A Physical Universe Is All That Exists
Unseen, "spiritual" forces cannot be tested, so are outside the realm of science.
Thus God cannot be taken into account when explaining the origin of the universe. So, evolution,
by its very nature, is atheistic. On the other hand, evolutionists insist upon unseen forces which
control evolution such as:
Time -- almost infinite amounts of it. Nobel prize winner,
George Wald (The Physics and Chemistry of Life, p.12) said,
"The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the
category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However
improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves,
given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. .
. . Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have
to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible
on the basis of human experience [or scientific observation and experiments] is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible,
the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has
only to wait: time itself performs the miracles." Wald ascribed
to Time miraculous power possessed only by divinity. Thus, "Time"
must be spelled with a capital "T". Wald, and other evolutionists,
simply exchange the Creator for another unseen force. [It is interesting
that the ancient Greeks worshipped "Kronos" -- Time.]
Chance (mutations)--"To the
geneticist the majestic flow of evolution represents the outward calm of an unceasingly stirring world.
Everywhere he discovers chance: chance in the origin of mutations, chance in their consequences upon
development, chance in their shuffling into innumerable combinations. Indeed, the realm of chance is
awe inspiring." (Curt Stern, The Scientific Monthly, 10/l/53, p.196) But, how "physical" is chance?
It isn't. It is an unseen, imaginary "spiritual" force that evolutionists are convinced has some control
Natural Selection -- Stephen J. Gould (Natural History,
6-7/77, p.28) said, "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase:
natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No
one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating
the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as
well." When Gould speaks of a "creative force", he could not be
closer to speaking of God without mentioning Him. Yet, he ascribed
the power to some natural "force". He made a god of a "force of nature".
Julian Huxley made it clear what REALLY happened (Issues in Evolution,
1960, p.45), "Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer
was needed; since natural selection could account for any form
of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."
"Mother Nature" -- This fictitious person is mentioned, with
a chuckle, as the force behind the universe. Was she introduced because
evolutionists have an uneasy feeling that there IS a "person" responsible
for the universe, but they will not acknowledge that HE REALLY IS?
- Evolution is animistic.
"Animism" is a projection of a life-force into inanimate objects. It also believes every natural object
possesses spiritual being or soul. Creationists are chided for bringing religion into science. Yet, evolutionists,
while rejecting the Creator, introduce animistic forces into science under the guise of creative forces hiding
in dead molecules and genes.
- Evolution encompasses a world-view, a philosophy.
Evolution treats every aspect of life with humanistic philosophy.
Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Evolution comprises all
the stages of the development of the universe . . . (including) human
or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution
to biology are gratuitous." (Science, 1/27/67, p.409) As a
worldview, it conflicts with Christian thinking. Thus, it demonstrates
it is inherently religious.
- This has never been observed occurring in nature.
"The 'warm little pond' scenario was invented ad hoc to serve
as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life.
It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc
until such evidence is found. . . . One must conclude that, contrary
to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis
of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted
on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been
written." (Hubert Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1977,
Vol. 67, p. 398.)
- It has never been done in a scientific laboratory.
Dr. Sidney Fox, was funded by NASA for more than a decade, to produce
life in the laboratory, and had these results: he "believes he has
the makings of life. . . microspheres are precursors
of the living cells that first appeared on Earth four billion years
ago . . . (But) Fox concedes he has not proved his case." (Philadelphia
Inquirer, 10/29/81, p. 15-A)
- Evolutionists have sought spontaneous life elsewhere in the solar system.
There was no sign of life on Mars. Saturn's moon, Titan, was thought to be the last place in the solar
system where life might exist, but it does not. At the annual AAAS meeting (1978), William Gale of Bell Labs
said, "It does not appear that any other intelligent life is out there -- at least not within a billion miles of
earth." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/16/78)
- Scientists now suggest we must go BEYOND the solar system.
"A quickened perception of how the universe may have been created has emboldened scientists to search
for life beyond our solar system. New stature has been lent to the questions: Is mankind alone in the universe?
Is there life elsewhere? This has led to the search around other stars for planets where life might be possible. . . .
The logic is statistically compelling that the universe teems with life. Finding life elsewhere could be the most
profound discovery ever." (U.S. News & world Report, 10/16/81, p.77.) [Logic is one
thing, observational evidence -- which is what science is supposed to be all about -- is something completely
- Others have opted for science fiction explanations.
An article in Science Digest (May/82) tried to revive Sir
Alister Hardy's theory that man is a successful aquatic ape! Others,
American Francis Crick, British Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe
contended that life came to the earth originally on spaceships from
elsewhere in the universe. [This is fiction, without a shred of scientific
evidence, but indicative of the dilemma among evolutionists because
of lack of proof for life arising spontaneously.]
Loren Eiseley, prolific evolutionary writer, nevertheless summed up
the situation in Immense Journey (1957, p.199), "With the failure
of these many efforts (to create life) science was left in the embarrassing
position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could
not demonstrate . . . of having to create a mythology of its own:
namely, the assumption that what could not be proven to take place
today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
- This is illustrated with a "tree of life" pattern.
