Currently Reading The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God By Lee Strobel see related

How has Evolution come to be assumed as fact?

There are several simple forms of evidence offered as proof of evolution. The evidence can be very compelling. Evolution, once taught as theory, is today taught as fact in most public schools in the United States and much of the rest of the Western world. Once these proofs are properly presented to confirm the assumed fact of evolution, the student is then led to trust evolution to be at the basis of all other areas of science. In a society where children are taught evolution as a fact, it should not be surprising most higher education and professional organizations dismiss dissenters out of hand. With most of today’s adult population accepting evolution, there are too few people with the conviction to stand against it. The scientific community is highly prejudiced and tries to mute any of its own that counter this culture.

What is the most popular evidence for Evolution?

Proof 1: We can create life from non-life in a lab. In 1953 Stanley Miller, with the help of Harold Urey, reproduced an artificial atmosphere to simulate early earth conditions, put the right soup components into that atmosphere, then applied electricity. The result was the spontaneous organization of organic molecules.

Proof 2: Darwin’s sketch of the “tree of life” proves a similarity of kinds. From common ancestry animal life sprung up and branched out in many directions resulting in a multitude of kinds. The tree idea is reinforced with associated sketches showing similarity of kinds along any given branch. This is done by showing various kinds of primates, for example, arranged by size and body structure. It can likewise be shown with similar fish, frogs, or even snakes.

Proof 3: Embryos look alike. German biologist Ernst Haeckel produced drawings of embryos of various dissimilar animals appearing very similar at their earliest stage of development. Since life forms start out looking very similar, they must in fact be very similar.

Proof 4: The missing links have been and are being found. To evolutionary paleontologists, perhaps the most important find appearing to fill the missing gap between bird and reptile is archaeopteryx first discovered in a German quarry. The fossils of this creature show wings, feathers, and the wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings. Along the same lines are other missing links such as Java Man, archeoraptor, and bambiraptor.

How do you refute the Miller experiment?

Since this experiment was of a scientific nature, it is perhaps the easiest to refute. The experiment was based on bad science and the results were presented as bad science. The basis of the experiment was the premise that the atmosphere of the early earth was somewhat different. The atmosphere assumed for the experiment was made up of methane and ammonia. Scientists almost universally agree that earth’s atmosphere, no matter how far back in time, could never have been primarily methane and ammonia. Even if it were, the resulting spontaneous molecules generated by passing an electric charge through the atmosphere were not the building blocks of life. To say the molecules were organic does not imply life or even the building blocks of life. Rather, it implies carbon-based chemicals. The organic chemical created were actually cyanide and formaldehyde. These chemicals not only are not building blocks to life, they are deadly to life, as is the atmosphere they come from. Miller literally created embalming fluid.

How do you refute the tree of life sketch?

There are many ways to tear apart this evidence, but to use evolutionary science against itself, there are a handful of important considerations. Darwin’s theory presupposes the slow increase of organic order. Paleontologists have determined that rather than a slow increase in diversity of complex creatures, the Cambrian explosion requires a nearly simultaneous appearance of huge numbers of diverse animals about 540 million years ago. To compensate, the tree must instead become more of a bunch of bushes. The distinct gaps between kinds present a huge problem requiring links which are missing. The science of taxonomy is branch of biological science which codifies the distinctions between kinds. It’s the branch that explains differences between species, kingdoms, genus, and so forth. The very ability to distinguish distinct gaps between kinds, both in living animals and in the fossil record, in itself refutes the premise of evolution. Dating methods present a form of circular logic. Rocks are dated based primarily on fossil content. Certain types of fossils, called index fossils, are the primary instruments used for dating. Fossil layers, which is to say rock placement, in turn establishes relative fossil age. Finally, look at Darwin’s own book, Origin of Species, and consider the very requirements Darwin himself puts forward for his theory to be validated. In 1859 the minutia within a living cell was unimagined. We know today there are thousands of amino acids, DNA, RNA, and all sorts of very specialized molecular structures which are in and of themselves more complex than many complicated man-made machines.

How do you refute the similarity of embryos of unlike animals?

