CREATIVE VIEWS OF SCIENCE
A Review of Scientific Theories on Origins
The purpose of this lecture is to review the different views of the origins of organisms and other things in nature. We will look at scientific evidence to see if theories of origins are supported by these evidences. So how do we prove theories and can any Theories of Origins be proven scientifically?
First lets define a few terms. Science is knowledge which covers general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods. The Scientific Method is the systematic pursuit of knowledge and the collection of data through observation and experiments and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The word Origins means the point at which things begin their course or existence and a Theory is just a belief or an idea; an unproved assumption.
For theories or ideas to become known as fact they must be proven by the Scientific Method. This means they can be observed to occur or repeatable results can be seen through experimentation. Therefore true scientific facts require observation and/or reliable experimentation. But since noone was alive to observe or record the origins process, any experimentation to try to prove what happened in the past would require assumptions of what the past was like. Assumptions and guesswork do not belong in true science. Therefore no theory or idea of origins can be proven scientifically. So to believe in any idea of our origins, we have to believe by faith. The less evidence there is to support a theory or idea, the more faith you must have to believe it.
If we cannot prove theories of origins scientifically, how can we determine if any theory is correct? To see which theory is the most logical, we have to study the evidences. Scientists search, find and evaluate evidences, then they see if the evidence supports any theory and which theory best fits the evidence. Before coming to any conclusion on any subject we must examine all, not just part of, the available evidence and facts.
We should always be able to give reasons for why we believe what we believe. Therefore we must study different views to prove to ourselves that we are correct to believe what we believe. If we have not seen the evidence for an idea which opposes our understanding, we can not wisely say that the idea is wrong. We can only say that we believe in what we understand. If the facts and evidences do not support our belief then we must look for what they do support. We must not just assume there is something wrong with the evidence and therefore ignore it if it does not fit our belief. A good scientist will always review all the available evidence before making a conclusion.
For generations our schools and our society have been teaching us that certain ideas and theories are now basically accepted as fact even though they have not been proven. Even though modern scientific discoveries have shown how most of the accepted ideas of origins are incorrect, we are still being taught that they are correct. "How is this possible?" you might ask. Well, to believe these ideas we have to ignore the facts that these new discoveries have revealed and make many unprovable assumptions about the past. There are other ideas which are strongly supported by modern scientific evidence but our society has either not been shown much of this evidence or they have chosen to ignore most of it for various reasons. A few powerful people in our society want to control what you believe by controlling what you learn. They do not want you to see the evidence which supports ideas which oppose their ideas. If you see how the evidence actually supports the opposing ideas and how it discredits their ideas, they are afraid you will not believe what they want you to believe. Then again, many teachers teach these incorrect outdated ideas only because that is what they were taught and told to believe. I believe that even Hitler said something like: "if you teach a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it as true." Although many teachers would be very willing to teach the modern scientific evidences and different views of our origins, most of them have probably never been shown the overwhelming evidence that supports these different views.
There are three basic Theories of Origins:
First is the Theory of Evolution which is the belief that the earth and universe gradually came into an orderly existence by random chance natural processes.
Next is the Theory of Creation which is the belief that the earth and universe were brought into an orderly existence by an intelligent designer or creator.
Finally is the Theory of Progressive Creationism or Theistic Evolution which is the belief that an intelligent designer created all the basic elements for a primitive earth and universe and used evolution to mature it. This theory is a compromised view for those who cannot accept the pure ideas of evolution or creation alone.
Until the early 1900's our public schools taught nearly exclusively the ideas of creation. It was the accepted explanation for our origins. Slowly the ideas of evolution were introduced into schools and taught so strongly until the ideas of creation became ignored by many people. Although it could not be proven, many people thought that the evidences of that day supported evolutionary ideas. However, now, due to many modern scientific discoveries in all areas of science, the old ideas of evolution are strongly being challenged and many ideas of the creation theory are strongly being supported.
