|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
By Richard Gunther
An awful lot of written material defending or discussing creationism and
the views held by its detractors is dry and technical, and many people are put
off by the intellectualism involved in the discussion. The very nature of the
discussion tends to draw into it scientific terms and presupposes a background
knowledge of some of the broad concepts popularly held by academics and people
with higher education. Many laypeople want to understand, but they are
not studied enough to be familiar with the technical language, and besides, most
of the discussion is between men. It’s a ‘guy’ thing, and ‘guys’ seem to lack
imagination. They like to compile doctrines, and lists of good points. They
dissect and dissect until there is nothing but a collection of labels. No
wonder the subject bores the socks off many readers.
The following is a simple objection-response list, which puts forward
the naturalist point of view, and then the creationist reply. In most cases the
approach has been to appeal to logic rather than to quote the Bible. This is because
logic is a powerful tool and can serve as an arm of Scripture, as any human arm
can perform tasks for the body it serves.
It is also sometimes a great mistake to quite the Bible, when a better
argument for truth can come from good science. People tend to stereotype
Christians when they throw Scripture into an argument, as if Christians are
anti-science, or perhaps unable to recognise the real world. Good science is
actually a friend and an ally to Christianity, not an enemy.
In the following work the word “naturalist” is used. In this essay the
word means someone who thinks the universe and life came about completely
unaided by any outside intelligence.
ORIGINS
1.
Most ancient cultures believed that the universe was eternal, and that
it came from some primordial, eternal material. The Greeks thought a beginning
for the universe was irrational. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance the Greek
view was revived. Modern science has formulated the law of conservation of
matter – that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This seems to prove that
there could not be a beginning to the universe.
BUT
Now modern science has shown that the universe is ‘winding down’, or
degrading. This logically means that if we ‘wind it up’ again we must come to a
point when it all began – when it was fully ‘wound up’. Stars once had all
their fuel, moons were closer or further from their planets, galaxies were not
s spread out, and universal decay was not apparent anywhere.
2.
Many modern scientists think the universe started with an enormous
explosion, called the ‘big bang’. Logically, if the ‘big bang’ is correct, then
an endless universe is not correct.
BUT
All observations of explosions show that they never produce anything but
chaos. Just as a bag of marbles dropped will never produce pretty pictures, the
random spread of energy and matter would never produce galaxies, planets,
living things or self-awareness.
3.
The ‘big bang’ may have been just one of many ‘big bangs’. The universe
may expand and collapse regularly, which means matter may be eternal after all.
BUT
If this were so, the energy for each ‘big bang’ would be less and less
each time. This view ignores the basic problem as to the origin of the energy
in the first place. The second law of thermodynamics, that of decay, makes an
oscillating universe impossible.
Conclusion. Naturalists have no way to avoid the logical direction of
this debate. The universe is not eternal, and all indications are that it began
at a definite moment some time in the past, when energy and matter appeared out
of nowhere. This points us to a First Cause, the Originator of the matter and
energy comprising our decaying universe. “In the beginning God created . . .
and God said, “Let there be light.” (Genesis 1)
LIFE IS AN ACCIDENT
1.
Naturalists believe life is an accident. They combine this assumption
with the belief that everything which helps life is also an accident – the
earth, water, the sun, gravity, air and so on. – sometimes called the anthropic
principle, which means that everything ‘appears’ to be designed to suit
Mankind.
BUT
When a list of preconditions necessary for life to exist is drawn up,
the odds against all these conditions being just an accident dwindles down to zero.
Some of these preconditions are: the relative weak and strong forces in
atoms, the interactions between atoms, and between molecules, the size of the
sun, earth, moon and other planets, the temperature of the sun, and earth,
earth’s circular orbit, the hydrologic cycle, properties of different elements,
and so on . . . the chemical reactions within cells, organs and bodies, and
thousands of other preconditions, any of which, if they did not operate the way
they do would destroy all living things.
2.
The universe we live in is just one of millions and millions of
alternative universes. We just happen to be living in one that has all the
right conditions to support life.
BUT
If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life,
the most logical conclusion we can reach is that is WAS designed precisely to
support life. The number of design features is so large they have never been
counted in full, so the statistical evidence points to a Designer, rather than
to blind chance, and the chances of a universe like this one appearing by
accident are zero.
To say that our universe is just one of many is an attempt to avoid the
logical conclusion that it is really the only universe there is. Besides
alternative universes are undetectable, and they belong to the realm of
imagination not science.
There are three approaches available to us when we examine the universe:
chance, law or design. If we are looking at, for example, an ant, we could say
that it is the result of chance, but we know that ants do not form by accident.
