Creation vs Evolution - Has Evolution Been Proven?

Creation vs. Evolution: The Other Side of the Story

By Jerry Williams "Hat Zair"
Edited by Nick Ligouri and Eric Schmidt

Printable version (.pdf)hr> Previous Section: Hasn't Evolution Been Proven? | Creation and Evolution | Apologetics

Isn't It Still Possible?

The Argument From Probability Mathematics

Thomas Huxley, in a debate in June of 1860, made a statement (which has been dogmatically repeated many times since) that monkeys pounding on typewriters could eventually write, if given enough time, a work of Shakespeare.[57] This was said related to his faith in the power of time and chance to accomplish the improbably. Statements have been made to the effect that, given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the possible becomes almost certain. This is true to a point, in the sense that something that has a probability of happening once in a million attempts becomes almost sure by the time one or two million tries are made. However, many of the claims made by evolutionary biologists do not have anything near a chance in a million of happening.

In 1966 a symposium was called together in Philadelphia to discuss this very problem. Murrary Eden, a professor from MIT, pointed out that when the Neo-Darwinian theory of random variation is spoken of, it is "usually too imprecisely defined to be tested. When it is precisely defined, it is highly implausible." He then went on to say that an "adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new laws -- physical, physico-chemical and biological."[58] Likewise, Marcel Schutzenburger of the University of Paris reported that attempts had failed to substantiate these theories on computer, stating, "We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact, when we try to simulate such a situation...on a computer we find that we have no chance (i.e., less than one in 10¹⁰⁰⁰) even to see what the modified program would compute: it just jams."[59] Decades have passed since this symposium, but the mathematical challenges brought up have never been adequately addressed. Many just cloud the issue with the idea of "many millions of years" and feel that is sufficient. However, anyone who actually calculates the probability of these theories of major evolutionary transformations will quickly find that the odds against their occurrence, even granted billions of years of constant attempts, are astronomical.

Mathematicians consider any event less probable than one chance in 10⁵⁰ "zero probability," or not a plausible occurrence in the real world.[60] This number is a one followed by fifty zeros, or one hundred million, million million million million million million million. To give this a meaning, one chance in 10⁵⁰ could be illustrated by the following: first, imagine a sphere as large as the earth, its entire volume hilled with tiny white grains of sand. One of the grains is green. The probability of picking, blindfolded, that one greed grain of sand on the first attempt would be about one chance in 10³² -- still considered a physical possibility. To get a probability of one chance in 10⁵⁰, imagine one million million million spheres, all of them as big as the earth, and each filled with white grains of sand. If a single green grain of sand were hidden in one of those spheres (not in each sphere, but only one green one among them all), the probability of picking it, blindfolded, on the first attempt without making a mistake, would be about one chance in 10⁵⁰, or "zero probability."

Let us now apply probability math to calculate the chances of monkeys typing out any English sentence by random striking of the keys. We can begin by establishing the variables:
A) A special typewriter, having only 26 capital letter keys, would make it much easier -- no lower case keys, no space bar, no punctuation marks, etc. The challenge is to see if even one of the monkeys would be able to type a single 100-letter English sentence that makes sense. The total amount of 100-letter segments possible is 26¹⁰⁰, which is 10¹⁴¹. (To simplify the calculation, we will also assume that the typewriters produce letters in groups of 100 and that sentences cannot begin in one group and end in another. We regret doing this since it does help to bias the result in our favor, but the reader will see that the point is made regardless.)
B) Linguists estimate that there are about 10²⁵ sentences of 100 letters' length in the English language. Therefore, the probability of a monkey typing one of them by chance would be one in 10¹⁴¹ / 10²⁵ = 10¹¹⁶.
C) Assuming 100 trillion (10¹⁴) planets, each covered with 100 trillion monkeys, pounding on typewriters at 10 letters per second for 300 billion years (10¹⁹ seconds), the total number of letters typed would be 10⁴⁸.
D) 10¹¹⁶ / 10⁴⁸ = 10⁶⁸. So there would be about one chance in 10⁶⁸ (one hundred million million million million million million million million million million million) of any of the monkeys typing any 100-letter English sentence.

If we used normal typewriters, the odds would be even more astronomical against it; however it is unnecessary to continue, because anything less than one chance in 10⁵⁰ (written 10^-50) is essentially zero probability. Even 10⁴⁰ is so unlikely as to be utterly negligible; but to extend the full benefit of the doubt, a probability below 10⁵⁰ can be regarded as implausible. And 10⁶⁸ is not just 18 times less probable, or even 18 million times less probable, but rather 18 orders of a magnitude (i.e., a million million million times) less probable. Evidently those who claim that monkeys could type out Shakespeare have never done the math. Of course, one could cling to the hope that it is still possible, but this would be another statement of faith, and not of fact.