So what are some of the evidences and ideas of our origins? Which theory or ideas do the evidences support the most? I ask that you be open minded and thoroughly examine, without prejudice, the evidences which I am about to present. Let's now look at some evidences and different ideas about our origins.
Origin of Life
Evolutionists say that life began when tiny non-living materials came together in water to form different kinds of amino acids which somehow arranged themselves in the exact proportions and positions to form complex proteins. Eventually many of these proteins arranged themselves in just the correct manner to form very complex DNA and RNA. Also other very complex and well organized structures as mitochondria, ribosomes, supporting fibers, and a nucleus somehow all developed on their own, all came together by chance with the DNA and RNA and somehow developed a wall around the materials to form - a single living cell. This all supposedly happened by Spontaneous Generation which is the process of non-living matter coming to life. It was also believed back then that if meat was left out too long it would turn into flies and cheese would turn into mice. But Spontaneous Generation was scientifically disproved over 100 years ago by Luis Pasteur & others. Think about this question. If a cell breaks open and its organelles spill out, the cell and its organelles will die, so if cell organelles can not live outside the cell in the present, how could they have in the past to create the first living cell? How did cell organelles live before the first cell wall was formed. Scientists still do not know how the cell wall was formed. Also if protein and DNA cannot survive without each other, how were the first cells formed? DNA and protein are dependent on each other in a cell. Protein is made by DNA and DNA is made up of proteins. So which came first - DNA or protein? It is obvious that they both had to be present at the same time from the very beginning.
In Darwin's time it was believed that a cell was just a blob of protoplasm. Now we know that cells are highly complex and very organized. In the booklet called "Answers to the 4 Big Questions", we are given an idea of how complex a single living cell is. It states that "modern knowledge of biochemistry shows that even so-called 'simple' bacteria are phenomenally complex-far more complex than the most sophisticated machine mankind has ever made....Such bacterial 'machines' contain the equivalent of about 2 large books of coded information on their DNA. The source of this information is an insurmountable problem for the origin of life without a creator.... A human being has about 1,000 books worth of information on the DNA in each cell." The chimpanzee DNA is about 98% similar to humans. Although this appears to be close to humans it still means there is about 2% difference and that would correlate to a difference of about 20 large books of DNA. That is a big difference.
The second option for the origin of life is that it occurred as a Supernatural Creative Act. In the pamphlet "Evolution - Fact or Fiction?" by James L. Melton, he mentioned that "Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, not because it can be proven, but rather because it is the only alternative to believing the account of creation. Therefore most evolutionists believe in the scientifically impossible Spontaneous Generation, because to them Special Creation is unthinkable. They'd rather believe in the impossible, than believe in a creator and the creator=s act of creation. "
Origin of the Species
Evolutionists say that the 1st cells spontaneously generated from a primordial soup of non-living matter then evolved slowly, over millions of years into Plants & Animals. Evolutionists believe that so-called "simple" organisms eventually evolved into highly complex ones over millions of years. They believe that single-celled organisms eventually evolved into multi-celled ones then into invertebrates, as worms, which evolved into vertebrates, as fish, and fish into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. They also believe that reptiles evolved into birds and small mammals although there are many significant differences between reptiles and birds and between reptiles and mammals. Birds are warm-blooded and have hollow bones and their feathers are in no way similar to scales on cold-blooded reptiles. Mammals, also warm-blooded, nurture their live-birth offspring and have lungs which is far different from the infant-care, reproductive and respiratory systems of reptiles. Eventually ape-like creatures supposedly evolved into man.
Evolutionists believe that organisms evolve in order to make themselves more fit and better equipped to survive. Each change that occurs in the evolutionary process is supposed to produce a "gain" in genetic information to help that organism's offspring better survive. Therefore strong, "more evolved" organisms should out last and replace their weaker "less evolved" relatives. Now think about this- if "Survival of the Fittest" weeds out weak, mutated, defective creatures, how would evolving, mutated creatures, half-way between two different creatures (as between a reptile and a bird), out run their predators and /or prey and out live their non-defective relatives? If legs evolved into wings, at one point for thousands of years, the evolving creature would have front legs that were half legs and half wings. It is absurd to think that any such transitional organism could be considered superior to the animal that preceded it. How did any such transitional organism even survive?