We could then suppose that the ant came about simply by ‘blind’ laws, such as
gravity and hydraulics and air pressure, but we also know that laws by
themselves work like the machinery inside things, and do not have a ‘consciousness’
or ability to plan and make anything. The last choice we have is design, and an
ant fits this view perfectly.
3.
Some scientists believe the universe is itself intelligent, and that it
made Man because it needed to be appreciated. Absurd though this idea sounds,
some serious, intelligent scientists really believe the universe is in some
ways alive.
BUT
All observations of the natural universe have shown that it consists of
matter being acted upon by universal laws. These two things, by themselves,
have no intelligence. What we need is some external Intelligence, performing a
creative influence on matter and using the laws to establish higher orders of
complexity – in other words, the universe cannot produce life by itself. Only
God can do that, and since He first created the materials, He alone knows how
to put them together the right way.
ANCIENT EARTH
1.
Naturalist views always include in their view an earth millions of years
old in which life evolved from simple to complex forms. To back this up an
experiment performed in 1953 is sometimes quoted, in which Stanley Miller (
BUT
All living things use ONLY left-handed forms of amino acids, and n
experiment has ever produced only one form. Miller produced 50% left and right
– deadly to life.
2.
In 1958 Sidney Fox, a chemist at the University of Miami, boiled amino
acids in water and produced protein-like chains. This seems to prove that all
you need is time plus amino acids plus heat plus water to produce life.
BUT
All the amino acids did was hook together in what are known as peptide
bonds. Not once has a protein been produced which could function inside a
living cell. Furthermore, for proteins to be functional, they must link
together in specific sequences. All experiments to date have produced scrambled
sequences – basically nonsense proteins – no use for life. Logically, if
intelligent scientists cannot make a useful amino acid, they cannot prove that
time, plus water, plus chemicals, plus chance ever did it.
3.
Naturalists claim that early earth consisted of pools of warm water full
of mixed chemicals, yet when chemicals are all mixed up together they never
produce anything useful, because every reaction that takes place involves other
chemicals which ‘spoil’ it. Scientists therefore have to ‘cheat’ to get what
they want. They either concentrate the chemicals and isolate them from
contamination, or take reactions step by step in a controlled way, or they
screen out things which would ruin their efforts – such as the longer
wavelengths of ultraviolet, which destroy amino acids.
To get what they want scientists ‘trap’ the chemicals they want,
BUT
nature never ‘traps’ and isolates chemicals. Logically, any experiment
which is supposed to mimic how conditions were meant to be millions of years
ago ought to allow for all the conditions, otherwise the experiments are
completely irrelevant.
4.
Naturalists think life came about by sheer chance, with no input of
intelligence or control of the process,
BUT
the only way anything can be produced by humans which looks remotely
like life is through the use of very clever equipment, specific manipulation
and input from a lot of intelligent humans. This points us towards a creator
rather than blind chance as the origin of life.
5.
Naturalists used to say that for life to arise all that was needed was
plenty of time and some luck. Eventually, they said, the right combination of
molecules would occur.
BUT
In 1966 a group of computer specialists presented their findings at the
Wistar Institute symposium. Murray Eden of MIT and Marcel Schutzenberger of the
Sir Fred Hoyle likened the odds to about the same as billions and
billions of blind people all arriving at a solution to Rubric’s cube at exactly
the same moment.
Conclusion: modern science is not producing any new material that
contradicts the Bible. In fact it is constantly supplying supportive evidence.
(But Christians must be careful to base their beliefs on the Bible, which never
changes, rather than science, which may change as new information is
discovered)
LIFE AND DNA
1.
Naturalists say that all life is basically chemicals, and that the
chemical chains called DNA which reside in every cell, are the origin of life.
Life can therefore be examined and recorded as a sequence of bases, sugars and
phosphates,
BUT
It is not the chemicals which produce life. It is the SEQUENCE which
produces life, and there is only one possible source for the intelligent
sequencing: a code-maker. DNA is like a language, a molecular message, a set of
instructions, telling a cell how to construct proteins – much like the software
in a computer.
2.
Naturalists think the information in DNA came to be there by natural
forces, In other words, by the forces of natural laws acting on materials.
BUT
When this view is examined, it cannot explain how sequences of
information as complex as an encyclopedia could just happen by chance. There is
more information in one human cell than 4 copies of the whole Encyclopedia
Brittanica, and we all know that an encyclopedia cannot arise by accident. The
molecules in each DNA chain are grouped together like sentences, and not only
is the code intelligent, but a code-reading mechanism is also needed, using the
same ‘grammar’, otherwise nothing would come of it. Logically, an intelligent
code cannot arise by chance, therefore science has produced evidence of an
intelligent designer, rather than proof for random events and chance.