How does this relate to evolution? One answer is that a free-living cell requires at least half a million nucleotide bases to be able to function and reproduce.[61] In terms of information (measured in binary digits or "bits"), this is the equivalent of over 200,000 English letters. If randomly typing a 100-letter English sentence is found to be highly implausible, the implications should be obvious. Randomly typing 200,000 English letters, and producing something that makes good sense, would have a probability far below 10^-200,000. Since the genetic blueprints of even a "simple" bacterium would need to contain the equivalent of this amount of information in order to function, the probability of random formation in a 'prebiotic soup" of enough DNA to maintain life can be no better than this figure.

Another application of probability mathematics is to determine the plausibility of genetic programs changing substantially, by random mutations, to produce large amounts of new, complex information. Wee can consider as a test case the assumed transition from an ape or ape-like species to the human race. Again, we will first establish the variables:
A) Evolutionists state that the difference between human and chimpanzee DNA is less than 10% and possibly even less than 5%. The actual amount is not yet known,* but to give it the full benefit of the doubt, let us assume a 1% difference in the DNA. Since the genetic code for humans contains about one billion codons, a 1% difference would mean about 10 million codons. (A codon is like a word in the DNA blueprints.)
B) Some may protest that the DNA of our assumed primate ancestor was more similar to human DNA than that of a chimp is. In that case, let us assume that it was ten times more similar, i.e., that there was a difference of 1/10 of 1%, which would be about one million codons.
C) Some may protest further that much of the DNA is redundant, and has no function. Evidence is accumulating that indicates this claim to be highly unlikely;[62] but again let us consent and assume that 99% is redundant. Therefore 10,000 codons must be randomly mutated in harmony for the assumed ancestor to become human.
D) It is agreed both by evolutionists and creationists that beneficial mutations, if they exist at all, are very rare. Some have put it at one in a thousand, while others have estimated it to be less frequent. Let us assume that one in a thousand is beneficial. This would mean that if one single codon suffers a mutation in the course of an offspring's development, it would have a one in a thousand chance of receiving a beneficial change. If two mutations occur, then there is one chance in a million that the organism could receive two harmonious, beneficial changes. If three occur, the probability is one in a billion. (To calculate the combined chances of two of more events happening together, you must multiply one probability by the next; and 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = one billion.)

The conclusion is that the probability of an animal mutating by chance into another functional kind, even if they are as genetically similar as the foregoing assumptions indicate, would be about one chance in 10^30,000, a figure that could not be faced even if the entire universe were filled with mutating genes. (Just to say this figure, in millions, would require about thirty minutes). Multiply this by the fact that for every major transition, from the first cell of thousands of codons all the way to every separate kind of organism, the probability of each step is just as implausible.[63]

It may be contested that this is calculating only the chances of a single macro-mutational change of thousands of DNA nucleotides in one generation, which few if any evolutionists believe anyway. We respond by pointing out that the results would be the same if the transformation included numerous relatively smaller jumps, such as a dozen steps of several hundred nucleotides changing at once. Moreover, it is not feasible to think such a change could take place by the accumulation of just one or a few nucleotide mutations at a time. As noted earlier, there is no way to go from one DNA program to another largely different yet still functional type without running into a point where no further changes can be made without either altering a substantial portion of the program at once, or else destroying the sense.

In summary, major evolutionary transformations cannot occur without radical changes of DNA information; at some point the changes would have to be numerous, harmonious and simultaneous, and the mathematical improbability of such an event, especially happening many times, excludes it from being rationally plausible.

Can Something Come From Nothing?

Concerning Thermodynamics

Let us now review some facts about the universe in which we live. Considering all reasonable possibilities, it becomes apparent that there are only three explanations for our existence:

The universe and everything in it has always existed, i.e., it is eternal;
The universe and everything in it got here spontaneously, i.e., through natural processes all by itself (as many evolutionists believe), or
The universe and everything in it was created by some supernatural power through intelligent design. Some may believe in a combination of some or all of these, but it is very difficult to think of anything that falls completely outside of the three above possibilities.

The first possibility can be ruled out automatically. The universe is running down, just like a wind-up clock runs down. Every second incredible amounts of energy are being used up, and none of it is being replenished or renewed. Note that this energy is not becoming non-existent, but rather that it is randomizing; i.e., it is becoming unavailable for future use. For example, the heat of burning a candle does not cease to exist, but instead becomes more and more evenly distributed throughout the universe as time proceeds, and can no longer be used for work.

