Creation VS. Evolution

1
Creation VS. Evolution

• Introduction
• Design
• First law of thermodynamics
• Second law of thermodynamics
• Bio-genesis
• Living animals
• Dead animals (fossils)
• The theory of evolution keeps evolving
• Cause and effect
• Extinction, natural selection and survival of the
  fittest
• Life, there is more to it than material

• Welcome to the new Ablaze. Here in this little
  section, now under construction, we will be
  discussing a new topic, Creation versus Evolution.

2
Introduction
Creation Model What we observe today is the
result of intelligent design, intelligent
planning and purpose. A designer and planner used
means beyond the natural laws of science
(supernatural). Matter, energy and life
originated at a point in time and originated from
a supernatural source. Plants and animals are
offspring of parents of the same kind they do
not have a common ancestor. Plants and animals
were created instantly. Humans were created
instantly as humans as male and female, humans
are not related to apes. Evolution Model What
we observe today is the result of chance events
and long periods of time. There is no design and
thus no designer behind anything in the Universe.
Everything originated by way of natural processes
subject to the natural laws of science over
billions of years. The idea of supernatural
intervention is rejected. Plants and animals are
offspring from a common ancestor. (Note a few
evolutionists say God used Evolution. When I say
"evolutionist" in this paper, I imply people who
deny God's existence. However for Theistic
evolutionists, this paper intends to demonstrate
that if God did use evolution to create, there is
no scientific evidence that He did).
index
3
Design
In my opinion, the Universe is clearly the result
of intelligent design, plan and purpose. The
Universe is incredibly orderly and complex. This
is not the result of chance natural events, it is
the result of an intelligent designer. Consider
the microscopic world of the atom with the
precise mass ratio of the electron to the proton,
or consider the large domain of our solar system
with the precise masses and orbits of the
planets. Consider photosynthesis, human
reproduction, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys,
eyes etc. The conclusion that these complex
systems are result of an intelligent designer
requires much less faith than the idea it arose
by time and chance. I have read a lot of
evolutionist literature, and I have never seen an
explanation of how complex organs systems
evolved. THINK! How could something like human
reproduction have evolved? How did half the
population evolve male systems, and the other
half evolve female systems that work together so
precisely and in such incredible complexity to
produce a baby? Mt. Rushmore, as you probably
know, consists of the facial images of four ex
Presidents on the side of a mountain. Suppose a
tour guide told his tour group that those faces
are "the result of billions of years of nature,
such as glaciers, lighting and erosion." How long
would the tour guide keep his job? What would the
tour group think? He'd be fired by lunch time and
his tour group would think he was insane! Those
images obviously required planning, design and an
artist. Suppose an anatomy teacher at your
school taught that human faces are "the result of
billions of years of nature, such as mutations,
natural selection etc." How long would this
anatomy professor keep his job? He would feel
very secure in his job and might make Dean! The
anatomy professor who taught that the human body
appears to be the result of an intelligent
design, is the one that potentially would be
fired.
index
4
Design (Continued)
Look at your computer. Suppose I tried to
convince you that a glass factory, a plastic
factory, a metal factory, a paint factory, and a
silicon factory all exploded, started on fired
and mixed together. The result of this explosion,
chemical reaction and time was your computer. You
would never believe it. Your intellect and logic
would cause you to passionately deny an
explanation that an explosion and mixing of
chemicals and time could ever produce something
as functional and orderly like a computer. Don't
let anyone convince you that your body is the end
product of an explosion, the mixing of chemicals
and time. Your body is infinitely more complex
than your computer, that is because it was made
by a smarter designer!
index
5
First Law of Thermodynamics
Ask an atheist to explain how they think the
Universe originated. Did all the energy and
matter in the Universe create itself by natural
processes? The First Law states energy and matter
are neither created nor destroyed. Atheist
beliefs contradict this basic law of science.
