories are untenable. The reason for this can be seen by reviewing the recent history of the subject. Around 1960, relatively few scientists believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Then in 1961, a book was published by Henry Morris called The Genesis Flood. Morris had believed while in college that evolution was Elohiym’s way of creating, until he ran across some literature that came against the theory. His interest was stirred. He responded first by doing a somewhat exhaustive biblical study of the verses that speak of Elohiym’s creation, and became convinced that evolution could not possibly be reconciled to the Scriptures. One must believe either the theory or the Word of Elohiym. Next, he searched out the facts, and became equally convinced that macro-evolution is scientifically unsound. Many facts are against it, and no unambiguous evidence actually establishes it as anything more than a vague hypothesis.

The book presents a reasonable case, well documented, in favor of a literal six-day creation within recent times, geologically speaking (on the order of ten thousand years). A lot of people were rather encouraged to find there is really no scientific reason to doubt Genesis after all. Even more interesting, however, was that it was a strong enough case to convince a number of scientists of various fields to reject evolutionary theories, and accept a creationist interpretive framework. By the early 1970s they numbered in the hundreds, and many began to form associations.

Throughout the 1960s, the movement went by and large ignored by the evolutionary scientists. When it began to pick up momentum, however, some became alarmed. One of the first public responses was to challenge the creationists to debate the subject openly on college campuses. Morris was asked in 1972 to participate in a debate: and he testified that though he had no experience in formal debates, and though he was unsure of what kind of new evidence the evolutionists might have to present, he accepted. It was in the month of October in Kansas City, Missouri, and proved to be a clear enough defeat for evolution that even the school paper declared that the creationist side had presented the stronger case.

During the 70s, creation/evolution debates on college campuses were fairly common. Was creation able to withstand informed evolutionists? The June 15, 1979 issue of The Wall Street Journal carried a front page article speaking of the impact of creationist scientists. In the article, the evolutionist Robert Sloan, Professor of Paleontology at the U. of Minnesota, was quoted as conceding that “the creationists tend to win” the debates. In fact, Joe Felsenstein in American Scientist expressed his annoyance at how it seemed that a number of evolutionist biologists could be “reduced to babbling” in creation/evolution debates.

Then in October of 1981, a debate between the creationist biochemist Duane Gish and the evolutionist biochemist Russel Doolittle was taped for national broadcasting. According to a report in Science, Gish routed Doolittle. It was so embarrassing for the evolutionists that in a meeting of the National Academy of Science in which the debate was discussed, all but one voice agreed that “debating with the creationists should be avoided.” There have been some debates held since then, but the general trend has been to do just that – avoid it. The tactic since then has been to publish articles in scientific and popular magazines against creation, since most magazines are almost sure to refuse to print creationist responses. In fact, if a printing company which deals in scientific books were to publish my evidence by creationists against evolution, they would risk being boycotted by the majority of the scientific community. Such reactions indicate that Genesis has been rejected not because of careful examination of the evidence, but rather due to closely guarded philosophical beliefs.

Besides the creationist scientists, there are other scientists who have been honest enough to express their doubts. One example is the molecular biologist Michael Denton, who in a recent book describes the mounting evidence against evolutionary theories. Near the end he points out, “Two fundamental Darwinian claims: 1) The concept of continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and eventually leading back to a primeval cell; and 2) the belief that all the design of life has resulted from a blind random process; neither have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.” Later he adds, “Contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck more rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach.”

Many, however, have not been so honest; and there are numerous accounts of evolutionary biologists ignoring facts, distorting facts and openly lying. Niles Eldredge, in his interview with Luther Sunderland, stated that in evolutionary stories, “you are only limited by your own imagination and the credulity of your audience.” Apparently, then, many are being overly credulous in accepting unsupported evolutionary stories.

A more critical approach reveals the claim that science has consistently supported evolution to be misinformed. In the late 1800s, the basis of heredity was unknown. It is now understood to be genetic; however, the message of genetics turned out to be one of stasis, not of gradual and constant change. Darwinists once assumed that cells were “simple,” but discoveries since the introduction of the electron microscope show that this assumption was grossly in error: living cells are now known to depend upon a dazzling array of complex components that, in Darwin’s day, could not have been guessed at. Modern discoveries of the molecular basis of biology have not at all been supportive of evolution The structure and function of hundreds of molecular systems have been described; yet evolutionary origins have not even been addressed for any of them, let alone solved. Paleontology was one field of which something was known; yet the evidence from fossils was explained away in Origins by insisting that the record was “incomplete.” Fossil discoveries of this century have rendered this explanation untenable: the record can now be considered largely complete, yet the gaps between the major groups of organisms remain.

If the most vital fields of science pertinent to evolution (i.e., genetics, molecular biology and paleontology) were either unknown to, or generally dismissed by, Darwin, then upon what was the acceptance of evolution based? Apparently, it was on philosophical grounds, plus certain misconceptions. The situation is the same today. Evolution is largely accepted without question, while the concept of creation by an intelligent Designer is widely rejected on philosophical, rather than empirical, grounds.

