Properties of the earth and the relationship of living
things to it are a testament to a Designer. The atmosphere, the climate, the
soil, water, mineral deposits are all essential to life. The human body is
also a testament to a Designer. The more I study, the more difficult it is
to understand how one can ever believe all the intricacies of the body or
the universe were created by a random series of events.
Did God then use evolution as a creation mechanism? No
one can know, however three factors seem to suggest that this is not the
case. First, there is no physical evidence (e.g., fossil record) that life
evolved; second, the order of creation described in Genesis is opposite of
the order proposed by the theory of evolution and third, in Genesis 1:24,
God created animals "each according to its kind."
So why should all of this be troubling? After all, what
really matters is that we believe in God and have relationship with Him
through Jesus. It is troubling because many people who were taught the
theory of evolution as truth never study or question the accuracy of the
theory and come to believe in "natural processes" -- that God did not create
life. Indeed, some question whether there is a God at all. If natural
processes created everything, there is no need for God. Natural processes
become a substitute for God. A living, personal God becomes just a religious
concept for people who "need that sort of thing".
In reality, all scientific evidence points directly to a
Designer (God) as the Creator. Experience has shown that people close the
door on this issue, which has such eternal consequences, without thoroughly
researching available evidence. We should always keep an open mind and
continue to test all information that is presented to us. I hope this
information and its references provide useful information to help others
explore the issue of creation vs. evolution.
"The Earth was born about 5 billion years ago...
Scientists are not certain of just how it happened, but they believe that
life began about 2 billion years ago in the shallow waters of some unknown
seacoast. A group of atoms came together in a very certain way. They formed
a new type of molecule -- a giant molecule, much bigger than all the other
atom groups nearby. This large molecule could do something that no other
molecule could do. It was able to take simple atoms and smaller molecules
from the sea and make a new giant molecule just like itself."
--Benjamin Bova "The Giants Of The Animal World"
Is this really the way it happened? This evolutionist's
view leaves many questions unanswered. How did life emerge from non-living
matter? Exactly how was that first living molecule formed? How did that
molecule evolve to the complex life forms we have today?
CAN LIFE EMERGE FROM NON-LIVING MATTER?
No one has ever observed the creation of life from
non-living matter, or spontaneous generation. Even given ideal laboratory
conditions, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-living
matter. Life has been found only to come from life. This has been seen so
consistently that it's called the Law of Biogenesis.
Even if scientists could demonstrate spontaneous
generation, it's unlikely that life on earth began this way. Two basic
components of life, proteins and DNA, have characteristics that make their
spontaneous generation unlikely. Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early
earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins,
amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen. There had to be oxygen in
the atmosphere, however. Without oxygen, there could be no ozone in the
upper atmosphere and without the ozone layer, the sun's ultraviolet
radiation would quickly destroy life. How then, can evolution explain both
ozone and life?
Scientists have also found that the long chains of amino
acids necessary for life cannot be formed in water. This fact seriously
impacts the theory that life began in "the waters of some unknown seacoast."
The creation of DNA, the basic building block of life
presents an interesting evolutionary problem. DNA cells contain thousands of
genes that direct the functioning of living beings, including inherited
characteristics, growth, organ and system structure. The DNA for each
species is unique. Certain protein molecules or enzymes must be present for
DNA to replicate, however those enzymes can only be produced at the
direction of DNA -- the DNA itself has the blueprint for the specific
enzymes it needs to replicate. Each depends on the other and both must be
present for replication to take place. How evolution could explain this has
never been answered.
HOW WAS THE FIRST LIVING MOLECULE FORMED?
Evolutionists think that the early earth contained a
primordial "soup", consisting of all the components necessary for life.
Through random processes, the components combined in exactly the right way
to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for
all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that
consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.
Let's look at the mathematical chances for life to come about in this way.
PROBABILITIES SHOW RANDOM PROCESSES CANNOT CREATE LIFE
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be
called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical
elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons,
electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the
probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would
contain only 100 elements.
We'll assume that all the necessary components were
readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together
in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element
system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in
the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the
possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred"
was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating
probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in
100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1
followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there
are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.
As an example, let's assume only two components are
required to form a living system, say X and Y. If they came together in the
form XY, the system would function. If they came together as YX, it would
not work. The probability of a functioning system randomly forming with
these two components would be 1 in 2.