Creationists argue that energy and matter had a
supernatural origin. This position does require
faith, but it is in conjunction with the First
Law and thus requires less faith than the
atheist's position that it created itself from
nothing. Imagine that I could create a very
special box. This box is sealed so that nothing
can enter it from the outside, and there is
nothing inside the box to begin with. If we came
back to that box in 20 billion years, would there
be anything inside of it? The First Law of
Thermodynamics says there will be nothing inside
of that box. Matter and energy do not appear from
nothing. An atheist may say that since this
entire Universe came from self created matter and
self created energy, it is possible an entire
Universe may exist in that box.
index
6
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Question for atheists...did all the energy and
matter in the Universe increase in complexity and
order on its own? The Second Law states that in a
closed system (like the Universe, the earth is
not a closed system) over time, energy will
become less available, systems will become more
disordered and entropy will increase. This Law
explains that the Universe is running out of
available energy (energy that can do work, like
gasoline, the heat produced by gasoline's use is
energy...but it can't do any work). To believe
the Universe originated as a compact bundle of
matter that expanded (Big Bang), and created an
orderly, energy filled Universe violates the 2nd
Law. The 2nd Law teaches the Universe is
increasing in entropy (greater disorder over
time). Creationists believe a supernatural
entity, working outside the natural laws of
science gave order and available energy to the
Creation. This requires faith, but much less
faith than the belief that order and available
energy appeared by chance. AN ADDITIONAL
IMPORTANT THOUGHT ON ANSWERING HOW DID THE
UNIVERSE GET HERE? There really are only four
possible answers to the question of "How did the
Universe get here?"Those four are listed
below1) The Universe is not real, it is just an
illusion. Some, not many people believe this. The
predictability of the Universe make this a belief
that is rejected by most people. Plus, people who
believe this look both ways before crossing a
street. Those cars are not illusions to them! 2)
The matter and energy that make up the Universe
had a beginning, but without supernatural
intervention. This answer violates the 1st Law of
Thermodynamics. It believes matter and energy
appeared from nothing. 3) The Universe is
eternal, it has always existed. This violates the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Since we know matter
and energy are subject to entropy (greater
disorder over time) matter and energy cannot be
eternal! How could something eternal be
"decaying?" 4) The Universe had a beginning and
a supernatural force or entity was behind it.
This explanation satisfies the mystery of
apparent design, and the mystery of the origin of
energy and matter. Read on and see how it answers
the question of the origin of life!
index
7
Bio-genesis
Remember some of your Biology classes? Early in
the semester the teacher taught you that
spontaneous generation was impossible
(Spontaneous generation was a belief that life
originated from nonliving things). People used to
believe that bacteria could originate from broth,
that rats could originate from garbage and
maggots could originate from rotting meat. Over
130 years ago, Louis Pasteur conducted
experiments that demonstrated the folly of
spontaneous generation. Later in the semester
your teacher taught you evolution. Allow me to
quote from a current Biology text book "Life
cannot arise by spontaneous generation from
inanimate material today, so far as we know, but
conditions were very different when Earth was
only a billions years old. In that ancient
environment, the origin of life was evidently
possible and it is likely that at least the early
stages of biological inception were inevitable."
Campbell, Neil "Biology," 1987, page 504. Do
you see what this author did? He admitted
spontaneous generation is impossible today, but
he puts his faith in the belief that the early
earth had different conditions in order for life
to originate from inanimate material. Statements
similar to the one in Neil Campbell's text are
very intellectually dishonest. Any person seeking
scientific explanations to difficult questions
should not accept an explanation that clearly
violates a law of science in order to uphold a
person's bias. Mr.. Campbell knows Biogenesis
presents a very significant stumbling block to
his pro-evolution faith, since scientific
(observed) knowledge tells us that life does not
arise from dead matter. When his text brings him
to explaining life's origin what does he tell the
students? He starts by telling them the truth
that life does not arise from dead things today,
but billions of years ago life arise from dead
things was "evidently possible and "inevitable."
