Final Essay by Creation Ministries international
Final Essay by Creation Ministries international
The Bible contains everything we need to know?
We don’t claim this—it would be clearly ridiculous—but it contains every- thing needed to obtain eternal life. Within the boundaries of what God has revealed about world history there is enormous scope for research. And of course, our name change was not a ‘backing away from science’. a Our opponents’ accusations of obfuscation, misrepresentation and logically fallacious arguments are ‘elephant hurling’, because they provide no evidence for these.
‘Flaws in a theory don’t count’
Surely they are valid arguments to use against it? Arguing otherwise reinforces the point that evolution, at its core, is a philosophy and, for true believers, not ultimately open to refutation.
Evolution and God
We’ve never claimed that evolutionary theory denies the existence of ‘a god’ (though it certainly flies in the face of the God of the Bible). But its philosophical foundations are pure naturalism, which is why today, supernatural creation is ruled out by definition. This was beautifully demonstrated by the Skeptics’ claim (last post) that by referring to evidence for the Creator God, we had abandoned science. Atheist/rationalist/skeptic sources worldwide routinely, publicly, revel in evolution’s support for their religious view. b Evolutionary superstar Richard Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an ‘intellectually fulfilled atheist’. (The Skeptics are here carefully following the advice c given by the world’s leading anti-creationist, Eugenie Scott, to her fellow atheists: keep reassuring ‘religious people’ that it’s ‘possible to believe in evolution and God’. Indeed it is, if you’re not fussy about whether the God you believe in tells the truth about history.)
In their opening salvo, our opponents proposed both chemical evolution (the origin of first life) and cosmic evolution (big bang to stars). So we were amazed that despite this, and despite the textbooks being full of both concepts, evolution is suddenly and conveniently limited to biology (because we highlighted the impossibility of abiogenesis?). Both are part of today’s evolutionary world-and-life belief—that, unaided, nothing gradually turned into everything.
Huff and bluff
They claim we misrepresent the Laws of Thermodynamics, but offer no evidence of this. (Actually, it’s the Skeptics who have previously misrepresented both the Second Law of Thermodynamics d and probability arguments. e) The deductions from those laws are clearly unpalatable, so we get a diversionary claim—that the age of the universe is determined by measuring its energy. Huh? Check their link to see the fuzzy disingenuity of this claim: the WMAP data is used to help make a guess as to which particular Big Bang model is preferred, and what assumptions to make about mysterious unseen matter. Then from that, plus various assumptions about the Hubble constant, an ‘age’ comes out of the other end—given the Big Bang. But even one of their own, physicists Colin Keay, is skeptical of the Big Bang, as are several prominent cosmologists who hold to versions of the ‘steady state’ idea. (Our opponents wrongly assert that ‘no scientist claims that the universe has lasted forever’.)
‘Evolution doesn’t require mutations’
It’s almost embarrassing to have to give lessons in rudimentary evolutionary theory. One of the greatest evolutionists, the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, wrote: ‘The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution …’ (American Scientist, Winter 1957, p. 385).
Our opponents lamely state that beneficial mutations exist—as if we denied that, despite our having described beneficial (but downhill) mutations earlier.
‘Show us the evidence for a young world’
This oft-repeated mantra seems to be more for the benefit of non-discerning readers who might not check our links, where we provided such evidence. BTW, evidence against long age is also evidence for short age, by simple logic.
Noise increases information?
Another incredible claim; like saying static on your radio adds useful information. But this is equivocation. ‘Shannon information’ merely concerns how many bits (0, 1) are needed to specify something (e.g. for electronic transmission). Specifying a random pattern may require more bits than meaningful information. E.g., if “superman” is mutated to “sxyxvawtuayzt”, information is clearly lost, but there is more “Shannon information”, because it takes more bits to transmit this longer sequence.
This highlights the difference between complexity and specified complexity; a pile of sand is complex (many bits are needed to accurately describe it), but is information-poor—it specifies nothing. Living things abound in specified complexity f (e.g., proteins with specific 3-D structures that catalyze particular chemical reactions).
