In Part I of this apologetics series we opined that fanatic evolutionists give real science a black eye. Perspectives promoting the theory of evolution, as we reviewed, are mostly supported by pseudo-science and employ as much metaphysics as any other religion. Let’s further examine “science” that concerns itself with the questions of the beginnings…what is sometimes referred to as “historical science.”
Let’s first deal with the basic question of life. For now, let’s leave aside the unfathomable complexities of a human being comprised of trillions upon trillions of organized, specialized and interdependent cells. The probability alone that random events could have produced the complexity of a simple cell (one of the simplest self-sustaining and replicating life forms) is so unlikely that to believe this is possible is to rely completely on metaphysical beliefs. It would represent a religion even more primitive than ancient nature worshippers who nevertheless could at least recognize that there must be a higher power.
My undergraduate degree was in science with an emphasis in biology. I enjoyed learning about physics, biochemistry, genetics, and microbiology. In fact, I even enjoyed learning about invertebrate and vertebrate morphology. Not surprisingly, the prescribed textbooks for these latter courses were heavily laced with Evolutionism. As I recall at the time, it was presented by my biology professors as fact…not theory.
One of the most impactful topics I studied was Histology (the study of the structures of a single cell). Even the most primitive of cells (this itself being a presumptuous statement, as we cannot really be sure what is a primitive cell) with few enzymes, DNA and RNA strands, is so incredibly complex it is IMPOSSIBLE that it could originate from random processes. Why impossible?
No one, were they to dig up a Rolex watch from an archeological site, for instance, would think that it originated from random processes. A design would be evident. The Law of Entropy would otherwise have been overturned. Yet, the simplest enzyme (of which a minimum of 600 different kinds are required for a basic living cell) is countless more times as complex, specific and intricate.
The probability that just one of these enzymes could be formed by chance is 1 to 1047 give or take a few exponents. Evolutionists get picky about these calculations of Creationists and like to claim that these are in error. Usually, they propose a whole further list of imagined preconditions to their calculations, which are complete speculation for which there is NO evidence. (See http://unmaskingevolution.com for some methodologies and sample calculations.)
In any case, an enzyme, once randomly created, would then need to enter a stable, ordered configuration along with another 600-plus randomly produced enzymes for it to serve any useful function. In addition, consider that any molecule cannot be a mirror image of the molecule that is actually required. Otherwise, it would be deadly to a cell.
Then, what about the probability of a complete operating cell being formed out of a chance encounter of atoms and molecules? It is zero (as far as the human mind can comprehend). Multiplying zero probability by billions upon billions of years still produces a big zero. Keep in mind that were it possible (which it isn’t) that such a randomly-formed cell could occur in the first place, it would also have needed the mysterious spark of life. Right away it would need to begin functioning, consuming energy and dispelling waste. And not only that, this randomly formed cell would also have required an immense amount of programmed information in its RNA. If not, for example, how would it automatically start the process of mitosis (the complex reproduction of one cell into two)?
Considering the above-mentioned probabilities, what qualifies as religion…pseudo-science or Creationism? Surely logic and reasonability can be independent of religion, can they not? What perspective is more reasonable…which is more impossible than the other?
Evolution cannot be proven and Creationism cannot be disproven. Intellectual integrity would admit this logical conundrum and cause Evolutionists to come off their high horse with their baseless tactic of ridicule. It is not only Christians (who are Bible-believers) that reject Evolutionism. There are many agnostics and atheists who do as well. Why? They do not have enough faith to believe in Evolutionism.
Do Not Let Facts Get in the Way
It has already been known for many decades that impossible processes and probabilities are required to validate the theory of evolution as well as the random creation of life. Even many secular scientists (some who would consider themselves atheists) have admitted to the impossible probabilities of even one amino acid being formed by random chance (this the basic building block of all enzymes, RNA and DNA…all polypeptides).
Incidentally, there exist many bona fide scientists today who are Creationists. Unfortunately, admitting to such a belief apparently does not accelerate one’s career in academia. This black-balling also applies to any profession with a public profile — from politician to a global investment strategist. Evolutionists are not above persecuting anyone who disagrees with them. In a sense, they use similar tactics as ISIS (the extremist Islamist group). If you do not accept their beliefs at gunpoint, you will be academically beheaded…publicly discredited and baselessly ridiculed. There are countless such cases.