In the final analysis, the facts speak for themselves. Certainly no one has ever observed a macro-evolutionary transition taking place; no one has any hard evidence that one ever has taken place, and no one knows how it could have happened even if it did take place! Consider these two statements: Errol White, an expert on fishes, in the presidential address to the Linnaen Society of London said, “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing . . . .” Later, he said, “I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” And Earl L. Core, the chairman of the Department of Biology at West Virginia University, stated, “We do not actually know the phylogenic history [the origin and descent] of any group of plants and animals, since it lies in the indecipherable past”

What Do the Scriptures Say?

Concerning Theistic Evolution

There are those who hold the doctrine that Elohiym was the Originator and guiding hand in organic evolution. It is certainly true that the Creator could have chosen that means to create if He had wanted to, and it is equally true that it would no doubt have necessitated an all-powerful intelligent being to have engineered such a feat. Yet it must still be faced that evolutionary theory is contrary to the facts of nature and irreconcilable with the Scriptures. Since the former point has been touched upon already, we shall now consider the latter.

To begin with, it is evident that Christ held the accounts in the Old Testament to be literal historic events. Not only did the Messiah refer to these events, but He elaborated on the details for our instruction: Mark 10:6-9 (from Genesis 1:27; 2:23-24), Matthew 23:35 (from Genesis 4:8), Matthew 24:37-39 (citing Genesis 6 and 7), and Luke 17:28-32 (referring to Genesis 19:23-26), to name a few examples. He said Himself about what Moses wrote, “But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:47; see also Luke 16:27-31).

It is also clear that the New Testament writers took literally the events recorded in the Old Testament, which stands to reason since they certainly would have believed what Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) believed: II Peter 2:5 & Hebrews 11:7, II Peter 2:6 & Jude 7, Hebrews 11:3 & II Corinthians 4:6 (from Genesis 1), Hebrews 11:4 & I John 3:12 (Genesis 4:4-8), Hebrews 11:5 (Genesis 5:22-24), and I Timothy 2:13,14 (Genesis 2:7,18-22).

The attitude of some is that the first few chapters of Genesis, while declaring that the Creator did make heaven and earth, are meant to be taken symbolically. Thus they seek to reconcile the theory of evolution with the general idea of the Scriptures. It is also claimed by some that the “days” referred to in Genesis 1 represent extremely long periods of time, perhaps even geological periods. One question that comes to mind with such an idea is this: If the word “day” is meant to be taken symbolically, how are the words “evening” and “morning” to be taken? It would seem more reasonable to conclude that the phrase “the evening and the morning were the first day” is intended to be understood literally.

Another problem with this viewpoint is that the developments of the creation period contradict the order of events as postulated by evolutionary theory. While it is true that the Genesis narrative relates how sea creatures preceded land animals which were followed by humans, an order compatible with evolutionary chronology, yet it also states that winged fowl appeared before reptiles (evolution theory states that reptiles were ancestral to birds), land plants were created before marine life (according to the theory sea organisms pre-date land plants by many millions of years), and the earth existed before the sun. In fact, the Scriptures tell us that even trees were around before either the sun or the moon. Taking these events symbolically does not change their order.

The words of the Creator Himself leave little room for such an interpretation. Yahveh told Israel to do all their work during the first six days of the week, resting on the seventh, “for in six days Yahveh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:8-11) A symbolic interpretation here would make very little sense. Are we supposed to work for six extremely long periods of time and then rest for one multi-million year period? Moreover, Yeshua's statement that the first male and female were made "in the beginning of the creation" (Mark 10:5-6) is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the first humans appeared perhaps several hundred thousand years ago after billions of years of evolutionary development (i.e., in about the last 1/100 of 1% of time since the beginning of creation).

It should be born in mind also that although some portions of the scriptures are certainly speaking in a symbolic sense, yet it is other passages from the Scriptures that enable one to rightly divide the Word to receive the intended message. If Genesis were meant to be understood in a sense other than that which one would extract by any straightforward reading of it, then other passages should indicate that. Since this is not the case, we can either believe it as it is written, or else give it our own private interpretation, which we are exhorted not to do. (See II Peter 1:20.)

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that ancient peoples were any less intelligent than we. Therefore, since evolutionary ideas can be taught even to children, there is no reason to believe the early Israelites were too simple to understand these concepts. Nor is there any basis for supposing they could not have grasped the notion of an earth existing for vast ages before humans appeared. Further, it is an error to believe these details were too insignificant for Elohiym to bother to tell us, since the subject of origins is of such primary importance as to be the very first message found in His Word. The fact that these concepts are absent is thus powerful evidence that they are incompatible with the Holy Scriptures.

It is certainly true that no one who believes that the earth is billions of years old, or that all living organisms are related by evolution, holds such ideas based on Scripture. Instead, these concepts are based on theories of men, many of whom were and are openly hostile to the Scriptures. Having first accepted interpretations of data put forth by fallen humans, people proceed to squeeze and conform the Scriptures to fit these ideas. This is a very dangerous way to deal with Elohiym's Word. If we are committed to the conviction that the Holy Scriptures are the very Word of Elohiym, that they are inspired by His Spirit (II Peter 2:21), and that they are given to us so that we can have the truth to believe (II Timothy 3:16), then we will not want to add to, nor take away from, His Word. (See Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6 and Revelations 22:18,19.)

