Creation vs. Evolution

Posted: January 16, 2012 by Maverick in Christianity, Creation, Philosophy, Religion
Tags: , , , ,

Creation vs. Evolution

The field of science has sought to answer specific questions regarding our universe, our world, and the origins of life. The discipline of science then is to answer the unknown by formulating questions, then ideas, then developing a hypothesis to assess those ideas. Then theories are developed and tested with models to determine outcomes. A theory therefore, must be tested against observations and experiments to examine its validity. The National Academy of Sciences stated in 1998, “It is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world.”

The way to test the theory of evolution is through investigating its claims using scientific methodology. In general, science is self-correcting under proper scientific scrutiny. This is how hypothesis and theories are formed and tested. Only after repeatable, observable and measured tests are conducted and verified with predictable outcomes, can a theory then become a law.

What science should say is ‘evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore, it should be critically examined just as with any other theory. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. Only theories that have endured repeated testing can then be regarded as generally true. This includes well-known theories such as Newton’s Theory of Gravity or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Since some scientists espouse evolution with the greatest of devotion, most people imagine that this theory is scientifically valid without any knowledge of any critical arguments that do not support it. Evolutionary theory however, is somehow excluded from the scientific method. From the day it was first proposed right up to the present, it has been defended by promoting its strengths only. It should not be the role of academia to portray only the strengths of any theory as a proven fact. No doubt, it is most contradictory to strongly defend a theory while its weaknesses are never explored. Yet that is exactly what is taking place. Evolution is being presented as scientifically valid without scrutinizing its weaknesses. Yet again, this defeats the purpose of sound academic science.

There are four basic questions that science seeks to answer regarding life’s origins.

  1. Who am I?
  2. Where did I come from?
  3. What is my purpose here?
  4. Where am I going?

These are purely philosophical questions that science seeks to answer. After all, science is about finding answers to our questions. Analyzing and evaluating all sides of evolution and life origins is essential in understanding theses questions. It is only then that one can begin to contemplate the meaning of life and the wonder of it all.

Science is limited to the present. We can’t directly observe past events, we can only study their results which still exist in the present. So how is science tested? There are at two ways to research. The first is by laboratory data and the second is field data. This can be done by observing, testing, repeating and predicting outcomes with empirical data. Past, non-repeatable events can only be tested by theory and circumstantial evidence. This results in only educated guesses at best that cannot be proven empirically. Then results and outcomes are published. Nevertheless, we need to be aware of three potential problems with evidence.

First, evidence may be incomplete. Ever read a good murder mystery? Just before the end you think you know “who done it.” At the last minute the author reveals a crucial bit of evidence you didn’t know before. You are annoyed to find that the culprit was the butler, not the chauffeur. Why did you reach a wrong conclusion? Because you were basing your ideas on incomplete evidence.

A prime example of incomplete evidence occurred in the U.S. in the 1920s. Noted anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn declared that a single fossilized molar tooth found in Nebraska in 1922 came from an extinct ancestor of man called Hesperopithecus. He presented an elaborate scenario showing how Mr. and Mrs. Hesperopithecus looked, what they ate, where they lived, what kind of animals lived nearby, and so on. The 1922 Illustrated London News even printed a double-page picture of them in their native habitat.

Because of Osborn’s reputation, many accepted this scenario as fact. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow even alluded to it in an attempt to berate prosecutor William Jennings Bryan at the famous “Scopes Trial”. The 1925 Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, has been deemed the most important trial in American history. In this case, teacher John Scopes was tried for violating a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. Perhaps you saw Hollywood’s inaccurate version of the trial in the motion picture “Inherit the Wind”.

A few years after the trial ended with Scopes being convicted, another fossil tooth was found, identical to the one Osborn had used as his basis for Hesperopithecus. This one was still in the jaw to which it belonged. The jaw belonged to an extinct pig! Why were the “experts” so wrong in their elaborate story? Because they started with incomplete evidence. We should ask ourselves, how much evidence exists about the beginning of everything? We have no way to know. Then how much evidence is still missing? We have no way to know that either. As a result, we should exercise healthy skepticism.

