A tribute to the Creator
February 14, 2000
I am a student who is interested in learning scientific fact, and I have studied the theory of special creation in depth. Please read my paper with an open mind. I hope that you will be challenged in your thinking as I explain a view that is not easily accepted. I have tried to look at all the sides in both theories, before drawing my conclusions.
I have chosen one of the most debated topics within our country today, and I want to present what I believe to be truth. Evolution vs. Creation usually sinks to a “my evidence” versus “your evidence” level, while in reality all evidence must be interpreted, and nearly all evidence can be included in either model. The discussions should be “my interpretations based on my assumptions” versus “your interpretations based on your assumptions” and the reasonableness of each set of assumptions and interpretations. And of course, we must never confuse circumstantial evidence for direct scientific evidence. The facts in this paper derive from testable, repeatable evidences. Theories and beliefs that are based directly on assumptions will be made clear.
There is no testable repeatable evidence to prove the age of the Universe and therefore we must go to assumptions. As Man looks to origins he is faced with believing one of three things.
1. The universe has always been in existence.
2. The universe had an initial beginning and it assembled itself.
3. The universe had a beginning, and was created by a supernatural agent.
1. The Universe has always been there?
In order to believe the universe has always been here, you must admit that your belief defies the II law of thermodynamics or the basic law of entropy. The law of entropy states that every energy system has had the tendency to run down.
Here is an example of denying the law of entropy. (I am not saying I believe this to be true; I am just identifying what it means to remove one of the laws of physics in a life situation.) If I left my Geo Metro running in the parking lot of the high school, after one hundred years it would turn into a brand new Cadillac. This example is crazy and yet evolution says that things become greater in complexity and find order within their surroundings over millions of years. The simplest law of nature proves that disorder comes from order, and not order from disorder over time.
Law of Entropy: Order + Time = Disorder
Evolution theory: Disorder + Time = Order
Since evolution states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the laws of nature acknowledge that our evidence of entropy is true, there would be nothing left of the Earth by now. The idea of my Metro turning into a Cadillac over one hundred years is not much different than saying that the earth was once just a round inorganic orb in the void of the universe, and over 4.5 billion years now has ecosystems, and abundant, reproducing life on every inch of its surface.
Scientists are correct when they observe and publish the fact that mass extinctions have occurred in the past. Today, extinctions are occurring on a daily basis. Science can prove with facts that life is disappearing. A wide variety of plants and animals are becoming extinct. This does not prove that new life forms are now evolving or ever did evolve (Martin 51). Conclusively, science has proven that life is dying and the universe is running down. The fossils are a record of death and extinction. The “Cambrian Explosion” is not at all an explosion of early life. It is a fossil record of the death of millions of complex organisms that, for the most part, no longer exist. So, therefore, looking at nature we do not see emerging new life forms, but rather death and extinction—entropy in action. (back to top).
2. The Universe had an initial beginning and assembled itself.
To believe that the universe had an initial beginning and then assembled itself, you must admit that you believe that the universe originated without intelligence. This means that everything in existence is a product of random chance; even you. Many of the “facts” we learn about the origin of the earth come directly from the assumption of this belief, which I will explain.
This theory is usually referred to as the big bang theory. According to the big bang concept (which is coming under more and more criticism these days), the universe began some ten to twenty billion years ago with an explosion. Prior to this time, all the matter and energy in all the universe were condensed into a super-dense “cosmic egg” about the size of an electron. Some cosmologists now claim that even the “egg” originated “as a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum,” “evolution ex nihilo,” from nothing. Sometime later, an instability arose and the egg exploded, first in a very short-lived “cold big whoosh” and then a “hot big bang,” initially producing sub-atomic particles and then fusing some particles into hydrogen (then some into helium) gas atoms. Eventually, the hydrogen gas, instead of expanding radically outward, as would be expected in an explosion, somehow began to coalesce into stars, galaxies, and super clusters of galaxies concentrating the still moving mass into huge “lumps,” leaving the majority of space quite empty. Within the interior of stars, hydrogen and helium were supposedly fused into heavier atoms. In the course of time, some of these stars underwent nova and super-nova explosions, flinging the elements into space. The exploded remnants of such stars eventually coalesced into “second-generation” stars containing minor concentrations of those heavier elements. In time, the process repeated. Our sun is thought to be a “third-generation” star, and the planets and people consist of leftover interstellar stardust, which escaped the sun’s gravitational pull and remained in orbit. Our solar system dates back about five billion years, according to this view. In this scenario, life arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals about three to four billion years ago, and multi-cellular life some one billion years ago. Life increased in complexity until man evolved around one to three million years ago. Modern man and civilization date back only a few thousand years--a seeming afterthought in the cosmic timetable (Morris 37).