Horses and whales
Nearly all specimens invoked as evidence for horse “evolution” are just variants of horses, g or variation within a created kind. h Much of the same variation seen in fossil horses is present in today’s horses (size, toe number, rib number, etc.).
The whale stories i would make Lewis Carroll proud. The origin of whales from land creatures is so “clear-cut” that, for many years, artiodactyls (hippos) were the ancestors, then for some time the fossils supposedly showed that whales came from the (extinct) mesonychians—and now artiodactyls (other than hippos) are returning to favour! Obviously, there is no clear line of descent shown by the fossils, j contrary to the grand claims.
C-14 in coal doesn’t exist?
The chutzpah (or, in charity, ignorance) demonstrated by this Skeptic claim is astonishing. Indeed, their claim should be true if millions of years were fact. But carbon-14 above background levels is ubiquitous in coal (and other supposedly ancient organic material), k and the secular literature discusses the ‘problem’. See e.g. Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C-free background material, Radiocarbon 31:117–120, 1989. (For an updated bibliography, see Giem, P., Origins 51:6–30, 2001.)
(Better informed anti-creationists have sought to explain the C-14 in ‘ancient’ diamonds l by postulating its creation underground from neutron bombardment of N-14. But measurements show hopelessly too few free neutrons for this.)
Catastrophic carving of Grand Canyon
Nowadays, even some evolutionary geologists hold to this. And nearly everyone now believes that the US’s entire Channeled Scablands, including the granite Grand Coulee Gorge, were carved rapidly through cataclysmic Ice Age flooding.
Worldwide stories of a global Flood
We think, gentlemen, given the astonishing common elements, e.g. mountaintops covered, birds sent out, etc. that you need to do better than ‘river overflows’.
The closeness of humanity
It is misleading (also circular reasoning, if examined closely) to imply that this is an obvious deduction from the single-species status of humanity. Earlier evolutionists also considered us as one species, but nonetheless derived racist notions m of huge differences between people groups from their belief in long periods of ‘separate evolution’. Our opponents evade the point: molecular biology reveals an astounding degree of relatedness—far exceeding that required for mere species membership, but predicted from biblical history.
Speaking of circularity
... They present as evidence for evolution (which indeed teaches that we are related to tomatoes) the assertion that we are related to tomatoes! (Bio- chemical similarity between humans, plants and animals is an expected design feature n —what would we eat otherwise?)
Waxing theological, they tell us the way an ‘efficient’ God ‘would work’—through evolution—yet they previously described this as ‘trial- and-error’.
Bad design in humans?
The ‘half an eye’ argument has not been answered at allo. And no one has demonstrated how a better spine could be designed. An evolutionary approach to back problems actually made bad backs worse! p
And Genesis 3 says something about problems giving birth in humans (we live in a fallen world; no longer perfect).
Real skeptics would apply this without favour. When carbon-14 is found in coal or diamonds, giving dates of thousands of years, the simplest conclusion would be: they are not millions of years old. But the paradigm will not allow that, so, we see a denial of the fact. Others have invented unworkable secondary hypotheses to try to ‘explain away’ the data.
Given the significance of the subject, we would have preferred our opponents to engage more cogently with the actual scientific arguments presented, though their approach should help many to see that the evolutionary emperor is indeed unclothed.
Seeing the Skeptics’ track record to date, we trust readers will be sufficiently sceptical of claims in their concluding rebuttal to check them with our site’s q search engine.
This whole debate is driven by presuppositions, not data. Historical data have to be interpreted within an existing framework. We choose the frame- work provided by the Creator in the Bible (evolutionists choose naturalism r instead). When we do that, the evidence makes sense. Otherwise, our very thoughts are just the results of eons of chance interactions of atoms; so why should we trust them? s
And how can there be such a thing as freedom to think (volition) or morality, in a world that has not been purposefully created, but just happened? Life’s purpose is that we know God and enjoy His fellowship forever. That’s why Jesus Christ, God the Son, came into the world, to rescue the corrupted race of Adam and make it possible for us to approach our Creator.