 |
Creation versus Evolution
Posted by: Admin on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 02:17 PM |
|
The Theory of Evolution has been one of the most powerful forces shaping our modern world. More than any other single factor, evolutionary thinking has reshaped the way people think about life and human origins. For the disciples of evolution it is nature, and not God, that created and sustains life. Evolution is a creation myth which eliminates the need for a Creator. The influence of evolution has extended into every area of life: science, philosophy, religion, law, politics, and even economics. It is embraced as a fact by so many scientists that, until recently, only the very brave dared to challenge it.
Since the time of Aristotle there were always those who argued that the cosmos was self-existing and self-organising, needing no external explanation or creator. However, until the advent of Charles Darwin such evolutionary thinking was dismissed by scientists and intellectuals who saw no scientific basis for such claims. By the time of Darwin, physicists and astronomers had already shown that the heavens and physical world functioned according to certain physical laws, and the search was on to discover the natural laws that undergirded biology and natural history. Darwin's theory of evolution was widely perceived to be the long awaited "natural law" or biological "mechanism" which explained the origin and evolution of species by natural processes.
One of the fundamental precepts underling the theory of evolution is that the natural world is a "closed system". That is to say, it is closed off to outside influences, making God and the supernatural both unnecessary and irrelevant in regard to the origin of the universe and life. From the outset, evolution requires a great leap of faith in believing that matter somehow created itself out of nothing or else is eternal. Having accepted this unscientific premise, evolutionists then appeal to unproven and unidentified natural laws as the means by which mindless matter was transformed into the enormously complex and well organised universe in which we live. It is believed, but has never been proved, that chaos somehow transformed itself into order, order had transformed itself into life, and the first life form had transformed itself into the vast variety of creatures that exist.
This later step in the process, the derivation of varied and complex life forms from a simple beginning, is called "biological evolution". Darwin theorised that biological evolution was possible by means of "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". This meant that any individual creature that had a slight advantage over others in the struggle for survival would be preserved, and this advantage passed on to its offspring, thereby improving and strengthening the species. With their greater knowledge of genetics, scientists after Darwin proposed that beneficial genetic mutations were the prime source of these slight advantages. Given enough time, the evolutionists believe that all these successful ongoing variations produced entirely new features, which gradually transformed one creature into another of a different kind. This meant that there was a continuous and gradual process of evolution from the first life form to every other creature in existence.
Despite the lack of any real evidence to support the theory of evolution, it immediately gained wide acceptance. The concept of survival-of-the-fittest
appealed to the natural selfishness of human beings, and principles of human evolution supported the view of English and European supremacy over the dark skinned races. But the most powerful support came from those who were opposed to the Church and to belief in God; the atheists, communists, radical socialists, and humanists. It is a matter of public record that such bodies played a decisive role in marshalling and mobilising scientists and academics on a global scale to oppose and eradicate the creationist view.
In recent years the whole concept of evolution from simple to complex has struggled to maintain credibility. The following are some of the key problems:
- No physical laws have been identified to support the notion that chaos can transform itself into order. The known laws of physics actually indicate the reverse - that any complex system will naturally tend towards a state of chaos unless external energy is input to maintain the system (ie, in accordance with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics).
- Nothing in biology or chemistry indicates that life can arise spontaneously (ie, naturally and unaided) from non-living matter. The known laws of chemistry and the principle of irreducible complexity in living organisms indicate that the chances of life arising naturally from non-living matter is so small as to be effectively zero.
- The evidence from science and industry is that information, in the form of a set of instructions, is required as well as a mechanism for creating order out of disorder. Thus, plants grow by using sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide because the DNA contains instructions for the use of these energy sources. The existence of complex and precise instructions and mechanisms for energy conversion in all living things strongly implies a pre-existent, external, and intelligent agent - ie, God.
- Random chance processes are not observed to create increasing order and complexity. For example, the probability of a random chemical reaction giving rise to a complex living cell, even in a favourable environment, is for all practical purposes zero. Furthermore, the probability of a series of such accidents occurring to allow the cell to survive and reproduce becomes ridiculously small.