One of the most serious violations against the Scriptures caused by the theistic evolution doctrine is that it negates the atoning work of the Messiah. If there is any statement by which Christian faith can be known and with which all Christians are supposed to agree, it is that Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 & II Corinthians 5:14,15). He gave Himself as an offering for our sins as was prophesied (Isaiah 53:5-10), dying to pay the price for our sins (I Corinthians 15:3). The reason for this is that death is the result of sin. Sin is why death came into the world originally (Romans 5:12-21; 6:16, 21, 23). All have sinned, and thus all are worthy of death (Romans 5:12). And a man worthy of death cannot die for someone else's sins, because he is condemned to die for his own sins. Only someone who had not committed sin could die for our sins, since not being worthy of death he would have a life to make payment in our place. This person is, of course, Yeshua (Hebrews 2:9,14,15).

The point of this discussion is that if the sin of man had been pre-dated by many millions of years of life, death, and even the extinction of whole species, then death is not the result of sin. Death would be merely an incidental fact of nature, and sin just something that everyone has done; and thus Yeshua’s sacrifice would have been in vain. It would thus not be true that He died for our sins, since there would be no reason to believe that anyone dies because of sin. It now becomes clear who the author of this doctrine is (John 8:44).

The theory that blind, random processes have formed the heaven, the earth, and all things therein is certainly one of the boldest claims ever made in modern science, as well as being one of the least substantiated. From the astonishing complexity of single cells and the engineering marvels of individual organs of the body, to the characteristics of our planet (e.g., that the earth ‘‘just happens” to be of precisely the proper composition, mass, atmospheric content and pressure, distance from the sun, and a host of other details necessary to support life ), creation clearly manifests the handiwork of an intelligent Designer. Instead of evolution being a factually based explanation for the existence of things as it is purported to be, it seems to be rather a means to rationalize away the idea of an Almighty Maker to whom we must give account, and a rallying point for the unbelievers to mock the Scriptures. In fact, as implausible and unfounded as so many of the evolutionary claims are, it seems almost certain that if the Scriptures teach evolution, it would be met with the same ferocious ridicule that special creation receives today.

It comes as no surprise that society’s acceptance of the theory of evolution has been directly or indirectly the cause of so much godlessness in this century, knowing that its source has been “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:2) When faith towards the Creator and Ruler is forsaken, respect towards His rules goes with it. And this is, of course, exactly what has happened. Anyone who doubts that agnosticism has been a result of the acceptance of evolution should call to mind that the very term “agnostic” was coined by one of the most famous nineteenth century defenders of Darwin and his theory, Thomas Huxley. And his grandson Julian Huxley even went so far as to boldly state that Darwin had removed the idea of God from the sphere of rational thinking.

Looking at the evidence, however, a different picture emerges. The facts of the living world do not offer a message of gradual transformation from one kind of organism into another, but rather of stasis, and of discontinuity (i.e., gaps) between the major groups of living things. Moreover, the Scriptures declare the same message – reference to organisms reproducing “after their kind“ is made numerous times in Genesis.

We can conclude, then, that while the Scriptures, and the amazing complexity of the natural world, give testimony to an all-knowing and all powerful Creator, the theory of evolution finds nothing on which to establish its major tenets. There remains no reason to shrink back from this conclusion to compromise with a theory which seems to have only produced corrupt fruit (Luke 6:43). One would be hard pressed to think of a single good thing that the theory of organic evolution (from molecules to man) has produced.

The apostle Paul many years ago gave a definition of faith by saying that it is “the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) It is true that no human was around to watch the Creator speak the heaven and earth into existence. It is equally true that no one was present to witness four-footed mammals evolve into whales, nor any other of the many theorized transitions. Yet since three of the most obvious features of the living world are discontinuity, stasis and design, reason compels one towards a Creator. (Romans 1:20) Nevertheless, we all do have a choice. Creation is indeed something received by faith, but evolution is something every bit as much received by faith. To believe that the development from inorganic molecules to all living organisms by evolutionary means is a historic certainty, and something firmly established by fact, is erroneous, to say the least. There is hardly any portion of the theory that is not fraught with difficulties and hotly contested even within evolutionary scientific circles.

Thus we have a choice of whether to believe what men are not sure about, or to believe what is stated in the Word of Elohiym. To illustrate this point, consider the following two statements. The first was made by the paleontologist Colin Patterson, author of a 1978 book on evolution. Giving a lecture at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he related to the audience how it had recently occurred to him that, after studying the subject of evolution for twenty years, he still knew nothing about it. He then asked his audience the following:

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school.’”

The second statement is what Yeshua Himself testified about the Scriptures:

"Sanctify them through Thy truth. Thy Word is truth." (John 17:17)