|
The
Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation
Science
Most of us from
years past who have been taught in public schools have been taught to use terms like, "the theory of evolution" or the
"facts of evolution" and most atheists or media outlets endorse the
same terminology and use it quite often. It's generally not refer to in the
mainstream as; "the hypothesis of evolution." Although, I have seen it
used in various articles on the grassroots level over the years and in some
publications. I believe using the term, "theory" to describe evolution does cast
a little confusion as upon how validated it is. The reason why is because not
all theories are considered unproven. Rather, some of the theories floating out
there, are generally considered as fact, but not proven enough to become
scientific "law." Also, a theory isn't a theory unless it's challenged
otherwise it just remains as an "hypothesis."
Through the years
especially in recent times as science has progressed, Creation and
Evolution have become very controversial
among the atheist population including professors, also government schools
in general, the Smithsonian, some so-called churches, and of course the liberal media. Over the years, we see more and more Christians and
Creationists in general who are not just using
Scriptures, but scientific observations like basic physics in order to prove the
Bible is indeed correct while showing the evolution hypothesis as being
incorrect. On
the other hand, as science has progressed through the years especially with
computers and other discoveries, new models have sprang up to the point
where evolutionists
themselves are adapting or changing their arguments.
It is assumed
with many evolutionists that naturalism is not just a mere theory or
hypothesis, rather it's been thoroughly proven beyond a
reasonable doubt and what aspects of evolution that scientists don't understand
or can't explain, they still assume it as unchallengeable factual data. And all those who oppose this idea
of naturalism or even question it are accused of hating science. Otherwise
they say, it's merely a religion and not a science. We are going through both systems
of beliefs, and the science of both. Let's start with background of Darwin
himself the founder of evolution...

Evolution’s Development

Charles Darwin graduated from Cambridge University with a degree in theology.
One day Captain Fitzoy, who commanded a sea vessel named, "Beagle", wrote a
letter to Charles Darwin, asking him if he would like a position as a
naturalist, during a five year around the world voyage. After reviewing the
letter, Charles Darwin accepted the offer. While on the voyage, he made notes of
his observations as a naturalist, especially the varieties within species. He
particularly noted there was 13 varieties of finches, which is a small tropical bird.
After the 5 year long voyage around the world, Charles Darwin began to formulate
his own opinion that pertained to the origin of life from what he
observed out in the field and written down in his notes. He claimed animals like finches was a result of a
spontaneous accident. In one of his notes he stated; there is a struggle to survive
among animals, and some varieties of animals struggled more than others because
those other varieties of animals were better suited for their environment.
Charles Darwin thought of intelligent design as like manufacturing parts or
products. When assembled the same way, with the same part generally everything comes out the same,
thus intelligent design. So seeing all the variety out in the field made him
believe it wasn't manufactured the same way every time but accidental. He
made this proposal to the world claiming the process of spontaneous variation was accomplished
over a period of billions of years, which resulted in what we see today.
Darwin’s hypothesis was embraced by the world, and most of the Scientific
community within 50 years after it was proposed. A remarkable feat considering
Darwin had no degree in science, and wasn’t put under the microscope like other
hypotheses normally are. The cause for this acceptance was simple. Under the
belief the earth and universe was created by God, there was accountability.
Under the belief of natural processes which claimed to have happen by accident,
there was no accountability to God for man’s sin.
The Evolutionist Model

Science means
"knowledge" in recent times this meaning has been somewhat skewed. In the
evolutionist model only, there is just one basic principle that overrides all
other principles of interpretation on data. Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University
tells us in nature magazine what that one "basic principle" is, he states and I
quote..."Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an
hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
There are four
major proposals that make up Darwin’s hypothesis and Evolution in general, and
they are; Spontaneous generation, Random mutation, Natural Selection, and Time.
All these basic parts of model are explained below. Let's take a look at them...
1.
Spontaneous generation.
What this mean is, life came about through
basic dead
material which was stable for a time, and then exploded in what is referred to
as the big bang. Later on, it turn into
material that evolved into a water type environment (chemicals) and other solid
material. Rock, water, and unfiltered sunlight were claimed to be the main
ingredients for spontaneous life. Over a long period of time, these elements
became a perfect combination of various carbon molecules including code, nucleus, wall, cell, and energy-generating
apparatus according to evolutionists...The minimum requirement for a living cell were somehow present, each
by accident, randomly came together on its own. Evolutionists claim this cell reproduced itself,
thus, life was off and running. There is no current explanation on how dead
chemicals were able to organize all by themselves into a living cell as stated
below...
|
Paul Davies an
Evolutionist/Atheist professor at the Australian Center for Astrobiology
says in regards to spontaneous generation... ‘Nobody knows how a
mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the
first living cell.’
