The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science

Science is the study of nature and the universe as it pertains to the design and how it operates. The modern science movement as we know it today began with Sir Francis Bacon in 1620, when he wrote a book called, "Novum Organum." It's here where Bacon defines two principles known as "empirical" which means hard data gathered through observation, experience or experiments and "inductive reasoning" which means that a conclusion could come out false even though all other aspects are true. These two principles became part of the scientific method which is widely used today.

On the other hand, evolution has changed what the modern science movement was originally intented for. Firstly, it is considered both theory and fact which have different meanings. This is a bit misleading because facts are data, hypothesis and theory are structured explanations which interpret the data. Secondly, during the 90's when a leading science journal proclaimed evolution to be an undisputable fact (even gravity is now questioned because of ideas like dark matter and dark energy), as a result, there has been a watering down of the scientific method to the point where man-made stories are considered just as important as observational facts.

The research for evolution has become a major money-making machine around the world including the United States beginning in the 20th century. The funding for this research has topped all time levels which includes many billions of dollars and yet its process lacks a lot of observational data with plausible explanations within its own fundamentals. For instance, evolution is considered "slow and gradual" which one cannot observe first hand like a species turning into another species. Rather, it is measured in terms of an elusive property called fitness. This involves an array of complex structures in explanations including other areas in science from change over time to common decent to complexification to natural selection to selective natural processes.

Exciting new discoveries in science have disproven a vast amount of expectations and predictions within the framework of evolution that it has become an ever growing complex hypothesis which resembles the behavior of a very old theory known as Geocentrism. This was an ancient belief held by many with some observational data that tried to explain the earth was the center of the universe. But due to certain falsifications with its predictions such as planets moving backwards, it became very complex. As as result it became a very labor intensive process to fit all the data within the predictions of the model. Heliocentrism eventually replaced it because it's predictions made things much simpler.

However, the scientific standard does allow for falsifications within a theory because of advancement in recent discoveries or in other words, better data. A good example is classical physics. For hundreds of years, it worked very well till the subatomic world was discovered. This falsified classic physics being able to explain objects near or at the speed of light so a new kind of physics was created like relativity and quantum mechanics. However, classical physics can still be used with success in it's predictions to understand common problems unlike many falsified explanations in evolution such "mutations" as we shall see later on in this article!

Darwin himself once said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." So there would be criticisms of evolution in various science journals but that changed in 1998, when PNAS declared evolution as an "indisputable fact" rather than a theory that could and should be questioned.

Creation science, instead of using "gaps" most of the time (evolution can't explain this or that because the data shows this...), which is one way of finding the truth confirming God's Word, one looks for "pattern recognition" from an engineering point of view with a mind behind the design. Detecting a precise and finely tuned universe which doesn't allow trial and error to occur is also a means of pattern recognition. One needs a created flexible environment with provided specialized information in order to accomplish highly complex life forms. We will take a look at this viewpoint later on but for now lets take a look at what evolution is really all about.

Evolution's Development

Charles Darwin was a great admirer of William Paley (1743–1805) who wrote a book called; Natural Theology. Known as the "Watchmaker's Argument" which has been recently discovered in bacteria, Darwin said, "I do not think that I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology. I could almost formerly have said it by heart." Great admiration did not turn Darwin into a design proponent or a Creationist but rather a hypothesis designed to remove God from as the creator and replace it with naturalism.

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 five 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.

Evolution Before Darwin's Time

Darwin’s version of evolution was embraced by the world, however and this is generally a misconception by many, Darwin is not the founder of evolution. Spontaneous generation for example has been around since the fourth century B.C. Dr. Jan Batista von Helmont (1579-1644) claimed that life (mice in particular) came from dirty underwear. The procedure was outlined by him as taking a piece of dirty underwear with some wheat in an open mouth jar, and after 21 days the odor changes as a chemical reaction with the wheat begins to happen which resulted in the creation of mice. Of course later on this hypothesis was disproved.

Also, for many years it was believed that maggots were created with spoiled food until it was also disproved many years later. But when Darwin came along and organized his proposal in the way he did, most of the scientific community was in agreement 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 science proposals 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. Man is then elevated above God in the world of naturalism. Let's turn our attention to the foundation of evolution, and it's more recent proposals.

Integration Darwinism To Neo-Darwinism

(A quest to find one theory for everything)

Darwinism which is the dominant paradigm in the secular world where all other sciences should operate. It's aim is to integrate in every form in science and life and of course using its dominance to control the flow of information on opposing viewpoints which creates so-called overwhelming majority of evidence. For example, in some recent studies there is a push for integration with minerals claiming that these elements co-evolved. Minerals do not actually mutate into different minerals like what is claimed in biology, rather they remain the same. However, evolutionists believe the earth evolved creating new minerals that were able to change the condition of the earth, thus Darwinian evolution!

Hazen who is a scientist aCarnegie Istitution of Washington's Geophysical Laboratory agrues...

"You cannot be a geologist without thinking of biology and you cannot be a biologist without thinking of geology."

Mainstream peer-review science journals refuse to publish any creationist or intelligent design paper but instead have published papers that try and refute both. Liberal religious organizations such as Catholicism and Methodists embraced the intergration which undermines the Bible by using evolution in order to justify adding or subtracting from the Word of God.

