Creation or Evolution
“This [evolution] is still a statement of faith.”
— Carl Sagan, one of the most outspoken believers in evolutionism
Quantum Physics and ‘Faith’
Scientists have performed experiments with atoms and their subatomic particles such as electrons. Most of us have seen the diagram of an atom with the electron orbiting it like the earth orbits the sun. One of the difficulties in quantum physics is that the particles behave somewhat differently for different observers.
Interestingly, scientists have discovered that the electron that is shown orbiting the nucleus is not always there in particle form. It also exists in a wave state (like a cloud, everywhere at once). It has been determined that the difference is in the expectation of the observer (‘faith’). If the observing scientist expects the electron to exist in a wave state, it is there in a wave state, while another observing scientist expects it to exist as a particle (dot), it is there as a particle. (See also Parallel Universes, by Fred Allen Wolf, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters—An Overview of the New Physics, by Gary Zukav)
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
the basis of these events (Creation, the Fall, Flood,
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the discussion often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
The ‘Faith’ of Evolution
The ‘faith’ of evolution is that all forms of life derived by gradual modification from earlier and simpler forms or from one rudimentary form. It teaches a process in which something complex is developed by itself from a simple beginning. It accepts the existence of the cause or causes of the first substance and the force or forces working successive transformations from a lower to a higher form of matter and life.
The ‘faith’ (philosophy) of cosmic evolution claims that from lower units of matter (atoms and molecules) the vast material suns, moons, stars, planets, and universes were formed by themselves. That of organic evolution teaches that the vegetable and animal kingdoms evolved from lower forms of life to what they are today.
Evolutionists assume without proof that life randomly came into being from nonliving elements, ultimately forming the first living cell. They claim—also without any observable mechanism demonstrating how—that such a cell continued to multiply and acquire increasing complexity, eventually forming into multicellular organisms to climb the evolutionary ladder over millions and millions of years.
Evolutionists do not deny the first cause. This philosophy begins with matter or substance already in existence. Evolutionists believe in primitive nebulosity and powers possessed by molecules. Evolutionists do not try to account for how these came to exist, how molecules got their inherent powers, or how there came to be definite laws governing them so that they could produce, without failure, all things as we now have them. Their theory does not consider proved facts, but has absolute faith in a mere supposition, which no fact has ever been produced to prove. Its teachers seemingly know facts. They do multiplied drawings of different kinds of human beings rising from a molecule through a monkey to the present man, and add guess upon guess of how life was in each stage of evolution, but refuse to accept the proved facts of the origin of all things.
True Science Disproves Evolution
“They Are Digging in the Wrong Place!”
When evolutionists say they found a transitional form between an ape and a human in “Pliocene” rock, creationists hardly flinch. Evolutionists are looking at the rock strata and the age of the earth incorrectly because humans were around long before that “Pliocene” rock was ever laid down. Furthermore, humans existed when the “Cambrian” rock was laid down during the world-wide flood. To go one more step, mankind had dominated the earth for over 1,600 years before the “Cambrian” rock was laid down.
When someone says that they found a transitional form between a dinosaur and a bird in the “Paleocene,” again, creationists hardly think twice. Both specimens died the same year in the same world-wide flood and are not related. This is why finding feathers in the rock layers “before the dinosaurs” is not a problem for creationists. Nor is it a problem when we find theropod dinosaurs (which supposedly evolved into birds in the evolutionary story) that had eaten birds in lower “Cretaceous” rock.
The Science of Genetics Replaces Darwin’s ‘Evolution’
Species are ultimately defined by their traits. Traits are defined by genetics. Therefore, the origin of species is a fundamentally genetic question. Genetics defines the edge pieces of the puzzle of the origin of species.
Yet the physical basis for heredity—the nature of the code of life—was not uncovered until nearly 100 years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species.
Consider the significance of this fact, especially in light of the puzzle pieces that Darwin did possess in 1859. Fossils aren’t inherited in sperm and egg. A miniature adult is not passed on through germ cells. A geographic location is not the substance of heredity. Instead, a set of instructions (encoded in DNA) is. Darwin tried to assemble a jigsaw puzzle of sorts without any edge pieces to guide his progress.
Without this genetic knowledge, could Darwin have speculated intelligently on the origin of species? If he had no idea how traits were coded and inherited each generation, could he have identified the origin of a particular trait? Before the advent of genetics, would his explanation have had any hope of being accurate?
The history of genetics poses a second set of questions to Darwin. Not only was his question a fundamentally genetic one, but his specific answers to the origin of species were also deeply tied to this field. For example, Darwin proposed that all species had one or a few common ancestors.
In other words, he said that the vast diversity of life belongs to one or a few family trees. Genealogical relationships are directly recorded in genetics—and nowhere else.
Furthermore, Darwin claimed that new species arose via the process of survival of the fittest, or natural selection. Natural selection is useful to evolution if—and only if—the survivors pass on their superior traits to offspring. In other words, the mechanism of evolution is inextricably tied to inheritance. Inheritance is directly recorded only in genetics.
Finally, Darwin placed the origin of species on a very long timescale. However, the process of inheritance also acts like a timekeeper, independently recording the length of time over which species appeared (a concept we’ll explore in detail later). How could Darwin have written On the Origin of Species without any genetic data to test his ideas? Since both his question and his hypotheses were deeply tied to inheritance, what prompted him, not only to pen, but also to vigorously argue for his proposal?
