Inspirational Readings for Your Daily Walk with God:

Christian Mediation

 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

The Evolution of a Creationist

 

2 ...AND THEN CAME ASSUMPTIONS

Many college science professors never tell their students that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on assumptions. What is an assumption? It is something taken for granted and supposed to be true.[1] As a six-day creationist, I believe God created the universe and everything in it fully mature (with the appearance of age). I cannot prove this with scientific experiments so this belief is called an assumption. I suppose it to be true. Evolutionists likewise have assumptions. They take many necessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. In other words, evolutionists assume that non-living chemicals gave rise to that first living cell which, in turn, evolved into ever and ever more complex forms of life. There are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules-to-man scenario.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic theories an evolutionist “takes for granted” or “supposes” to be true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these assumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a high school or college textbook.

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.[2]

  MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS ASSUMED

What Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giant Redwood trees is all an assumption.

Dr. Kerkut clearly states the evolutionary assumption that all life is related to that first cell. However, through the use of phase-electron microscopes scientists have discovered that there are consistent differences in cellular substance in various kinds of animals. When studied microscopically, the living things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all. I Corinthians 15:39 records: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another flesh of fishes, and another of birds." This was written 1900 years before scientists "discovered" the differences in the basic cellular components of the various kinds of living creatures. God created life and inspired His apostles and prophets to record details of His creation, which scientists are just beginning to discover. God says there are different types of flesh in the bodies of His earthly creatures. But there are also different types of heavenly bodies -- the stars are different from each other and not the same as the moon (I Cor. 15:41). Astronomers estimate there may be one trillion-trillion stars. The best English dictionaries have less than 800,000 words. Yet, the God of the Bible has a name and a number for each star, "...He calleth them all by names..."! (Isaiah 40:26) God is infinite in His power and wisdom.

From the biggest star to the smallest atom, the magnitude and complexity of the universe is unexplainable, except in terms of a creative designer who is infinitely above any "chance processes" or human technology.

Many scientists assume life came from non-living chemicals[3] and that this only happened once. They say that everything we see alive, whether plant or animal, came from that first, primordial, single cell. Most evolutionists do not believe that one kind of life began in the Amazon and another in Africa and another in Arizona. They believe non-life gave birth to life in one cell that became the ancestor of the entire plant and animal kingdoms.

Why do scientists such as Dr. Kerkut assume this startling event happened only once? Because the chances of life evolving from non-life are so astronomically high as to be impossible without an intelligent designer. Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for Creation Research have recorded the probability of the chance origin of life in their revised book, What is Creation Science? (pp. 269-276). If all the universe was crammed with electron particles, the maximum number of particles would be ten to the power of 130. If each particle could do one hundred billion-billion events (steps in ever onward and upward evolution) every second for 3,000 billion years (100 times older than anyone says the universe is), then in the span of history of the universe 10 to the one-hundred seventieth power events could possibly happen. But to get a series of even 1,500 events to happen in order [and without God's help] (events that might be moving from non-living chemicals to a living cell), there is only one chance in ten to the power of 450! This means that the probability of evolution even getting started is zero. There aren't enough electrons in the universe to, by chance, generate a single living cell of a single evolutionary scientist. And yet, these scientists who do not believe in God are here. How did they get here? Without belief in God, the only option these people have is the evolution of non-living chemicals over eons of time into a living cell and ultimately into man.

   For nearly 150 years some of the most brilliant scientists in the world have attempted to convert non-living chemicals into some form of reproducible life. No one has done it.

A CELL IS NOT SIMPLE

A single reproducible cell is far from simple. Dr. Leon Long, of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, writes as an evolutionist:

"Among the first organisms were the lowly bacteria and blue-green algae. They are about as simple as a self-sufficient cell can be, which is none too simple, considering that a bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second! Cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes." [4]

Is it any wonder scientists claim that life from non-living chemicals only happened once? According to Dr. Long, the simplest forms of life can perform one million reactions per second! Something that complex obviously needs a designer, a Creator.

Scientists do not talk very much about the evolution of the cell membrane. The membrane that provides the outside wall (or skin) of the cell is highly complex. This membrane permits specific concentrations of certain chemicals and solutions into and out of the cell. If the concentrations of some of these chemicals vary by even 1/100%, the cell will die. At a microscopic spot in the universe, how did those chemicals all get together in the correct configurations and concentrations and at the same instant? In addition, how did the cell membrane form around them at just the right moment permitting only specific concentrations of chemicals in and out of the cell ("knowing", of course, what those chemicals must and must not be)? And how could all of this somehow know how to reproduce itself and not die in the process?

The God of the Bible said He created, created, created!  His creation defies the speculations of the evolutionist. Creation necessitates a designer. It demands fully functional life from the beginning. Biology acknowledges this with its most well-proven law, the law of Biogenesis: Life generates life. If something is alive, it is alive because something else alive produced it. The Bible tells us the living God is the Creator of life, and that statement agrees with what we see in biology. Life always comes from life.

