I Was Asked, "Can You Write Me Some Information on
Evolution......I Want to Give a Speech on 'Theistic Evolution'
and I need to Show How Evolution and the Bible can fit
Together!"
“…It does seem that the level of
knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought
not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that’s all we
know about it…about eighteen months ago…I woke up
and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking
evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.”
(Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of
Natural History in London, during a presentation on 5 November
1981, at New York City’s American Museum of Natural
History.)
I was at University at the time. Many years earlier I had
rejected evolution as being a viable or even a truly scientific
teaching, but had not looked into the matter now for at least 10
years. But by this stage I considered myself fully evangelical
(rather than 'fundamentalist'), accepting that the earlier
fundamentalists had not done themselves too many favours by
getting involved in science when they should have concentrated on
preaching the gospel, whilst avoiding all 'in-house' doctrinal
tiffs with other believers. Now - at last - I thought it might be
time to look at 'Theistic Evolution' again. I knew that
some believers now were prepared to loosely accept 'Theistic
Evolution' (God used evolution to create the world), so I
welcomed this challenge from my friend to come up with some
information to support not only evolution but Theistic Evolution
at that. I had 7 days during which I neglected my normal
university theology studies somewhat in order to really delve
into this matter, but I offered my friend no guarantees as to my
final conclusions. My friend made a generous comment to the
effect that he felt that he knew me well enough to say that
whatever my final conclusions were, he felt that that was where
he too should stand on evolution.
For 5 or 6 days I went 'AWOL' (absent without leave) from my
normal lectures and spent many hours in one of the best
university libraries in Britain while I delved into the matter. I
was able to tackle some of the arguments of Dawkins ('The Blind
Watchmaker', 'The Selfish Gene' etc), who has become perhaps the
premier atheistic populist propagandist for evolution.
I was able to consider some of the work and conclusions of
Stephen Jay Gould. Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was among the
best known and most widely read scientists of the late 20th
century. He was a paleontologist and educator based at Harvard
University.
I was able to consider some of the conclusions of Carl Sagan with
his intense interest in our cosmos.
I considered the (so-called) 'Geologic Column', I
considered what some of the finest evolution-influenced minds
have said about the countless millions of fossils which are now
available.
I considered Carbon Dating; Is it reliable and reasonably
accurate?
Then I went back to Charles Darwin himself: How qualified was
this man?
Following all this, I went back to Creationism and sought out the
most articulate writers, especially those from a background in
science.
Although I was indeed able to get back to my friend in 7 days,
the whole process actually took much longer since some of the
books I wanted to absorb were not immediately available. By the
time I completely finished with all of this (around 4 months), I
felt that it was time to put evolutionism to bed as far as I was
concerned, and I now prefer to point people to some of the great
resources out there, rather than personally get involved in
arguments and debates on this issue.
So what were my conclusions after I went into all of this in depth back in 1998?
Well, I could not come up with any real hard information to
support 'Theistic Evolution' to help my friend out, and I told
him that my studies had only shown that evolution is about 98%
propaganda, hype, unsupported assumptions, exaggeration and sheer
philosophy; moreover, it is amazingly unscientific! Here
are just some of my conclusions:
1. Despite what some will tell you, the age of this earth really
does continue to be an entirely open question. It is still
perfectly reasonable and feasible to say that this earth might be
no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old! All of the data
which evolutionists come up with to "prove" that this world is
billions of years old, is perfectly capable of being interpreted
differently. Many Christians, it seems to me, have jumped to such
things as 'The Gap Theory', 'The Day-Age Theory'
and 'Theistic Evolution' (all of which are attempts to
reconcile the Bible with evolution), rather too easily. In saying
this, I am taking all of the available data into account. Many
say that the distance of the stars from the earth alone shows
that this earth is countless millions of years old, but that is
just not so. When God created this world, He obviously created it
in an apparently mature state, already fully
fashioned (Adam and Eve themselves were mature adults having
never experienced childhood).
2. The 'Geologic Column' which appears so brazenly in so many
school textbooks, is a sheer invention. It does not exist
anywhere in the world! When pressed, most evolutionists will
admit this. Even worse, they tell us that they date fossils by
where they appear in this column. As Creationist educators like
Dr Kent Hovind have pointed out, they unashamedly employ
'circular reasoning' (which defies the laws of logic) by
saying:
(a) Fossils are dated by their position in the Geologic
Column.
(b) The Geologic Column is dated by the fossils within!
This, of course, is completely nonsensical and, I am told,
American guidelines for school and college science/geology
teachers even contain hints on how to handle the brighter
students who challenge it.