However, refusal to publish alternative views in science journals is not exclusive to those with theories that have supernatural origins but natural origins as well! Reporter Suzan Mazur who is no supporter of creationism nor intelligent design put it this way in her book which creationists have been mentioning about for years in dealing with the establishment...

"The Alternberg 16: An Expose Of The Evolution Industry"...

"The National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott told me that her organization does not support self-organization because it is confused with intelligent design "design-beyond laws" as Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehign University describes it. NCSE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organization by beat the drum of Darwinian natural selection."

"NCSE and its cronies completely demonize the intelligent design community, even those who agree with evolution happened. Religion is not a target since even National Academy of Science embraces religion. So it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel before Darwinain theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinain industry tapeworm."

And lastly, integration into denying the truth. Science means "knowledge" a search for truth where ever that truth may lead but in recent times this meaning has been skewed by trying to fit the data into a particular framework such as Darwinian evolution. Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University speaks about this very thing in nature magazine, 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."

Evolution's Direction To Anti-Realism

In 1982, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, makes a proposal that claimed our universe might have arisen through a "quantum fluctuation" which is a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. It's also known as the "quantum creation of the universe." Evolutionists have been determined to explain how something can create itself out of nothing (which sounds more like witchcraft than science) without coming from God. On the other hand, many cosmologists rejected the idea of a universe having a beginning because that would mean either something could be created out of nothing or it came from a Creator, so models were structured with someting eternal which had no beginning and no end from which the universe could be created from.

However, these models failed to the point where "in the beginning" models are now being seriously considered among certain cosmologists. Here is why the consideration exists in the first place...

The "cosmic egg" model" where the universe hatches out of an existing eternal state. In 2011, Vilenkin and a student demostrated that an egg could not existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. (arix.org/abs/1110.4096).

The bouncing eternally in an organized state from expansion to contraction. This model doesn't fit into the laws of the physical world. Because "disorder increases with time." So after each cycle the universe increases in chaos not order and given how old evolutionists want to place the universe at (billions of years), it would have already reached maximum disorder.

And lastly, inflation with eternal life. This was extrapolated from Alan Guth's 1981 proposal where universes are forming and inflating spontaneously for ever and ever. This was faslified because equations require a boundary in the past as point out by Vilenkin and Guth back in 2003.

Steven Hawking who is a British theoretical physicist and cosmologist decided to do what Darwinian evolution does, you start out with something and go from there which explains how something created itself out of nothing. Hawking proposes there was pre-existing gravity and a pre-existing multi-universe that created our universe thus he concludes how natural laws created something out of nothing. Sounds more like natural laws were performing from forces made out of witchcraft! There are other complex problems with Hawking's proposal such as the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics which are well known in modern physics and are the subject of debate and research.

On the observational front, too many falsifications for this proposal (that was eventually voted in by the majority to become a theory) which assumes the big bang was a reality, however, astronomers have not being observing what one would call an hierarchy of development of galaxies from large and complex nearby to the small and simple at great distance, but rather they find large complex galaxies at all epochs in the cosmos.

"Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." -John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics."

Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did gravity come from? Where did these multi-universes with all their stars and planets come from? To suggest pre-existing material for natural evolving purposes that is eternal would be going against the law of entropy which is another reason why "in the beginning models" are being introduced and considered! Most scientists still regard the laws as "immutable, universal, eternal relationships", which to one well-known scientist are 'strangely independent of the universe'. In the Wallstreet Journal featured Krauss, a cosmologist who is a director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, commented on Hawking's book. He stated, "Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero." Evolutionists wouldn't believe thunderstorms were created out of nothing with zero energy nor the formation of clouds and you can say that about anything in nature or stars and planets in the universe but yet they make this absurd claim that the universe is able to pop out of nothing by itself because it's confined a particular framework which advocates a science fiction story rather than a scientific explanation.

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."

The New York Times review on Hawkings solution to origins of the universe...

"The real news about The Grand Design, however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about The Grand Design is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in A Brief History of Time has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.

"The Grand Design is packed with grating yuks. “If you think it is hard to get humans to follow traffic laws,” we read, “imagine convincing an asteroid to move along an ellipse.”

The Fundamentals Of Evolution

Science was at one time defined by its method where there are carefully controlled experiments, provisional conclusions, and considered debate (different interpretations of the data) but those days are long gone. Today, we discover science is defined by public policy statements, consensus, and a set of metaphysical assumptions which cannot be directly tested.

Public schools have told students that science is in conflict with "faith" or, worse yet, that faith operates in a different "magisterial" [sic]with no real application to the world we inhabit. Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University speaks about this very thing in nature magazine where he says..."Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

The Evolutionary Framework

1. Chemical Evolution: Life's Origin This concept has multiple meanings, but for the fundamentals, it means giving birth to complex life which entails simpler non-living chemicals evolving into life. A Russian scientist in 1936, proposed life originated in space and then transferred to earth by meteorites. Russian scientist, Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin inspired by this proposal because complexity was on the rise casting doubts about mere chance alone being able to produce life, so biophysicist Dean Kenyon wrote a book in 1969 called, "Biochemical Predestination" where necessity was added to random chance. It became known as "self-organization." This concept naturalistic in origin became controversial in Darwinian evolutionary science but could eventually be intergrated and then fully accepted. Origin of life through natural processes (chemical evolution) has been labeled one of most profound unsolved problems in biology.