Niels Bohr argued that:
"The existence of life must be considered as an elementary fact that
cannot be explained, but must be taken as a starting point in biology." |
2.
Random mutation.
As life was claimed to start out as "simple"
it mutated more and more into complex animals. Evolutionists claim
minor changes in the DNA code were happening by chance as a
result of copied genes from the creature’s genetic code. Also radiation and
other chemicals are also thought to have vital role played a role. Recent
discoveries have occurred concerning this part of the hypothesis of evolution.
One being that puzzled many Darwinists who believed in dogmatic style that the
sponge because of it's simplicity among other things, was the first animal. A
study in 2008, changed the conclusion and said in regards to the first animal
was the the ocean-drifting comb jelly which is far from being simple but
complex.
3.
Natural Selection. Based on
observations by Darwin which he observed some animals survived better than others in a
environment. Darwin also noticed the stronger species survived and the weaker
ones died off. He eventually concluded that his findings reflected of what is
now called; "natural selection". It entails any random
mutations creating a "weaker" creature that would die off, or creating a
"stronger" creature by adding certain features, which increased it’s chances for
survival.
4.
Time. Random mutations according to
the model, takes up an enormous amount of time and most are damaging. But some
mutations are necessary to give rise to a new creature. In order for the process
to work, it needs time to prefect it’s creation.
Important fact to note, evolution doesn’t claim the changes within a particular
species of animals or plants. Rather a species transforming itself into another
species with it’s own unique genetic code. This is generally called, "macro
evolution".
What about Adaptation is it still part of the
Evolutionist Model?
Those of us who
can recall national geographic in the 70's and 80's, remember the various
programming telling it's viewers, how wild life was able to adapt to it's
environment through experience. For example, a mountain goat after experiencing
a cold climate, it's off spring would start producing fur. Then the next
generation
would produce more fur to adapt to the cold and eventually over time these off
springs would produce enough fur to allow them to survive in their surroundings.
Many animals have all sort of mechanisms in place for their surroundings in
order for them to survive in the wild. So it was assumed that this was
accomplished through adaptation. Since science has grown the hypothesis is
no longer taught as a viable fact by Evolutionists, because we know now there is
no link of communication from experience to your reproductive cells. The latest
hypothesis to these mechanisms by Evolutionists which enable an animal to
survive in their surroundings is now claimed to have been accomplished by an
accident through mutations over a vast period of time.
In Conclusion
Many aspects of the evolutionist model relies on unproven speculation which is
something that should be included in student books while attending public
schools. Dr. George Wald who had been blunt at times with his quotes indicates
as such. He was a professor of biology at Harvard
and also he was a Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1971. He states in Scientific
American on the weakness on "Origins of Life" (August 1954; p46 and p48) and
having faith in a time period to remedy the problem of spontaneous generation as
a plausible explanation. His intention is to try avoid intelligent design as a
considerable option. He states as follows;
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this
task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is
impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of
the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of
human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible"
becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One
has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
Creationism: Science in Agreement with God's Word
Evolution's Controversy
Creationism is the belief which says all things were created by intelligent
design namely; God. However, some get "intelligent design" confused
with Creationism. Intelligent design also includes alien life forms as being the
creators of the heavens and earth which will not be discussed here. Now back to
our topic, Creationism uses scientific laws that are at the very core of it's
model let's take a look both of them...
The Creationist Model

Science of deliberate creation contains the laws of nature which is mentioned in the
Bible in such places as Jer. 33:25. The Creator namely God (not gods) is
the one who created these laws which of course means these laws of nature within the model did not come about
from chaos by random chance. Neither is nature liberated from these laws, rather
nature is very much in subjection to them and are unable to break these laws.
The Law of Biogenesis
This law states life comes from life; organisms
reproduce other organisms after it's own kind. A French chemist and
microbiologist named; Louis Louis Pasteur who lived in the early to late 1800s
was known for his discoveries in the both causes and prevention of diseases. His
germ theory disproved one of the forms of spontaneous generation in a
observational science experiment setting. This experiment also confirmed the law
of Biogenesis.