3. It used to be thought that the formation of coal, oil and
petrification took millions of years, therefore "proving"
that our earth is millions or billions of years old. Almost
nobody now believes this since it has been shown that - under the
right conditions (mainly water saturation and/or rapid burial - a
worldwide flood!?) - these things can start to form and occur in
just a matter of weeks, and quite comfortably in just a few short
years! I am much indebted here to the work of such people as
Robert Gentry. Some videos of Robert's research can be found
Here.
Coal is generally believed to have formed about 300 million years
ago, according to evolutionary dating. However, Erich von Fange
Ph.D. has documented several interesting human artifacts found in
coal. These include:
1. a small steel cube
2. an iron pot
3. an iron instrument
4. a nail
5. a bell shaped metal vessel
6. a bell
7. a jawbone of a child
8. a human skull
9. two human molars
10. a fossilized human leg
For more on the work of Erich von Fange Ph.D., Go Here.
4. Carbon 14 dating has huge dating problems which the average
member of the public, or the average school science teacher never
even begins to appreciate or understand. It is not like just
looking at a watch to see the time! The results always have to be
'interpreted' with a suggested date fed in! And yet the
public, and school and college students, are sometimes presented
with a picture that Carbon Dating is the very final word on
dating! Indeed, I am reliably informed that the residues of the
Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption (which occurred in the
1980's) can quite easily be carbon dated to being millions of
years old!! Bob Darby, in a series of videos, clearly shows the
inherent problems within this dating system. Go
Here to see the videos.
5. Charles Darwin undoubtedly hoped that within a few years of
his death fossil discoveries would provide solid evidence of
evolution. Of course, this has never happened. Most evolutionists
are entirely open about this and will freely admit that there are
no 'missing links' although there have been several famous
missing link hoaxes! (indeed, alarmingly, some things now proven
to be hoaxes continue to surface and to be presented as fact in
school biology textbooks and even on BBC natural history
programmes). One evolutionist, Niles Eldridge, in a moment of
utter candour, wrote, "Evolution cannot forever be going on
somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many
a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about
evolution" (Quoted by Philip Johnson, p60-61, Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds, Inter-Varsity Press, 1997). As is now
quite well known, the fossil record shows the sudden
appearance of new life forms with never any evidence
of the sort of transitions which evolution would require. Again,
most evolutionists do admit this, albeit usually somewhat
reluctantly.
Creation scientists see a worldwide flood as having provided the
ideal conditions for what we see in geology and the fossil
record. I must admit that at one time I was not entirely
convinced on this point but it really does seem to be the case
that only a worldwide flood and the affects which followed it can
explain some of the things we find (fossils on Mount Everest!?
Petrified trees still in a standing position going straight
through several layers of rock strata which supposedly
took "millions of years" to form!?).
Of course, one objection to all this might be:
If all these things were buried suddenly in a great flood, and we
find all these fossils as a result, where are the human fossils?
Human fossils, of course, have been found but perhaps not as many
as might be expected. Why?
(a) The population of the world was far, far lower at the time of
the flood than today.
(b) People, being more intelligent than animals would not (in
most cases) have been so quickly buried, but would have made
greater efforts to continually find higher ground. This also
means that - being exposed to the elements - their bodies would
have been more likely to decompose, rather than be buried under
many layers of sediment.
6. Micro-evolution (natural selection, variations within 'kinds')
is true and we see it all around us. But no evidence that one
'kind' can change into another 'kind' has ever been found.
There are dozens of different dogs, but they are all dogs!
However domesticated the modern dog has become in the western
world, I am quite sure that no dog is ever going to start
developing human arms and a resultant ability to be able to put
on the kettle to make a pot of tea!! Of course, some say
(distinctly foolishly) that the similarity between a human elbow
and an animal elbow "proves" that we are related; it proves
nothing of the sort, but it could well point to animals and
humans having the same designer. Of course, if evolution
is true, we are also related to oranges, bananas and cactus
plants!! No, its a matter of changes only within kinds:
same with snakes, spiders and everything else: they remain true
to their kind. Evolutionists love to talk about these variations
within kinds as "proof" of evolution when it is nothing of the
sort and they know it - this lays evolutionists open to the
charge of intellectual deception! This sort of dishonesty
happens rather a lot at school biology/science level.
7. Macro-Evolution is actually not only illogical but does not
conform to the laws of science which can be tested and verified.
These include the Law of Biogenesis (life can only come from
life). Leading evolutionists are forced to accept the principle
of 'spontaneous generation,' although as scientists they
themselves have never witnessed it! A former Harvard University professor
and Nobel Prize winner in physiology acknowledged the
dilemma.