Thus the universe has an end awaiting it, a time when (barring prior Divine intervention) all available energy would be dissipated; just as a wind-up clock, left to itself, always eventually runs out of energy. If then the universe had begun too long ago, all of its energy would already be evenly distributed. The sun and starts would have burned out, life would have ceased, all energy would have become unavailable and the universe would be the same temperature throughout. This fact, that everything in the universe is running down and decaying, is known as the second law of thermodynamics.[64] We see it all around us: things get dirty and disorganized, machines break down and wax old, objects become corroded and worn, and all types of fuels (like gasoline, oil, wax, and food) get used up. Plants, which are directly or indirectly the source of energy for all humans, get their energy from the sun, the energy of which is also being used up. The conclusion is that the universe must have had a beginning at some definite time in the past, for otherwise it would already have burned out and would not exist as it is.

The second possibility, that the universe formed by natural processes, is also ruled out, but this time by the first law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.[65] Energy cannot be created by any natural or man-made process. Machines that produce electricity do not actually create energy; rather, one type of energy, like heart or solar power, is being converted into another. In order to create energy, one would have to find a way to turn absolutely nothing into energy. It is not humanly possible -- how much more implausible is it that this happened by chance and natural processes?

These two laws support certain conclusions: the first possibility, that the universe has always existed, is refuted by the second law of thermodynamics (everything is decaying and moving toward its end); and the second possibility, that natural processes formed the universe and everything in it, is disproved by the first law of thermodynamics (natural forces cannot create energy or matter). This only leaves one other possibility: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

This creator must be eternal, or else some other being that was eternal would have had to have created Him. This Creator must be a being separate from the universe (contrary to the belief that we, and all things, combined, make up God), for otherwise He would not have been eternal. (In other words, if the universe is God, and the universe had a beginning, then there would have had to have been a time when God did not exist -- and how could a nonexistent Creator create Himself?)

How do scientists that believe in evolution get around this conclusion, that only a supernatural Creator could have made all things? The late Isaac Asimov, one of the more famous scientists of our time, gave an excellent example of the amazing side-stepping that some perform. He wrote in an article that the universe began in a condition of high order, and departed from this order to become the universe in which we now live, "in accordance with the second law" of thermodynamics.[66] Elsewhere he referred to a "cosmic egg";[67] i.e., a primordial universe which existed prior to this one. Two objections immediately stand out. The first is that there is, of course, no available evidence for this "primordial universe" of higher order than ours. The second is that even if it had existed, and had broken down to become our known universe, it is evident that the primordial universe was also governed by the very same laws of thermodynamics. That is, it was not eternal either, not could have formed by natural processes. So he succeeded only in pushing the problem one step back. One author referred to this kind of reasoning as "mental gymnastics."

Another point should be made concerning physical reality. Evolutionary though has been continually presented as fact in our society. One result of this effort is the now generally accepted notion that the natural tendency of matter is to spontaneously organize into higher states of complexity. One can only wonder at the persistence of this popular myth, since well-known principles of physics dictate the exact opposite. The second law of thermodynamics states that the natural tendency of physical things, in any spontaneous process, is to move toward equilibrium: to break down, wear out, fall apart and move toward the lowest energy state and condition of maximum probability. This principle was recognized over 150 years ago, has been tested repeatedly since, and has not been contradicted in any recorded experiment in the history of science.[68] An example may help to illustrate the difference between physical laws and popular mythology.

If you dump a box full of building blocks onto the floor, they will not arrange themselves into organized structures of high complexity. And if someone were to organize them so, the natural tendency would be for the blocks to disorganize -- eventually the structures would come apart. To put together any complex structure, an intelligently guided process is necessary. Spontaneous processes, unguided by intelligently developed programs, only break down complex structures. Thus, in the light of the second law of thermodynamics, the idea that chemicals floating freely in the ocean could organize themselves by natural processes into a living cell is patently absurd. Further, the belief that a single cell could have spontaneously advanced in complexity and organization into all the higher forms of life is also found to be untenable.[69] The astronomer Fred Hoyle has even likened these ideas to the chances of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and constructing a Boeing 747 airplane.[70]

Some have sought to counter this use of the second law by imagining that the energy of the sun could perhaps drive the evolutionary process forward. Is the sun's energy really sufficient to overcome the second law? By itself, no. If there is a mechanism available to harness this energy, such as a solar panel, and if there is a program to direct that energy, then yes, organization and construction of complex structures can occur. However, until all the equipment is together in one place and functioning properly, no benefit will be gained from the energy. For instance, if only 1/3 of the biological parts necessary for a plant's photosynthesis is present, the energy of the sun will be of no help. The fact of the matter is that sunlight itself only breaks things down, in accordance with the second law, unless some means is present to convert the energy into useful work.