Here is another question for you. If it took several million years for organisms to evolve from one organism into another, there had to have been millions or billions of organisms in-between two different kinds of organisms and we should be able to find thousands to millions of such fossils. So if millions of creatures have evolved from one creature to another for millions of years, why haven't scientists found many fossils of real "in-between" transitional creatures? There has only been a hand full of such fossils, and they are very questionable and definitely not proven transitionals. Also why don't we see any such transitional organisms living today? Why don't we see all kinds of animals at some stage between two different kinds of animals living today? For that matter why do we even have distinct groups of organisms instead of all organisms blending together? Nature shows that organisms always give rise to organisms like themselves, and no evidence has ever been found to indicate any one organism giving rise to a new kind of organism. Although nobody knows for sure what the original created "kinds" were, we know that only "like kinds" can breed with each other to produce offspring. This is fixed in their genetic codes.
The theory of creation would say that a created "kind" is similar to what we might think of as a "genus". An intelligent creator created every "kind" of creature and plant with the ability to reproduce only its same "kind" (not mutate or evolve into other "kinds"). This creator created each specific "kind" with great potential for variations within its kind (what we might think of as "species"). Modern science has shown that many species of each genus, or variations of each kind, have occurred through genetic mutations, gene pool isolation, natural selection and survival of the fittest. Some people refer to this speciation as micro-evolution and this definitely does occur, but macro-evolution, which is the evolving of one kind into another kind, has not and does not occur. Often many schools will teach that micro-evolution is science then try to make you believe that all the other forms of evolution are scientific too. We not only do not see the evolving of "one kind into another kind" in nature today, but we also have very few if any true evidences of transitional "in-between" kinds in the fossil records. Again, what we observe in nature through science supports the theory of creation.
If evolution is true and all animals evolved from other similar animals, what did the Duck-billed Platypus evolve from? This Australian mammal has several traits seen in many different animals but is obviously not related to any of them. It has a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a turtle, has fur like a bear, has a tail like a beaver, and uses sound and echo-location to find food like a bat. The platypus looks like a mistake and European scientists thought Chinese taxidermists had artfully pieced it together for a joke when it was first sent to them from Australia. So many plants and creatures are so unique in their design and unlike any other organism that evolutionists have no idea how or why they evolved or from what organism they evolved (as the Duck-billed Platypus).
In his book The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin admitted that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Many organisms have very complex systems or structures that could not have functioned if only partially formed so they had to be complete from the very beginning . The term "irreducible complexity" explains that complex systems will work only if all the components operate at once. It is not possible to get an intricate, interrelated system by numerous, successive and slight modifications. If such systems or structures were not complete and could not work, they would be a hindrance and a disadvantage to the organism, making the organism less likely to survive. Such organisms would have likely died out instead of evolving into stronger organisms. Some examples of very complex systems or structures are the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, and the DNA - coded protein synthesis system.
The butterfly is a beautiful example of how evolution can not work. If a caterpillar evolved into a butterfly, the butterfly would produce butterfly offspring instead of caterpillars. So such a transformation is not an evolutionary process. But still the first caterpillars would have had to learn, through genetic trial and error, how to turn into butterflies and lay eggs to make more caterpillars. For an organism, like a caterpillar, to evolve into another form, like a butterfly, it would take thousands of genetic mutations. Caterpillars undergo their transformation into butterflies in chrysalises. It takes many years for each mutation to occur and it would have taken multiple mutations for a caterpillar to figure out how to make a chrysalis and many more to turn into a butterfly. The caterpillar must stay in the chrysalis until its transformation is complete or it would emerge grossly deformed and unable to survive. If mutations take years to occur and the caterpillar changes in the chrysalis, the first caterpillars which formed a chrysalis should have died long before they had a chance to transform enough to emerge. Also as mutations occur they supposedly are passed onto organisms' offspring. How could a partially transformed, grossly deformed, half-caterpillar/half-butterfly, trapped in a chrysalis, have laid eggs to pass on its new genetic information. It is obvious to me that caterpillars were created from their beginning to have all the genetic information they needed to completely transform and reproduce. The same is true for tadpoles transformation to frogs.