For a system requiring three components to function:
there are six possible ways that three components could combine: XYZ, XZY,
YXZ, YZX, ZXY, ZYX. Only one of the six combinations would work. We can
express the probability or chance that the correct combination of three
components would occur as 1 in 6.
For larger numbers of components, it is easier to
calculate the number of possible combinations of the components by
multiplying the numbers from 1 to the number of components together. This is
called the factorial.
To find the number of possible combinations for our two
component system, we compute 2 factorial, or 1x2=2 possible combinations.
For three components, the calculation is 3 factorial or 1x2x3=6; for four
components: 4 factorial or 1x2x3x4=24.
The number of possible combinations gets very large very
quickly as the number of components increase. For example, the number of
possible combinations of ten elements is 10 factorial, or
1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 = 3,628,800. The probability of chance formation of a
ten element system is 1 in 3,628,800. For chance formation of an eleven
element system, the probability is 1 in 39,916,800.
INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR CREATION OF EVEN SIMPLEST
Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process
occurred over billions of years, so they feel there was plenty of time to
make all the necessary trial combinations and eventually get the correct
ones. Let's test this theory for "Fred".
Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30
billion years old, which is 1018 seconds. Let's assume that it takes a
billionth of a second for components to combine to form a trial 100
component "Fred". Let's also assume that the number of electrons in the
universe, 1080, is representative of the number of basic components
available for trial combinations of "Fred". This would allow 1078 trial
combinations of 100 component "Fred" to occur at a time. With these
assumptions, from the origin of the universe until today, 10105 trial
combinations could be made (1018 x 109 x 1078). Unfortunately, to be sure to
get a functioning "Fred" we would need 10158 combinations. The chance of one
of our 10105 combinations being the correct, functioning "Fred" is
approximately one chance in one hundred million billion billion billion
billion billion (1 in 1053). It would take over three billion billion
billion billion billion billion billion years to try all the possible
combinations to be sure to create Fred. Written out, that's over 3, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000 years. There hasn't been nearly enough time to
create even simple "Fred" in the universe's supposed 30,000,000,000 years of
CHANCE OF CREATION OF COMPLEX LIFE FORMS BEYOND
The example, "Fred" is greatly simplified. In fact,
"Fred" couldn't be considered a living organism. Remember, the most basic
type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino
acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. To build this simplest life
form would require at least: 400 amino acids x 4 chemical elements for a
total of at least 1600 components. The combinations necessary to randomly
form this new 1600 component "Fred" are staggering: 1600 factorial (1 x 2 x
3...x 1599 x 1600).
The probability of chance formation of the DNA for a
simple self- replicating organism has been calculated at 1 in 10167,636 (a 1
followed by 167,636 zeros). Imagine the probability of chance formation of
the brain (with 10,000,000,000 very complex, specifically designed and
interrelating cells)! The brain is only one of the many complex and
interrelating systems in the human body! How long would it take by random
processes to form a human?
RECENT DISCOVERIES SHOW LIFE EMERGED IN SHORTER TIME
Recent discoveries show the earth's population changed
from simple worm- like organisms to diverse life forms, including all the
major animal groups, in a period of just zero to ten million years. This is
significantly less than the 30 billion years evolutionists previously
believed that the evolutionary process took -- or the over three billion
billion billion billion billion billion billion years required to create our
100 component "Fred" by random processes.
All thirty of the complex animal phyla alive today and
thirty phyla that are now extinct appeared during the five to ten million
year-long period, called the Cambrian era. Because of dating uncertainties,
scientists cannot ascertain whether all the life forms appeared all at once
or gradually over the five to ten million year period. This new information,
discovered by a team of geologists from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Harvard University and Russian researchers from the Geoscience
Institute in Yakutsk, will certainly create problems in justifying the
evolution theory that random processes over long time periods created life
WHAT ABOUT SEXUAL REPRODUCTION?
Assuming a human could somehow "evolve", how would it
reproduce? Reproduction in mammals requires a male and a female. Two humans
had to evolve at the same time and place, having complex and totally
different, but complementary reproductive systems -- male and female. The
physical components of both systems had to be compatible. If one of the
systems had a slight defect or wasn't complete, reproduction would be
impossible and the species would become extinct. The chemical and emotional
systems of the male and female also had to be compatible for reproduction to
take place. These same constraints apply to sexual reproduction in plants,
animals and other mammals. Sexual reproduction was essential for life on
planet earth. An incredible sequence of chance evolutionary events must have
occurred to account for it!