Experiments have been attempted for more than last fifty years, first one being in 1953, which is known as the Miller–Urey experiment...

"Miller is famed for the results of experiments on amino acid formation in a jar filled with methane, hydrogen and ammonia—his version of the primordial soup. However, his estimates of atmospheric composition were eventually considered inaccurate. The experiment became regarded as a general rather than useful example of how the first organic molecules may have assembled" -Wired Science.

The Miller-Urey experiment was unrealistic because a trap was inserted which is not a mechanism in the real world. The trap was put there so it would preserve what was being created otherwise if the experiment allowed recycling, it would have destroyed whatever was previously created. So the knowledge after more than fifty years of research remains at square one even with the rise of knowledge in these experiments...

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 also states: "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 This This means, generational changes which give rise to an increase in genetic information, leading to the development of capabilities, limbs and organs that were not present in previous generations. It is claimed that minor changes (errors in the code) occurred in the DNA were happening and as a result of these copied errors, it somehow was able to produce brand new information, changing the genes in a positive way like a computer system upgrading to newer machine which operates better. Mutations in DNA do in fact happen fairly often, but most of them are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. Also radiation and other chemicals are also thought to have vital role played a role in this naturalistic process but no random "positive mutations" in terms of creating brand new information that leads to major positive changes in a species have never been observed rather "negative mutations" have been discovered which has a negative impact such as causing diseases.

3. Natural Selection Based Often times referred to as a non-random 'mechanism' with a purpose (to enhance fitness or complexity) which has been adjusted for evolutionary reasons but in reality natural selection does not exist without an existing function, so it would be illogical to state that natural selection is a mechanism. In other words, natural selection will act only in the presence of function, so it can never explain function in the first place.

What natural selection does is, it directs by choosing random mutations to allow complexity to self organize more quickly then by a mere random process. It also directs changes once that complexity is created. In other words, the evolutionary process has more do than just changing allele frequencies. Genetic drift and migration can affect those allele frequencies as well. Darwin had done a lot of research on various authors on it, one of which he eventually borrowed heavily from was a creationist named, Blyth who published several articles on the process of natural selection in the Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837 which was 22 years before Darwin had published his book where he added his own explanation.

"The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species become better adapted to their environment. Also known as “survival of the fittest,” natural selection is the driving force behind the process of evolution." In other words, "survival of the fittest" leads to new species under the direction of natural selection.

"The organisms are subjected to rounds of selection and mutation. First, the number of mistakes made by each organism in the population is determined. Then the half of the population making the least mistakes is allowed to replicate by having their genomes replace (`kill') the ones making more mistakes. (To preserve diversity, no replacement takes place if they are equal.) At every generation, each organism is subjected to one random point mutation in which the original base is obtained 1/4 of the time. For comparison, HIV-1 reverse transcriptase makes about one error every 2000-5000 bases incorporated, only 10 fold lower than this simulation [17]" -Schneider 2001.

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".

5. Homology Theory This is used quite often for one of evolution's best inferences of evidence for it's claims besides the fossil record which uses the universal genetic code as evidence but scientists have discovered a contradictory pattern with similarities in which they are currently trying to squeeze into the framework, thus making it's claims fit into a complex pattern of chaos. For example, broken genes, referred to as pseudogenes, are sometimes found to be disabled by identical mutations in cousin species. Darwin once concluded, "We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance."

Phylogenetic Tree Of Life

The "evolutionary tree" where a progression of lower and simpler life forms that supposedly evolved into more complex or higher life forms. It remains an important part of the hypothesis of evolution as it's been studied over the past 150 years by many biologists which still use the diagram today. In fact, in a recent study about this very diagram, using hundreds of animal genomes, evolutionary scientists wanted to see how visible the "phylogentic tree" is.

The outcome was quite of a disappointed for them with their findings. As it turns out, the evolutionary signal is very weak to say the least. Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree. At the lower levels, only a mere 12 percent hit the bar while a strong 88 percent did not. At higher levels or orders the scores were even lower. The maximum score was 10 in primates, and 0.0 in 75 other orders. There is only one way the data is going to match up with the "evolutionary tree" and that is to have substantial increases in sequence data to bring that score up to a level comparable to that of the best-supported higher taxa. Evolutionary scientists have continued their quest in other areas to find evidence for the "evolutionary tree" but to no avail...

"Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data."

Neandertal Man: Advanced or Primitive?

Most of us were taught about evolution's history on supposed cavemen who didn't know how to make clothes to wear, communicated with grunts, and were primitive hunters. However, new research has falsified these claims! Let's start with the remains of Neandertals which have been found mainly in European caves but finding more Neandertal remains in South China came to be a bit of a surprise. Not only that, what researchers discovered was a Neandertal jawbone that resembled modern human features! Scientists also discovered that Neandertals and modern humans intermarried. Both were found to be buried together in European burial sites. The assigned evolutionary age suggests they both lived together for a very long time which falsifies another claim by evolutionists that modern man eliminated them as they spread out into the world.