Darwin never cited proof of any evolutionary process; he just speculated that someday evidence would be found to prove his theories. After more than 100 years and billions of dollars of research, to date, none have ever been proven.
Also according to the Laws of Probability, the chance of anything evolving by chance, random selections is theoretically impossible. In an article by Ross S. Olson M.D. entitled "Intelligent Design and the Public Schools: Pro," he states "If you want to do a calculation you can try to construct a 100 unit protein molecule from a primordial soup of the 20 different amino acids used in life. Even if you allow them to all be left handed isomers instead of the mixture that would occur naturally, there is only one chance in 10130 (1 with 130 zeros behind it) of getting it right. And there are only about 1080 atoms in the universe and 1018 seconds in 30 billion years. And the simplest cell needs at least 230 proteins with their controlling DNA, all put together in the proper configuration to function. It is an incredible assumption to say that it could all happen by natural mechanisms. And deceptively, evolutionists try to pretend that natural selection somehow reduces the odds when the truth is that natural selection only selects, it does not create and the creating in evolution must be done by random mechanisms."
In the booklet "Answers to the 4 Big Questions" the two theories of the origins of the species is demonstrated. The "evolutionary tree" depicts the trunk of the tree as the first living single-celled organism and the branches as the organisms which evolved from the first cells. In the "creationist orchard" many trees are used to demonstrate the many different kinds of created organisms and the branches of each tree illustrates the variations, or species, within each created kind. Although the "evolutionary tree" has little to no evidence to support it, the "creationist orchard" fits the scientific evidence.
Also the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics poses many problems for evolutionists. This law states that if systems in nature are left alone, over time, they become less organized, less complex, and lose genetic information by deterioration and mutation. But why does evolution require the opposite? Evolutionists believe that simple, disorganized organisms gain genetic information and become more complex and organized with the passage of time, but history and science show that everything tends to wear out or run down, lose genetic information and become less organized over time.
Origin of Man
Over the past several decades evolutionists have had many claims of evidences for ape-men creatures, but to date, all part-ape/part-man claims have turned out to be either mistakes or hoaxes. People tend to easily accept these ape-man claims because they want the claims to be true. People are so anxious to find "proof" to support evolutionary beliefs, that they will believe many ideas even if there is little or no evidence to support the ideas. Many books have detailed information on this subject but here are some very short explanations to a few specific examples. One example is Piltdown man which convinced many people that this was proof of a true ape-man. Piltdown man was later found to be a hoax where someone had skillfully combined a human skull cap with the jaw of an orangutan. Another is Nebraska man - the hairy, ape-men, drawn by an artist, for a man who found a single tooth thought to be part-ape and part-man - but it turned out to be the tooth of a pig. No bones or fossils of any supposed ape-men creatures have been found to be hairy. The hairy appearance comes from the artists' belief that first men would have looked ape-like, so they draw them hairy. Also Neanderthal men, who were once thought to be early ape-men, have been discovered to be true men with a severe crippling arthritic disorder called rickets which caused a stooped ape-like posture. Rickets are due to a vitamin D deficiency from a lack of sun exposure to the skin. Post-flood skies were probably darkened for many years from thick clouds and volcanic ash. This would have drastically limiting sun exposure especially to clothed skin in cold climates and especially if their skin was darkly pigmented. Neanderthals were fully human with brain cavities 13% larger than present man. It makes you wonder how intelligent these so-called "primitive" men really were. Therefore, all supposed Ape-Men were either Ape or Men, not a transitional creature between the two.