First Problem: In the 1860’s Ernst Haeckel’s drawing were proven false. Ignoring the truth, evolutionists persist in using his sketches as vivid proof of similarity of species at their earliest stages of development. The images showed embryos of fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human side by side at three stages of development. The similarities are supposed to support Darwin’s tree of life sketches and the idea of common ancestry. Actual photographs of embryos of these creatures do not match Haeckel’s drawings. His drawings were deliberately doctored to misrepresent the real appearance of the embryos.

Second Problem: The embryo selections were “cherry picked” to give the closest appearance of similarity. There are several classes of vertebrates, yet Haeckel only used examples from a few that came closer to providing the desired result. He then compounded similarities by “editing” the pictures.

Third Problem: Haeckel claimed the images were from the earliest stages of embryonic development. That was also untrue. His drawings were based on mid-term development when the cells have begun to develop and grow, after the first several rounds of cell reproduction and before they begin to take on truly unique appearance. During this period there is greater similarity than either early cell division or the later obvious development of body structure. For example, cell division at the first stages of development in mammals is radically different from other vertebrate classes.

Forth Problem: In 1996 Life published pictures of a human embryo at a stage which made it look as if the embryo had something resembling gills. Many modern biology books promote similar ideas about the appearance of the human embryo. Of course the folds of skin at a certain stage when the embryo is still doubled over itself may look a bit like gills, but it is a very normal stage of embryonic development. Most of us have folds in our adult skin, but no one suggests those folds could be used for breathing under water.

Fifth Problem: Our knowledge of genetics today was completely unknown in the mid-19^th century. Darwin couldn’t peer inside a cell as we can today. Had he known about the thousands of amino acids used to construct genetic material inside a living cell he might very well have come to a different conclusion. Cells are impossibly complex to be explained by random organization into hundreds of tiny organic machines, each with dozens to hundreds of molecular components.

Summary: In spite of all this many modern text books still use his drawings as proof of evolution. Evolutionists who are aware of these problems still claim that while the details contain errors, the concept is still true. It is not true. Most text books used in high schools and college biology classes still support Haeckel’s concept if not the artwork itself. Any similarities between kinds of creatures can be argued to come from similarity of design just as easily of similarity of evolutionary development. Where evolution fails, the common elements of design seem to be the only logical explanation left.

How do you refute the missing links?

Darwin said the most obvious objection to his theory was that the fossil record failed to support his theory due to its glaring systematic gaps differentiating kinds. Two years after Darwin’s book was published a fossil dubbed “archaeopteryx” was unearthed from a German quarry. Because of some of its unusual features including a tail which resembles a lizard and unusual claws, it was at first thought this animal was half-bird and half-reptile. Birds have a number of very distinct characteristics from reptiles including wings, feathers, wishbone, weight distribution, and so forth. Archaeopteryx might have some interesting and beautiful features, but it was entirely bird. Using index fossil dating, this particular bird is supposed to have later than its supposed progeny, not before. Studies have since proven this animal is a member of a now extinct group of birds.

Archaeoraptor was presented in 1999 as part bird and part dinosaur. It provided clear evidence of a missing link. Then is was proven to be a fake. A Chinese paleontologist showed a dinosaur tail had literally been glued onto the fossil of a now extinct bird. Unfortunately a lot of fake fossils are presented as new finds because they are very profitable. China is a particularly big source of fake fossils. In Florida a fossil was dubbed “bambiraptor.” It was a chicken sized dinosaur with what was purported to be turkey DNA. A reconstruction used certain bird elements, such as eagle eyes, to make it appear more birdlike. The DNA evidence, it turns out, was actually contamination from a technician’s lunch.

