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. 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 evolutionisttakes 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.
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 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."
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?..."
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."
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."
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."
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."
The clearly incredible Creator says in Psalm
19:1:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the
firmament
sheweth His handiwork."
Webster's Third New
International
Dictionary, p. 133, G. & C. Meriam Company, Publishers,
Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.,
1981.
G. A.
Kerkut,
Implications of
Evolution
(New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), chapter 2 p. 6.
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).
Leon
E. Long,
Geology (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), p.
172.
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
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.
Dr. Ernst
Mayr, Omni Magazine,
February, 1983,
p. 74.
Dr. T. N.
Tahmisian,
"The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959, as quoted in The Revised
Quote
Book, p.
5.
D.M.S.
Watson,
"Adaptation," Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol. 124, #3119,
pp.
231,233.
TOP
NEXT
CHAPTER PREVIOUS
CHAPTER TABLE
OF
CONTENTS