'The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis
Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural
creation. There is no third position.' George Wald,
“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190,
August 1954, p. 46. Wald then accepts the impossible odds of
spontaneous generation rather than creation. 'One has only to
contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet
here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous
generation'. Ibid.
Then there is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which
states that everything material tends to break down and
deteriorate - rather than 'evolve' to a higher form. It is
partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why
everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time.
Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change
eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the
day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and
ultimately returns to dust. This flys in the face of evolutionary
theory. I once read a very long and very tedious "explanation" of
how this law actually 'supports evolution' but the explanation
only showed that the writer was quite prepared to live in a
'never never land' of suggestion, suspended reality, speculation
and pipe dreams, something of the order of, 'We know that
2+2=4, but maybe occasionally 2+2=13 in some way we don't
understand.' This "intellectual" article seemed to be
saying, 'I am quite prepared to say that 2+2=13 if it will mean
that evolution is true.' The staggering thing is that such illogicality is then 'palmed off' to students and the public as "science."
Is it any wonder that even 150 years after Darwin's 'Origin of
Species,' a majority of the north American public (away from academic 'intelligentsia') do not accept
evolution?
8. 'Irreducible Complexity' heavily legislates against
evolution. The world of molecular biology has moved on since
Darwin's day. To Darwin the human cell was little more than a
tiny blob of gunk, today we know that the human cell is a
miniature factory of the most amazing complexity. Undoubtedly,
this would have astonished Darwin, indeed he might have revised
his teachings if he knew what we now understand. We must remind
ourselves that Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species, 6th ed.
(1988), p. 154) Commenting on the above quote, prominent
neo-Darwinist and atheist Richard Dawkins said, " I do not
believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is - it'll
have to be a really complex organ, and, as we'll see in later
chapters, you have to be sophisticated about what you mean by
'slight' - I shall cease to believe in Darwinism." (Blind
Watchmaker, 2nd ed, 1996, pg 91).
It is not surprising then that Michael Behe's work on 'Irreducible
Complexity' has sent evolutionists running for cover in order to
find yet another explanation which sounds convincing.
Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures
in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we
see in humanly-devised machinery; In other words, they are
all-or-nothing - either everything is there and it works, or
something is missing and it doesn't work. I drive a BMW 3.18
(rather elderly, like it's driver), I guarantee that if I went
under the bonnet (hood) with a spanner, I would not need to
remove much from the engine to prevent it working at all: it is
an 'all or nothing' system - so is just one (simple?)
human cell; everything needs to be present in the correct
amounts/configurations. Such a system cannot be constructed in a
gradual manner - it simply won't work until all the components
are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the
components at once. Therefore this is a mountainous challenge to
Darwinism. Others too have now joined Behe in this exciting new
area of study and research and the future looks increasingly
bleak for the devout evolutionist! Go Here to
read 'Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
Inference.'
It irks me that here in the UK schools and colleges continue to
teach evolution as though we were still in the 1950's, apparently
completely ignorant of the huge new challenges to evolution which
have emerged during the last 10-15 years!
9. Darwin himself was not a scientist as so many erroneously
believe; he was a one-time preacher of the gospel who went
astray. He went on HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands because
there was no other job on offer. Being interested in nature
studies, and with his meals provided, he decided to go.
When Charles Darwin embarked on the Beagle, he took with him a
book written by Charles Lyell: 'Principles of Geology.' In
the book, Lyell made the argument for gradualism (or
uniformitarianism), the idea that present-day geological
processes can explain the history of the earth. When Lyell
introduced this concept in 1830, it was a controversial idea;
many people relied on the story of the biblical flood to explain
the earth's features. Lyell had a strong influence on Darwin,
gradually causing him to reject his former belief in divine creation. Lyell, who was a
contemporary of Darwin, initially rejected his admirer's 'Origin
of Species' but eventually wholeheartedly embraced it. The two
came to see themselves as new missionaries of a new naturalistic
and God-rejecting age. But we have to remember that Darwin
heavily plagiarised his theory from other writers, especially
Alfred Wallace, and many believe that he seized upon a chance to
acquire fame and security at least partially from the work of
others.