DNA evidence has also revealed another interesting aspect in the research. Prior to discovering the remains in a burial site with modern humans, reasearchers had sequenced a full-length Neandertal mitochondrial genome (not a complete nuclear genome) where evolutionary researchers concluded that Neandertals made no contribution in the gene pool with modern man. Many defenders of evolution were jumping in glee over the news, making more claims that Neandertals were not fully humans but in a transition to become modern humans. However, when 60 percent of genome was finally completed and revealed on May 6, 2010, it had strengthen and verified the creationist position.

Modern humans and Neandertals hardly differ at all, also modern humans and Neandertals differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways! What is more revealing, Europeans and Asians share about 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neanderthals, indicating that there was substantial interbreeding that went on between the two groups in the past which confirms the burial sites. Europeans have hated the idea being linked to Neandertals because of the false story of which they were sub-human, and not that smart, thus they embraced the evolutionary story. The evidence was important because when a species can interbreed like in this case Neanderthals and modern humans then they are the same species!

The following quote below was previously posted on this page before the genome was sequenced, the science was right on!

"Neandertal Man has often been claimed as a link between man and ape. Mitochondrial DNA interpretation for evolution says that Neandertal man was a side branch rather than a direct link to humans. But the mutational "hotspots" also differ in modern man. In addition, these mutational sites also differ within each Neandertal. This indicates a much closer relationship than implied by evolutionists. Basically Neandertals were fully human who had slightly different morphological features, and also hunted with weapons, used musical instruments and buried their dead with rituals which is highly unique human characteristic."

The popular conception of Neanderthals hunting game with a primitive club and eating habbits have also been falsified with new research. In 2008, PNAS revealed "from Vanguard and Gorham's caves indicates that Neanderthals used unexpectedly modern and complex subsistence strategies."

Those modern and complex strategies consisted of the following...

a) broad use of land and small scale resources

b) sea fishing and hunting

c) scheduling resource use by the seasons

This behavior of Neanderthals is not at all separate from modern humans, then what is? The once brutish looking caveman considered so non-intelligent in comparison to modern humans so the evolutionary story could tell us how modern humans could out compete with them (survival of the fittest) to extinction. The BBC in 2011, writes "Neanderthals have been widely under-estimated." In another story, Amanda Henry who is lead author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told CNN, "Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors." So when are they going to get it? Neanderthals are just like you or me whether it be behavior or DNA!

Homo Erectus

Considered in the story of evolution, a precursor to modern humans with only primitive ability but again like Neaderthals who was also dubbed as a transition from apes to modern humans, research is falsifying this story too. In Science Daily, "A new study suggests that Homo erectus, a precursor to modern humans, was using advanced toolmaking methods in East Africa 1.8 million years ago, at least 300,000 years earlier than previously thought."

What further complicates this part of the evolutionary story is that discovering the tools only in Africa and not in Asia suggests that this group lost the technology while migrating into another country! But this is a minor problem for the story, but it wasn't the major blow! That came with what Michael Hammer published in PNAS which asserts that Homo erectus and modern humans interbred! This of course makes them members of the same species. "We found evidence for hybridization between modern humans and archaic forms in Africa...We think there were probably thousands of interbreeding events. It happened relatively extensively and regularly." Since these precursors are interconnected with each other like Homo ergaster, the evolutionary story of early man is completely falsified! So when are they going to get it? They were like you or me!

Sounds like Live Science is getting it right, this sound like a biblical reference but when in fact it's a confirmation of it..."We need to modify the standard model of human origins in which a single population transitioned to the anatomically modern state in isolation – a garden of Eden somewhere in Africa – and replaced all other archaic forms both within Africa and outside Africa without interbreeding..."

Humans and Chimpanzees

Evolutionary 'theory' has long maintained that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor with only one percent separating the two. How can scientists test such a proposal? Since the mapping of the genome, it has opened the door for many areas in which to do research with. According to evolutionists, the Y chromosome which is the DNA sequence that makes men what they are, is a degenerate leftover from our early evolutionary history. It contains relatively few protein-coding genes with its small size and slightly twisted when condensed while the rest is made up of repetitive material.

A recent study published on the Y chromosome of chimpanzees has been an enormous surprise to evolutionists because many thought the construction of a chimpanzee genome was finished back in 2005. The oversight was about evolutionary scientists failing to sequence the chimp's genome to the same standards of a human genome but rather they used the human genome as a "scaffold" to reconstruct the chimpanzee genome. Y chromosome is extremely repetitive, there are major differences in regions of the human genome which left a chimpanzee's genome unfinished. Currently, the human Y chromosome is also unfinished because it's been only half-sequenced.

Y chromosomes are small and assumed to have evolved from a larger chromosome, so evolutionary history is assumed to be retained here like the loss of many genes. The evolution of the Y chromosome is supposed to slow down as the chromosome loses more and more genes but this was not the conclusion with better data. In fact, scientists found remarkable differences between humans and chimpanzees. David Page, who led the chimp Y chromosome sequencing project, said that two chromosomes are, "horrendously different from each other.

It looks like there's been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages. What are the differences being mentioned here? There are two main classes of MSY sequences shared between the humans and chimps "ampliconic" and "X-degenerate" although humans also have "X-transposed" sequences, but the chimp does not. The X-degenerate regions of chimp and man differ by a full 10% which is a pretty significiant difference compared to only 1% claimed by evolutionists.