The present human population is far too few for man to have existed more than a few thousand years. The present growth rate is nearly 2%, but at 1/4 of the present growth rate, to account for wars, plagues, etc., our present population could have been obtained within 4000-5000 years. Consider this, if the present human population could have been reached in only 4,000 to 5,000 years, at a growth rate of 0.5% per year, then what would the population be in one million years, which is the evolutionary estimate of the existence of man? One estimate states that the present population would be infinitely greater than one person for every cubic foot of the entire universe.
Many evolutionists also say that each race evolved from a different origin. If each race of people has been evolving separately for hundreds of thousands of years, as many evolutionists suggest, we would expect wide variations in their genes, so why aren't there? Although we get half of our gene DNA from our mother and the other half from our father, some DNA is mitochondrial DNA and only comes from the mother. So such DNA can be traced down the genealogy of only the females. The recent Human Genome Project and studies of mitochondrial DNA, support the creation teaching that there is only one biological race of humans and all people trace back to a single mother living only a few thousand years ago. The first created humans, if created perfectly, would have had all the genetic information in their genes to produce all the physical (as racial) characteristics that we see in all people groups today. They were both probably mid-brown in color too (an average-blended coloration) allowing for their offspring to be anywhere from very dark brown to very light brown (or Caucasian). If they were created perfect, with no defects, their children (as well as the next several generations) could have safely married each other and had children with no fear of them having genetic defects which now cause birth defects.
What about a world-wide flood, is it true history or just a legend? How can evolutionists explain the fact that virtually every tribe and nation on earth has a similar flood story? Today nearly all cultures of different people groups around the world have similar historical stories of a flood with eight people and the later dispersion of families. Such common historical accounts confirm a single common society before its dispersion.
Origin of the Universe
For over 50 years evolutionists have accepted the "Big Bang Theory" as the cause of all heavenly bodies (planets, stars and comets) in our universe. According to the "Big Bang Theory" several billion years ago "Nothing" existed, then that "Nothing" exploded & created "Everything". The question is "where did the original matter come from?" Although many evolutionists don't accept the "Big Bang Theory" now, many still use it to explain their belief in evolution because they have no alternative theory. Evolutionists say the earth and universe are billions of years old but much evidence indicates the earth and universe are very young.
What can we learn from comets? According to the theory of evolution, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, supposedly about 5 billion years old. But comets melt and lose much of their material each time they orbit the sun. At the rate that comets disintegrate, they could not last more than 100,000 years. Many comets have an expected life of only 10,000 years. So why do we still have comets?
Another example is that earth's moon is slowly moving away from earth. At its present rate Earth's moon is far too close to earth to be more than a few thousand years old. About 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have nearly been touching the earth. Also according to the "Inverse Square Law", if you reduce the distance between two objects by half, you quadruple the attraction between them. Therefore two billion years ago the moon's attraction on the earth would have created such tremendous tides that all land on earth would have been drowned two times each day.
Currently oil pressure in the ground is about 20,000 pounds per square inch. Over time pressure tends to dissipate as it escapes through tiny cracks in the rocks. Therefore it is estimated that oil pressure should be "zero" after 10,000 years in the ground. So why do we still have so much oil pressure underground when we drill for oil if oil was produced millions of years ago?
At the present rate of earth's erosion, the continents would have eroded to sea level within 200,000 years and could have done so over 20,000 times in 4.5 billion years which is the supposed amount of time evolutionists say the earth has existed. Why does land still exist today? Also at the present rate that sediment builds up on the ocean floor, why is there not nearly enough mud on the ocean floor for the earth to be at the most 12 million years old. Far less than the expected age of oceans of 3 billion years. A world-wide flood could have easily caused the majority of the sediment we see today on the ocean floor.
Some of the following information on the Sun, the Moon, Helium, and Earth's Magnetic Field are found in a section entitled "How Old Is The Universe?" in a pamphlet called "Evolution - Fact or Fiction?" By James L. Melton. "The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been twice the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago. Only 20 million years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would have been touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
"Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. (Today there is only 1/2000 of the expected amount of helium in our atmosphere for the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.) According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
"The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. (Creation scientists believe that the earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to be greater than 10,000 years old.) Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! Who knows what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!"