These statements can be tested by setting objects such as bricks, metal parts and other construction materials in the sun to see whether they break down or organize into higher states of complexity. Another test could be pouring gasoline on the objects and lighting it. Energy will be released, but no structures of high complexity will emerge. Some may object that biological entities cannot be compared with non-biological materials. In that case, we can alter the experiment by running through a blender leaves, grass, mold and other living things, sterilizing them, sealing them within an airtight transparent container, and setting the container in sunlight. Since the biological forms are no longer living, and thus any mechanisms they may have had to convert energy into work are no longer functioning, it is obvious the sun's light will never cause them to organize into more complex structures. These tests may appear ridiculous, but they are mentioned to point out just how nonsensical it is to believe that sunlight and natural processes could produce instruments of complex design like those existing in living things.

Another evolutionary response is to mention crystals, but this is another misunderstanding. In crystal formation, the molecules attain their most stable arrangement, and the repeating pattern they form is inert, capable in itself of no function.[71] Moreover, when a crystal is broken up, the smaller pieces are chemically and physically identical to the original.[72] Living things are none of the above. Firstly, because they are not in any way stable, but rather constantly functioning. The nature of their parts is like a constant juggling act; when the molecules of an organism reach a stable condition, that organism is dead. Secondly, living things do not consist of repeating patterns, but of hosts of unique, complex components. Finally, when a part from a living being is broken up, such as a functional protein of gene, the smaller pieces each contain only a fraction of the original information. They are not chemically or physically identical to the original. Thus, to compare crystals and living organisms as if they could be formed by similar processes is illogical. Crystals are the result of molecules moving toward stability and an inert state, while living things are functioning, dynamic and highly complex.[73]

The second law of thermodynamics, then, states that the natural tendency of spontaneous processes is to cause structures to break down and move toward randomness, equilibrium. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, claims that chemicals spontaneously organized into a complex living organism, and that this single cell developed by spontaneous processes into more and more complex forms of life, including humans. One of these statements is incorrect. One may hold to the belief that perhaps somehow the "molecules to man" theory is correct, and that there may be some unknown exceptions to the second law; but again, this would be a statement of faith, not fact. A statement of fact is that after a century and a half of careful measurement, the second law has never been observed to be incorrect, nor are any exceptions known.

Can Creation Defend Itself Against Knowledgeable Evolutionists?

Dialogue Between Creationist Scientists And Evolutionist Scientists

Luther Sunderland, a scientist accepting creation, has published a series of interviews with officials of museums which have some of the largest fossil collections in the world: Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, and anthropologist David Pilbeam of Yale's Peabody Museum. Sunderland also interviewed the New York State Education Department's expert on paleontology, Donald Fisher.[74] The interviews are interesting because, since Sunderland was rather informed in these matters, the officials could not get away with saying irresponsible things; so the statements they made were often quite candid. When Patterson was asked about the possibility of the DNA code originating by chance, he replied simply that it could not have. Eldredge likewise stated he would not try to argue that the code had in fact originated by chance. When various officials were asked if they knew of any transitional forms, Patterson's answer was, "No, I don't, not any that I would try to defend. No." David Raup responded to the question with literal silence. Donald Fisher attributed the lack of transitions to "bad luck," and David Pilbeam knew of no example which he could affirm as an intermediate with confidence. As for the alleged "missing links" known as the Australopithecines (including A. afarensis, i.e., "Lucy"), Pilbeam was uncommitted, one official declined to give an opinion and the other who was asked stated only, "There is no way of knowing if it is ancestral to anything or not." The renowned "horse series," put forth as showing the evolution of the horse, was likewise not regarded as being convincing. Eldredge made the statement during his interview that he thought that it was "lamentable" that the horse series has been "presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook." These five interviews can be found in libraries throughout the country (just ask for the ERIC microfiche document ED 228 056), and show fairly well how bankrupt evolutionary theory is under scrutiny. Indeed, it is legitimate to ask if evolution can be defended against knowledgeable anti-evolutionists.

It is true, though not well known, that a growing number of biologists, geologists, geneticists and many other types of scientists who have actually considered the evidence have concluded that macro-evolutionary theories are untenable. The reason for this can be seen by reviewing the recent history of the subject. Around 1960, relatively few scientists believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Then in 1961, a book was published by Henry Morris called The Genesis Flood.* Morris had believed while in college that evolution was the way God had created, until he ran across some literature that came against the theory. His interest was stirred. He responded first by doing a somewhat exhaustive biblical study of the verses that speak of the topics relevant to creation, and became convinced that evolution could not possibly be reconciled to the Scriptures. One must believe either the theory or the Word of God. Next, he searched out the facts, and became equally convinced that macro-evolution is scientifically unsound. Many facts are against it, and no unambiguous evidence actually establishes it as anything more than a vague hypothesis.[75]

The book presents a reasonable case, well-documented, in favor of a literal six-day creation within recent times, geologically speaking (on the order of ten thousand years). A lot of people were rather encouraged to find there is really no scientific reason to doubt Genesis after all. Even more interesting, however, was that it was a strong enough case to convince a number of scientists of various fields to reject evolutionary theories, and accept a creationist interpretive framework. By the early 1970s they numbered in the hundreds, and many began to form associations.