Overall, there is a 30% difference among human and chimp MSY regions. There are also fewer genes in a chimp compared to a human. A difference evolutionists expected to find between a human and a turkey but not a chimp and a human! So massive gene loss or gain as the result of a evolutionary mechanism was invoked as being responsible for such differences between humans and chimps. However, there are observational problems with that conclusion as well because a high level of variation is not being observed rather a low level between human Y chromosomes is being observed which should not be there if they were mutating at a high rate!

This particular discovery has scientists adjusting the speed of evolution which puts its explanation of nature into even more complexity with it's wholesale rearrangement of significant parts and the evolution of entire gene families in a relatively short amount of time, but yet stay homogeneous within a species. In other words, the chimp Y chromosome makes the case for common ancestry worst off than it was before!

Add to that another study which included a complete mapping of an orangutan's genome. Evolutionists claim this animal's lineage had broken from away from chimps and humans some sixteen million years ago. When it was fitted into the evolutionary framework, researchers then claimed the orangutan genes have evolved far more slowly than chimps' or humans'. To explain such a difference, intelligence was invoked, however Locke who mapped the genome, points out that orangutans are also quite intelligent. Also, the orangutan's genome in some parts was more similiar to humans than chimps. This in turn has become a mystery in the evolutionary framework, how chimps mysteriously lost orangutans DNA but humans retain it.

Evolutionists do not argue about what sets humans and chimps apart which is the genes humans don't have in comparison to other animals. Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Stanford University have been researching this area, and discovered that there are 510 genetic segments that are found in chimps and other animals but are not found in humans. Keep in mind, this is only the very beginning for what could come about in this area of science!

Nothing in Biology Obtains Clarity

"Evolution is a lot of fun," said Bejerano, who plans to continue the investigation into what the ultraconserved segments might be doing. "You answer one question, and five others pop up."

- Science daily

"Evolution is an ‘in parallel’ process, with beneficial mutations at one gene locus being retained after they become fixed in a population while beneficial mutations at other loci become fixed,” they said. “In fact this statement is essentially the principle of natural selection."

-Herbert Wilf and Warren Ewens in PNAS, 2010

"Experimentation is a tool for keeping our thinking under the contraint of testing; constantly looking to see whether what we have reasoned conforms to what we have experienced."

Testing Mutations For Evolution

Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University conducted an experiment on Salmonella bacterium which was published recently in the journal of science in November 2010. Their aim was to come up with new insights on how evolution increases fitness. What surprised evolutionists about this experiment, evolutionary expectations were not met because the mutations caused a loss in fitness rather than an increase in fitness!

Fruit Flies had been a controversial topic back in 2008, presidential election when Sarah Palin was critical of certain research that was being conducted on Fruit Flies in France. Well as it turns out, fruit fly research has been very valuable for confirming creationist model. After 600 generations that spanned over 35 years of research there was very little change and what is even more interesting, there was less so-called evolution in these organisms than in similar experiments conducted with microbes, like bacteria and yeast! And success is a lot less likely in the wild than under ideal lab conditions!

The paper in Nature is called, "Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change" where it says…

"Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development."

"We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."

In other words, they were looking for a "signature" of beneficial mutations becoming fixed in the population. Despite their success in creating an enormous amount of mutations with the fruit flies, their designed bodies resisted change which was surprising to certain scientists who dedicated their lives in researching evolution. And not only that but the fruit flies went in the other direction which is known as "reverse-evolution." The fruit flies were de-evolving rather than evolving in a progressive manner. What's even more interesting, there were no new mutations, rather there were only variants of them. This was very disappointing for evolutionists but a great confirmation for creationism which predicts life is within it's own kind that is regressing in design rather than progressing. This is known as the second law of thermodynamics which began at the fall of Adam. More on natural laws in the creation science section.

This wasn't the only experiment being conducted on mutations, there was another one that had to do with bacteria. Researchers have been critical of the lack of experimentally derived data on a molecular level which shows mutational differences between various creatures. So they put mutations to the test, so they used measurements of 126 different random single mutations to find out the effect on fitness with these growing bacteria. In evolution, there is a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate but the observational data didn't agree. What microbiologists from Uppsala University in Sweden discovered was, the mutations had only a negative effect which means there was a loss of fitness with each generation! This brings up a question, how could bacteria evolve into man if the mutations in fruit flies were only producing variants which had a negative effect and mutations in bacteria themselves were also causing loss in fitness?

There is also growing evidence that genes themselves are no longer the cause of biological inheritance because scientists have discovered that genes are switched on and off when needed or not needed from epigenetic mechanisms operating in the cell. This finding suggests that the DNA provides the much needed information but it's not controlled by the genes themselves rather the cell controls it. So if the cell controls inheritance rather than the genes, then this would also explain certain observations like the bacteria, fruit fly and other experiments which include the study of Escherichia coli that produced 10,000 generations and yet it displayed no signs of turning into another animal.

Evolutionists tend to love using this phrase, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." But with better data emerging all the time, where is the light and where is the sense? Explanations without evidence of those two elements are useless for a theory no matter what a particular establishment agrees upon.

Cornelius Hunter who earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is a Professor at Biola University, he writes...