Java Man is thought to be the ultimate icon of the missing links. Java Man was discovered in Indonesia in 1891/92 by Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois. It was a skull fragment found among some bones by a river bank. Many people believe Java Man to have included a complete skull, smaller than modern man’s, to prove earlier man had lower intelligence. Java Man actually included only a skull cap along with a few teeth and a femur. Analysis of the skull cap shows that while the bones were from a relatively small human, the brain capacity was well within modern norms. A better find for evolutionists was Peking Man, discovered in China early in the 20^th century. From these and other specimens in different regions taxonomists have attempted to divide these finds into groupings of Neanderthal, homo erectus, and homo sapien. Modern humans are classified homo sapien. The group homo erectus is supposedly an erect man-like group. Neanderthal has an even more pronounced brow and slightly different head shape. There are a few dozen samples of these various skulls and other bones. The homo erectus and Neanderthal are supposed to have died out about 340 million years ago. Finds and dating methods employed in the last two decades have shown at least some of these samples to be much more recent. Another problem for evolutionists is that these samples have all yielded brain sizes well within the normal range of modern humans. Other bones from these bodies, when found, have shown little if any other differences from modern man. The racial variation of homo erectus and especially Neanderthal compared to homo sapien have been wildly exaggerated in artistic renderings to promote the concept of Darwin’s tree. Examination of physical evidence shows the differences between these races are superficial. Were the scientific community to promote the photographs, the public would be far more skeptical of evolutionist claims. Today, more than a few scientists believe these are all variations within the family of homo sapien and are not unique classes at all.

Was the universe caused?

The Kalam Principle says whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, thus the universe has a cause. This principle was first put forward around 400 AD by John Philoponus of Alexandria. Kalam literally means “speech” or “doctrine.” Once you reach the logical conclusion the universe was caused, then the philosophic question of why cannot be avoided.

Does beginning require cause?

In the current age of scientific enlightenment, when the very foundation of science itself is based on studying cause-effect relationships, it should be obvious that for something to begin to exist it must have a cause. In the case of the existence of the universe, however, scientists who accept the universe to be expanding must accept the universe to have a beginning. To avoid the unavoidable conclusion, to say the universe was caused, requires the anti-theistic scientist to instead suggest perhaps something can come from nothing. The “Big Bang Theory” attempts to resolve this by suggesting the universe popped instantly from nothing from a state where everything was previously stuffed into a tiny spot, perhaps no bigger than the period of a sentence. This would require time and space itself to be contained in a finite place. The Big Bang, however, does not explain why the universe exists. Nor do observations of the universe support the Big Bang as the origin of stuff. Nor can a thinking person truly conceive of something coming from nothing by any natural means.

Some scientists have put forward the idea of “quantum uncertainties” being the cause of matter to exist. It has been shown that in a vacuum sub-atomic matter/anti-matter pairs can spontaneously appear, though they tend to exist only briefly and very rarely with any greater complexity than a quark or lepton pair. Furthermore, the “vacuum” they spontaneously appear from is not truly an empty void of nothingness but a sea of turbulent if generally low level energy, merely without matter.

If, however, a person holds to the idea that the universe is static (not expanding and potentially infinite), the question of effect requiring a cause is not a problem. So, with either model, the premise that the beginning of existence of anything requires a cause cannot reasonably be denied.

Did the universe have a beginning?

Whether the universe is expanding or not, the universe mathematically and philosophically cannot have an infinite past, thus is must have had a beginning. Suppose you had an infinite supply of marbles. If you gave away all your marbles to a friend they would have infinite marbles and you’d have none. The sum would then be infinity plus zero. If, instead, you gave them every other marble, you’d both have infinite marbles. That yields net sum of infinity + infinity. If, instead, you kept only three marbles, the new sum would be 3 + infinity. Mathematically speaking, infinity is only a concept. It cannot exist in the physical universe. Substitute past events for marbles and the absurdity of it becomes obvious. In the real universe, you cannot add one to infinity because it is already infinite, thus you cannot add a new sun, moon, planet, galaxy, or even atoms.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity requires the universe to be non-static. If this is true, then it had to have come from somewhere, by some means, as a result of some prime cause. Even if the universe really is static, transfinite mathematics require a beginning.

Even Stephen Hawking, a scientist esteemed to be of incredibly high genius intelligence, has admitted his best mathematical models can only create a parabolic past rather than one without a singularity at its core. To get there he had to use “imaginary” numbers (numbers which include the square root of negative one) to come up with his parabolic time model. In other words, the hocus-pocus of high math could only blur the distinction of beginning from a “singularity” point to a curve. Regardless of its shape, a beginning is still a beginning.