3.
Naturalists dismiss ‘intelligent design’ as a hypothetical view. They
say apparent design is only Man’s interpretation of things found
in the natural world, and not evidence of real design. Some naturalists go even
further and say nature reveals poor and faulty design, and this they say is
evidence that ‘God’ could not have created it – because God is supposedly
perfect.
BUT
The English clergyman William Paley countered this view when he posed
the problem of finding a watch. If anyone examines a watch, they will
immediately see that it is not the result of blind chance, or natural laws
operating unguided by an outside intelligence. The whole machine, piece by
piece, is designed to function as a timepiece and it could not have arisen by
accident. It has shaped parts and each part has an individual purpose – just
like a living creature is made of many parts. Each part by itself is unaware of
the other parts, yet without all the parts the whole would not be viable. It is
therefore illogical to say that living things are not the result of a
Designer’s work.
As to the faults within nature, the Bible supplies a logical response.
Originally the world was perfect, but when sin entered God pronounced a
judgement, and brought in decay, which we know as the second law of
thermodynamics. The faults are a result of sin, not poor design.
When a forensics team arrives at the scene of a crime, one thing they do
is determine whether a crime was the result of natural or some other cause. The
tests they perform usually sort out whether the crime was committed by an
outside agency, or was simply an accident. Again, when an archaeologist finds a
stone tool, or a piece of a pot, he knows immediately that the artifact is not
the result of blind chance or natural laws. When a cryptographer decodes marks
on a wall, he knows the marks are alphabetical or just random scratches because
there is a huge difference between the two. Ripples in the sand are caused by
laws and natural processes, but words in the sand are the result of
intelligence. In exactly the same way, when scientists discovered DNA they should
have said: “We have found evidence for intelligent design!”
4.
Some scientists use crystal formation as an example of order coming from
chaos through natural laws. DNA they suggest, might have arisen like a crystal,
BUT
All crystals are the result of repetitive order. They grow as atoms lock
together, repeating the shape over and over again. In salt, for example, the
atoms lock together to form six-sided boxes. They do this millions of times,
and never form an intelligent code. Besides, even if they did form a code, they
would also need somewhere to use it, and a code-reading mechanism to make use
of it.
5.
Some scientists have discovered that they can create beautiful patterns
and shapes on their computer screens, by telling their computer to repeat
various patterns on different scales. The shapes sometimes resemble leaves, or
ferns, snowflakes or other organic things, and the scientists claim that this
might have been the process by which life arose,
BUT
These patterns are just repetitions, as in the simpler forms such as
salt crystals.
Conclusion: there are no known physical (or natural) laws capable of
creating DNA or any intelligent code. The Cause, or origin, of DNA must come
from somewhere else, and since there is no known cause within the universe it
must exist somewhere outside it. Just as the discovery of a watch leads us
logically to suppose that there must be a designer somewhere, the discovery of
DNA should lead up to suppose that there must be a DNA writer. If luck, or
natural laws cannot do it, the God of the Bible is the next most likely
candidate.
EVOLUTION AND VARIETIES
1.
Many books, in and out of school, tell readers that evolution is
demonstrated in today’s world by the example of many different varieties of
dog, horse, cat, pig, rose, etc. To the superficial thinker it certainly looks
as if roses, for example, are evolving, because there are so many different
kinds,
BUT
No matter how many varieties of horse, dog, cat, pig or rose there are,
they are still horses, dogs, cats, pigs and roses. Varieties are not evidence
of evolution because there is no increase in complexity (evolution is usually
thought of it terms of an upward movement).
Breeders of pigeons have produced an amazing range of different pigeons,
but all they have done is select from the already existing genes and suppressed
others.
2.
BUT
All observations of genes today have found no change ‘upward’ in genetic
information, and a gradual trend downward, as genes lose or mutate their
information. As an illustration of this, imagine you received a regular weekly
wage of a hundred dollars. Now estimate how much more money you would get each
week if you removed 5 cents each payday from your wages. Would the gradual
removal of money each week eventually add up to an increase in your weekly
wage? Of course not. All observations of living things have shown that the
trend is down, yet evolutionists claim that, over vast amounts of time, the
decrease will eventually result in a net gain!
3.
