Evolution or Creation? Part II

This week we shall continue our study of man’s theory of evolution, taking millions of years, vs. the Bible’s book of Genesis, in which we find the concept of a Grand Designer, Who is eternal and Who creates the heavens and the earth and all that is in the earth, in one seven-day week.

What about purported evidence supporting evolution in fossil records? This is what the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, an evolutionist, had to say: “Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth….a species does not rise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.” (Emphasis mine.) Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86 (1977.) Henry Gee, chief writer for Nature, writes: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story….” (Quoted in Wells Icons of Evolution, 37.)

Also, similarity of structure in living thing and their fossil records (such as man and apes) is strong evidence of a common Designer rather than a common ancestor, as Darwinians hold.

Then there is the question of the second law of thermodynamics. It is well known among the scientific community and laymen as well, that chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. (If you doubt this fact, look in the mirror; are you aging?) Therefore, in the long-haul, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill toward disorder, not uphill toward order. Evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial arrangements. However, as scientists have discovered, the second law of thermodynamics reveals the very opposite. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run. (See E.B. Stuart, Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics, (1970, 78.) Unless evolutionists can demonstrate that this Law does not apply to macro-evolution, Darwinism remains awash on a sea of confusion and error.

Language change also flies in the face of the theory of development from the simple to the complex. Just as there are physical laws, such as gravity, language change also has laws. One of these laws of language is that the longer the language lives, the simpler it becomes in its grammar and structure. For example, the objective case of the pronoun “whom” is rarely used today except in situations where formal English is required. It is being replaced by the subjective case “who.” Consequently, in most situations, the English speaker does not have to decide between the subjective and objective cases, but, rather, tends to use the subjective case for both needs. Also, middle English is more complex grammatically than modern English, and Old English is more complex grammatically than Middle English. If such a law continues back to early man, it would be absurd to have a simple “man-like being” handling a complex language. However, such a law would fit perfectly into the Genesis account where man is created mature, marriageable, and intelligent.

Is evolution a religion? What is religion? One definition of religion is: A belief, founded largely upon faith, that attempts to answer such basic questions as “Where did man come from,”  “How did he get here,”  and “Where is he going?”  Or, one could define religion as: “a system of faith.” “Evolution is a system of faith in materialism.” (Dr. Donald Scott, Organic Evolution: A Pagan Religion.1.) Faith is the common element in each of these definitions. The famous evolutionist T. Dobzhanksy wrote: “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” (American Biology Teacher, V. 35, No. 3, March, 1973.) If one accepts these definitions and Dobzhanksy’s statement, macro-evolution is clearly a religion. Therefore, if, for legal reasons, religion is not to be taught in the public schools of the United States, the teaching of evolution should have the same restrictions placed upon it as those placed upon the teachings of Christianity and Judaism.

Finally, did the complex clock (universe and life) come about by chance or design? When the evidence for intelligent design, recorded in Genesis, is weighed against the evidence for chance-evolution, intelligent design wins hands-down in the minds of those who are willing to accept the abundance of evidence favoring the Genesis account.

©2016 Fillmer Hevener