Throughout the 1960s, the movement went by and large ignored by the evolutionary scientists. When it began to pick up momentum, however, some became alarmed. One of the first public responses was to challenge the creationists to debate the subject openly on college campuses. Morris was asked in 1972 to participate in a debate; and he testified that though he had no experience in formal debates, and though he was unsure of what kind of new evidence the evolutionists might have to present, he accepted. It was in the month of October in Kansas City, Missouri, and proved to be a clear enough defeat for evolution that even the school paper declared that the creationist side had presented the stronger case.[76]

During the 70s, creation/evolution debates on college campuses were fairly common. Was creation able to withstand informed evolutionists? The June 15, 1979 issue of The Wall Street Journal carried a front page article speaking of the impact of creationist scientists. In the article, the evolutionist Robert Sloan, Professor of Paleontology at the U. of Minnesota, was quoted as conceding that "the creationists tend to win" the debates. In fact, Joe Felsenstein of in American Scientist expressed his annoyance at how it seemed that a number of evolutionist biologists could be "reduced to babbling" in creation/evolution debates.[77]

Then in October of 1981, a debate between the creationist biochemist Duane Gish and the evolutionist biochemist Russel Doolittle was taped for national broadcasting. According to a report in Science,[78] Gish routed Doolittle. It was so embarrassing for the evolutionists that in a meeting of the National Academy of Science in which the debate was discussed, all but one voice agreed that "debating with the creationists should be avoided." There have been some debates held since then, but the general trend has been to do just that -- avoid it. The tactic since then has been to publish articles in scientific and popular magazines against creation, since most magazines are almost sure to refuse to print creationist responses. In fact, if a printing company which deals in scientific books were to publish any evidence by creationists against evolution, they would risk being boycotted by the majority of the scientific community. Such reactions indicate that Genesis has been rejected not because of careful examination of the evidence, but rather due to closely guarded philosophical beliefs.

Besides the creationist scientists, there are other scientists who have been honest enough to express their doubts. One example is the molecular biologist Michael Behe, who has published a work describing the mounting evidence against evolutionary theories. Near the end he points out, "Two fundamental Darwinian claims: 1) The continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and eventually leading back to a primeval cell; and 2) the belief that all the design of life has resulted from a blind random process; neither have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859." Later he adds, "Contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck more rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."[79]

Many, however, have not been so honest; and there are numerous accounts of evolutionary biologists ignoring facts, distorting facts and openly lying. Niles Eldredge, in his interview with Luther Sunderland, stated that in evolutionary stories, "you are only limited by your imagination and the credulity of your audience."[80] Apparently, then, many are being overly credulous in accepting unsupported evolutionary stories.

A more critical approach reveals the claim that science has consistently supported evolution to be misinformed. In the late 1800s, the basis of heredity was unknown. It is now understood to be genetic; however, the message of genetics turned out to be one of stasis, not of gradual and constant change. Darwinists once assumed that cells were "simple," but discoveries since the introduction of the electron microscope show that this assumption was grossly in error: living cells are now known to depend upon a dazzling array of complex components that, in Darwin's day, could not have been guessed at. Modern discoveries of the molecular basis of biology have not at all been supportive of evolution. The structure and function of hundreds of molecular systems have been described; yet evolutionary origins have not even been addressed for any of them, let alone solved.

Paleontology was one field of which something was known; yet the evidence from fossils was explained away in Origins by insisting that the record was "incomplete." Fossil discoveries of this century have rendered this explanation untenable; the record can now be considered largely complete, yet the gaps between the major groups of organisms remain.

If the most vital fields of science pertinent to evolution (i.e., genetics, molecular biology and paleontology) were either unknown to, or generally dismissed by, Darwin, then upon what was the acceptance of evolution based? Apparently, it was on philosophical grounds, plus certain misconceptions. The situation is the same today. Evolution is largely accepted without question, while the concept of creation by an intelligent Designer is widely rejected on philosophical, rather than empirical, grounds.