And yet, evolutionary chemists construct laboratory experiments that attempt to display the means by which life began without God. Many of these experimenters believe that the atmosphere of primitive Earth was quite different than it is today. The atmosphere of the planet Jupiter is thought to resemble that of early Earth. Water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane were the supposed ingredients. In 1953, a chemist, Dr. Stanley Miller, placed these four ingredients into a glass jar which he heated and into which he sent sparks of electricity. He noticed a pink fluid coming off into his trap. This fluid contained some amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are very much a part of living tissue, but they are not life. The Miller-type experiments do not display chemicals marching ever onward and upward until reproducing life is generated, yet evolution in this manner is assumed to have happened. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence in the rocks of Earth or the present oceans that water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane ever existed in the concentrations necessary for Miller's experiments to accurately occur in nature.

The claim that chemical evolution is impossible, as presented in The Mystery of Life's Origin 8, has yet to be refuted. Random chemical reactions do not produce life! Dr. Stanley Miller and his followers did not produce anything with raw chemicals that even approaches life. Dennis Petersen in his informative book, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, quotes Dr. Henry Morris who says it this way:

"Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found...but could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an...
Unknown atmospheric composition..in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place."

Prove any of these unknowns of evolution with experimentally testable science and the Nobel Science prize will be yours!

A PERSONAL DESIGNER CREATES LIFE

Let us not forget--the evolutionist says there was no God, no higher power, no designer, no person behind the beginning of life. It was the impersonal (no person), plus time, plus chance (or, no one plus nothing equals everything!) So, even if the Stanley Miller experiments did prove chemical evolution is possible, which they did not do, you still have a personal designer (Miller) making his creation. Does a personal designer-scientist, doing experiments in a carefully controlled laboratory, prove that the creation of life occurred without any creator designer (no God) in a totally random-chance primordial ooze? Of course not. Our God is worthy to receive the honor and the glory and the praise because He created all things (Rev. 4:11). We can trust God and His Word, the Bible. Nothing is too difficult for Him (Jeremiah 32:17).....He is the God of the impossible (Luke 1:37).

HAS ANYONE SEEN AN ELECTRON?

One of the greatest scientists of the space age, Dr. Werner von Braun stated:

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all...The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based...

To be forced to believe only one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance -- would violate the very objectivity of science itself...What random process could produce the brains of man or the system of the human eye? They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?...they say they cannot visualize a designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron?...What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?..." [5]

Ask any scientist if he believes in electrons. He will answer, "Certainly". Ask that same scientist if he or she has ever seen an electron, and they will say, "No". Scientists believe in electrons by faith as they observe the results of electron activity.

Is this not similar to faith in God? We do not see God, but we do "see" Him through His handiwork, the creation. Romans 1 explains that as we study the intricacies of the macro- and micro-universes, we should think about who designed them, who makes them work, and who holds them together.

FOOLISH SPECULATIONS

When scientists examine the largest stars and the smallest atoms and do not honor God as their Creator and give thanks to Him, they are reduced to foolish speculations (Romans 1:18-23). Could the evolution of man from a single cell be a foolish speculation? Dr. Harrison Matthews, the writer of the introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, states:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." [6]

Dr. Matthews, an evolutionist, says evolution has no scientific proof. It is a speculation of faith. Yet, Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard University, writes:

"Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. Today, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution." [7]

Omni Magazine promotes evolution. Dr. Mayr presents godless evolution as fact, even though the Creator says in Romans 1 that all men know better: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them (Romans 1:18-19)."  Romans 1:22 adds: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission agrees:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." [8]

Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan have presented evolution as no longer a theory, but a proven fact. They have done this without a single iota of fact. Evolutionist, D.M.S. Watson said it best:

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because...no alternative explanation is credible.

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable.

...the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible." [9]

The clearly incredible Creator says in Psalm 19:1:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork."

 


[1] Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 133, G. & C. Meriam Company, Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., 1981.  

[2] G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), chapter 2 p. 6.

[3] The Mystery of Life's Origin presents the scientific position that chemical evolution is impossible. This book by Doctors of Chemistry has not been answered by the evolutionists. Non-living chemicals will not ultimately generate reproducing life. The chemistry does not work that way. Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1984).  

 

[4] Leon E. Long, Geology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), p. 172.  

[5] Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Vol. 1 (El Cajon: Master Books, 1988), p. 63, as quoted from the Bible Science Newsletter, May, 1974, p.8  

[6] L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, "Introduction," Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971), p. xi, as quoted in The Revised Quote Book, ed. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. (Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, Calif. 92021), p. 2. For many more quotes that negate evolution from the literature of the evolutionary scientists, purchase The Quote Book. The cost is around $4.00 and well worth it.  

[7] Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February, 1983, p. 74.  

[8] Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959, as quoted in The Revised Quote Book, p. 5.
         

[9] D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol. 124, #3119, pp. 231,233.  

TOP    NEXT CHAPTER      PREVIOUS CHAPTER     TABLE OF CONTENTS