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...

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.

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?

 

Comments or Questions

Thanks for Visiting Please Come Again!