"Evolution is, of course, unlikely from a scientific perspective. Practically every one of its major predictions has been falsified. And the theory has become enormously complex and circuitous in its attempts to accommodate the uncooperative data"

Testing For Evolutionary Gene Duplication

It's a common held belief in evolution where posits that duplicated genes are free to evolve new functions without affecting the primary gene. However, a recent paper reveals something different, it says...

"Research into the evolution of genes has shown that the peptides they code for are of a finicky and precarious nature, both marginally stable and prone to aggregation. Protein folding happens to be a highly complex and synergistic process, involving a number of epistatic relationships among many residues. This phenomenon, compounded with the issue of interactions between protein molecules, can significantly complicate adaptive evolution such that in the majority of cases the overall effects on reproductive fitness are very slight. Many arguably “beneficial” mutations have been observed to incur some sort of cost and so can be classified as a form of antagonistic pleiotropy."

"Indeed, the place and extent of natural selection as a force for change in molecular biology have been questioned in recent years. Detecting the incidence of any beneficial substitutions in genes has so far relied on statistical inferences as empirical evidence is less readily available. In many instances, nonsynonymous changes and shifts in allelic diversity may be induced by factors that can serve to imitate selective effects—biased gene conversion, mutational and recombinational hotspots, hitchhiking, or even neutral drift being among them. Moreover, several well-known factors such as the linkage and the multilocus nature of important phenotypes tend to restrain the power of Darwinian evolution, and so represent natural limits to biological change. Selection, being an essentially negative filter, tends to act against variation including mutations previously believed to be innocuous."

Evolution is supposed to be flexible enough to be innovative, able to “tinker” with the copy without affecting the function of the original, isn't it? The paper went by the best evidence that evolutionists believed how genetic information arises in duplicated genes in order to conduct the experiement, then explained how one tests for novel genetic information. It was suppose to give more understanding on evolution, but what it did reveal was “A key problem associated with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution is that many of the putative incipient and intermediate stages in the development of a biological trait may not be useful themselves and may even be harmful.” This is what creationists have been saying for decades. Rather than answering questions that lead to more understanding of Darwinian evolution, the findings have lead to more questions as a result of falsifying a long held belief in gene duplication.

Testing For Protein Evolution

For years, evolutionists have investigated on how proteins might have evolved. In one of the more recent studies, scientists took a virus and tested it in a lab for evolution. The virus that was used was mostly intact except a small part of it. The objective was to upgrade so the virus could regain it's fantastically high infection capabilities. So they mixed the amino acid sequence of one part of one of the viral proteins, and they repeatedly evolved that randomized segment for the purpose of reconstructing the entire virus.

What they found was disappointing, the evolutionary process in which was invoked could produce only tiny levels of functionality while greatly weaken the virus (affecting the way it could infect a host) compared to it's counterpart in nature. The main problem with the experiment was that it was unable to produce parts which would enhance the virus. The conclusion in the paper was to invoke Homologous recombination as a way to solve the problem. However, this raising more questions than answers, Homologous recombination is a complex genetic mechanism assisted by finely-tuned proteins. In other words, for the initial evolution of proteins, homologous recombination wouldn't have existed during that time.

Shared Genes Falsify Evolutionary Expectations

Evolutionary 'theory' says that species have supposedly evolved along its own separate "branch" for an enonormous amount of time, thus observations should show unique DNA, overall more similar to some creatures and dissimilar to others. Evolutionists have been surprised to find similar genes in dissimilar sequences amoung the species. Vanderbilt University evolutionary biologists Antonis Rokas and Jason Slot conducted a study that examined two different species that have distinct DNA and appearances.

To the surprise of the scientists these molds share a sequence of 60 thousand base pairs, lined up in the same order! Since it's impossible for the exact same sequence of 60 thousand bases twice evolved through any random approach, the scientists came up with a rescue hypothesis by assuming that the whole cluster "jumped" from one fungus to the other. Other scientists have observe similar things in other species. Even in microbes, the appearance of similar gene sets sometimes defies the LGT explanation that they jumped between species. Assertions that "lateral gene transfer" occurred in eukaryotes requires a pretty good amount of faith because it has never been observed.

A peculiar moss also complicated the evolutionary tree when it was discovered actively processing human genes. If it had evolved along its own plant branch, then why would it have mammal machinery in its cells? The data always seems to explain the 'theory' rather than the 'theory' explaining the data!

In Conclusion

Evolutionary explanations have failed with regularity with the advancement of science rather than confirming it. Thus its focus is on creating a complex story that goes in all directions which sounds better than the actual data itself. Testing on the way mutations behave in an organism is certainly science, just asserting that it evolved doesn't constitute it being a science but merely a belief that it exists.

For every "gap" filled, science creates new gaps all over again. The process is "inexhaustible."

--Berlinsky author of book called; The Devil's Delusion.

"Evolution is a lot of fun,” said Bejerano, who plans to continue the investigation into what the ultraconserved segments might be doing. "You answer one question, and five others pop up."