Any testable, repeatable evidence obviously can not prove this theory, and no one was there to witness the account, so this makes it a faith system and an assumption. To find if this assumption is possible one must examine the laws that we can observe within our universe. The law of probability does not support this theory. For all those things to happen by random chance, even with infinite time, is not probable. There was another complicated way I had planned to display the laws of probability, but it was kind of hard to follow, so I made up these two simple experiments you can use to understand probability.
Bear with my experiment to understand:-
Roll a single dice, your probability of predicting your roll is 1out of 6.
Roll two dice, now your probability of predicting the roll of both dice is 1 out of 36 or 6 to the power of 2.
Roll three dice, now your probability of predicting all three dice is 1 out of 216 or 6 to the power of 3.
Roll four dice, now your probability of predicting all four dice is 1out of 1,296 or 6 to the power of 4.
Roll five dice, now your probability of predicting all five dice is 1 out of 7,776 or 6 to the power of 5.
Roll six dice, now your probability of predicting all six dice is 1 out of 46,656 or 6 to the power of 6.
Roll seven dice, now your probability of predicting all seven dice is 1 out of 279,936 or 6 to the power of 7.
Roll eight dice, now your probability of predicting all eight dice is 1out of 1,679,616 or 6 to the power of 8.
Roll nine dice, now your probability of predicting all nine dice is 1 out of 10,077,696 or 6 to the power of 9.
Roll ten dice, now your probability of predicting all ten dice is 1 out of 60, 366,176 or 6 to the power of 10.
Roll eleven dice, now your probability of predicting all eleven dice is 1 out of 362, 797,056 or 6 to the power of 11.
Roll twelve dice, now your probability of predicting all twelve dice is 1 out of 2,176,782,336 or 6 to the power of 12.
This is as far as my calculator would go.
For every die that was added the power was raised by one.
Now imagine blindfolding yourself and randomly push three-alphabet keys on your keyboard. If this is completely random, with only the letters of the alphabet on your keyboard, the probability of spelling the word “cat” is 1 out of 17,576 or 26 to the power of 3.
Now imagine blindfolding yourself and randomly pushing twenty-two keys on your keyboard. You have now added the use of the space bar and the period and therefore there are now 28 keys rather than 26. This is if you do not include the use of the shift key to make capital letters in the sentence. If this is completely random, with only the letters of the alphabet, the period, and the space bar on your keyboard the probability of writing the sentence “The cat climbed the tree.” is 1 out of 68,782,299,287,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 28 to the power of 22. This number would be even larger if I added in the other twenty-six keys and the shift key that are used in writing on the keyboard. That only means that I would have hit the right keys. Hitting them in the correct order would even decrease my odds astronomically.
“The cat climbed the tree.” This is an example of a simple sentence that even a second grader could write. But the complexity of the arrangement of keys is very precise, and to randomly select all twenty-two in the right order can be agreed as impossible. To believe that the Universe was originated without intelligence would also mean that I could type this paper with my eyes shut and with no previous typing skill, and no knowledge of what I am typing.
The information inside living things is far greater than that of all Shakespeare’s writings. The atheist Dawkins says:
“There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over (Asimov 82).”
The more variables in a situation of chance evolution the less the probability is of getting anything with complexity. There are countless variables in the origin of the universe, and therefore this would be agreed as impossible. There is a very precise order placed in every atom of every piece of matter, and there is structured order that we can observe in every galaxy that we have been able to see.
To believe that the order of the universe was created without an intelligent designer, and to understand the aspect of probability, one would have to have a great amount of faith. Atheists say that science is not a religion but this belief is as much a religion as the belief in a God that created everything in six literal days. Most students are ignorant of these facts in the information they are being taught in our high school. They are not taught the facts, they are taught the faith. The earth does not have a tag on it that says 4.5 billion years, but they are taught how old the earth is as if it were an indisputable fact. No one actually witnessed the birth of our earth and therefore there is no direct evidence to account a literal age. Students are taught that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, as if it were a proven fact, without ever knowing that this is all based on the assumption that the universe was created without intelligence, and the law of probability shows that to be impossible.
The age of the earth is taught as fact according to radiocarbon dating, and this theory has many flaws. Robert E Lee, who is an expert in the field of dating, states:-
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a “fix-it-as-we-go” approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half have come to be accepted.