The second law of thermodynamics is a constant law of nature which states that over time things tend to run down, wear out and lose their available energy. Given enough time all things should lose all their available energy. This is called "Heat Death". It is believed that the magnetic fields of heavenly bodies are produced by their molten liquid center cores. As these cores cool down and solidify, they begin to lose their magnetic field. As stated earlier it has been said that earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast , at present rate, to be over 10,000 years old. Some people believe that the universe has always existed, that it had no beginning. If this were so or even if the universe were several billion years old, then why hasn't the universe already experienced "Heat Death"?
Have you ever wondered why oceans are salty? Where does the salt come from? Salt is made up of sodium and chlorine. Through rain and its erosion, sodium is leached out of the earth every year. The rivers drain into the oceans with sodium and many other minerals and debris. Although about 73% of the sodium remains in the sea each year, some of the sodium leaves the sea each year through evaporation. This evaporation creates the clouds which cause the rains and starts this whole water cycle over again. Assuming there was no world-wide flood, the present sodium content in the ocean could have been reached within the past 62 million years. This is much less time than is allowed by the evolutionary views of the oceans being three billion years old. The rate of erosion before a world-wide flood was probably very minimal since there was possibly no rain yet and the entire earth was probably heavily vegetated. But the flood would have caused massive erosion and heavy erosion for a few more years. It is very possible that the oceans were created with fresh water and remained pretty fresh until the flood, but with the help of a world-wide flood they could have rapidly become salty. Created sea creatures may have been created to live in fresh water with the ability to adapt to increasing sodium levels as we see today. So if the earth is billions of years old, then why is there not nearly enough mud or sediment on the ocean floor, or sodium in the sea, or helium in the atmosphere, or oil pressure underground to support such long ages?
Now what about radiometric dating? Doesn't radiometric dating prove that things on earth have existed for millions of years? Think about this question. If radiometric dating methods are supposed to be accurate, why do the results of several testings of the same sample often vary by millions of years? Why do testings of samples known to be only a few years old often show millions of years old with these methods? Radiometric dating techniques are dependant on a fairly stable environment, therefore scientists have to make many assumptions of the past conditions to come up with an age for items being tested. Ages may be considered fairly reliable only up to a world-wide flood which would have catastrophically changed the entire world. Also why does radioactive decay of microscopic bits of minerals in rock crystals indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations were deposited within months of one another instead of hundreds of thousands of years apart as evolutionists assume? Why? Could it be because the thousands of layers of sediment were laid down in only a few months during a world-wide flood?
Origin of Rock Layers and Fossils
Another problem for Evolutionists is the presence of Level Rock layers & Out of Place Fossils. Many evolutionists believe in uniformitarianism which is the idea that the conditions of the present explain the past. Therefore since layers of soil are laid down very slowly in today's age they must have been in the past also. If we see that one thin layer of soil is laid down about every year, then we can assume that it would have taken thousands of years to lay down thousands of layers in the past. Therefore the further down you dig into rock layers, the less complex and older organisms you should find. It is assumed that the more "primitive" fossils are found in the deeper rock layers. But how do evolutionists explain the frequent findings of fossils of complex creatures, supposedly out of place, in deep layers of rock where only fossils of simple, much more "primitive" creatures should be found ( in areas where there is no evidence of erosion or over thrusting)? Also to get the extremely detailed fossils we see today, organisms would have had to have been buried very quickly after dying and deep enough to eliminate decay and allow for the conditions of fossilization. A massive flood would have been sufficient to cause enough sediment to quickly bury all kinds of organisms which existed at that time. Uniformitarianism thinking, ignores the possibilities of any massive catastrophic geological events as a world-wide flood with numerous volcanos and massive underwater landslides. The fossil records and rock layers we see today are consistent with the effects of a world-wide flood. We find billions of dead things (fossilized with amazing detail), buried in multiple, striated, sedimentary, rock layers, which were quickly laid down by water, all over the earth. Also, if rock layers seen in canyons and mountains took thousands to millions of years to form, why are layers level and uniform in thickness, instead of irregular from expected plant and animal activity and long-term erosion? This brings up the question as to whether fossils are evidence of the order in which organisms emerged in the evolutionary time scale, or are fossils just a preserved order of their burial during the flood.