Despite these facts about Darwin (which are easily
researched), BBC Television, here in the UK, continue to
perpetrate the myth that Darwin was a great scientist and
benefactor which the world was just waiting for; they
refuse to be clouded by the facts. Here is proof that -
for some - Darwinism is a faith-based religion! Almost every BBC
natural history programme worships at the altar of Darwin, and
not inconspicuously at that; the producers of such programmes
appear to be blithely unaware of the advances in biology during
the last 15 years and how these advances are bringing many
aspects of evolutionary faith into serious question. If
anybody doubts that the BBC's approach to Darwin is amazingly out of date, just take a look at this BBC web page
which presents Darwin in a manner which is 40 years out of
date - be prepared to be shocked by the page's tone of religious reverence!
Michael Denton has written, 'The influence
of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one
of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly
speculative idea for which there is really no hard scientific
evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and
dominate the outlook of any age...'(Denton, 'Evolution: a
Theory in Crisis', p358).
Denton's words are very true! Evolution is assumed everywhere,
from the most harmless looking television nature programme, to
the 'off the cuff' comments of many of us. Countless millions of
school science and biology textbooks are steeped in what is
effectively a lie.
I could have taken this essay much further but wanted to keep it
within manageable borders. Certainly I could have said much about
the so-called 'vestigial organs' which are supposed to be
support for evolution, I could have got into DNA and the subject
of so-called 'useless DNA' which evolutionists are talking about.
Truthfully the understanding of DNA was a huge blow for
evolutionists, but like the perennial hoodlum trapped in a
corner, a few are desperately attempting to twist and wriggle to
gain some advantage, but it will ultimately be to no avail.
The great anti-God names of the 19th and 20th centuries have now
almost all fallen: Nietzsche, Marx, Hitler, Freud, Stalin, Mao
Tse Tung and others and we believe that Darwin must surely be
next (by the way, evolution provided an atheistic foundation and
worldview for many of the former to thrive). Evolution is now
just a hollow shell of a theory, but those who reject the
authority of God will continue to cling to it until the bitter
end since when it has eventually finally crumbled into oblivion,
all that will be left will be the acknowledgement and worship of
Almighty God; a bitter pill, indeed for Mankind.
'The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an
idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality
for evolutionary biologists.' (Michael Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis ,1985, p. 306) By the way, Michael Denton is an
Australian molecular biologist.
Robin A. Brace
2004.
(Copyright Robin A Brace. 2004.)
It is also essential to read:
CHARLES DARWIN; IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO BE TOLD
(More helpful web pages listed under the bibliography).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(CAUTION: A word about my use of bibliographies: A bibliography is not a list of recommended
books but a list of consulted books on this subject, often good and bad. For example, even Darwin's Origin of Species is listed here as are two of the books of atheist Richard Dawkins because I have consulted the arguments and conclusions of such books. I have read some of the books on the list right through, whilst with others I have only taken into account the book's main thrusts, propositions and conclusions).
Alpha Nova: Carbon Dating Fact and Fiction. Online studies here: http://worldbydesign.org/alphanova/programs/c14dating.html.
Andrews, E. H. Is Evolution Scientific? Welwyn, Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1977.
Bakker, Robert T. The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1986.
Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Bird, W.R. The Origin of Species Revisited Volume I. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Regency, 1991.
Blanchard, John. Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2000.
Cohen, I. L. Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications, 1984.
Cooper, Bill. After the Flood. Online book here: http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 6th ed. 1872, reprinted 1902.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1987.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 1990.
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 1986.
Fange Ph.D, Dr Erich von. Time Upside Down Online essay here: http://www.rae.org/ch01tud.html.
Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Gramercy Books, 1999.
Gentry, Dr Robert. From his video presentation found here:http://www.nwcreation.net/videos.html.
Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! Master Books, 1995.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History Norton Books, 1992.
Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998.
Huse, Scott, M. The Collapse of Evolution. Chick Publications. (Print date uncertain).
Moreland, J.P., ed., The Creation Hypothesis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Johnson, Phillip. Objections Sustained. Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture. Downers Grove Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998.
Johnson, Phillip. Testing Darwinism. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997.
McGrath, Alister. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Doubleday, 2004.
Sagan, Carl. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. Ballantine Books, 1986.
Sunderland, Luther. Darwin's Enigma. Santee, CA: Master Books, 1984.
Woodling, Richard Swancy. God the Universe and Darwin: The Jury Speaks. Online essay here: http://ukapologetics.net/1NEWCREATION.html (2005).
QUOTATIONS
ON EVOLUTION FROM VARIOUS SCIENTISTS
GOD, THE UNIVERSE AND DARWIN; THE JURY SPEAKS
THE
TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION
UK APOLOGETICS
MUSELTOF COUNTERCULT AND
APOLOGETICS
WITNESS TO
THE WORD
UK CHRISTIAN WEBSITES