The First Law of Thermodynamics
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be
created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the
total amount remains the same.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
All systems will tend toward the most
mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and
disorganized. Albert Einstein said this law would be impossible to eliminate.
Newton's first law of
motion -
sometimes referred to as the law of inertia
Definition
*The property of matter by which it
retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is
not acted upon by an external force.
Firstly, in contrast to evolution's hypothesis something (matter) created out of
nothing by random chance which is nothing as well, defies the laws of physics.
Secondly, the property of matter and mass which evolutionists claim was
compressed all together in a stable organized manner, then all of a sudden for
no reason exploded into what is now known as; the big bang. This also defies
Newton's first law of motion.*
Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed
E=mc2
When you have a hot bowl of soup in a room, and
you let it sit for awhile, it starts getting cold. So instead of loosing energy,
why doesn't the energy from the
room go into the bowl of soup and heat it up which results in the room getting
colder? The
answer is simple, higher energy always spreads out till it gets even with it's
surroundings. When it gets to
the same level, it's stops. For example, the energy in the bowl doesn't get any worse
nor does it get any better once it's at room temperature. This is the second law of
THERMODYNAMICS. Evolutionists
claim the big bang had no hot or cold spots as it's surroundings was all the
same temperature through space which is cold. But what we were able to discover
in outer space, we see galaxies with millions of stars, very hot, while it's
surrounded by millions of miles of space, very cold. It's like saying the bowl
is pulling in all the energy in the room to make it self hot while the room
gets colder. It basically defies the law of physics in other words.

Speaking of space, evolutionists claim as you look further into space the younger
galaxies you are looking at. However, the galaxies they are finding are not as
young as they thought would be. Scientists have found very deep in space more
mature galaxies as spirals, instead of irregulars. The simple existence of
Globular Clusters the way the stars are lumped together have perplexed evolutionists
because the big bang hypothesis claims the universe is smooth or at least should
be. Some say, these
clusters are not suppose to be there in the first place, but there they are.
Hubble Reveals Creationism

The Hubble telescope has become a great tool for
the Creationist model. It allows us to see pretty far into space were no man has
seen before. There was
an experiment conducted which they programmed the Hubble
to view an empty part of the sky and kept the shutter open for about 11 days. It was
an attempt to see very deep in space as scientists were very curious about what
was out there. As the distance
images were blown up, it revealed many mature galaxies. Not surprisingly, there
were no viable explanations offered by the evolutionists but it definitely it
was more evidence for intelligent design.
The Creationism model points to a Creator (God) and outlines the impossibility
of random chance defying scientific laws as we know them. More on the
creation model include; all animals were made
complete, no one species is turning into a completely different form of another species.
Like birds turning into Lizards or dead chemicals into live matter. Same with the stars, planets, moons, in the Universe. Also the earth is young
according to creationism, rather than billions of years old as evolutions try to claim.
Although creationism does hold the belief that parts of the Universe was made in
a more mature state of existence like Adam and Eve were first created as adults
and as we see mature galaxies in deep space.
Spacecraft exploration has also helped observed
the Creationist Model
When investigators try to find the truth, there
is a process of elimination in order to find the suspect or suspects. Many
questions are asked and answers or lack there of are provided, the investigator
then determines if the person or persons is a possible suspect. It's basic
premises of investigation is used in a similar light when determining which
model is being proven and which model is not being proven. Spacecraft
exploration happens to been key factor in providing very important data. For
example, the spacecraft "Cassini" made an discovery, one of Saturn's moon's
Enceladus was found to have internal heating on the inside. According to the
Evolutionist model, this moon is too small to be geologically active because it
should have cooled a long time ago. This moon fits the creationist model as the
observation indicates Encleladus is in it's younger stages rather than being
very old.
What We Know About DNA Today
Since Darwin’s time the hypothesis of evolution promoted the idea that life went
from simple to complex. The cell for example was viewed as protoplasm, which to
them was nothing more than a simple cell. But since that time the scientific community has discovered some staggering and
very astounding detail about a living cell, which is the most basic form of life. DNA
(which is short for; deoxyribonucleic acid) is
the genetic material that carries all the instructions for the function of cell.