Evolutionists think that by shuffling genes around, new information can
arise, leading to a net increase in a species,
BUT
Everyone knows you never get any new cards by shuffling them. Genes
always come in specific amounts. Shuffling them round never results in more
genes. Selective breeding never produces new species because there is an
inter-species barrier between all basic species, and the genes are limited to a
specific number.
Furthermore, when ‘fancy’ breeds are left to themselves, they often
revert to the original, so the actual, observed trend, is to conserve, not to
change.
4.
Evolutions often resort to theories about mutations to explain how one
species can change into another species. They hope that vast numbers of
mutations will either appear all at one, or gradually build up,
BUT
Most mutations are harmful, many are fatal, and the chances of a large
number of beneficial mutations appearing all together is so remote as to not
register. Mutations are like typing errirs. They produce nonsense, not sense.
Accumulations of mutations never produce improvements in the laboratory, and in
the wild a mutation is usually a disadvantage. Such mutated creatures are
usually weeded out by the non-mutated population.
5.
BUT
All it demonstrated was variety within a species, and the variety
represented only a very minor adjustment to different conditions for different
populations of finch. In the end anyway, all the finches were able to
interbreed, which proves they were all still finches of the same species – so
absolutely no evolution had occurred.
Conclusion: Luther Burbank, regarded by some as perhaps the greatest
expert on breeding of all time, said the tendency for organisms to stay true to
type is so constant it can be considered “a natural law”, what he called the
“Law of Reversion to the Average”. This law operates in all areas of life, and
“keeps all living things within some more or less fixed limitations.”
The Bible says God created all life and commanded that it breed “after
its kind.”
COMPLEXITY
1.
Evolutionists say complexity arises slowly, as new features gradually
develop and a species changes into another species
BUT
From a design point of view this would not work. Imagine a fish
developing lungs – it would drown. Organisms are complete things, with every
part designed to work with all the others. If they developed piecemeal they
would not survive because a developing organ would be useless until it was
functional.
Michael Behe demonstrated, in his book “
2.
Evolutionists tell us that the fossil record is a record of millions of
years of evolution. They talk about transitional forms, and geological ages,
and they display bones in museums labelled “ancestor of” but the actual chain
of evolving intermediary forms is always lacking. They show the transitional
forms with (a) dotted lines, (b) imaginative paintings
BUT
The truths is, there are no convincing transitional forms, and never
have been. The fossil record shows the ‘sudden’ appearance of fully formed,
complete life forms. It is a record of sudden, mass burial, and the record is
global. The best explanation for the fossil record is a global flood, such as
is described in Genesis, in which millions of animals and plants were wiped out
and buried under water-borne sediment.
3.
A leading anti-creationist, atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has
cited the human eye in his attempt to defend evolution. He proposed that it began
as a light-sensitive spot which developed into a cupped shape which focussed
light better, which then developed over millions of years into a lens, and so
on
BUT
The ability to see is far more complex than a mere blob of cells
focusing light. As Michael Behe points out, even the first step is incredibly
complex because it requires a chain reaction between chemicals, starting when a
photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which changes into
trans-retinal, which then sticks to a protein called transducin, which binds to
another molecule, and so on. Each step in the process of collecting, sending
and converting light is itself complex, so it is illogical to suppose that
complex things would accidentally form and then cluster in the correct order to
support the functioning of other complex things – which they know nothing
about.
Conclusion: why is it that, with such a massive amount of evidence
against evolution that it is still taught in schools and held to tenaciously by
teachers and educators? The answer is simple. People love lies rather than
truth. The human heart is fallen, sinful, and in rebellion against God,
therefore the atheistic teachings of evolution are a convenient ‘bolt hole’ for
sinners, so they have an excuse to turn their backs on God.
Scientists are already convinced that evolution is true even before they
start their research, and children are indoctrinated right from pre-school
through to university. The battle is really between two worldviews: naturalism
and theism.
When Christians understand the scope and tactics of the enemy they can
equip themselves and fight back. One of the best strategies for Christians is
to become familiar with the science and then use that as a weapon, rather than
glibly quote “In the beginning God . . .” We are able to take the enemy’s own
weapons and use them against him to fight back.
SCIENCE
1.
It is a common assumption that scientists are philosophically neutral,
that they simply examine the real world and reach conclusions without any prior
assumptions. For some scientists this approach is probably close to the truth,
but for many others their assumptions are already well-formed. The public image
of science is very respectable. It is promoted as a profession which rests on
empirical facts, not philosophical bias
BUT
The truth is, behind all science is an assumption that the universe is
just the result of natural laws working providentially together. Christians
must be aware of this philosophical bias, and meet it head on. Why should a
profession be allowed to hide in its little sanctuary built out of half-truths,
atheism and philosophy? If scientists were corrupt businessmen they would have
been flushed out and brought to trial long ago.