No matter how “useful” it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Lee 9, 29).
There are six basic assumptions that have never been mentioned in my current science class during the discussion of evolution. The seventh assumption has been considered with minor details of the actual change that is taking place in the timeline of man. Most scientists prefer to call this the “molecules to man theory” rather than “evolution.” In order to accept any kind of evolution these assumptions are made. The assumptions are as follows:
1. The first assumption is that when non-living things gave rise to living material, 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 meats (multiple-celled life forms).
5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrates’ 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, and amphibia gave rise to reptiles, and the reptiles to birds and mammals (Kerkut 6).
These seven assumptions are the whole of evolutionary teaching. There is actually no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science that supports evolution. The process from non-living things to the first living, reproducing cell, to man and giant redwood trees is all based on assumptions.
To explain the geologic time scale, and to show the class what relative time dating is, my teacher (whom I love dearly) arranged this list of organisms on the chalkboard:
Then she went on to explain how algae is less complex than dinosaurs. Everyone agreed. Then she said Dinosaurs are less complex than dogs. Who told her dinosaurs are less complex than dogs? Has she ever seen a dinosaur? Now explain to me how she knows that a twenty-foot, cold-blooded dinosaur is less complex than a dog. I don’t know that much about dinosaurs but if there is even the slightest real life resemblance of a dinosaur to meat eating, bone crunching, Dinos from the movie “Jurassic Park”, I would have to disagree. She explained how you could teach a dog to do tricks and not a dinosaur, as though she has had one as a pet. Then from there she said that dogs are less complex than Man. Well duhh! I realize there are many factors, which are considered in determining which animals are more complex. However, there is still allot we don’t know about dinosaurs and are not sure whether they were less complex than dogs.
Concluding her observation of the complexity of each entity, she then said that since algae is a much simpler organism than dinosaurs, algae then was in existence before dinosaurs. Then I said “in other words over millions of years algae turned into dinosaurs”. She said, “no, see algae may not have turned into dinosaurs or anything because algae is still algae.” She just made a big assumption that algae didn’t evolve from anything later than before dinosaurs, but she has said that algae must be older than dinosaurs because its complexity has fewer mechanisms. Then what turned into dinosaurs? Algae would have to have turned into the dinosaurs, or some relative of algae. Next she said that “dogs are more complex than dinosaurs (I ‘m not even going to get into that again), and therefore dinosaurs evolved earlier than dogs.” Now “dinosaurs” is a category of life, not a simple organism, so dinosaurs must have turned into dogs. In other words, the dinosaur wasn’t complex enough to survive, so it grew fur and became a warm blooded dog--and the other dinosaurs would still mate with the dog even though he wasn’t a dinosaur--and the dog would have puppies rather than eggs--and the puppies would know how to find food and then grow up and mate with the other dogs. I just wanted to say “hello, has anyone in this class ever been to the farm”. From all my knowledge dogs have puppies, cats have kittens, cows have calves, etc., etc. Cold-blooded animals are nothing like warm-blooded animals. Egg laying animals don’t give live birth to their young. And that time scale never tells when and where animals go from asexual to sexual beings. Her brief time line contained no evidence to support it, yet it was never even considered as a theory, but rather taught as fact. The scientific fact of DNA leaves this theory in complete speculation, but my teacher never mentioned that truth. Evolution was taught as a fact system, but it really is a faith system and therefore a religion of man. Religion is being taught in our high school as scientific fact. The story of evolution doesn’t match up with the evidence.
The Bible says that “And God created giant sea monsters and all creatures that live in the ocean, and every winged fowl of the air. And God saw it was good.” (Genesis 1:21)
Through the use of the phase electron microscope, scientists have discovered that there are consistent differences in cellular substances in various kinds of animals. When studied microscopically, living things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all. 1 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 1,900 years before scientists “discovered” the differences in the basic cellular components of the various kinds of living creatures. God created life and appointed his inspired apostles and prophets to record details of his creation, which scientists are just beginning to discover (Martin 34).
Schools should teach what we, students, can observe and not what evolution theorizes we ought to be seeing. We are taught about macro-evolution, but we, students, see discrete entities, distinct species. In the fossil record there are fish, turtles and cockroaches. They are individually distinct, identifiable creatures that we can see. Today we can also see fish, turtles and cockroaches. We can identify each of them as a turtle, fish or cockroach. They are not half fish and half turtle or half turtle and half cockroach. We do not see elephants evolving fins or whales evolving feet. We are taught about the Peppered Moths as evidence of micro-evolution. The moths, however, are still moths and besides that the whole study of the moths as proof of evolution has been found to be a hoax.