What about Radiometric Dating, doesn't it prove millions of years? First of all the ancient past cannot be "proven" scientifically since the conditions of the past cannot be directly observed. Neither can reliable experiments be performed on items from the ancient past without making many assumptions of the past conditions as climate, radiation levels, geologic activity and the beginning composition of items being tested. Many people believe that the world is billions of years old but this idea is only a theory based on man's imagination and evidence which is interpreted with many assumptions that now contradict modern scientific evidences. Only man's theories and experiments based on these many unprovable assumptions, suggest an age of billions of years. These theories are quickly being disproved by advanced modern scientific evidences. Most modern scientific evidence indicates the earth to be only a few to several thousand years old. There is also a problem with how rock and fossils are dated. Rock is often dated by the fossil types which are found in it. Fossils are dated by what kind of rock it is found in. This is called "circular reasoning" and is totally inaccurate.
This brings us to some more very interesting points. Consider this question - Could the many thousands of layers of sedimentary rock, as seen in the Grand Canyon, and the fossilized trees of the Petrified Forests, have been formed quickly as demonstrated by the relatively small 1980 Mt. St. Helens' eruptions? In less than one year 600 feet of layered sedimentary rock was laid down - most of it within days. Several thousand layers would have been produced in this way which would have indicated to evolutionists that it took several thousand years to produce. The rock, ash and debris also dammed a river causing a large lake behind it. Eventually the dam broke and created, in one day, a 100 ft high by 100 ft wide canyon. It is believed by many people today that the Grand Canyon and a few other canyons around the world were formed in a similar way. There could have been many volcanoes erupting and spewing massive amounts of rock, ash, and other debris during a world-wide flood. Also once the hills and mountains became saturated with water there would have been massive underwater landslides all over the world. We often see large mud slides and landslides today when hills are saturated by rains alone. Imagine what would happen if these hills were completely under water. It is believed by creation scientists that a huge lake the size of all the five Great Lakes put together was trapped behind a landslide-dam after the flood receded. Eventually the weight of the lake broke through the huge dam and quickly cut a canyon creating the majority of the Grand Canyon. If the canyon had been formed by the effects of the Colorado River, for several thousand years, the river would have had to flow uphill several hundred feet to go over the plateau.
Another problem for Evolutionists is their belief in slow sedimentation with the presence of vertically positioned fossilized trees. For an organism to become fossilized it must be completely buried quickly and deep enough to avoid decay. How do evolutionists explain the presence of many undecomposed, vertically-positioned, fossilized trees, incased in many rock layers and coal beds, if it took several thousand years for the sedimentary rock to be laid down around the trees? Why didn=t the trees rot away before they had a chance to be covered completely, much less become fossilized? Again the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption has provided much evidence to explain the vertically fossilized trees. The explosion blasted millions of trees to the ground. Several of these trees ended up in the lake. As the trees waterlogged they sank at different rates to the bottom of the lake with their heavy end going down first. These trees stuck vertically into the lake floor allowing loose bark, ash and other debris to quickly settle around them until the trees were completely covered and eventually deeply incased. Mass burials of vertical trees like these and many mass animal burials are found all around the world. Remember for an organism to become fossilized it must be completely buried quickly and deep enough to avoid decay. So if fossils are found positioned vertically above and below each other, sharing the same layers of sediment, or rock, it is obvious that they had to have all been buried at about the same time - quickly, within minutes to days or weeks instead of millions of years.