Decide for yourself, but I feel Neil Campbell
when confronted with a scientific law that
contradicts his world view (perhaps atheistic),
would rather violate the scientific law than
acknowledge that supernatural intervention is a
possible explanation for the origin of life. What
Mr.. Campbell wrote is not education, it is not
science, it is Neil Campbell's biased
unscientific opinion. I encourage you, though, to
decide for yourself. The origin of life question
is covered in detail in Dr. Mark Eastman's book
"The Creator Beyond Time and Space," which I will
mail to you if I get an address from you.
index
8
Bio-genesis (Continued)
Many people think life was once created in a test
tube from chemicals and energy in the 1950's.
This is known as the Miller-Urey experiment
(which is covered in detail in Eastman's book).
Here is what occurred. They sparked ammonia,
methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it, and
ran it through a trap (do you think the early
earth had traps and condensers? The samples had
to be isolated from the spark because a second
spark would have destroyed any molecules that
were formed). The results of these experiments
were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few
amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be
called the building blocks of life. But it is
either gross ignorance or a lie to say they
created life in this experiment. Life requires
many things. Long amino acids chains make
proteins...chains in the proper order and shape.
Miller's experiment did NOT produce any chains.
Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any
experiment produced DNA or RNA from base
materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been
produced. A cell membrane has never been
produced. The faith that even one protein arose
by chance is tremendous. Lets look at statistics.
Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids,
just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain
of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino
acids makes up a protein. Humans have 20
different types of amino acids that make up our
proteins, and the average human protein is 400
amino acids long. Remember, the arrangement of
these amino acids is crucial to the function of
the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it
does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is
worthless chemical junk. Imagine many box cars
at a train station, and these box cars are made
up of twenty different colors. The owner of the
station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box
cars long, and you are to pick the combination of
colored box cars, but if it is not the order he
has in mind (and he didn't tell you it) he will
fire you. What are the odds you will get the box
cars in the right order? They are the same odds
the amino acids will align themselves by chance
to make one protein in you. The odds are 20 to
the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the
520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros!
You have better odds of winning California Super
Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of
one protein in your body having the amino acids
being properly aligned by chance. The odds are
really much worse because the amino acids must be
left handed, they must form a chain "in series,"
no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are
wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you
need an oxygen free environment, etc etc. And
remember, this is for just one protein. Your body
has countless trillions of proteins. The model
that a brilliant designer made proteins requires
much less faith than to trust random chance and
natural processes.
index
9
Living Animals
QUESTION IS CREATION OR EVOLUTION SUPPORTED BY
WHAT IS OBSERVED IN LIVING ANIMALS? The Creation
Model predicts animals will reproduce after their
own kind. The Evolution Model predicts that all
plants and animals came from a common ancestor.
What is observed every day with living animals?
Your parents were human, your grandparents were
human.....etc, etc etc..that is what is observed
and recorded. Dogs make dogs, hogs make hogs,
frogs make frogs, cats make cats, rats make rats
(especially in New York) bats make bats. Every
birth since recorded time has supported the
creation model. The foundation for science is
observation. What is observed? The Creation model
is what is observed, animals producing their own
kind.
index
10
Dead Animals (Fossils)
The fossils will be as easy to classify as
living forms of plants and animals. There will be
variation within forms, but no transitional
evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to
amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to
mammal. The characteristics of the fossils will
be stasis (stay the same) and sudden appearance
(no transitional forms). Evolution Model
Prediction The fossils will show the stages
through which one type of animal or plant changed
into a different type. Fossils should show the in
between characteristics of presumed common
ancestors (a leg becoming a wing, a scale
becoming a feather). A series of links would be
expected to be seen in fossils. Some quotes for
you "No real evolutionist uses the fossil record
as evidence in favor of evolution over creation."
Quote by Mark Ridley, zoologist, New Science
magazine, June 1981 page 831. "The fossil record
with its abrupt transitions offers no support for
gradual change..." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural
History, June-July 1977, page 22. "The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
data only at the tips and nodes of their
branches the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen
Jay Gould, Natural History Magazine, May 1977,
page 14.
index
Challenge
11
Challenge
The next time you see a case made for a human
ancestor, determine what the actual fossil
evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the
conclusions fit the data. Recently from a piece
of one shin bone, the "scientists" told us what
this "ancestor" looked like, how he lived, where
he lived and how long ago he lived. Decide for
yourself if you think that a piece of one shin
bone can objectively tell you that much
information, or is it someone's imagination that
takes a little data (one shin bone) and turns it
into a human ancestor or a "missing link."
