“Evolution and Christian Belief"
Steve spoke to our group last December on "Evolution and Christian Belief," expounding the view that the Bible account of origins is incompatible with evolution. Darwinism alleges that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years largely by means of struggle and death, but in the Biblical account, after creation was complete, God stated is was very good. Also, the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible state that death did not occur until after the first humans disobeyed God. Many times in the first chapter of the Bible, it is written that life reproduced after its kind, which is in contradiction to the evolution of one kind into another basic type.
Dr. Carter talked briefly on the age of the earth, and the importance of, and geological and fossil evidence supporting an historical Biblical flood. Overall, on logical, scriptural and scientific grounds, there is no valid compromise position on origins for those who seriously consider the Bible as the authoritative word of the Creator.
Frederick Creation Society co-founder, Bob Cooperman, addressed the group for the first time in fourteen years. Five scientific reasons for discarding the theory of macro-evolution were presented. The term “ditch” was selected to imply that it is not that the theory is perhaps broken and can be fixed, but rather that it should be thrown out because it is not supported by the evidence. Note that it is “macro” and not “micro”-evolution that is at issue.
Reason #5 – Scientific American and Discover magazines endorse it.
This was a partially but not completely sarcastic remark. The point was that these and other secular publications immediately dismiss out-of –hand anyone with creationist leanings, no matter how qualified scientifically that person may be. The example of Forrest Mims was cited. Mr. Mims, a very well-known science writer, had been given the offer to write the “Amateur Scientist” column of Scientific American around 1989 (three sample columns were actually published) but the offer was rescinded after Mims told the editor he was a creationist. Mims had never written about his views and assured the magazine that he wouldn’t put those views into his column, but the magazine refused to be “embarrassed” by having a creationist on their staff. In order to have those three sample columns published, Mims even had to sign a waiver that he would not sue the magazine for religious discrimination. Discover Magazine regularly panders to anti-religious zealots like Richard Dawkins, simply absorbing and re-radiating any argument he serves up, rather than challenging him to prove anything. Rather than rejecting such publications for their anti-Christian, anti-creationist bias, they should be read and understood by all in order to discern the facts from the assumptions.
Reason #4 – Lack of Intermediates
A few comments were made concerning what is observed in nature today and what is observed in the fossil record.
Today, nature is observed to be discrete, not continuous. Prior to the middle of the 20th Century, scientists subscribed to the “typological” model of nature, in which intermediates were completely absent. All forms of life were placed into distinct “classes” or “types,” and although variation existed within a class, no jumps from one class to another could occur. This was supported by observation, not by pre-conceived religious thought, although evolutionists in recent years have tried to ascribe religion as the motive to the scientists of the time. It was pointed out that a few exceptions may, on the surface, appear to exist. The lungfish has fins, gills and an intestine like a fish but a heart and larval stage like an amphibian. The monotremes (like the duck-billed platypus) lay eggs like reptiles but have hair and other features characteristic of mammals. These are cited by evolutionists as living examples of intermediates. However, the lungfish fish characteristics are 100% fish and the lungfish amphibian characteristics are 100% amphibian. That is, the lungfish is a mixture of fish and amphibian characteristics, not an intermediate between the two. That is, no characteristics are found that are “on their way” from being fish-like to amphibian-like. They are either fish-like or amphibian-like. They are thus a mosaic of characteristics drawn from two distinct groups. The same is true of the monotremes.
For macro-evolution to have occurred gradually, it is generally acknowledged that millions of intermediate (transitional) forms must be found in the fossil record. Only a couple of such creatures have ever been identified, and only weak cases have been made for their status as intermediates. Included in this sparse group is Archaeopteryx, but, for instance, no reasonable story can connect reptilian scales with avian feathers. Archaeopteryx appeared to be nothing more than a bird with teeth, perhaps a mosaic as found in the living examples cited above. It was also pointed out that “soft” biology makes up 99% of the biology of an organism, which is unreachable from fossils and thus not available to examine for evolutionary changes. It was mentioned that in at least one case (the coelacanth), a creature previously thought to be extinct millions of years ago appeared quite alive and quite modern in its soft biology, thus leaving open the question of whether its ancestors were as modern as itself, therefore undergoing no evolution at all. Finally, it was pointed out that when some previously unknown creature is found in the fossil record, either it already fits into an existing group or it is so different that a new group is defined (such as Hallucigenia from the Burgess Shale). That is, the “missing” links are still missing and new organisms do not fit in!