Creationist scientists do not protest providing the evidence for their views. There are some very excellent science journals available that adhere to Creationism! They provide fascinating and thoughtful “scientific” perspectives. (For example, see Journal of Creation or the website of the Creation Research Institute, for a large reserve of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Most readers will prefer somewhat lighter fare such as the Creation Magazine. I devour this bi-monthly publication from cover to cover. It is both fascinating and thought-provoking.)
But let’s change course here for a moment and review an unaligned perspective of a famous avowed atheist. According to the late Fred Hoyle (a famous astronomer and somewhat provocative scientist): “[T]here are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”1
Do you have any notion of what an exponential power of 40,000 actually means? Really, it is not a concept that is comprehensible to the human. There wouldn’t be enough space in the known universe to hold all the failed molecules that supposedly would have resulted from the claimed experimental process of randomness. There are other estimates of these probabilities and these are heavily debated. However, for all intents, the scale of the improbability cannot be contested.
Yet, people persist in clinging onto the theory of random creation of life. The same Fred Hoyle made this comment: “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, […] that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” 2
Hoyle saw this persistence to believe in something that is impossible to be a “psychological” problem. He is on the right track, but not entirely. He himself was vulnerable to the same feats of human speculative illogic with his own theory of Panspermia. He proposed that earth’s life forms found their genesis from viruses that were spread by comets. This theory wouldn’t qualify for any better probabilities than we already reviewed.
The problem is not entirely psychological for scientists that study cosmology. It is a result of there being no option other than to accept the creation account. It would be a logical choice, but heaven forbid that there could be a Creator because that would mean there is a God. Yet, if Evolutionism is proven poppycock, then there really is only one systematic alternative, Creationism. And why not? There is not one shred of any scientific fact that disproves or invalidates Creationism and Evolutionists know this.
The Follies of Anti-Creationists
Large gaps and holes remain in evolutionary theories, forcing its advocates to become ever more inventive and hilarious. Faced with fossil evidence that bears out a world history of perhaps millions of dying species, they spin a false story of evolution…of a process of new life, advancement, and expanding chromosomal information. It is the exact opposite as any child (that has not yet been indoctrinated) would agree. It has been a history of death and lost genetic information, not new life. This would be obvious to anyone honestly looking at the evidence.
Today’s evolutionary theorists and “big bang” advocates regarding the beginning of the universe are already far past midnight. They have had their chance to find supporting evidence. With respect to the theory of evolution, for 150 years and more we have allowed them to continue digging for fossils; to continue to develop and systemize their theories. (Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his 1859 book, On the Origin of the Species.) Yet, they have not found any conclusive proofs for their theories.
They have not conclusively found the “missing links”; they have not shown nor proven that life can come from inanimate matter (denying the Law of Biogenesis that says life can only come from life); and they continue to refuse to accept the statistical impossibility of even the most primitive of cells forming from random forces, let alone even one protein or enzyme.
True science would acknowledge facts and evidence. Adaptations and differences in the “kinds” of living creatures wouldn’t be fraudulently passed off as evolution and scientists wouldn’t need to twist and turn their theories to fit their bias. This is one more indication that the evolution theory is not science but religion. It chooses a belief system that is directly in conflict with facts and reasonability. It also is in conflict with the Bible. (A future part of this Apologetics Series will deal with the provenance of the Bible.)
Incorruptibility and Infallibility of Science
Many Christians don’t have the courage to hold to Creationism. They are intimidated by the supposedly “expert” claims of modern science. They do not want to feel ostracized from the popular views of their culture.
The image that most people have of a “scientist” is someone wearing a white-frocked coat who has a Ph.D. in one or more specialities. They are therefore reverenced and held to have “high knowledge” in their field, far above the common person. Their theories and beliefs are therefore felt to be beyond reproach and above question. As such, whatever they say, write or speculate, must be a worthy insight or fact…something based upon evidence.
Indeed, scientists should have an expertise in their field of study and research. I genuinely appreciate the discoveries of gifted scientists. How could one reject wonderful new discoveries and inventions? That would be sheer foolishness. However, some realism and perspective is useful here. Scientists are humans.