The discrete entities we see in the fossil record are not “questionable” species. They are not transitional forms, as evolution would require. If this were true, creatures would not be so easily identifiable. (Martin 70)
Even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheist evolution were true.
Let’s just say that the whole Universe was created without intelligence, thereupon we must admit that the creation of the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision of matter. It would also be true that the Sun’s perfect distance from the Earth, and the appearance of organic life on Earth was also an accident. Then of course the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms through electrical bypasses within the brain. Then since I am also merely an accidental byproduct, there is no reason that you should believe me to be true. I can see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents that manifested its own existence (from my journal last year.)
George Wald, an atheist, wrote in his book:-
Time is in fact the hero of the plot…given so much time the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles (Wald 12).
Wald believes in a God, but his God is just an unintelligent process of time and chance. This is just a very complicated way of saying that over extended periods of time, and blind chance, hydrogen gas will change into people. This statement is not at all scientific. There is nothing in nature that gives evidence for this. His belief is obviously not based on scientific fact and therefore can be classified as a religion. He is saying that the physics in nature creates the impossible over time.
Issac Asimov and George Wald have presented evolution as no longer a theory, but a proven fact. They have done this without a single iota of fact. These scientists are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax in the history of man. Evolutionist D.M.S. Watson, one of the most devoted evolutionists and intelligent writers that I studied, 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.
While the “fact” of evolution is accepted by most biologists, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanisms by which it has been brought about is 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.” (Watson 231, 233).
The incredible Creator says in His book: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1). (back to top).
3. The universe had a beginning and was created.
To believe that the universe had a beginning and was created by a supernatural agent, you must admit that you believe in a divine creator who is omnipotent and who exists outside of time. God is that creator who made everything from nothing as stated in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1. This idea of a superior being is most incredible, and can not be completely understood by a human’s three-pound brain. While this theory also takes a great amount of faith, it takes an equal or even less amount of faith than believing that the universe created itself without intelligence. When Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the entities of life and the universe, some will ask, “Then who created God?”
Christians believe in the Bible by faith with the assumption that it holds true eyewitness accounts of history by authors inspired by the Holy Spirit. The very first verse of the Bible declares: “In the Beginning God…” The Bible makes no attempt to prove the existence of God or imply in any way that God had a beginning. This is a most incredible notion and is rather hard to accept, but reality is that we are not able to understand our creator. Looking into the lines of logic how can a creation give an account for his creator’s existence? All humans seek an answer to their origin, all humans are faced with questioning their existence, and truth says that an infinite, superior, supernatural agent must have played a role somewhere in the creation. Most creationists would say that the universe is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. The Bible is a source of history that gives an account for every generation till the birth of Christ. Christians have added up the generations to find the time line of their origin. A young universe is not a problem for most creationists because our God, the Creator-God of the Bible, is also the creator of time. He does not need time. He can and did create fully mature people, plants and animals.
To believe there is a supernatural agent assumes that humans are not all superior in the universe. Any other theory would imply that we humans are not accountable for our actions, on a supernatural level. The Bible says that God will be the judge of our actions and that no man will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven without believing in God’s Son, who died on a cross in Jerusalem two-thousand years ago.
“For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).
The science of Teleology proves that every design demands a designer. This goes back to the arguments of William Paley, an Anglican clergyman from the eighteenth century, who discussed the comparison between a stone and a watch. William Paley concluded:
“…that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.” (Paley 3)
Paley’s study led him to believe that just as the watch implied a watchmaker, so too does design in living things imply a designer. Although Paley believed in a God who created all things, his God was a master designer who is now remote from his creation, not the personal God of the Bible. Paley realized that a design demands a designer, but he thought it to be too awesome and incredible for the creator of the universe to be in touch with his creation or the people of his time. He then created his own religion based on his own assumptions of what he believed God to be. In other words he made God what he wanted God to be, because he couldn’t accept the truth of the Bible.
Since design demands a designer, there must be evidence of design in living things. The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared that:
“In man is a three-pound brain which as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built.” (Asimov 82)
Asimov was an absolute hypocrite. He directly admitted that his own brain is a complex article of design, and then blatantly pronounced that there is no evidence of any greater conscious agent than himself within the universe. Many scientists who reject the concept of a Creator God agree that all living things exhibit evidence of design. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if man’s highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design? In essence these scientists are accepting the design arguments of Paley, but refuse to acknowledge an entity of superior existence, therefore ignoring Paley’s designer.