Reason #3 – Chemistry and Reversible Reactions
The proposed chemical reactions for biogenesis (non-living chemicals turning into life) in Darwin’s “warm little pond” would have begun with methane, water and ammonia combining under the action of energy (lightning) to form amino acids, the building blocks of life. This would have been a chance combination and has been experimentally verified by Fox and Miller years ago. However, the next steps of this process, leading to proteins, would have been reversible. In the presence of excess water the reactions would go in the direction opposite to that required for life. That is, instead of synthesizing proteins, the reactions would cause a protein chain to be broken down into its constituent amino acids. Even if the reactions could somehow proceed in the desired direction, the amino acids themselves sabotage the effort because randomly-produced amino acids necessarily form as a racemic mixture, that is, dextro-rotary (D) and laevo-rotary (L) amino acids form with equal probability. (The “D” and “L” amino acids differ in how they pass a beam of polarized light - “D” type bends the light to the right, “L” type bends the light to the left). The difference between “D” and “L” may not seem important, but all living cells use L-type only, so that no cell metabolism is possible with a racemic mixture. However, if chance is proposed as the mechanism, only a racemic mixture will form and be useless for metabolism in a living cell.
Reason #2 – Entropy and Order
The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is conserved. That is, one form of energy can be converted into another but not destroyed nor can new energy be created. For example, consider a walk in the park. The chemical energy from food is converted to the ordered kinetic energy (energy of motion) in each footstep, which is then partially converted into random molecular motion (heat) from ones feet into the ground. This example also illustrates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the energy in the universe available to do work is decreasing. The heat transferred to the ground in each footstep is no longer available to do work. As an aside, the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) program attempts to extract heat energy from the ocean, absorbed into the ocean from the sun. This (random) heat energy is converted to electricity (which can do useful work) but only a small percentage is even theoretically possible because of the second law.
The measure of how much energy is no longer available to do work is the quantity known as entropy. Another way of describing entropy is as a measure of disorder. As in the walk in the park, the molecular motion transferred to the ground is random or disordered. When entropy increases, order decreases and vice-versa. The only way to reverse the increase of entropy and to thus create order is by adding energy. However, as illustrated by OTEC, with its massive hardware system, this requires a machine or mechanism, adding energy in a directed fashion, not simply a raw infusion of energy. As another example, consider sunlight in abundance shining on a dead leaf. No matter how much sunlight is shining or for how long, no reduction of entropy will occur. Only if sunlight falls on a living leaf will its energy be used by the mechanism of photosynthesis to add to the order and reduce entropy.
Entropy is a statistical quantity that has an average value which, according to the second law, increases as time goes by, decreasing order in a (thermodynamically) closed system. Whether the system is open or closed is irrelevant to the discussion and pertains only to the source of the energy which must be added to reverse the process. In a closed system consisting of many molecules in equilibrium, the energy comes from within the system itself, so that the system becomes cooler. In an open system, the energy comes from an outside source, such as the sun. Since entropy is a statistical quantity, it is not only characterized by its average but also by deviations around its average, either up or down. That is, within a system of many molecules, some region may be increasing and some region decreasing in entropy, as long as there is an overall increase of the average, according to the second law. Not only is energy required, but this energy must be directed, by a mechanism like the leaf or the OTEC system. The key concept is that a mechanism is required to add directed energy to reduce entropy, and it must be able to “save up” the deviations below the average in some localized region of the system, thus increasing order.
As far a macro-evolution is concerned, before any living systems were present to assume the role of such machines, the accumulation of small deviations of reduced entropy would have been impossible and no spontaneous auto-organization of matter into a living system would not have occurred because the nature of molecules prior to biogenesis was the same as today, namely to push and pull other molecules by natural forces, but not to spontaneously form themselves into a machine.
Reason #1 – Molecules do not write messages
This reason is the most powerful argument against spontaneous generation and macro-evolution. However, it is also the most subtle argument. It picks up where Reason #2 leaves off, by exploiting the capabilities of matter. In a pre-biotic world, as today, non-living matter had certain properties and is defined as follows, from an Internet search on www.dictionary.com:
1. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
2. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
A similar search for the term “machine” yields:
1a. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.
1b. A simple device, such as a lever, a pulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force; a simple machine.
2. A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment.
3. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.