--Science Daily

Dr. George Wald who had been blunt at times with his quotes indicates a very important point in his writings. 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

Introduction

Creationism is the belief which says all things were created by intelligent design namely; God and does in fact use the Bible. It's scientific observances of a Creator responsible for the creating of life and non-life are found in a wide range of fields. Unlike in the field of intelligent design which mainly deals with only two principles for it's conclusions. We will get more into the differences of intelligent design and Creationism later on as that needs to be addressed. Now back to our topic, science has been found to confirm what the Bible has stated, which makes God's Word true let's take a look at the various fields of observation...

The Laws and Factual Data of Creationism

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. No experiment over the past 50 years have ever shown dead matter to rise as living material on it's own. We also do not observe in the natural world.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing like what is claimed about the big bang theory, and also energy can be changed from one form to another but the total amount of the mass remains the same.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Generally all systems will lean toward the most probable state possible, and then over time become totally random and disorganized. Albert Einstein stated this law particular law would be impossible to eliminate. We observe this in the natural world today!

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.

Hubble Reveals Creationism

Telescope

The Hubble telescope has become a great tool for revealing the Creationism. This unique tool allows us to see vast parts of space which were previously unknown to man. One discovery which stands out, was an experiment conducted in 1995, where the Hubble was programmed to view an empty part of the sky with keeping the shutter open for about 11 days. Many scientists are curious to see the vast parts of the Universe so do many people around the world.

As the distant images by Hubble were blown up, there were many mature galaxies which are not suppose to be there according to the evolution model. However, it doesn't conflict the creationist model and this discovery clearly indicates intelligent design namely God who created various objects in a relatively short period of time. Since the photo was taken there remains no viable explanation offered by evolutionists on why those older galaxies are positioned so far into space. For the actual view of the Hubble's discovery with the picture of mature galaxies are contained below, with a simulation of a flyby.

Spacecraft exploration has also helped observed the Concept of Creationism

Spacecraft exploration happens to been key factor in providing very important data especially in the creation science realm. For example, the spacecraft "Cassini" has made some remarkable discoveries, one of which was Saturn's moons Enceladus. It was found to have internal heating on the inside which produces about 5.8 gigawatts of heat. This indicates a young moon (thousands of years old) in our solar system rather than a very old one which is billions of years old. The new discovery directly fits right into the creationist model...However, according to the Evolutionist's hypothesis this moon should have frozen out a long time ago, thus making Enceladus inactive due to it's distance from the sun and the coldness of space. With this new observational data in hand, evolutionists have concluded; "Enceladus' surface is believed to be geologically "young," possibly less than 100 million years old."

Another recent discovery of of the spacecraft Cassini was the exploration of one of Saturn's rings. The F ring of Saturn was found to be experiencing collisions, about 30 meters per second. These collisions created some features in the ring such as spurs, grooves, gouges and fan-like structures that vary rapidly. These collisions happen on a daily basis, sometimes even on an hourly basis. What is very interesting about this discovery is the fact that it reveals Saturn's ring is young, not millions of years old as evolutionists now claim...As an evolutionary science admits; “It is difficult to understand how the observed 1 km-wide ring component seen in some of the highest resolution images can survive in such a chaotic environment”. In all practicality, something like that wouldn't be able to survive if it were millions of years old and the ring certainly would not be in such good condition as it's currently in, especially with the external bombardment and sunlight pressure, that would erode the ring over time.

And lastly, Cassini discovered liquid ethane on one of Saturn's moons "Titan" as it was speculated by scientists. Not just small amounts of ethane, but "oceans" of it all over globally. But after Cassini observed Titan by flying by it 40 times there were no such "oceans" of ethane. The substance was also to be found very smooth, "smoother than any geological process could make" as the secular report points out. Ethane a by product of oil, doesn't evaporate back into the atmosphere like say water would, so if Titan was old as evolutionists claimed, there would be much more ethane on the moon. This is just one of many pieces of data that continues to indicate a young solar system which is agreement with the Creationist model.

Very Distant Galaxies Show Creation Timing and Age

The popular dynamo hypothesis was disproved when very distant galaxies (evolutionists call them early galaxies) were observed in June 2008, as showing strong magnetic fields just like the ones which are closer to Earth. In the dynamo hypothesis it was speculated that the younger the galaxies are, the weaker the magnetic fields. As billions of years pass, the evolution process makes the magnetic fields stronger. As it turns out, this is not the case, rather this piece of observational data indicates both close and far away galaxies were created not only the same time but the galaxies are not as old as evolutionists speculate it to be.

The Progress of Knowledge in DNA Today

Since Darwin’s time the hypothesis of evolution promoted the idea that life went from simple to complex. From viewing the cell as nothing more than a protoplasm, we see 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. Large groups of genes are organized into chromosomes. These chromosomes line up in their little areas which are organized into particular patterns. The movement of the chromosomes using their arms are similar to that of square dancers.

DNA has an enormous amount of compact information that determines what a cell will build in terms of structures. For example, one gram of DNA can hold up to a trillion CDs of data. Also DNA has specified functions which determines what chemicals or hormones it will produce and where the cell will locate within the body. Proteins which is critical for life are just amazing if not down right incredible work of God. These linear proteins which are being currently studied are cranked out by what is called; ribosome factories which are located within the cell. The proteins are created in a particular shape so they can have the ability to assume their function. What is the significance of this? Well, the linear proteins needs to be coded, transcribed, translated and folded in a particular complex way in order for it to work, which is critical for life. Any misfolded proteins results in damage to the cells and causes a number of diseases such as cancer. There is no question about it, the machinery is just as vital for life as the protein itself. This fits exactly into the creationist model which confirms the Bible.