Although it can be illustrated in theory, it cannot be documented
in practice. No one claims to "see" evolution happening today -- it
takes too long. (Fruit fly and pepper moth experiments are irrelevant.
Although changes occur within the species, the species do not
change at all -- and the latter is what evolution is supposed to be
- Originally it was presumed that "missing links" would
appear in the fossil record, the geological column.
Charles Darwin said in Origin of Species (Collier, 1962, p. 168),
"As by this theory innumerable
transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in
countless numbers in the crust of the earth? . . . I will here only state that
I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less
perfect than is generally supposed (i.e., not enough fossils have been studied
yet)." To continue (Ibid, p.308), "Why then is not every geological formation
and every stratum full of such intermediate links? . . . this, perhaps,
is the most serious and obvious objection which can be urged against the
- Now it is crystal clear there are NO intermediate fossils.
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of
'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists,
the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' In the fossil
record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
paleontology does not provide them." (D. B. Kitts, Evolution,
Vol.28, 1974, p.467)
- Thus there is a new theory of evolution recently.
Because Darwinism (slow, gradual evolution) has completely failed
to explain how evolution occurred, a new theory was suggested. Instead
of rejecting evolution because of a lack of evidence for it, evolutionary
philosophers still "believe" in it and proposed that it happened
in "quantum leaps". They call it "punctuated equilibrium". In an
incredible forsaking of logic, they say that the lack of evidence
IS the evidence for it!!
"Evidence from the fossil record now
points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans
learned in high school. . . . scientists now believe that species change little
for millions of years and then evolve quickly, in a kind of quantum leap."
- Evolutionists claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Since evolutionists have insisted evolution occurs over vast
stretches of time, time is extremely important to them. Creationists make
a mistake trying to sidestep that issue. A little over 100 years ago it
was no issue since all scientists felt the earth was relatively young.
A chart in the American Museum of Natural History (in NYC) says, "The earth
increased in age 40 million years each year between 1868 and 1968." Of course
it did not really increase in age. Scientists simply say it did to accomodate the evolution theory.
And therefore, now some dating methods seem to support the idea of a very old earth.
- Many evolutionists feel the universe is eternal.
This is a logical corollary
to the belief of evolutionists that God is not necessary. If there is no
eternal God, then there must be an eternal universe.
- However, 4.5 billion years is not enough.
Four of the world's best mathematicians met with geneticists
to discuss the probabilities of Darwinism. They were asked, "Has there been
enough time for natural selection . . . to operate and give rise to the observed
phenomena of nature? No. Is it likely that the superbly ordered biochemistry
which we see now could have evolved ...? Again, no. The probability is virtually
zero." (Scientific Research, 11/67, pp. 59-60.)
- On the other hand, many
factors limit the age of the earth/universe:
- Rapid fossil formation
- Shrinking sun
- Decay of earth's magnetic field
- Recession of moon
- Formation of river deltas
- Earth's rotation speed
- Moon dust accumulation
- Atmospheric oxygen/helium
If enough factors limit the earth (and universe) to relative youth, then
all indicators for long ages must be re-examined as to their validity.
- The "Big Bang" is a good example of this theory in action.
Most evolutionists believe the whole universe with its present observed
order began with a gigantic, chaotic explosion. The gases present (mostly,
or all, hydrogen) swirled outward into space, collected into clouds, then
coalesced into our present stellar bodies (over billions of years).
- The "Big Bang" is impossible for several reasons.
There is not enough mass in
the universe to account for the gravity necessary to draw gas clouds together.
It is called the "missing mass" by evolutionary theorists.
The "Big Bang"
is precisely opposite to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states there
is decreasing order in the universe, not increasing order as the Big Bang
insists. A homely example would be to explode a grenade in a TV set and
then wait for a better set to evolve. Common sense shows this is impossible.
But, it demonstrates the unworkability of the Big Bang model on a smaller
Lincoln Barnett (The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 1957, p.102)
said, "All the phenomena of nature, visible and invisible, within
the atom and in outer space, indicate that the substance and energy
of the universe are inexorably diffusing like vapor through the insatiable
void . . . . The universe is thus progressing to . . . a condition
of 'maximum entropy' . . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.
For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics
. . . proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.
Nature moves just one way." And this way is diametrically opposed
to the Big Bang theory, making it unscientific.)
[This column is narrower because the scientific support for creation
is so obvious. Whereas millions of dollars have been spent trying in vain
to prove evolutionary hypotheses, simple observations are sufficient to
support creation. It will also be noted that in one case after another,
evolutionists themselves provide the evidence to repudiate evolution.]
The unseen Creator has brought the visible
universe into existence. Before He did that, there was no universe.
(Hebrews 11:3) He is eternal, not it.
Instead of taking time, He did it
by FIAT (instantaneously).