(Remember, there is a great variety within a
species. A pro football player has bigger thicker
shin bones than a child, but they are both
human).
index
12
The Theory of Evolution Keeps Evolving
It is true that there a couple of different
Creation theories circulating today. Some people
think God used evolution to create. Some believe
in two creations, (the Gap Theory). Both of these
ideas are new, unbiblical and unscientific (they
do not comply with observable evidence). The
literal account of Genesis (what I believe) is
thousands of years old and has not changed for
thousands of years. It is also true that just
because many theories may exist to explain
something, does not mean that every explanation
is false. The general point of the Theory of
Evolution is that life originated as single
celled organisms and over time became all the
living things we see today. All evolutionists
seem to agree with that. The science end of that
conclusion is the mechanism. It is with the
science end that the evolutionists disagree
vehemently with each other. My teachers never
told me that the "scientists" disagreed on the
mechanism of evolution, I had always been lead to
feel comfortable that the "scientists" agreed on
how evolution occurred. However the students and
public are never told about these conflicts. It
is similar to a family fight being kept private.
However I feel the ramifications are so
important, that all students should be told about
it. Students should ask their instructor "Which
Theory of Evolution are you teaching us?"
Remember, the science of Evolution is the
mechanism. Mechanism 1 was Darwin's, also know
as Darwinian Evolution or Gradualism, or think of
"slow" evolution. Darwin proposed animals evolved
into other animals by small, gradual steps. There
are two problems with this, no living evidence
and no fossil evidence (as previously discussed).
Many evolutionists recognize this problem. One
evolutionist who recognizes this very problem is
Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of Geology at
Harvard, and perhaps the most prominent
evolutionist in the United States. Dr. Gould and
others had one of three choices to make regarding
the empirical evidence
index
13
The Theory Keeps Evolving (Continued)
1) Hold onto Gradualism despite the lack of
evidence to support it. 2) Accept the Genesis
account that an intelligent designer instantly
created plants and animals and these plants and
animals would reproduce after their own kind.3)
Reject Gradualism and come up with a new theory.
What do you think they chose? If you guess 3
you are correct. A new Theory arose. This Theory
is called "Punctual Equilibrium," a big long
scary word that means the changes happened too
fast to be observed. If you inquire into this, be
ready to be "comforted" by the response "you
must understand...fast in Evolutionary terms can
be millions of years." But don't lose focus!
Whether these "fast" changes occurred over one
million or four billion years, they were still
unobserved. The foundation of science is
observation. The punctuated equilibrium camp
admit there is no observational evidence to
support their belief. Their presupposed
conclusion drives them to gloss over
observational evidence. They will not allow
anything, including evidence, to falsify their
belief that the Theory of Evolution is truth. A
third Theory of Evolution is that God used
Evolution to create. These people have the same
science problems the atheists have...no
observational evidence. They have even more
problems (if their God is the God of the Bible).
There are no verses to support their belief. They
typically will say Genesis is not literal, and
explain the original Hebrew supports this.
Unfortunately for them, the original Hebrews took
it literally and so did hundreds of generations
of Hebrew scholars after them. These people
should not be so quick to twist a clear message
by interpreting what it says in the Hebrew, when
the Hebrew experts would disagree with them. My
opinion is that peer pressure resulted in these
people's conclusions more than an in depth study
of the Hebrew language.
index
14
Cause and Effect
Cause and effect is the most basic scientific
principle. It is fundamental to all branches of
science as well as philosophy. Cause and effect
is the principle that an event which is observed,
can be traced to an event that preceded it. For
example, an observed event (an effect) could be a
house, the cause is a place to live. An observed
event could be a painting, the cause is beauty or
expression. Creationists trace the entire
Universe to a "First Cause," God. Atheists say
there was not a "First Cause," for the Universe.