Note that a living system is included as an example of a machine.
Obviously, all machines are made of matter but not all matter is in the form of a machine. The connection between them requires another term, teleonomy, defined on the same website as:
“The quality of apparent purposefulness of structure or function in living organisms that derives from their evolutionary adaptation.”
By the way, catch the “spin” in the definition that links it to evolution and claims that it is only “apparent” purpose. In reality, teleonomy is synonymous with “purpose,” “plan,” “program,” “code,” etc. and therefore carries with it the idea that intelligence is behind it all.
Evolutionists claim that the existence of the DNA molecule is equivalent to the existence of the genetic code. The former is a physical quantity, the latter is a language. They claim that when the DNA molecule formed by chance processes, the genetic code “came along for the ride.” The difference between these things is at the heart of the creation/evolution debate although is too subtle for some to grasp (or to admit that they grasp if they possess an evolutionary bias). An excellent account is given by the late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, which presents the following analogy: A book, consisting of a physical system of paper and ink molecules, carries messages (information) written in some language, say English. The writer writes and the reader reads. The book is therefore an information storage and retrieval system. However, the paper and ink molecules did not create the message, but rather only serve as a physical system for carrying it. If the reader only spoke French, the message would not be received, even though the physical system exists and the message is sent. The system therefore requires a code or language with conventions agreed on by the participants: they must speak the same language or the system doesn’t work.
The application of this analogy to evolution is as follows: The DNA molecule resides within the nucleus of a living cell. The arrangement of nucleotides on the DNA molecule forms a non-random pattern, according to the genetic code. During protein synthesis, the double-stranded DNA molecule splits along the middle and nucleotides matching those on the DNA form the “messenger” RNA molecule (mRNA). The mRNA then moves from inside the nucleus, to the cytoplasm outside the nucleus, attaching itself to a ribosome molecule there. “Transfer” RNA molecules (tRNA) bring specific amino acids to the ribosome, based on the pattern along the mRNA, and forms a chain of amino acids, which is the protein corresponding to the particular sequence of nucleotides. This is a message transmission/reception system for the following simple reason: The message corresponding to a particular protein is transmitted from inside the nucleus to outside the nucleus and is received by the ribosome. If it weren’t for the ribosome actually reading the message, it could be argued that these are just patterns of ordinary matter and not messages at all. However, transmission and reception according to a language convention agreed upon in advance uses the pattern as a message, just as in the case of a book written in a given language. The message being transmitted and received is not the same as the molecule upon which it rides, just as in the case of the book. Language conventions do not arise spontaneously from non-teleonomic matter in living systems, just as they do not arise spontaneously from paper and ink molecules.
Two final points:
1. No processes observed in nature, including cellular operations, generate new information.
2. Mutation followed by selection (whether artificial or natural) can only exercise existing information, not create new information.
Thus, the observed limits to either artificial or natural selection are consistent with limits to how much a message can be modified before becoming nonsense (from macro-mutations). Macro-evolution would require massive amounts of new genetic information to be formed from the molecules themselves, which are incapable of doing so, leaving macro-evolution as an untenable position.
In the course of the meeting, two computer demonstrations were presented. In the first, mathematician John Conway’s “Game of Life” illustrated the formation of complex patterns of “X’s” on a computer display. The question of how and why this “represented” life was posed. The intent of the game was to allow a system of “communities” to evolve, some living (reducing entropy) and some dying (increasing entropy). The fallacy in logic was to ignore the fact that rules or codes were in play, not just the random pattern of X’s, so that no new information was being created and that only variation within the bounds of the rules occurred. Again, it is emphasized that patterns are not synonymous with messages.
The second demonstration was a computerized version of the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate, in which monkeys typing on an unlimited supply of paper with unlimited ink for unlimited time “created” the Psalms of David from chance, thus making David (and, of course, God) irrelevant. Two fallacies of this were observed in the simulation:
1. Each letter of Psalm 23 remained in place after a random search found it. In biogenesis, once amino acids were formed by chance, all of the remaining chemical reactions leading up to proteins would have been reversible, so that unless a mechanism was in place to retain entropy reductions, as soon as a letter would appear it would disappear, creating exactly nothing even after eons of opportunities. Since no mechanism would have existed from non-teleonomic matter before life, neither Psalm 23 nor a living system would have evolved from chance.