Secondly, evidence may be deliberately withheld. Students are told that life on earth began in a mixture of chemicals known as the “primordial soup” which came together into amino acids, which then assembled themselves into proteins, which then assembled themselves into cells. But the chemicals in this mythical soup cannot combine properly in the presence of free oxygen. Therefore, the students are told that the early atmosphere did not contain free oxygen – which it escaped from inside the earth much later. Geologists know better. It is well known in professional geologic circles that traces of free oxygen — iron oxide, uranium oxide, and so on — have been found in even the bottom layers of Precambrian sediment, all the way down to basement rock. But if you check the textbooks, this evidence is nowhere to be found. Why not? It’s deliberately withheld because it doesn’t fit the theory of evolution!

Thirdly, evidence may be falsified. You’ve probably heard that a human baby goes through all the stages of evolution as it develops in the womb before birth. This is known as “recapitulation” in evolutionist literature. It is more than a scientific deception; it was a scientific forgery. This started in the early 1860s. Ernst Haeckel, a young doctor on the faculty of Jena University in Germany, seized on the growing popularity of evolution.

Haeckel published drawings that he said illustrated his laboratory experiments, in which he had dissected embryos of different kinds of creatures at various stages of development. The drawings apparently showed the embryos demonstrating the stages of evolutionary development. Others tried to duplicate Haeckel’s experiments, but obtained completely different results.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that “the origin of species,” contrary to Darwin’s supposition is not evolution, but creation.

Evolution argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter.

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.

Here is a brief, partial overview of what scientists were accomplishing in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. All of them were creationists:

  1. Louis Agassiz (1807–1873): glacial geology, ichthyology
  2. Charles Babbage (1792–1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science
  3. Francis Bacon (1561–1626): scientific method of research
  4. Robert Boyle (1627–1691): chemistry, gas dynamics
  5. Sir David Brewster (1781–1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope
  6. Georges Cuvier (1769–1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology
  7. Sir Humphry Davy (1778–1829): thermokinetics
  8. Jean Henri Fabre (1823–1915): entomology of living insects
  9. Michael Faraday (1791–1867): electric generator, electro–magnetics, field theory
  10. Sir John A. Fleming (1849–1945): electronics, thermic valve
  11. Joseph Henry (1797–1878): electric motor, galvanometer
  12. Sir William Herschel (1738–1822): galactic astronomy, double stars
  13. James Joule (1818–1889): reversible thermodynamics
  14. Lord William Kelvin (1824–1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable
  15. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy
  16. Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778): classification system, systematic biology
  17. Joseph Lister (1827–1912): antiseptic surgery
  18. Matthew Maury (1806–1873): hydrography, oceanography
  19. James C. Maxwell (1831–1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics
  20. Gregor Mendel (1822–1884): genetics
  21. Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872): telegraph
  22. Isaac Newton (1642–1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes
  23. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662): hydrostatics, barometer
  24. Louise Pasteur (1822–1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization
  25. Sir William Ramsey (1852–1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry
  26. John Ray (1627–1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals
  27. John Rayleigh (1842–1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis
  28. Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866): non–Euclidean geometry
  29. Sir James Simpson (1811–1870): chloroform, gynecology
  30. Sir George Stokes (1819–1903): fluid mechanics
  31. Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902): pathology

Eighteenth and nineteenth century contributions to science by evolutionists:

  1. Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a do–nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.
  2. Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.
  3. Jean–Baptist Lamarck (1744–1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory with his concept of “inheritance of acquired characteristics,” which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809 he published a book, Philosophie Zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet, you will gradually increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science? Lamarck’s other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on Earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide flood or other great catastrophes.
  4. Robert Chambers (1802–1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Called Vestiges of Creation (1844), it was printed 15 years before Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.
  5. Charles Lyell (1797–1875). Like Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata—even though twentieth–century discoveries in radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory. In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven–mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about three feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three feet of erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7,000 to 9,000 years. It would be expected that, just after the flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, The Origin of Species.
  6. Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper. Darwin, with the help of two friends, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, pirated and published the paper under his own name. Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty–ridden theorist. In 1980, Arnold C. Brackman, in his book A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society in London while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book. In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. It is of interest to note that after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God. They have then been guided to devise evil teachings that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which has annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as Sigmund Freud and Adolf Hitler. Wallace’s theory that species have changed in the past, one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today, is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet there is no more evidence supporting the theory today than Wallace had in 1858, when he devised the theory. In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea “survival of the fittest” as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survives the longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is circular reasoning. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it. In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his The Origin of Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that “survival of the fittest” was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned “natural selection” as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
  7. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object. But, instead, an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid “naturalist” on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s