There are four different subunits within DNA, called nucleotides. The particular
sequence of these subunits in the DNA chain is what distinguishes one from
another.
The details of DNA has three main levels. The lowest level of DNA is called base
pairs. Several hundred to several thousand base pairs exist within the lowest
level, and then they are organized into genes. Hundreds of thousands of genes
are present in every cell of higher animals. These large groups of genes are
organized into chromosomes.
DNA has an
enormous amount of compact information that determines what a cell will build in terms of
structures. Also DNA determines what chemicals or hormones it will produce and
where the cell will locate within the body. The information capacity in one human cell is just incredible if not mind
boggling. All 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica can be stored in one
human cell, as well as 3 to 4 back up copies of the 30 volume set! With it's
vast complexities DNA requires an array of vast complex coding in order for it
to function properly and reproduce. Nearly all of the coding containing the
wealth of information must be present in order for the cell to survive.

A major problem exists
in evolution about the explanation or lack thereof on the first living cell
obtaining additional information
DNA Cannot Produce Life From Water
Molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide
molecules which make up DNA, and RNA do not combine in any type of temperature
setting. Also, water is a hostile environment for both as it will dissolve them while in
the water. In order to combine the two (DNA and RNA), there must
be mechanisms in place or a biochemist in a lab.
Similarities of Human DNA and Animal DNA
While DNA is the main source of information needed to make the chemicals and
structures of life, there is reason to expect creatures who have similarities,
to also have similarities in DNA also. It's no secret Apes and Humans have
similar DNA. Evolutions claim these similarities indicate that different species
were created by natural processes, from one to another. However, there are
similarities between creatures in DNA, that evolutionists claimed to have
evolved separately.
For example, Hemoglobin, which is a molecule that carries oxygen to the blood is
found in all vertebrates, including humans. But hemoglobin is also found in
earthworms, fish, starfish, and even some microorganisms. Crocodile hemoglobin
is more similar to chicken hemoglobin than snakes, or other reptiles. Human
lysozyme, an enzyme for digesting food, is more similar to chicken lysozyme than
any other mammal. An identical protein is found on the cell wall of both camels
and nurse sharks, but Evolutions claim these animals are completely unrelated.
DNA also has "safeguards" that prevent genetic
errors from ever occurring. Information from DNA cannot be copied without many
different enzymes checking one another for errors. Such as making sure that the
right amino acid is linked to the right tRNA. Just one sieve rejects amino acids
that are too large while others reject amino acids that are too small.
|
Mice have 85
percent similarity of genes to humans. However,
Science Daily reports that
22 percent of the genes out of 120 can be removed causing no harm to the
mice, but for humans such a change would cause sickness or death. The
discovery indicates that even though mice have a high percentage of
similarity in the genes to humans, the protein interaction is vastly different.
So it's not the "genome" alone that determines the appearance of an
animal. |
What About Observations of mtDNA?
Creationists have made many assertions over the
years that Darwinism cannot be observed in real time, in a lab type setting.
However, that has somewhat changed. The smoking gun for some who claim
observations of mtDNA is proof
that evolutionism can be seen in a lab type setting. For those who are not
familiar with this particular type of DNA, let me explain very briefly.
mtDNA is shorthand for "Mitochondrial" which is DNA we only
inherit from our mothers. Evolutionists have come up with an hypothesis on this
DNA, and labeled as; 'mitochondrial Eve' in reference of course to Adam and Eve
of the Bible.
Using the evolution hypothesis a
time clock was drawn up based on assumptions the 'mitochondrial Eve' was
calculated as being very old. But actual observations of this hypothesis
surprised many evolutionists researchers. The mutation rate found in mtDNA was much
higher than previously speculated. In Science Review, it reveals
the new found evidence (the time clock based on the real world) that 'mitochondrial
Eve' would have been around 6,000 years old. Studies showed one mutation in 600
generations. It was even more shocking for evolutionists to find ten pairs which
make the mutation rate at 40 generations. It was a striking blow to the
hypothesis, but it's not totally dead. Modern evolution evolves in it's own
explanations. Since mtDNA is a relatively new argument they claim on the basis of
more assumptions there are "hot spots" in the mtDNA which make
mutations appear at higher rates than they actually are. It makes their lab
experiment weak without being able to make clear observations. The secular study is very encouraging to
Christians as it showed what creationists believe (based on the Bible and
science) to be the true age of the real Eve.