…………………………………………………..
There are, essentially, only two worldviews (in the West):
Naturalism and Creationism.
Naturalism tells us that the universe and life all came about by natural
laws, such as gravity and and the direction in which heat moves and so on.
There is no room at all for a God, or any supernatural intelligence – including
aliens.
Creationism on the other hand tells us that before the universe and life
were created, there was a God of immense intelligence, a moral God, a God of
compassion and love, who wanted to make humans and give them everything they
needed to be happy and fulfilled. He also gave humans a conscience and made
them responsible for their own actions.
From the poisoned waters of naturalism we get many philosophies which
attack God and His Word. Naturalism teaches that: God was invented by humans,
that morals are just rules which people made up, that animals are generally the
same as humans, that time and chance made life, that death is extinction for
ever, and, if it is followed to the bitter end, nothing really matters. In most
areas of the Western world naturalism has done great damage. In the Arts it has
blurred all distinctions between beautiful and ugly, in behaviour it has made
good and bad behaviour relative, and in most other fields it has removed absolutes
and replaced them with subjectivism – people think they are the measure of
values.
From creationism’s pure, sweet waters we get all the reverse of
naturalism. The most important book in the Bible is Genesis, especially today,
as naturalism tries to destroy all memory of Man’s origin and responsibility to
God.
…………………………………………………
Think of it this way. IF naturalism is correct, then abortion is OK. So
is euthanasia. So is the killing of anyone who may be feeble, unemployed,
black, or retarded. It is OK to throw unwanted children, especially girls, to
the wolves, Suicide is OK too because people have a ‘right’ to end their own
lives.
If naturalism is correct, then morals are just rules people make up, and
so therefore they can change them. A man may marry, or not marry, as he likes,
and there is no restriction on the number or gender of his ‘mates’. E may have
a harem of pigs and ducks if he so chooses.
If naturalism is correct, then any kind of behaviour is acceptable. War
is justified, if enough people want more land or some other asset. Genocide is
not a crime, neither is torture. What creationists stupidly call “evil” is just
another word for “animal instincts” and the only reason people don’t break out
and behave like animals is because it is social detrimental – not immoral.
But if creationism is correct, every life matters, from conception to
old age. The troubles we have inherited because of sin’s judgement on the world
can in fact turn to a great blessing, if we see them differently. Take for
example the recent hurricane, which struck
…………………………………………………
This essay was written to show, in simple, brief terms, that Christians
have a huge number of cannons ready to fire, and they are not Scriptural
cannons. They are the weapons of secular science. It is all very fine to quote
scripture, and I believe that God’s Word is the most powerful force on earth,
but when we speak to Westerners we have to remember where they are at,
philosophically.
In the past, if we had visited say
But today, in the West, we are two steps away from shrines and
sacrifices. Our modern Western culture has abandoned animal offerings, and then
taken a second step, into naturalism (or evolution, atheism, call it what you
will) The fact is, to a modern Westerner, the idea of a sacrifice for sin is
rather odd, and completely irrelevant.
The book of Genesis supplies all the answers to the modern Western
views, but just quoting Genesis is not good enough. What we must do is get an
understanding of what the West believes, and then take these beliefs and turn
them on their head. Fight back with the weapons the West itself uses. If they quote
from
quote evolutionist, we can show them good science which contradicts
evolution. Gradually the Western worldview can be undermined by the truth, and
when the realization begins to dawn – that they have no foundation – then the
Biblical teaching can come in and fill the void.
I encourage readers to first get a firm understanding of Genesis,
Perhaps spend a few weeks on it. Then become familiar with naturalism, and look
for ways to attack it. One useful area is the Letters to the Editor column, but
there are many more. Remember to be tactful, gracious, never rude, never make
it a personal attack, always house your offensive with words like “In my
opinion . . or . . . so-and-so said” Quote from secular journals and secular
sources to avoid being accused of parroting creationist literature. If you do
choose to use the Bible avoid dogmatism, but say instead “The Bible says . . .”
Possible areas where you might work:
Letters to the Editor
Copy and paste good creationist articles to websites on the Net
Copy essays from Answers in Genesis and Email them to friends
Write to the radio
Ring talk-back radio stations and perhaps read out short, relevant
paragraphs
Slip relevant printed sheets into library books (never damage the book
itself)
Print and letterbox relevant articles around your neighbourhood
Write to school principals or teachers
Try Bible in schools work yourself
Write to your local movie theatre
You are welcome to copy and paste any material from my own website