In the final analysis, the facts speak for themselves. Certainly no one has even observed a macro-evolutionary transition taking place; no one has any hard evidence that one ever has taken place, and no one knows how it could have happened even if it did take place! Consider these two statements: Errol White, an expert on fishes, in the presidential address to the Linnaen Society of London, said, "But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing...."[81] Later, he said, "I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law."[82] And Earl L. Core, the chairman of the Department of Biology at West Virginia University, stated, "We do not actually know the phylogenic history [the origin and descent] of any group of plants and animals, since it lies in the indecipherable past."[83]

What Do The Scriptures Say?

Concerning Theistic Evolution

There are those who hold the doctrine that God was the Originator and guiding hand in organic evolution. It is certainly true that the Creator could have chosen that means to create if He wanted to, and it is equally true that it would no doubt have necessitated an all-powerful intelligent being to have engineered such a feat. Yet it must still be faced that evolutionary theory is contrary to the facts of nature and irreconcilable with the Scriptures. Since the former point has been touched upon already, we shall now consider the latter statement.

To begin with, it is evident that Christ held the accounts in the Old Testament to be literal historic events. Not only did the Messiah refer to these events, but He elaborated on the details for our instruction: Mark 10:6-9 (from Genesis 1:27, 2:23-24), Matthew 23:35 (from Genesis 4:8), Matthew 24:37-39 (citing Genesis 6 and 7), and Luke 17:28-32 (referring to Genesis 19:23-26), to name a few examples. He said Himself about what Moses wrote, "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words." (John 5:47, see also Luke 16:27-31).

It is also clear that the New Testament writers took literally the events recorded in the Old Testament, which stands to reason since they certainly would have believed what Jesus believed: II Peter 2:5 & Hebrews 11:7, II Peter 2:6 & Jude 7, Hebrews 11:3 & II Corinthians 4:6 (from Genesis 1), Hebrews 11:4 & 1 John 3:12, (Genesis 4:4-8), Hebrews 11:5 (Genesis 5:22-24), and I Timothy 2:13,14 (Genesis 2;7, 18-22).

The attitude of some is that the first few chapters of Genesis, while declaring that the Creator did make heaven and earth, are meant to be taken symbolically. Thus they seek to reconcile the theory of evolution with the general idea of the Scriptures. It is also claimed by some that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 represent extremely long periods of time, perhaps even geological periods. One question that comes to mind with such an idea is this: If the word "day" is meant to be taken symbolically, how are the words "evening" and "morning" to be taken? It would seem more reasonable to conclude that the phrase "the evening and the morning were the first day" is intended to be understood literally.

Another problem with this viewpoint is that the developments of the creation period contradict the order of events as postulated by evolutionary theory. While it is true that the Genesis narrative relates how sea creatures preceded land animals which were followed by humans, an order compatible with evolutionary chronology, yet it also states that winged fowl appeared before reptiles (evolutionary theory states that reptiles were ancestral to birds), land plants were created before marine life (according to the theory sea organisms pre-date land plants by many millions of years), and the earth existed before the sun. In fact, the Scriptures tell us that even trees were around before either the sun or the moon. Taking these events symbolically does not change their order.

The words of the Creator Himself leave little room for such an interpretation. God told Israel to do all their work during the first six days of the week, resting on the seventh, "for in six days God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." (Exodus 20:8-11) A symbolic interpretation here would make very little sense. Are we supposed to work for six extremely long periods of time and then rest for one multi-million period? Moreover, Jesus' statement that the first male and female were made "in the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:5-6) is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that the first humans appeared perhaps several hundred thousand years ago after billions of years of evolutionary development (i.e., in about the last 1/100 of 1% of time since the beginning of creation).

It should be born in mind also that although some portions of the Scriptures are certainly speaking in a symbolic sense, yet it is other passages from Scripture that allow one to rightly divide the Word to receive the intended message. If Genesis were meant to be understood in a sense other than that which one would extract by any straightforward reading of it, then other passages should indicate that. Since this is not the case, we can either believe it as it is written, or else give it our own private interpretation, which we are exhorted not to do. (See II Peter 1:20)

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that ancient peoples were any less intelligent than we. Therefore, since evolutionary ideas can be taught even to children, there is no reason to believe the early Israelites were too simple to understand these concepts. Nor is there any basis for supposing they could not have grasped the notion of an earth existing for vast ages before humans appeared. Further, it is an error to believe these details were too insignificant for God to bother to tell us, since the subject of origins is of such primary importance as to be the very first message found in His Word. The fact that these concepts are absent is thus powerful evidence that they are incompatible with the Holy Scriptures.