There simply hasn't been enough time for the "natural"
random process of evolution to create the living beings of this world. In
terms of mathematical probability, evolution isn't a rational explanation
for the existence of our world's complex living systems!
IS THE EARTH OLD ENOUGH?
It is important to evolution theory that the earth be old
enough to provide adequate time for "natural random processes" to work.
There are more than 100 techniques for measuring the age of the earth. Only
a few methods date the earth as billions of years old. Most methods date the
earth as thousands to millions of years old. While there is no way we can
definitely tell how old the earth is, it is interesting to see the
disagreement between the various dating methods and to understand that
currently accepted dating methods are not as accurate as many would like to
SCIENTIFIC DATING METHODS NOT RELIABLE
The "old" (billions of years old) estimates of the
earth's age are obtained by radiometric systems that measure age by the rate
of disintegration of radioactive elements in the earth's rock layers.
Objects, such as bones, are dated by testing the volcanic rocks under which
they're buried. It's assumed that the volcanic eruptions that buried the
objects occurred after the objects were deposited, so finding the age of the
volcanic rock will give an approximate age of the object. The most commonly
used radiometric tests include Potassium Argon, Uranium Lead and Carbon 14.
Radiometric tests have been found to be inaccurate in many instances. For
example, some volcanic rocks from an 1801 eruption in Hawaii were tested by
Potassium Argon and found to be 160 million to 3 billion years old!
Potassium Argon tests have been found to be inaccurate when heat was
involved with the object being tested. Therefore, heat from a volcanic
eruption could greatly alter the results of this test. How can scientists be
confident about dating volcanic rock with Potassium Argon? Yet many famous
discoveries were dated by using this test on volcanic rock. Potassium Argon
was used to date Skull 1470, said to be 2.8 million years old and "Lucy",
dated at 3 million years.
LIVE MOLLUSKS 2300 YEARS OLD?
Live Mollusks dated at 2,300 years old, mortar from 800
year old English castle dated at 7,370 years old and fresh seal skins dated
at 1,300 years old -- these are some of the inaccuracies of Carbon 14
dating. For accurate dating, Carbon 14 depends on a steady rate of radiation
in the atmosphere. This steady rate of radiation can be disturbed by
volcanic activity, industrial burning, solar flares, sunspots, cosmic
radiation or meteors falling to earth, thus making the dating method
inaccurate. Dating by Carbon 14 also doesn't support evolutionist's theories
of the chronological progression of life throughout history. With Carbon 14
dating, coal is 1,680 years old (evolutionists place it at 100,000,000 years
old), natural gas is 34,000 years old (thought to be 50,000,000 years old)
and the saber-toothed tiger is 28,000 years old (thought to be 100,000 to
1,000,000 years old). To quote Curt Teichert of the Geological Society of
America, "No coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on
the basis of radioactive datings".
THE EARTH COULD BE YOUNGER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
Based on physical indications, the earth could be much
younger than evolutionists think. Measurable amounts of helium gas are
continually gathering in our outer atmosphere. The decay of the earth's
uranium is one of the sources of helium. This helium cannot escape into
outer space. If the earth was billions of years old, there would be as much
as a million times more helium than is there now. Given the amount of helium
in our outer atmosphere, the earth is estimated to be 10,000 to 15,000 years
TOPSOIL AND EROSION CONSISTENT WITH YOUNGER EARTH
The earth's topsoil has an average depth of seven or
eight inches. Top soil is produced at an estimated rate of six inches in
5,000 to 20,000 years. If the earth is billions of years old there should be
a lot more topsoil -- 300,000 inches or more! Because of erosion, the amount
of sediment in the ocean is gradually increasing. If the ocean had existed
for a billion years, there should be at least thirty times more sediment in
it than there is.
LIVING THINGS AND POPULATION SPEAK OF YOUNGER EARTH
The oldest living things on earth, the bristle cone pine
trees in Nevada and California, are 5,000 years old. California redwoods are
4,000 years old. If trees can live that long, why couldn't they live several
thousands of years longer? Why are there no trees older than 5,000 years? If
the population of the earth increased 1/2% per year for a million years (2.5
children per family), the present population of the earth would be 102100 (1
with 2,100 zeros after it). Earth's present population could have developed
in 4,000 years given the 1/2% per year growth rate.
LIFE IMPOSSIBLE ON OLDER EARTH?