Most people will agree that design, obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, the design found all around is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1).
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. (Colossians 1:16).
G. Richard Bozarth, an American Atheist, pretty much sums it up in his book, The Meaning of Evolution. I completely agree that evolution eliminates Christianity:-
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” (Bozarth 19, 30).
Christianity and Evolution are absolutely incompatible. If life on earth took millions of years of natural selection to create the first humans, then the first book of the Bible is a completely inaccurate account of history before man. And if Genesis is an inaccurate document, then the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, following the life of Jesus, are also inaccurate. How can one not believe in the awesome miracles of creation, and then have faith that Jesus was born from a virgin, healed the sick, and rose from the dead? How can one believe that time and chance created humans, and then also believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sin?
Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:-
1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Many humanist leaders are very open about using the public schools to regenerate their faith into the next generation. This might be a great surprise to some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious dogma. May this quote by J. Dunphy, a Humanist make it clear:
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level – preschool, elementary or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new – the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism that is concluded by the truth in evolution.
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears. It must if the family of human-kind is to survive.” (Dunphy 36)
This is a rather direct quote and I don’t believe that it will ever be in the front of any textbook. I hope it is clear that evolution is the route to humanism. Humanism is absolutely a religion and evolution is its foundation. If evolution were taught in schools as a theory there would be little confrontation with conflicting religions. The teaching of evolution claims that each student is an evolved animal and ultimately is, in effect, nothing more than a chance rearrangement of matter. A senior writer for scientific American had this inspiring comment:
“Yes, we are animals, descendants of a lineage of replicators sprung from primordial pond scum.” (Horgan 151)
“The fruit of evolution has been all sorts of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice. It has served as an intellectual basis for Hitler’s nazism and Marx’s communism. Darwin wrote his book the “Origin of Species” and within four years China was teaching it in the schools when we, Americans, said there was not enough evidence to prove evolution yet. It has prompted apostasy, atheism, secular humanism and libertinism, establishing a basis for ethical relativism, which has spread through our society like a cancer. The mind and general welfare of the mind has suffered greatly as a result of this naturalistic philosophy.
According to the Bible, man is a responsible creature. One day he will give an account for his life’s actions and motives. But when man is viewed as the product of some vague purposeless evolutionary process, he is conveniently freed from all moral obligations and responsibility. After all, he is merely an accident of nature, an intelligent animal at best.”(emphasis added) (Huse 122 – 124)
In my science class evolution is taught as fact, with many important facts and ideas left out, to ensure that debate and conflict are washed out. We students are seldom taught how to think about the material that we see. Instead, we are taught certain “facts” and theories, then expected to remember them and repeat them on a test, but skills in analyzing and interpreting data are usually not strongly encouraged. We need more opportunity and challenge to think critically about what is being presented. Too many students just sit in class assuming everything taught is proven fact.
The Christian band Crux wrote this song which reflects my beliefs about evolution.
Evolution’s brought us to
The solution keeps me
We’re all products of
It’s really quite depressing.
This theory is taught as fact,
Ignore the contradiction
Is this based on science?
It seems like science fiction.
No matter what the evidence
They’ve made up their mind
And it’s made to fit
Whatever they may find.
Given into nothingness;
Given all control
In the end can this
Rise up and save your soul?
If this requires
If this requires a God.
It’s immediately dismissed
As a weak man’s fraud
Can we sit at the table,
And exchange philosophy?
Or will we be laughed at
And looked up
In this “Tolerant” society?
Time is the only key that
Unlocks your equation
Millions, billions, Trillions of years
Is the way to your salvation
In the end is emptiness,
It’s all under control.
But in the end can this emptiness
Rise up and save your soul?
To understand how awesome life is and to grasp such an incredible creator we must consider what it would mean to live in a world without him. We humans think we are powerful and strong when really we are so fragile. “For our lives to be maintained, we must have exactly the correct amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, sunlight, magnetic field, speed of rotation and revolution of the earth, distance from the moon, distance from the sun, ozone, water, gravity, temperature, etc., etc., etc. All of these factors must be in the correct amounts, in the right places, at the right times, and in exact relationships with each other. For instance, if our earth’s gravity were weaker, our atmosphere would thin out and be unable to support life. If gravity was stronger, undesirable gases like ammonia would be held in higher concentrations and be detrimental to life. That means our earth has to have been made exactly the right size to generate the perfect amount of gravity to support our atmosphere. But it also had to be the right size to hold our moon in orbit—that means the moon had to be made the right size so it wouldn’t drift off into space or crash into the earth—and stay under control. We could go on and on with this, but the fact is that the evolution model is grossly lacking!” (Martin 99) God, the God of the Bible, is to be praised and He alone is to receive the glory and the honor. “It is a good thing to give thanks to the Lord and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High”(Psalm 92:1).