[For more, see below "An Infinite God Needs
Instead of everything developing by itself through chance, He made
it all with purpose.
Believing this gives hope to people who despair over
their purposeless existence. God does have a purpose for each individual.
All are important in his sight. Each is unique. If they will only seek
Him, they will find Him.
Instead of some vague force like natural selection
developing life, He has built DESIGN into the whole universe.
Every flower, tree, bug, animal, etc., has a detailed, intricate plan
it follows in its development. If all developed by chance and natural selection,
there would be no way to classify life forms. Every single living thing
would be different from every other. There would be no phylum, class,
order, family, genus and species. But, since there is, we have a very
evident design in the whole universe, beginning on earth.
While evolutionary philosophy gives one the impression that
he is the product of chance and natural selection, and thus of no particular
importance, creation belief enables one to find his place in the eternal
plan of the Creator. What is this plan?
His plan was to make all things
and then, later, to come into the midst of His creation to redeem fallen,
sinful mankind. He did this in the person of His Very Own Son - Jesus
Christ (Yeshua HaMoshiach) (see John's Gospel, chapter one).
For those who receive His Son
by faith as the Lord and Savior of their lives, He makes them new people,
He re-creates them and becomes "Father God. "
This is obvious even to the unlearned. Seeds produce plants. Animals
reproduce themselves. Everywhere one sees life reproducing. Experiments
In fact, evolutionists will agree with creationists on
this. How could anyone disagree? Yet, if we, agree that life comes only
from life, why do evolutionists insist that at one time it did not? They
are being inconsistent. And, to try to prove their point they have spent
millions of dollars of private and government funds, all to no avail.
Although creationists are often reprimanded for not experimenting, they
would answer, in this case, that it is foolish to try to prove something
so obviously untrue.
If creationists say all life comes from life, then
the obvious question is, "Where did the first life come from?" And their
answer is, "From God Himself - He IS Life". The first chapter of John's
Gospel says it very plainly, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God; and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without
Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was LIFE..." In Christ
IS Life! The visible creation came from the invisible God.
Not only did Christ Himself impart life to the initial creation, He is
imparting new life to all who will come to
Him. He said, "I am come that they might have life, and that more abundantly."
We see, then, that creationism not only supplies a satisfactory
answer to the origin of life, but also provides information to satisfy
the deepest needs of mankind.
Creationists say that in the very beginning the Creator made all the forms of life we see today.
He did not make just one cell, He made everything
at approximately the same time.
What scientific principle would support
this position? A very simple and well-known one: "Like Produces Like". Experiments
are not necessary. Everyone knows that roses produce more roses, ferns
produce ferns, frogs produce frogs, horses produce horses, humans reproduce
humans, etc. Men have observed this for hundreds and thousands of years.
And, if that is what we observe over long periods, we feel it is permissible
to extrapolate back to the very beginning and conclude that everything
living, and even those now extinct, were there in the beginning. That
is not to say every variety of horse and dog we know today was there in
the beginning. But God created a horse and dog kind with the potential
in the gene pool for man and natural processes to develop great variety
within the kind, or, species, if you prefer.
Extinction, then, is evidence
of once plentiful varieties which were originally created, but have
ceased to exist, while other varieties have persisted through the milleniums.
Creationists do not "expect" to find intermediate, "evolutionary" forms,
and there are none.
When the evolutionist
speaks of "Time working miracles", he is speaking of that which is accomplished
by divinity. The creationist therefore,
feels justified in introducing his miracle-working God as Creator.
Either the universe is infinite, or God is infinite. One had to be there first.
One brought the other into existence. On the one hand, the evolutionist
says that God is the figment of man's imagination (Darwin himself
held that: see S. J. Gould, Natural History, December, 1974). Thus, to an evolutionist,
the universe is eternal and infinite, not God.
On the other hand, whereas
the evolutionist insists that, given enough time, miracles can "happen",
the creationist insists that the miracle working God does not need
time. With miracles, what might appear to have taken time, happens
instantaneously. For instance, when God created Adam, how "old" was he?
How "old" were trees with fruit on them when they were created? When the
universe was created fully developed, how "old" was it? The basic question
is: What kind of God do we believe in? Is He infinite? If so, He does
not need time!
The creationist says there was an original
orderly universe, and it is now running down, wearing out and becoming
more chaotic. And this is precisely what scientists observe. It agrees
completely with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereas the theory of
evolution defies it.
Even in an "open system" (where energy comes to earth from the sun),
energy is not enough to overcome the irreversible progress of the Second
Law. A plan (design) is also needed, as well as a guiding force (mind).
Whereas evolutionists say mutations are "random" (no plan, or design),
common sense tells us there is a plan. And creationists maintain it came
from the Creator.
In biological forms, the Second Law
seems to be temporarily overcome. But, as everyone knows, it ultimately
prevails when death comes to all life.
There is NO eternal life apart from
the ETERNAL GOD.