Every hour the sun shrinks about five feet or about 1/10
% per century. At this rate, just 100,000 years ago it would have been
double its present size. Twenty million years ago it would have been
touching the earth. Assuming this rate of shrinkage, life on the earth would
have been impossible just one million years ago, due to heat and radiation
from a large sun.
Since it was first measured in 1835, the earth's magnetic
field has been steadily decaying. Based on this rate of decay, the magnetic
field would have been the same as that of a magnetic star 10,000 years ago.
Life would not have been possible in such an environment, thus life on earth
more than 10,000 years ago would not have been possible.
MOON'S PHYSICAL PROPERTIES INDICATE A YOUNGER EARTH
The moon and earth steadily gather cosmic dust. During
Apollo missions, NASA scientists expected to find a 54 foot layer of dust on
the moon because of its 4.5 to 5 billion year estimated age. They actually
found 1/8 inch to 3 inches of dust, which would take less than 8,000 years
to accumulate. Scientists know that without the stabilizing influence of the
moon, the earth would wobble. This would create wild swings in temperature,
which would make life impossible. The moon is essential for life on earth.
The amount of dust on the moon, suggests that the moon and consequently life
on earth came into being 8,000 years ago or less. The distance of the moon
from earth is gradually increasing by two inches a year. If this rate was
constant, the moon and the earth would have been touching two billion years
ago. If the moon had started out a reasonable distance from earth five
billion years ago, it would now be out of sight.
DO SPECIES EVOLVE FROM OTHER SPECIES?
If life was created by evolution, one would expect
gradual transitions among living things. The fossil record doesn't show
gradual transitions. Species appear completely developed, not partially
developed. Organs appear fully developed -- indeed, if they weren't the
organism would probably die. There are many single cell life forms, but no
known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or even 20 cells. One would expect
to find many of these, as transitional life forms. Experts feel that the
fossil record is complete and has been thoroughly studied, yet there are
evolution gaps between: - single celled life forms and invertebrates - fish
and amphibians - amphibians and reptiles - reptiles and birds - primates and
other mammals - many plants
In evolution theory, mutation is the primary way that new
genetic material is thought to become available for evolution. However, more
than 99% of induced mutations are defects. No mutant has ever been observed
that crossed the line to another species. Organisms have never been found to
cross the boundaries between species. This is because the size, number, and
kind of chromosomes are different for each species. If two species have the
same number of chromosomes, differences in size or shape prevent cross
breeding. Abnormal crosses have always resulted in sterility of the
offspring -- such as the breeding of a horse and donkey resulting in a
sterile mule, or a lion and tiger resulting in a sterile liger.
VARIATION WITHIN SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION
Variation within a species is common, as we see in the
many breeds of dogs, cats, cows, etc. A frequent example of "evolution" used
in text books is the variation of the peppered moth. Prior to the industrial
revolution in England, dark peppered moths were rare, the light colored ones
were common. During the industrial revolution, factory soot covered tree
trunks where moths landed. The light colored moths were now more visible to
predators, thus their population decreased greatly, while the dark moths
were now less visible to predators and multiplied. Textbooks say the light
colored moth evolved into the dark colored moth during this time. Is this
evolution? No new species resulted, just a variation within the species
because of natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIPS
There are many instances where very different forms of
life are completely dependent upon each other. An example is the
relationship of the Pronuba moth and the yucca plant. The Pronuba moth lives
in a cocoon in the sand at the base of the yucca plant. Pronuba moths hatch
only on certain nights of the year, which are also the only nights that
yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth hatches, it enters an open yucca
flower and gathers pollen. It then flies to a different yucca plant, backs
into the flower and lays its eggs with the yucca's seed cells. It pushes the
pollen it had gathered into a hole in the yucca flower's pistil, so the
pollen will fertilize the yucca's seed cells where the moth laid its eggs.
The moth then dies. As the moth's eggs incubate, the yucca seeds ripen. When
the eggs hatch, the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the yucca seeds. They
then cut through the seed pod and spin a thread that they slide down to the
desert floor. They burrow into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle
continues. There are several kinds of yucca plants, each pollinated by its
own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the particular flower. The
yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other for
reproduction, thus survival.
Other examples of symbiotic relationships between
different life forms include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, parasites and
their hosts and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. If one member of the
symbiotic team evolved first, it could not have survived. Since both
symbiotic members in each of these examples have survived, it is reasonable
to conclude that they must have come into existence at the same time.
Evolution has no explanation for symbiotic relationships.
EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT PROBLEMS, STICK TO THEORY
Some evolutionists have admitted that their theories have
scientific difficulties. Let's look at some of the thoughts of Charles
Darwin who popularized the Theory of Evolution with his 1859 book, The
Origin of Species. Darwin's greatest concern about his theory was that the
existing fossil record didn't support it. In his book, Darwin stated "As by
this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not
find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The
number of extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" He later
stated "not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot
prove that a single species has been changed". He felt that future
discoveries would substantiate his theory and stated that "he who rejects
these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my
whole theory". To date, the geological record has not substantiated the
Theory of Evolution.
DARWIN: EYE FORMED BY NATURAL SELECTION "ABSURD IN THE
HIGHEST POSSIBLE DEGREE"
Darwin also admitted drawbacks of the evolution theory in
trying to explain complex organs, such as the eye. "To suppose that the eye,
with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light...could have been formed
by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible
degree...The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by
natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone."
Some evolutionists recognize the incredible scientific
obstacles of evolution theory (as Darwin states: "...absurd in the highest
possible degree..."), yet still choose to believe in evolution rather than
in creation. To quote George Wald, Nobel Prize winner in physiology and
medicine: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the
only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural
creation. There is no third position... One has only to contemplate the
magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a
living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of
COULD EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN GOD'S CREATION MECHANISM?
There are great difficulties in explaining evolution by
natural processes, but what about Divine intervention? Did God choose to
create by evolution? If He did, the way He used evolution is not consistent
with evolutionist's theories. The account in Genesis, while not intended to
be a scientific explanation, gives us more insight. In Genesis, God never
spoke of creating transitional life forms. He created animals "each
according to its kind". This is in agreement with our fossil record and with
what we know about genetics, but doesn't agree with evolution theory.
Genesis gives the order in which things were created. As shown in the table,
this order of creation strongly disagrees with evolution theory.
Earth created before sun, stars (Gen. 1:1, 1:14)
Sun, stars existed before earth
Oceans created before land (Gen. 1:2)
Land existed before water
Light created before land (Gen. 1:3, 1:14)
The sun was the earth's first light
Plants were first created life (Gen. 1:11-12)
Marine organisms were first life
Land plants created before sun (Gen. 1:11-12,14-18)
Sun existed before land plants
Birds created before insects (Gen. 1:20,1:24)
Insects existed before birds
Man created before woman (Gen. 1:26, 2:15,2:22)
Woman existed before man (genetics)
Creation is completed (Gen. 2:2)
Creation process continues
WE ARE HERE BY DESIGN, NOT COINCIDENCE
We have found no evidence to support the major ideas of
evolution. There is no evidence that life can emerge from non-living matter.
The mathematical odds of a human arising from random processes are beyond
astronomical. The fossil record doesn't support transitions between species,
nor has anyone ever observed such a transition. Evolution can't account for
symbiotic relationships between different organisms.
There are so many incredible "coincidences" in our world.
The earth's atmosphere has the right mixture of gases to support life. The
sun is the right distance away and the right size to keep our climate
comfortable. The tilt of the earth is right to give us moderate seasons. The
proximity of the moon stabilizes the earth without causing excessive tides.
There are many mineral deposits and natural resources to support our life.
Topsoil supports the growth of food. The list is endless. These
"coincidences" speak of a Designer.
The human body is a testament to a Designer. Our most
sophisticated computers are no match for the human brain. The kidneys
contain approximately 280 miles of tubes and filter 185 quarts of water a
day from the blood. The heart pumps 5,000 gallons of blood a day. It beats
approximately 100,800 times a day or 2,500,000,000 times in an average life
time. The human skeletal structure is light and flexible, yet can withstand
enormous stress. The eye has automatic aim, focus and aperture adjustment.
It provides us with color three dimensional images. It can function in
darkness to bright light and makes about 100,000 motions in a day. All of
these complex systems function together. Can evolution really account for
all of this? An honest assessment of available information must conclude
there is powerful evidence to support the theory that the universe and all
that is in it is a designed creation.
References and good books for further study include:
The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott M. Huse
Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris
A Scientific Approach to Christianity by Robert W. Faid
Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen
In the Beginning by Walter T. Brown Jr.
For a booklet of this information, which includes
illustrations that cannot be presented here, send $2.00 plus postage to
Return to God, P.O. Box 159, Carnation, WA 98014-0159
Copyright 1994 by Return to God