Single Cell Complexity Proves God's Word
The complexity of a single cell is one of the most mind boggling elements in the
world today. Perhaps so complex, man will never grasp it totally in the
generations to come. In any event, man continues to learn more about the cell in
the great advances of biotechnology. As man does this, you can be sure they will
continue to uncover a more complex cell with more complex functions, not a
simpler one. The very smallest amount of genetic material known to man of any
known organism, has 580,000 base pairs on it's 482 genes. Since a cell is very
complex, what would be the bare minimum amount of genetic code required for
life? The most recent estimate came from Eugene Koonin, and others. They made
the calculation of 256 genes. But even then they expressed doubt that it would
work in reality. This is because the cell would have no means to repair DNA
damage or digest complex compounds and would have to live in a near perfect
environment.
NASA research has shown that the simplest type of
protein molecule that could be said to be “living” is composed of a chain of at
the very least has 400 linked amino acids, and each amino acid is a specific
combination of four or five basic chemical elements. So even the simplest type
of protein is very complex.
This complexity of a single cell puts it's origin at great odds with evolution.
Spontaneous generation is a hypothesis which claims to have arisen from random
chance of chemicals that happened to be present. Many have tried to calculate
the odds of spontaneous generation to happen. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle
estimated the probability of spontaneous generation which turned out so great, 1
to 10 to the 40,000 power. According to Sir Fred Holye, the odds were too great,
for it to be possible through chance. A well known atheist Dr. Carl Sagan,
estimated the mathematical probability as well, which was how long it would take
for dead material to become a living cell. His estimates were 1 chance in 10 to
the two billionth power( 1 followed by two billion zeros).
What does all this mean in terms of the law of probability? Dr. Emile Borel who
discovered the law of probability said, "The occurrence of any event where the
chances are beyond on in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state
with certainty will never happen..." So no matter how much time is allotted,
once the odds hit one in ten followed by 50 zeros, the event will not occur.
As man continues to discover the complexity of the single living cell, the
impossible odds continue to raise to new impossible levels.
What's the Difference Between Intelligent
Design and Creationism?
There is some confusion over this question,
generally promoted by militant Atheists in particular but not all Atheists in
general. Richard Dawkins an a devote fundamental atheist who appeared in a movie called "Expelled" argues that
when a person who is not an Evolutionist asks the question about ID, and refers
to alien life forms, in his opinion, they are actually masking their own beliefs
as being "old school creationists." In other words, Dawkins tries to assert if you are
a
believer in ID your really a "fundamental Creationist."
Richard Dawkins is incorrect about his conspiracy
assumptions and here is why...Those who believe in ID do in fact express their
own personal belief in a God being the creator, numerous publications indicate
this. However some in ID also leave
the possibility for natural selection. A belief which in-tails that God started
creation but used natural selection to continue the process. A true "fundamental
creationist" would never leave the door open for such an hypothesis. But in fact
would be very much opposed to such an idea. Richard Dawkins does have a bias against
those who question evolution, so I believe his conspiracy assumptions are
attempt to make ID proponents look bad. And also an attempt to try and make up
for appearing in a ID film (Expelled) were he stated some embarrassing answers.
|
False, ID claims that it is true because there can be no natural
explanation.
Also false. ID only posts an
"intelligent" agency, it does not make any claims to it being either
natural or supernatural. |
The question remains so what is "intelligent
design?" Intelligent design has a much broader meaning and for the most part
it's secular. The hypothesis strictly goes by scientific data, and will not answer various questions about religion
because it says that goes beyond the limits of science. In other words, it
doesn't look to confirm the Bible per say, but in their opinion the science
reveals an intelligent creator. Unlike Creationism, the conclusions for the origin of life do not
always point to a deity, but rather such things as alien life forms which
supposedly evolved more advanced than humans. An hypothesis I might add, that
Dawkins believes as a possibility, but would be rejected in the creationist
model. Intelligent
Design is similar to that of the 12 Steps where a "higher power" is used
but secular psychology are the tools and conclusions. The 12 steps certainly doesn't reflect fundamental
Christian viewpoints.
Part Two of this series
Measuring the age of the Earth through various
means such as unfossilized bones of dinosaurs, ancient carved pictures in caves,
and also an ancient Buddhist temple with a picture of a Dinosaur reveal just one
aspect on how old the Earth really is.
|