- Time does not increase the chances of creating order out of chaos. Any order derived by accident at any point in time could just as easily be lost with ongoing time. In an ever changing random-chance process, nothing exists to ensure that any order is retained as a basis for increasing order and complexity to develop.
- Hundreds of observable natural processes indicate that the earth is far too young for evolution to have occurred. For example, the amount of salt in the sea, or helium in the atmosphere, the rate of erosion of the land, the age of short range comets in the Solar System, and the archaeological evidence for man's history all indicate an earth only thousands of years old, not billions of years.
- The numerous examples in biology of complex and sophisticated features and behaviours, such as the various types of eyes and natural instincts, do not indicate development from simple forms. Instead, they strongly indicate specialised design by an intelligent and purposeful designer.
- The numerous examples in nature of symbiotic relationships contradict the random-chance premise of evolution. Such relationships point strongly to purposeful design by an intelligent designer.
- The numerous examples in biology of so-called "parallel evolution" in which completely different species have developed similar features or skills on supposedly different evolutionary paths also contradict the random-chance premise of evolution. This is more adequately explained by the creationist view of there being a common designer who has elected to use common design features in different creatures.
- Gradual evolution from one creature into another creature has never been observed in domestic breeding or in nature, and is not indicated in the fossil record.
- No beneficial genetic mutations have every been documented. Instead, every mutation we know about is either neutral or destructive in accordance with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. "Neutral" mutations simply rearrange existing genetic information to produce variations within existing kinds, but never give rise to new information which could lead to new features or new kinds of creatures. "Destructive" mutations result in deformities, diseases, impairments, and over-specialisation, all of which result from a loss of genetic information.
- Experiments in genetic engineering have shown that, while there is considerable scope for variations within the range of a species' genetic pool, nature acts to preserve species against too much change. This confirms the Bible's description of God creating plants and animals according to various immutable "kinds" (Gen 1). Note: a "species" is a man-made classification and is not the same thing as a biblical "kind". For example, lions and tigers are different species, but were probably descended from the same cat kind.
- It is well known that natural selection helps to ensure the survival of species against changing environments. However, it has never been observed to produce new kinds of creatures (ie, to give rise to new genetic information). Instead, natural selection has only been observed to produce variations within existing kinds - merely shifts in population. The evidence is that natural selection encourages existing genetic potential to emerge (ie, the variability is already in the gene pool). Furthermore, scientists now recognise the difficulty of defining "fitness". Survival depends on far more factors than just strength or aggression. For example, beauty, isolation, cunning, caution, size, and, more often than not, sheer luck are important factors.
The creationist view is that God created the universe and every living creature in a fully formed and perfectly functioning condition during a special creation event. Living creatures were created in specific kinds in which wide variations were possible, but not from one kind to another. After the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, the universe and everything in it began to gradually run down in a kind of "slow-death". This view is entirely consistent with the known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, and is supported by the observable evidence of the world we live in. It is by far the better scientific model.
The creationist view requires a Creator God, while the evolutionist view attempts to eliminate the supernatural. Ironically, however, evolution actually requires a greater faith in miracles than does creationism. All the attributes of God have been simply transferred to "nature". The evolutionist trinity of "mother nature", "father time", and "lady luck" have all the capabilities of a divine miracle worker, able to change anything into everything, and everything into anything. The evolutionist's blind faith in dumb luck and natural laws, which still remain undiscovered, requires a measure of religious credulity usually associated with religious fanaticism.
Darwin's theory of evolution was, and still is, accepted because of its philosophical implications and not on the basis of any scientific evidence. Evolution is, in fact, a counter-Christian religion. The Christian (ie, biblical) interpretation of how God created the cosmos is still the most rational and realistic explanation of origins. All that has ever been directly observed is a well designed universe governed by immutable laws (ie. instructions). The evidence is that the universe began in a state of maximum order and complexity, and has been steadily moving towards a state of maximum disorder and death. The world we live in shows all the indications of having been created in a fully functioning and tailor made form. The logical interpretation is that behind the cosmos lies an intelligent and purposeful designer and law maker - ie. God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