In spite of the theories of various bright scholars, the universe may actually be static. There are a number of profound arguments against an expanding universe which cannot be dismissed out of hand. Biblical text does not prohibit an expanding universe, nor does it require an expanding universe. Likewise, scripture does not require nor prohibit a static universe, although many bible scholars would find it easier support a static universe model with scripture. If the universe is static at this time, and it very well may be relatively static, this does not get around the requirement for a beginning using the transfinite mathematics discussed earlier. With regard to God, it seems absurd God would endure an infinite past to get humanity to its current state.

If the universe began and it had a cause, is God that cause?

God is eternal. God created time and matter and life. Since God is eternal, which means without a count of time or a limit of space, thus God is without beginning and therefore the only logical prime cause for the existence of the universe. God started time and created all matter, then ordered it, then caused life to begin. Thus far scientists supporting natural cause have been utterly unable to account for the cause. Ockham’s razor suggests the simplest answer is most often correct. The only answer, when the natural fails, is the supernatural. If science cannot show us our origin, perhaps the revelation of God’s word is the only logical answer after all.

Opposing God, the oscillating universe theory tries to get around the beginning by suggesting the universe oscillates. If this is true, what caused the oscillations to begin? Another theory recently put forward was of multiple simultaneous universes to exist and overlap. For this to be true there would have to be some sort of “universe factory” to crank out universes. Ignoring the obvious requirement for a higher intelligence to design such an unlikely universe factory, these same scientists keep grasping for some sort of natural explanation where there is none.

Deist or Theist?

Suppose you were a devoted atheist until you sat down and pondered all this, working through it, researching the particulars on your own with an open mind, and you came to the same conclusion I’ve presented here. There must be God. The next logical query would be whether this God is personal or impersonal. A deist is a person who believes God is an impersonal distant intelligence who does not interact with His creation. A theist is a person who believes God is personally involved with and cares deeply about His creation, even having personal relationships with individuals. If you are wondering which kind of God to believe in, then perhaps you should continue to examine the evidence to determine which is more likely and therefore believable.

The Kalam principle suggests a personal Creator. If a man were to walk into the kitchen and find a pot of water boiling, he might ask his wife why. His wife could explain it in terms of kinetic energy or she could say she was making him tea. One explanation is impersonal (scientific only) while the other is personal. Since there is no scientific (impersonal) explanation for creation, the reason must be personal. God created everything for His own reason. If God is indeed personally involved with His creation, it seems logical to seek Him if we are to seek our origin and thus our destiny.

What are the odds of a livable planet?

The odds of life being possible anywhere in the universe is astronomically low. To have the correct combination of gravity, atmosphere, temperature, water, minerals, radiation and radiation shielding, sun characteristics, lunar characteristics, and so forth requires a lengthy list of measured constants to be in perfect alignment. Suppose there were only ten such diverse variables. Suppose each variable had only ten possible values. Life requires each of the ten dials to be set correctly. If any one dial is off, even by a value of 1, life cannot exist. That means the odds of a particular solar system having a habitable planet is one in 10 billion. Most stars are not of the energy range, light range, size, or stability as our sun. Most planets we’ve been able to observe orbiting distant stars are not the perfect distance from their star and not of appropriate mass or composition. Most stars are not of the right composition. Near the center of the Milky Way there is tremendous violent radiation making life anywhere near the nucleus highly unlikely. Of the few planets discovered around other stars, they have been found to have radically oblong orbits compared with the orbits of most of our planets. Earth is in the right part of the galaxy, orbiting the right size and composition star at the right distance, at the right speed, with the right solar and lunar gravitational forces, the right magnetic force, the right ozone, the right outer radiation belt, the right amount of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere, the right amount of oxygen, the right amount of water, the right temperature range, and in general all the right chemistry to support life. The odds are considerably lower than one in ten billion of life, yet here we are.

Does nuclear chemistry support Big Bang or Creation cosmology?