At best, when Darwin wrote his most famous work, he took a “scientific” risk of massive proportions. And actually, species are ultimately defined by their traits. Traits are defined by genetics. Therefore, the origin of species is a fundamentally genetic question. And the relatively new science of genetics disproves Darwin’s theory.
It is commonly claimed that the major reason why most people reject Darwinism and accept creationism is due to religious motivations. Although this is often true, in a large number of cases, an understanding of the scientific evidence was the major factor that convinced many to reject evolutionism. Some of these persons who rejected Darwinism then, realizing that Darwinism does not explain the origin of life, become creationists.
Creationists realize that only two possibilities exist: either intelligence or blind natural forces were ultimately responsible for the creation of the world around us. Every adult accepts the reality of a creation and acknowledges that the creation had some sort of cause or creator. For this reason, everyone is a creationist to some extent, and the only difference is one’s conclusion about who or what was responsible for the cause of the creation.
The creation view concludes that
intelligence is responsible for life; the other view, evolution, concludes
Creationists realize that evolution, defined as progression from molecules to humans by way of animals, is a failed theory. It has failed because it has been shown by scientific investigation to be not just unverified, but scientifically false. Evolution did not occur, and could not have occurred, and this conclusion is based on scientific observations, not religion.
Clearly, there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution—it is not scientific.
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”
— Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
“It is doubtful if there is any science at all in the search for man’s fossil ancestry.” - Sir Solly Zuckerman, Human Evolutionist
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” - Stephen Hawking, PhD, Astrophysicist
“[The Bible] Genesis and science are both correct.”
- Gerald L. Schroeder Ph.D, who earned his undergraduate and doctoral degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles Robert Darwin (1809‑1882), was a British naturalist who propounded a theory of origins known as evolution. In his work, Origin of Species, 1859, Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess absurd in the highest degree.”
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived.”
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”
Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Charles Darwin confessed:
“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."
Being bedridden many months before his death, Darwin was often found reading. When one visitor asked what it was he was studying, he replied:
“Hebrews, still Hebrews. ‘The Royal Book,’ I call it."
After speaking on "the holiness of God" and "the grandeur of this Book," Darwin declared:
“Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is not that the best theme?”
“For in six days the LORD God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” - Genesis 1; 2:2; Exodus. 20:11; Colossians 1: 15-18; Psalms 8:3; 95:5; 102:25; Isaiah 40:12, 18, 26; 45:12; 48:13; Hebrews 11:3
Jesus the Christ? He didn’t believe in evolution. “Jesus said unto them, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6).
“What about all the “contradictions” in the Bible?”
Some people have proposed that there was an earlier creation before Genesis 1:1, when Satan sinned and occasioned judgment from God, thus causing the disorder described in verse 2. Rather than “the earth was formless and void,” they translate it “the earth became formless and void.” However, careful analysis of the Hebrew shows that this interpretation is untenable, and no prominent English translation follows it.* Genesis 1:2 is a parenthetical statement in the flow of the narrative, describing the initial condition of the earth, when God first made it.
The first three days of Creation Week do not describe a renovation of a ruined, chaotic earth but the establishment of environments that God would fill with stars, animals, and humans on the last three days of Creation Week.
* The most thorough refutation of the “gap” interpretation, with careful attention to the Hebrew, is Weston Field’s Unformed and Unfilled (Burgener Enterprises, 1997).
The Owner of This Website:
• In the past, believed that Christianity (and therefore the Bible) could be adjusted to agree with the presupposed “science” of evolution
• Then, had no need of a belief in sin or a Savior, heaven or hell (Matthew 12:30; John 3:19). Naturally, in denial—did not want to believe in the requirement of answering to a just Creator God.
• Then, accepted the offer of a new life of freedom with Y’shua (Jesus the Christ) (Jn. 3; 8:32)
• Then, because of the presuppositions of evolution, still could not believe that the earth was less than less than 10,000 years old, and therefore believed the theory that there must be a large gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
• Now is convinced that the Bible is true without modification – visit the following links regarding “the gap theory”:
• So be encouraged … such things are subject to Christ by the Holy Spirit. God wants you free indeed! (Jn. 8:32)
See 12 Fallacies of Evolution
See 15 More Facts Disproving Evolution
Debating Creation and Evolution
Be encouraged to visit the Creation Museum
Huxley said, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation .... Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the Bible."
Thomas Huxley, Julian Huxley’s brother, in a moment of honesty pointed out, “The reason people believe in evolutionism is not because they are truly interested in knowing the truth about man’s origins. Rather, they are looking for an alternative that will support their lifestyle.” ...A lifestyle or philosophy that is antagonistic to the Bible.
And in his well-known book ... On the Origin of the Species,
Spencer said that evolution was purely mechanical and anti-supernatural.
Earnest Haeckel said, "It entirely excludes the supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious act of a personal character. Nothing will make the full meaning of the theory of descent clearer than calling it the non-miraculous theory of creation."
Even one of the most outspoken believers in evolutionism, the late Carl Sagan, admitted in one of his more honest moments, “This [evolution] is still a statement of faith.”
Thus the evolution-theory leaders are clear that no true evolutionist can be a Christian or a believer in the Bible.
No one branch of organic evolution has been proved, much less the main theory. It is a bankrupt, speculative, philosophy–not a scientific fact. It doesn’t even seem to be a “theory.”
Thank you Finis Jennings Dake and Dake Publishing