Isn't it curious that Evolutionary Scientists
accept the principle of cause and effect EXCEPT
when it comes to origins? An Evolutionary
Scientist would argue that there was a cause for
a chair, but not for a human being.
index
15
Extinction, Natural Selection, and Survival of
the Fittest
Extinction does NOT support the Theory of
Evolution. It is the opposite path for evolution.
It is the path creation would predict. The Theory
of Evolution model would have validity by showing
natural process producing new animals, not
eliminating existing animals. The Creation model
would have validity if natural processes do not
produce new kinds of animals. Extinction does not
falsify the Creation model. What do we observe?
Many animal kinds going extinct, no new animal
kinds emerging. Lets look at the two models
again and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe
life started as one animal (like an amoebae) and
favorable environmental conditions produced a net
gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal
species! Creationists believe hundreds of
thousands of species were intelligently and
instantly created at the beginning of time, and
unfavorable environments has reduced this number.
Decide for yourself which model is more logical
and which model better fits observed events.
Natural Selection is a true concept. Natural
selection makes good traits dominant but does not
produce new animal kinds. Natural selection does
not produce new species, families, orders, or
classes of plants and animals. Imagine someone
having 10 children in smoggy Los Angeles. Suppose
eight of the kids have lungs that can't filter
the smog effectively, and they do not reach an
age where they can reproduce, but two kids do
have stronger lungs that allows them to reach
reproducing ages. Their genes will be exhibited
in future generations. But that gene pool is
still in human beings. Natural selection does
emphasize the better genetic characteristics in a
population, but it does not produce new animal
kinds. Survival of the fittest is a simplistic
term that everyone should admit is correct. The
term is simply an equation or a definition. For
example, it is equal to my saying "bachelors are
single men." If you are a single man, you are a
bachelor...if you are a bachelor you are a single
man. Regarding "survival of the fittest," if an
animal is surviving, that means it is fit for its
environment, if an animal is fit for its
environment that means it will survive. If a
plane load of circus animals is forced to land in
Alaska in the winter, the lions, elephants,
zebras and giraffes will soon be history. But the
penguins and polar bears live, no problem. That
is an example of survival of the fittest.
However, for validity to be given to the Theory
of Evolution, the lions would not die, but begin
producing new kinds of animals, that can live
there. The problem is, if you are unfit you die,
and you can't evolve when you are dead.
index
16
Life, There Is More to It Than Material
Lets compare life to a computer. Computers must
have proper hardware (monitors, disk drives,
keyboards) and proper software (information) in
order to operate. Likewise life at the cellular
level requires "hardware" (amino acids and
nucleic acids) and "software" (amino acids in the
proper sequence to make proteins, and nucleic
acids in the right sequence to make DNA). Much
could be written about the incredible complexity
of proteins and DNA and how unsatisfactory
"chance and time" are in explaining its origin.
THINK! For the computer example, even if you had
the proper hardware and the proper software,
would you have a functional computer? No, because
you need a source of power for the system to
operate. Now lets look at life. Suppose there was
a dead dog lying next to a living dog. How would
someone who believed only in the material world
(denying the existence of anything metaphysical
they are called "materialists) explain what the
difference is between the dead dog and the living
dog?" The unfortunate dead dog has all the proper
materials. It has the proper hardware (DNA,
proteins, organs, bones etc), and it has the
proper software (its DNA and amino acids are
properly sequenced). But the dog is dead. Why?
Creationists maintain there is more to life than
chemicals, energy and biology. There is a
metaphysical or spiritual side to life similar to
the power source of computers.
index
17
Some Brief Notes On Genesis Chapter 1
The Bible was written in its original text a very
long time ago. Many ancient writings of the Bible
exist today. Neither Christian, Jew nor atheist
disputes that. These ancient writings in Genesis
chapter one makes three statements about science,
that the authors back then would never had made
if they followed the conventional wisdom of the
world back then. But time has proven their
statements to be correct, and the popular ideas
of men wrong. Those three statements are 1) The
Universe had a beginning (Genesis 11) 2)
Continental Drift, all the dry land was gathered
in one place (Genesis 110) 3) Animals and
plants will produce offspring after their own
kind (Genesis 112, 125)
index