2. Psalm 23 formed from the random search differed from a nonsense string of letters only because of the language convention agreed upon by intelligence (information system). Thus, it didn’t evolve at all but was created by intelligence and so was life.
At the October meeting, Dr. Otto Berg gave a short talk on radio-halos believed to support a huge flood and possibly the instaneous creation of the earth. ob Scovner gave brief comments about the recent media deluge about intelligent design. Most articles and letters to the editors have not addressed scientific evidence, but have mainly been attacks on ID proponents, and alarms of dire effects should evolution no longer be the exclusive scientific view of origins taught in public schools.
When science has been presented in the general media, two frequently stated evidences for evolution have been the supposed defective design of the human eye, and gene findings. The eye however is beautifully designed and the purported over 98% concordance of chimpanzee and human genomes is greatly overestimated. Bob proposed that if these two examples are among the best defenses of Darwinism, the case for evolution seems very weak. Two articles on these subjects are attached. (Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? Genomics at ICR please note: you will be leaving FCS domain)
A film was then shown, "From a Frog to a Prince." Produced by the BBC, this gives an interesting discussion by scientists which seems to strongly support the case for intelligent design. It should be available for loan at our meetings.
At the creation meeting in July, a DVD, “Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution," Part 3" was seen and discussed. Among the creatures shown was an oyster type of shell fish. About the time its eggs are fertilized, a part of its body changes to an appearance of a worm which can be wiggled. When a particular type of fish is attracted and opens wide its mouth to eat the fake worm, the shell fish, in a split second, squirts the eggs into the fishes mouth. The eggs than attach to the gills of the fish and grow there until they are mature and can take care of themselves. There seems no way this precise relationship could have originated by a slow process of random mutations and natural selection which, in brief, is the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Among numerous other wonderful creatures on the DVD was the Archer Fish that shoots an accurate stream of water, knocking bugs that are as far as several feet away into the water. Among the great designs in this fish is the visual ability to know accurately where bugs are, by compensating for the bending of light rays in water. We will show more demonstrations of the great creative ability of God at the next meeting.
Videos and DVDs can be borrowed from the creation society.
Byers spoke to the creation society on the historical accuracy of the
first book of the Bible, Genesis. Archeological
findings show a Semetic like
Some of the archeological
discoveries support the reality of Joseph, who became second in
scholars do not accept the historicity of Joseph, the exodus
There is a large amount of information available on archeological findings at www.biblearcheology.org. The creation society has and can recommend resources on these matters.
Dr. Otto Berg sent this summary of his April 2005 talk on "Atheist Scientists and Evolution."
If the evidence and arguments for and against the theory of evolution were presented to ten independently thinking, objective persons who were totally unbiased toward that theory or the theory of Creation, they would very likely all agree that the theory of evolution is inadequately based on good science and should be re-qualified as "The Hypothesis of Evolution" The data and facts supporting the above opinion are readily available and increasing in numbers.
The problem seems to be that those data and facts are just not being received by the public, nor by our churches, nor by our public school teachers. In some cases there is evidence that the data and facts are being selectively ignored by the "hard-core evolutionists". One of the principle reasons for the above problems is that the public, in general, remains passively fixed on the false assumption that essentially all scientists accept the theory as valid and founded on good science.
An interesting factor involved here is that although the theory is principally directed at churches that proclaim a Creating God, sadly, the churches are passive in their refutings. The only effective arguments against the theory are being waged by the ATHEIST SCIENTISTS. They are not in it to defend a Creating God or Scripture because they simply do not believe in a Creating God either. They are in the fight because they deny that the theory is based on science
It should be noted that the true number of dissenting statements or quotes by scientists are not recorded nor published because there is an automatic exclusion for dissent by scientists of lesser stature because they may be literarily assaulted HOWEVER, If a Nobel Laureate makes a strong statement rejecting the theory or alluding to a Creating God, his position and respect will protect him from condemning remarks.
Here are a few typical samples of the numerous quotes from world-renowned scientists who refute the theory or have serious doubts about it. I have purposely selected quotes by professed atheists so there should be no question of bias toward acts of Creation. If the reader is interested in the full extent of these anti-theory quotes, I suggest for your research two volumes by an Attorney---W.R.BIRD---who has compiled over 5000 quotes from scientists of all disciplines in THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES REVISITED.