It is certainly true that no one who believes that the earth is billions of years old, or that all living organisms are related by evolution, holds such ideas based on Scripture. Instead, these concepts are based on theories of men, many of whom were and are openly hostile to the Scriptures. Having first accepted interpretations of data put forth by fallen humans, people proceed to squeeze and conform the Scriptures to fit these ideas. This is a very dangerous way to deal with God's Word. If we are committed to the conviction that the Holy Scriptures are the very Word of God, that they are inspired by His Spirit (II Peter 1:21, and that they are given to us so that we can have the truth to believe (II Timothy 3:16), then we will not want to add to, nor take away from His Word. (See Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:18,19.)

One of the most serious violations against the Scriptures caused by the theistic evolution doctrine is that it negates the atoning work of the Messiah. If there is any statement by which Christian faith can be known and with which all Christians are supposed to agree, it is that Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 & II Corinthians 5:14,15). He gave Himself as an offering for our sins as was prophesied (Isaiah 53:5-10), dying to redeem us from our sins (I Corinthians 15:3). The reason for this is that death is the result of sin. Sin is why death came into the world originally (Romans 5:12-21; 6;16,21,23). All have sinned, and thus all are worthy of death (Romans 5:12). And a man worthy of death cannot die for someone else's sins, because he is condemned to die for his own sins, since not being worthy of death he would have a life to make payment in our place. This person is, of course, Jesus (Hebrews 2:9,14,15).

The point of this discussion is that if the sin of man had been pre-dated by many millions of years of life, death, and even the extinction of whole species, then death is not the result of sin. Death would be merely an incidental fact of nature, and sin just something that everyone has done; and thus Jesus' sacrifice would have been in vain. It would thus not be true that He died for our sins, since there would be no reason to believe that anyone dies because of sin. It now becomes clear who the author of this doctrine is (John 8:44).

Some have responded that sin resulted only in spiritual death, not physical death. They thus imply that there is no connection between sin and physical, biological death. However, it follows from this that there is a total disconnect as well between physical death and sin; and thus the physical death of Jesus on the cross could not be of any effect in redeeming from sin or condemnation. Certainly no Christian can accept such a statement.

The theory that blind, random processes have formed the heaven, the earth, and all things therein is certainly one of the boldest claims ever made in modern science, as well as being one of the least substantiated. From the astonishing complexity of single cells and the engineering marvels of individual organs of the body, to the characteristics of our plant (e.g., that the earth "just happens" to be of precisely the proper composition, mass, atmospheric content and pressure, distance from the sun, and a host of other details necessary to support life*), creation clearly manifests the handiwork of an intelligent Designer. Instead of evolution being a factually based explanation for the existence of things as it is purported to be, it seems to be rather a means to rationalize away the idea of an Almighty Maker to whom we must give account, and a rallying point for the unbelievers to mock the Scriptures. In fact, as implausible and unfounded as so many of the evolutionary claims are, it seems almost certain that if the Scriptures did teach evolution, it would be met with the same ferocious ridicule that special creation receives today.

It comes as no surprise that society's acceptance of the theory of evolution has been directly or indirectly the cause of so much godlessness in this century, knowing that its source has been "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." (Ephesians 2:2) When faith towards the Creator and Ruler is forsaken, respect toward His rules goes with it. And this is, of course, exactly what has happened. Anyone who doubts that agnosticism has been a result of the acceptance of evolution should call to mind that the very term "agnostic" was coined by one of the most famous nineteenth century defenders of Darwin and his theory, Thomas Huxley. And his grandson Julian Huxley even went so far as to boldly state that Darwin had removed the idea of God from the sphere of rational thinking.

Looking at the evidence, however, a different picture emerges. The facts of the living world do not offer a message of gradual transformation from one kind of organism into another, but rather of stasis, and of discontinuity (i.e., gaps) between the major groups of living things. Moreover, the Scriptures declare the same message -- reference to organisms reproducing "after their kind" is made numerous times in Genesis.

We can conclude, then, that while the Scriptures and the amazing complexity of the natural world, give testimony to an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator, the theory of evolution finds nothing on which to establish its major tenets. There remains no reason to shrink back from this conclusion to compromise with a theory which seems to have only produced corrupt fruit (Luke 6:43). One would be hard pressed to think of a single good thing that the theory of organic evolution (from molecules to man) has produced.

The apostle Paul many years ago gave a definition of faith by saying that it is "the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) It is true that no human was around to watch the Creator speak the heaven and earth into existence. It is equally true that no one was present to witness four-footed mammals evolve into whales, nor any other of the many theorized transitions. Yet since three of the most obvious features of the living world are discontinuity, stasis and design, reason compels one toward a Creator. (Romans 1:20) Nevertheless, we all do have a choice. Creation is indeed something received by faith. To believe that the development from inorganic molecules to all living organisms by evolutionary means is a historic certainty, and something firmly established by fact, is erroneous to say the least. There is hardly any portion of the theory that is not fraught with difficulties and hotly contested even within evolutionary scientific circles.