According to the Big Bang theory, big clouds of swirling dust in space spun out into solar systems. Initially all the dust which a solar system is made from is essentially uniformly randomly scattered bits of the same stuff. Why then is the sun almost entirely hydrogen while the planets are all made of almost entirely heavier elements? Centrifugal force throwing heavy elements out does not account for this. In fact, the existence anywhere of any element heavier than iron is against all reason.

Fusion of light elements gives off energy. This is why the fusion reactions in our sun emit so much energy. Fusion of any elements even slightly heavier, of helium or lithium for example, produces a small fraction of the energy compared to hydrogen fusion. It takes more energy to fuse two elements into an element as heavy or heavier than iron than the fusion reaction gives off. Elements significantly heavier than iron give off more energy than they absorb when they undergo a fission reaction. Fission is the nuclear process of breaking a heavy element down into two or more smaller elements with a net release of energy.

All matter is made up of atoms (or parts of atoms). If the sun is made of light elements and the planets are made of heavy elements, there must have been some sort of sorting process. Centrifugal force can’t account for it for at least two reasons. For one, the lighter elements should have been thrown to the outside most easily whereas gravitational force should have drawn the heaviest elements to the center. The opposite is observed. For another, when a spinning mass ejects parts, those parts spin out in the same direction. Two planets spin backward, several moons spin backward, and one planet spins almost completely sideways. The planets all spin at different rates and different angles, in both directions, yet all orbit the sun at the perfect speed given their mass and distance.

Finally, consider the quantum process of fusion itself occurring continuously in our sun. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, mass and energy can be equated using a constant value. In the fusion process, energy is given off because the net mass is reduced by the fusion reaction. In other words, a helium atom with two protons is lighter than the sum of two hydrogen atoms. It is logical that in a given sample, the new mass would be less than the original mass and the density would be higher. The combined effect would be to reduce the total volume required to hold the sample. In a sample the size of the sun, the same logic implies the sun should be shrinking. Of course the laws of physics are a little more complicated, but the basic logic does apply to hydrogen and helium. Although there’s been a great amount of debate in the astrophysics community, numerous studies since the 1960s, including a recent study measuring gravity waves in the sun, indicates the sun is shrinking at a rate of up to 4.5 km per year. The average data suggests a likely real shrink rate closer to about 2 km per year. At that rate, over a million years the sun’s surface should be 1 million km closer to earth. Even if the burn rate of the sun isn’t constant, or if you assume the size reduction is related to the helium/hydrogen ratio, further assuming the sun began as 100% hydrogen, if the earth were a billion years old it must have either started out inside the sun or it has been drawing closer to the sun with time. Assuming a purely natural cosmology, it just doesn’t add up.

What about molecular machines?

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859). In Darwin’s time individual cells could be observed, but the technology did not exist to understand the extent of detail to be found inside a living cell. A machine is irreducibly complex if it has a number of components that all work together to perform a task where that task would no longer work if you removed any one component. A single living cell contains many such machines, each interdependent, each reliant on the DNA molecule is the library of information to define and manage function, operation, and duplication.

Cilia are whip-like hairs on the surface of certain cells. In the lungs they help the body expel foreign elements we inhale. Cilia provide the rowing action to make sperm move. In the ear they are sensitive to pressure variations and thus work as our microphones to pick up sound. A single cilia is constructed of nine major parts, each part made up of numerous proteins. A total of about 200 proteins are required, in a very precisely ordered structure, to build one cilia.

Bacteria flagellum moves, not by the rowing action of cilia, but by a rotary propeller motor. It has a propeller, a shaft hooked on by universal joint, and several proteins to serve as bushings and bearings to attach the propeller proteins to the main body of the bacteria cell. The propeller can spin as fast as 10,000 RPM. It is powered by energy from acids moving through the bacteria cell membrane in a process still being studied. The cell is about 1/20,000 of an inch long. The entire motor is about 1/100,000 of an inch long. The flagellum cell also has sensors to detect its surroundings, determine needs, and control the motor system. The entire flagellum, like a cilia strand, is irreducibly complex.