Steven Gould a proponent of naturalism writes a metaphor "replaying life's tape" relating to the evolutionary process of DNA replication. He states in his book; "Wonderful Life"...

Back in 1999, researchers from the National Institutes of Health found something very interesting...Using DNA replication machinery from two known bacteria namely archaea/eukaryotes which did not share a common naturalistic origin. The research concluded the two systems were identical. The discovery surprised the researchers (and many other evolutionists too) because the systems of two different bacteria with a diverged origin should also have two different replicating systems not the same. Indeed, they would be right if the hypothesis were correct. Keep in mind, this is not a gap, rather it's an scientific observation of data which doesn't match with the proposals of evolution...This however does match with the proposal of Creation Science which shows the same designer namely God, His handy work in the creation of life.

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.

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.

As we seen so far in the advancements of science, the specified complexity of a single cell is one of the most mind boggling elements being researched in the world today. Natural laws cannot explain the irreducibly complex human machinery like a high end plastic molding machine, nor can it explain the engine contained in your car. The motors in the living cell do in fact bare a striking resemblance to human machinery. It's able to operate at 100,000 rpm. Some of the components include; a water cooled system, universal joint, propeller, bushing, drive shaft, the ability to assemble, and conduct repairs, it also has forward and backward gears, and the latest discovery includes a clutch. Bio-machines are remarkably more advanced in construction and operation compared to their human counterparts, thus indicating God's signature or craftsmanship in the creation.

Another example of complexity which has delighted creationists all over the world, is the latest discovery of a single cell microbe called; Monosiga brevicollis. It has a complexity level vastly greater than animals which have billions of more cells than this single cell animal. The complexity level consists of a highly advance network for signaling using "128 tyrosine kinase genes, 38 more than found in humans..." A very interesting discovery which fits well into the creationist model as man was created by God in His own image at their adult age originally which makes it a higher level of specified complexity, however this discovery presents a major challenge for the hypothesis of evolution because the Monosiga brevicollis is suppose to be a very primitive single cell animal on the evolutionary tree. No doubt there will be more discoveries in this field which will emerge as evidence of God's signature in His creation.

So with all these highly advanced parts of a cell, what would be the bare minimum amount of genetic code required for life? Scientists are still debating and researching this very subject. 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. Evidence of God's craftsmanship in a single cell puts it's origin at great odds with evolution as it has ignited many debates over the internet and abroad over it's conclusions about the scientific data.

Spontaneous generation is a hypothesis which claims to have arisen from random chance from chemicals that happened to be present in a simplistic manner and in an non-thinking process that somehow could built itself a rotary motor with highly specialized functions enabling life to exist. Many have tried to calculate the odds even before such recent discoveries have been made about the cell when it comes to spontaneous generation. 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 and how it functions, the impossible odds continue to raise to new impossible levels. Indeed science has it's limitations, evolution is very much "faith based" which is something they often criticize creationists for doing.

There is some confusion over this question, generally promoted by militant Atheists. 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 when in the lab, the Bible is not used for observations which leaves the door open for other conclusions. 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 is fruits of having a deep dislike towards the beliefs of Christianity.

The question remains so what is "intelligent design?" Intelligent design has a much broader meaning and for the most part it's secular. It's able to conduct a series of experiments in the lab which include observations, hypothesis, and conclusion. The ID model says that intelligent "agents" are responsible for the created items in which they have experimented with, and concluded that random mutation by chance is not possible for a cell to exist. The theory strictly goes by scientific data, and will not answer various questions about religion because it says that goes beyond the limits of science. How is the ID model tested in a lab? Well basically scientists take a natural object, and then look for CSI contained in the natural object such as a living cell. CSI by the way stands for; "containing complex and specified information". If the lab test reveals CSI especially in large amounts and the non-function ability (meaning if the genes get destroyed) once a fraction or some of the specified information is removed or when new information is added (mutation), the ID model would conclude it was "designed".

Fairly recently, there is on ongoing debate on the E. Coli bacteria which is the longest experiment in history concerning mutations. Intelligent designer proponent Michael Behe who is not a Christian but an excellent scientist, responds to the recent findings in the experiment. Basically the experiment produced after more than 30,000 generations over 20 years, a bacteria which had the ability to digest citrate. A new function was claimed by evolutionists through random mutation, however, the bacteria already had the function to digest the citrate, but no ability to get the nutrient inside on it's own. Anyway, back to the main point, the ID model doesn't use the Bible for it's answers in the lab just like the bacteria debate and ID is supported by science. You will generally see evolutionists argue over the conclusions of ID but not the actual data itself but there are exceptions. So how are Christians to approach ID? As far as the other side, the ID is more complimentary to the creationist model but it's not a replacement for Creationism and therefore shouldn't be considered as being completely the same. More on this subject in future articles.

Part Two of This Series

The Age of the Earth

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 some of the aspects on how old the Earth really is.

A compliment to this web page on the various aspects of Evolution and Creation Science. A blog was created to keep up with all the new discoveries you can access the blog from the link below...

New Discoveries and Comments About Creationism