Thus we have a choice of whether to believe what men are not sure about, or to believe what is stated in the Word of God. To illustrate this point, consider the following statements. The first was made by the paleontologist Colin Patterson, author of a 1978 book on evolution. Giving a lecture at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he related to the audience how it had recently occurred to him that, after studying the subject of evolution for twenty years, he still knew nothing about it. He then asked his audience the following:
"Can you tell my anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.'"[84]

The second statement is what Jesus Himself testified about the Scriptures:
"Sanctify them in Thy truth. Thy Word is truth." (John 17:17)

Previous Section: Hasn't Evolution Been Proven? | Creation and Evolution | Apologetics

Footnotes

[57] Referred to by James Jeans (1930), p. 4.
[58] Mathematical Challenges to the New-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Moorehead & Kaplan eds., 1967, pp. 5, 109.
[59] Ibid., pp. 74,75.
[60] Borel, Emile, Elements of the Theory of Probability, 1956, p. 57ff.
[61] Science 270 (Oct. 20, 1995), pp. 445,446. The genome of this bacterium Mycoplasma was found to contain a bit over 582,000 bases. However, this organism is parasitic; it cannot survive without a host. A non-parasitic bacterium, therefore, would probably require more genetic information. In any case, this is likely to be a near-minimum amount of DNA.
* The project to determine the human genome is not due to be completed until the year 2005, and chimp DNA has a much lower priority. A similarity of 97% has been inferred from DNA hybridization, but this technique does not give particularly precise results.
[62] Science 263 (Feb. 4, 1994), pp. 608-610; Nature 379 (Feb. 1, 1996), p. 391.
[63] See Kohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984.
[64] Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal 1 (June 1970), p. 4ff.
[65] Ibid., pp. 8-10. Also, Asimov, Science Digest 73 (May 1973), p. 76.
[66] Science Digest 89 (Oct. 1981), p. 82ff. Emphasis in original.
[67] Asimov, The Beginning, 1981, pp. 24,25.
[68] American Laboratory 14 (Oct. 1982), pp. 80-88; see p. 88.
[69] Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
[70] Nature 294 (Nov. 12, 1981), p.105.
[71] Mora, Nature 199 (July 20, 1963), p. 216; Shapiro, op. cit., 1986, pp. 63, 64.
[72] Stravropoulos, American Scientist 65 (November-December, 1977), p. 674.
[73] Prigogine et al., Physics Today 25 (Nov., 1972), p. 23: Writing concerning the principle responsible for the formation of crystals, he states, "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."
[74] Sunderland, ERIC microfiche ED 228 056, Darwin's Enigma: The Fossil Record.
* Being over 35 years old, this work is now out of date. For a more recent comprehensive treatise, see Wendell R. Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, 1989.
[75] G. Kerkut, a professor of physiology and biochemistry at the U. of Southampton, points out in The Implications of Evolution, 1960, pp. 6-7, that of the central assumptions inherent to biological evolution, none have been proven, nor are any actually even able to be proven.
[76] Mentioned by Morris, The History of Modern Creationism, 1984, p. 263.
[77] Felsenstein, in a book review, American Scientist 66 (March-April 1978), p. 226.
[78] Science 214 (Nov. 6, 1981), p. 635. Mentioned by Fix, The Bone Peddlers, 1984.
[79] Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 353,354.
[80] Niles Eldredge interview, ERIC microfliche ED 228 056, p. 7.
[81] Proceedings of the Linnaen Society of London 177 (1966), p. 8.
[82] Ibid. Indeed, Strahlet, in Science & Earth History, 1987, p. 408, writing on fish evolution, states that the creationists "can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere"; which is, in court of law, an admission of having no defense.
[83] Core, General Biology, 4th. Ed., 1961, p. 299. See the long list of admissions to this effect compiled by Duane Gish in Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, 1995.
* The 3.15 acre "Biosphere 2" project in Arizona is instructive. After a $200 million investment, a multi-million dollar operative budget, nearly unlimited technological support and huge effort, it has so far proven impossible to sustain 8 people with adequate food, water and air for 2 years. Within 1.5 years after enclosure in 1991, 19 out of the 25 vertebrate species had gone extinct, as had all the species able to pollinate plants, and most insect species. Water and air pollution became acute, and temperature control was problematic. As reported in Science 274 (Nov. 15, 1996), p. 1150ff., "Earth remains the only known home that can support life." Our planet is designed to sustain billions of people.
[84] Patterson's lecture is on record in the Transcripts of the American Museum of Natural History, and has been cited by Philip Johnson in Darwin on Trial, 1991, p. 10, and by Tom Bethel in the National Review, Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43.