Conclusion
Now that we have reviewed this brief list of evidences, which theory would you say best fits our modern scientific evidence - the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Creation? Did first life come from non-living matter or from an intelligent creator? Were all organisms created by an intelligent designer or did they evolve by chance from simpler forms? True scientists should always try to view all the available evidence then try to come up with unbiased conclusions, but most people, even many scientists, are very biased toward their beliefs. Even though creation scientists and evolutionary scientists are looking at the same evidence, they will interpret the evidence according to their biased opinions. We must stay open-minded and concentrate on the evidence and be willing to adjust our beliefs.
When the physical evidence is shown to support special creation and catastrophism, such as the effects of a world-wide flood, this teaching is called Creation Science. When the physical evidence is shown to support the incredible complexity, organization and therefore apparent intelligent design of everything in nature, this teaching is called the Science of Intelligent Design. These views of science are highly researched and published views. They support the idea that elements and organisms and systems in nature had to have been designed, due to the high complexity and organization of their structures. Although we can not prove any theory of origins by the scientific method, we can now see that the available modern evidence strongly supports these views. Look at the many modern scientific discoveries in all areas of science, and see for yourself if most of the old ideas of evolution still make sense to you. If you are convinced that there is no creator then you are basically forced to accept the only remaining belief - the theory of evolution - even if you now see that most of its ideas contradict modern evidence. For those who believe in the Theory of Evolution, as I did for many years, I highly recommend that you research these modern evidences and reevaluate why you believe what you believe. The ideas of evolution were based on many assumptions of the ancient past, but now due to many discoveries these ideas no longer have much evidence to support them.
The theory of evolution is man's idea of how natural things could have originated without a creator. Both evolution and creation ideas are faith based since they can not be proven. The ideas of evolution are used as the explanation of origins in many different religions around the world and the ideas of creation in another religion. Just because ideas are printed in a religious book does not mean that they are solely religious and not scientific. The ideas of a creator may have religious implications but the ideas of creation are not based on religion, they are based on the scientific evidence. Things in nature are far too complex and organized to have occurred by chance without an intelligent designer. Many scientific discoveries have strongly indicated this.
Since I was not taught evidences for creation in school, the ideas I learned about evolution throughout my schooling all sounded possible so I believed them until I saw how modern evidences did not really support evolution but did support the ideas of creation. How can we possibly continue to believe as true and teach as fact outdated ideas which we know are either not true or are very questionable at the least? and how can we wisely continue not to teach ideas which explain the scientific evidences much better? In the January/February 2006 edition of The Good News magazine, it was stated that U.S. President George W. Bush said "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." He also commented that intelligent design should be taught in public schools alongside evolution "so people can understand what the debate is about." By only teaching the theories of evolution over the past several decades, our school systems have indoctrinated millions of people around the world in the faith of evolutionary ideas. The article also stated that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, said that teaching both intelligent design and evolution in schools "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone" and that "in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future." It is my understanding that surveys have revealed that the majority of our population wants both the theories of evolution and the theories of creation taught in public schools. Dr. Ross S. Olson said that there is a strong intellectual case for Intelligent Design and to withhold the evidence from students is a betrayal of education. He also indicated that we need to let the evidence for both sides be available to students so they can learn to think critically. Give kids all the available evidence and let them decide for themselves which theory they would rather believe in. Teaching only one view is bad science: it is unscientific and very misleading as to what is fact and what is only an idea. Teachers legally have the freedom to present different ideas, theories and evidences as long as they do not try to teach any religion which either theory is part of. Evolution and creation ideas and their supporting evidences can easily be presented in schools without teaching religion or theological beliefs. Noone should just believe in either theory by faith alone; they should believe what modern scientific evidence truly supports.
For more information visit http://www.icr.org/, http://www.creationism.org/, http://www.answersingenesis.org/, http://www.drdino.com/ & http://www.evolution-facts.org/.
See Web Articles on Science in the article "Evidence for Biblical Reliability" on this blog.