"----there are an increasingly number of observational facts which are
difficult to reconcile in the Big Bang Hypothesis. The Big Bang Establishment
(sarcasm intended) very seldom mentions these, and when non-believers (in the
Big Bang theory) try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment
(sarcasm intended) refuses to discuss them in a fair way. The present situation
is characterized by rather desperate attempts to reconcile observations with
the hypotheses to save the phenomenon ".PROF. HANNES ALFVEN, Nobel Prizewinner
and Physicist of the Royal Institute of Technology in
"The chance that higher life forms might have might have emerged in this
way (through evolution ) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping
through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials
therein". SIR FRED HOYLE, Professor of Astronomy at
(3) "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is CREATION. I know that this is an anathema to physicists as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it…"PROFESSOR H.S.LIPSON, An Atheist; Fellow of The Royal Society of Great Britain
(4) "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution---any one thing-ANY ONE THING that is true? I tried that question on the Geology staff of the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence! I tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists , and all I got there 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'" DR COLIN PATTERSON, Atheist,; Senior Paleontologist and Curator of the
(5) "I realize now that I have been duped into believing evolution is a fact. Would you permit me to view the evidence as a Creationist?" DR. COLIN PATTERSON His opening statement in an invited speech at a Paleontology Symposium
(6) "We're not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes, we're not evolving. There's no reason to believe we're getting bigger brains, or smaller toes, or whatever. We are what we are" PROFESSOR STEPHEN GOULD, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard
(7) "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. .I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origin of the Universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it" . STEPHEN HAWKING
Have I struggled to come up with the above quotes? Not at all !
Ask me and I will provide for you many more!
Dr. Otto E. Berg, Astrophysicist
Tricia Auxt discussed 4 areas where the fossils supposedly “prove” evolution:
- Insects are extremely complex, yet no developmental fossils exist.
- The bat is also very complex, yet evolutionists fully admit that no developmental fossils exist.
- The commonly used evolutionary explanation of the horse is extremely lacking and flawed. Evolutionists use three toed and two toed creatures to promote this evolutionary process, yet there are no progressions of fossils making that connection. In fact the fossil record doesn't even appear to have a definitive sequence of this toe development!
- Tricia also discussed the so called "human evolution" pointing out that each "step" can be classified as fully "ape", fully "human", or fully "fraud."
Jay Auxt then discussed the age of these fossils.
- Based on recent data from nationally recognized laboratories, the "millions of year" dates determined by radiometric dating of rocks contradict themselves in three different ways.
a) Overlying volcanic layers provide dates that are out of sequence,
b) data of different isochron methods contradict each other,
c) data from the isochron methods differ significantly from other methods such as helium diffusion.
- Also, based on further recent data from nationally recognized laboratories, carbon 14 data indicates that samples taken from 50 million, 100 million, and 300 million year old samples are actually all the same age; only a few thousand years old!
February creation meeting, an interesting video was shown of a panel discussion
on origins in public schools, held in
start, Nick Miller gave results of a public survey in
The panel members discussed scientific, religious, constitutional and educational aspects of origins. Only Attorney Green spoke against teaching alternatives to evolution in schools, stating it would be illegal to teach Creationism because it is a religious view. He said another problem if creation was presented, was having to decide which of the many religious views on creation would be taught. However these issues are straw men as the real interest of the other panel members and most non-evolutionists was not to teach the bible or other religious aspects of creation in public schools, but allowing the presentation of scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the alternative theory of Intelligent Design.
the video, Jay Auxt spoke about legal and school board cases concerning
evolution, such as the
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Tricia Auxt gave a lecture on caves that touched on
four major topics. The first one was a brief summary of two trips to
The second topic is the formation of caves. She briefly covered the facts that anyone can see when they enter any cave, even a commercialized one. From there she discussed the two different theories of cave formation that she labeled, “The Drip, Drip, Drop” theory and the “Catastrophic Sponge” theory. Hopefully she showed that the rapid, catastrophic theory best fits the data.
In the third section she briefly touched on human relations with caves; history, artwork, etc.
Finally the fourth point was on Speleothem (stalagmite, stalactite, columns, and flowstone) formation. This point was presented last because there is some very interesting evidence that these beautiful formations were formed after the “cave men” left their caves for more “modern” dwellings. She also talked about how the growth rates for Speleothems fluctuate, and that their rate of growth is much faster than we are usually led to believe.
meeting wrapped up with a beautiful five minute clip from “Journey into