Cells contain a nucleus where the DNA data library lives, the mitochondria energy plant, the endoplasmic reticulum protein factory, and the golgi distribution center for warehousing and distributing newly created proteins. The cell includes a waste disposal system, a cargo transport system, and other basic utilities. A ribosome is an automated factory which can synthesize any protein that the DNA tells it to make. Given the correct data from the DNA, the ribosome can construct any protein based biological machine, including another ribosome, regardless of its complexity.

No working machine, from mousetrap to computer, has been observed to develop by natural means without the action of an intelligent designer. Can you imagine a computer, even a modem board, coming together by random chance even if you put all the components in a box and mixed them constantly? To imagine such complex machines as cilia or bacteria coming about without a designer is equally absurd.

Does DNA explain life?

In a purely natural sense, yes it does. DNA is essentially a library of four-character digital code. The English language uses 26 characters in various combinations to make all words in the language. The four character DNA code can be arranged into 16 possible characters. Strings of characters form words, thus instructions in a sort of digital language. These codes are the instructions used to build proteins which are the operational components of a living cell. The proteins cannot organize, function, or duplicate without the master code in the DNA. The specific data of DNA in a given cell contains all the information necessary for the kind of life it defines. For example, the DNA of a tree contains everything there is to know about the tree. DNA of a human contains all you need to know to make a human body.

The DNA cannot exist without a host cell. Even though DNA explains the function of life, it doesn’t explain the origin of life. For the evolutionist, this is truly a chicken or the egg problem, not to mention the question of complexity from natural disorder. For the Creationist, however, it is a supreme testimony to the high intelligence, design creativity and artistry of God.

Is consciousness a biological function?

In Darwinian evolution, where life came from non-life, order came from disorder, and natural selection is supposed to account for forward development, the human mind is supposed to be a purely biological function. It is commonly supposed – and in the Darwinian model required – that the human brain, by virtue of its awesome computing power, is the source of conscious thought, emotion, and creativity. If this is true, then brain size should indicate relative consciousness. If this is true, then computers, when they become sufficiently powerful, should become self-aware, conscious, and therefore alive and equal or better than their human creators. This sounds a lot like the Cylons, a race of self-aware computers, from the TV Series Battlestar Galactica.

The problem is that conscious thought can be sufficiently shown not to reside in the brain. Wilder Penfield, the father of modern neurosurgery, encountered concrete evidence the mind and brain are distinctly separate, though related, entities. He was able to use electric signals to specific parts of the brain to animate specific body functions, such as moving one arm, while the patient consciously used their other arm to try to control the manipulation. If it were purely a brain function, the person should not have been able to make a conscious effort to fight the stimulated body part. Studies of resuscitated persons have shown that conscious thought continues after clinical brain death.

It seems reasonable from the evidence to say the brain might serve as a mechanism to manifest the mind, much the same way a TV manifests pictures and sound from invisible signals in the air. Brain damage can damage memory or even personality, but the person remains a person, their mind, however weakened the vessel, remains their own.

The mind, unlike biological tissue, is private to the person. You can examine a person, divide them down to single cells, and still not discover what makes them think. There is no place you can use electrical stimulus (or any other kind of stimulus) to cause a person to decide or believe something. Senses detect, the brain processes and stores data, but the mind considers and decides. A doctor can know all about a person’s brain, but would have to ask you to find out what is on your mind.

Approaching this from the direction of the believer, you might be inclined to ask how evolution turned the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness. In the beginning there were particles or there was the Logos – the divine mind. According to Genesis, God created Adam’s body, then breathed spirit into man to make him into a living soul in God’s likeness. The living body is a soul, which is a complete person comprised of body and spirit. The spirit, which is the supernatural invisible self inhabiting the body, is the part which lives on after the death of the body. The spirit of the person, which is to say the invisible part of a soul, can therefore go to be with Christ after the body’s death. Biblical prophecy speaks of a future resurrection of the body. Paul explains the new body will be spiritual, but even so we are promised a body to inhabit in eternity. Because the resurrection involves spirit and heaven is a spiritual place, it stands to reason our minds, bound as they are to perceive the natural world, cannot fully grasp the mystery of God’s eternal plan and His gift of eternal life.

“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” – Werner von Braun.