Macro-evolution is a theory, but when it is taught as fact it becomes a faith system. This faith system is an anti-Biblical religion, and it is being preached in our schools daily. This teaching of theory as fact is a bias way of teaching science. Special Creation should be taught alongside Evolution or Evolution should not be taught at all. I ask that evolution be taught as theory and not as proven scientific fact in the Pennridge School District.
At the beginning of this year I was rather open minded toward these truths. I now firmly believe that the universe is young (on the order of several thousand, not billions, of years old). Man, dinosaurs, and mastodon walked on the earth at the same time. The missing links are frankly missing! God created distinct plants and animals with minor variations, and these are what we see today. There is no evidence that supports the theory that mutations in the genes improve life forms. Prehistoric man was not an ape, monkey or some evolving apelike man or manlike ape. I have not had to throw out my brains to believe that God created everything in six literal, 24-hour days, approximately six thousand years ago. We can believe that the creator, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, created everything with the appearance of age. He has displayed his ability to act without the human necessity of time by His miracles.
I am a Christian and I believe in sin. Every man has sinned against the God of the Bible, The Creator of the Universe, The Master Designer, and therefore has he no right to enter God’s kingdom except through the blood of God’s own Son--the only sinless mortal to walk the earth. Every man, whether Creationist or Evolutionist, will one day bow down to the God of the Bible. “So at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the father.” (Philippians 2:10 and 11) If we submit our lives to the creator, if we trust he will take care of us for eternity, and bow down in his glory on earth, we will live forever. Not by works, but by faith through grace alone are we saved. There is nothing any of us can do to get to God. The only way to salvation is by believing that Jesus’ horrific death accounted for all our actions. God says that if you don’t know him on earth, he won’t know you when you stand at his gate. Many evolutionists have converted into Christians on their death bed.
I am challenging the Pennridge High School to teach science and religion separately.
I hope it is clear that when evolution is taught as a scientifically proven fact it has become a religion. Evolution and Special Creation can be taught in our school. Special Creation does not mean that students are required to study the Bible. Students should be required to study the facts and then draw their own conclusions. Scientific evidence will conclude which theory prevails. Evolution from one cell to man is not scientifically observable at all and therefor is not a factual system. Evolution and Creation are faith systems and therefore should be taught together in the science classes at our school. (back to top).
Copyright c 2000 by Joe Baker. All rights reserved
Asimov, Isaac. 1970. “In the Game of Thermodynamics You can’t even break even,”
Smithsonian (June), p. 10 [Cited in page 82 of The illustrated ORGINS Answer Book, 1995. Eden Communications, Gilbert, Arizona.]
Bozarth, Richard G. “The Meaning of Evolution,”. American Atheist, February 1978
God, “The Bible” History Revealed.
Horgan, J. “The New Social Darwinists, Scientific American, 273(4): October 1995
Huse, Scott. “The Collapse of Evolution”. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983
Kerkut, G. Implications of Evolution. (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960)
Lee, Robert E. “Radiocarbon, Ages in Error,” Anthropological journal of Canada, vol. 19, No.3, 1981
Martin, Jobe R. 1940 - The evolution of a creationist.
Morris, John D., Ph.D. “The Young Earth”. Master Books publishing, Green Forest, AR 1994
Sarfati, Jonathan and Ham, Ken. “Refuting Evolution”. Master Books publishing, Green Forest AR 1999
Wald, George “The Origin of Life,”.Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1995
Watson, D.M.S. “Adaptation,” Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol.124, 3119
W. Paley, Natural Theology, 1802. By St. Thomas press, Houston, Texas
(back to top).
BOOKS SCIENCE BOOKS CHRISTIAN VIDEOS
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE GET KNOW. IF YOU HAVE APPRECIATED THE SITE, THEN PLEASE E-MAIL ITS ADDRESS (WASDARWINRIGHT.COM) AND BRIEF DETAILS TO THOSE IN YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS BOOK. THANK-YOU.