This may be surprising to learn: Much activity under the rubric of science is corrupt. There is an increasing recognition of this fact in the media in recent years. An alarming number of researchers have been caught falsifying their data and results. There is tremendous pressure to produce results in order to win recognition and contracts. Science journals have been forced to tighten up peer review requirements for research articles. Surveys have revealed an alarmingly high rate of errors in experiment validation and in the supporting references in published papers.
This should not be surprising. This corruption parallels the trends witnessed in financial markets and most everywhere else. As with everything, money makes the world go around. It can bias perspectives and create bad incentives. The point here is that so-called scientists are fallible human beings like everyone else.
Back to so-called Christians. As it is, “Christian” is hardly a well-defined term. Anyone can declare themselves to be a Christian. There is no standards agency anywhere in the world that validates true Bible-believing Christians. As such, no one will ever be sued for brand fraud should they falsify any tenet or foundation of this faith. Many people are “cultural Christians” and do not hold a Biblical world view. Effectively, by denying the creation account, one has invalidated the entire Bible. Jesus Christ is therefore cast as a liar. (A future article in this Apologetics Series will deal with the question of Christ. Did he really exist or not? What makes him different from Siddhartha Gautama (See founder of Buddhism) or Muhammad?)
The New Testament records Christ referring to the “creation” as the beginning a number of times (Matthew 25:34, Mark 10:6, John 17:24). Mark records him saying specifically “[…] from the beginning, when God created the world, until now […]” (Mark 13:19). On none of these occasions does Jesus refute the Genesis creation account nor provide any clarifications or corrections. None were needed.
Anti-Creationism: The Answers of Evolutionism Found Wanting
Evolutionism is a religious belief system that also fails to satisfactorily answer the questions that hauntingly harbor in the souls of all mankind. Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What happens to “me” after I die? Is my existence meaningless? What thinking and intellectually-honest person will not admit to such thoughts?
The fact that these questions even exist is itself a refutation of the evolutionary theories of the origin of man. Concepts as are revealed by these questions do not and cannot “evolve” from primordial slime nor are these organically transmitted from one living organism to another.
The greatest atheistic thinkers (whether scientists or philosophers) have no answer to these “why” questions. “Why does the universe even go to the bother to exist?” questions the famous cosmological physicist, Stephen Hawking. The fact that all mankind has ingrained in them such concepts as “love” and “justice” alone proves naturalism cannot explain the inner thoughts and destinies of man. What human being does not feel wronged when some action is deemed to be “unfair”? These are ideas and concepts that evolution has no need nor means to develop.
Yet, our society taunts Creation believers as being “primitive” should they hold the view that the Theory of Evolution is not supported by evidence. Apparently, therefore, I am not a credible economist, money manager or global analyst. You therefore should not do any business with anyone of my ilk. That’s illogical. Let the evidence show for what it is.
Business comes and goes. What I rankle against is that we live in a society that arrogantly elevates its “consensus views” to a state of manifest superiority without the burden of proof, therefore condemning all bona-fide, Bible-believing Christians as simpletons. In public secular life, this is the prevailing and a priori view. Before examination, before discussion, before any reasoning on the part of the secularist “consensus” holder, if you are associated with a Bible-believing perspective, by the popular mores of our culture and the world you are therefore presumed to be primitive and stupid.
As I have shown, it couldn’t be more opposite. We should be contemptible of those who never think nor examine the evidence for what they believe, who uncritically gobble up the pabulum served up by misinformed societal consensus and who are frightened to hold an independent view.
Who is more courageous? Who is refusing to think honestly and without bias? Just who is willing to let the facts stand? Who cares about truth?
Thoughts to Ponder
Evolutionism is actually one of the world’s great terrorist religions. It has a deceptive agenda pushed by unethical religionists. To repeat, it is not science but pseudoscience and a blind faith in metaphysics.
It can only be so out of a spirit that refuses to acknowledge the existence of a loving, yet authoritative God. However, God is not mocked. The wonderful work of his hands — we who are […] fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14); mortal man whose days are numbered upon earth…who shall return unto dust…who is dependent upon the Creator for salvation and eternity. Who ridicules this Great God?
To this day, the secular “scientific” theories of beginnings and evolution are unproven. As scientists discover additional complexities of Creation, their theories become ever more contorted, imaginative, and ludicrous. Too many impossibilities and contradictions are encountered. To this day, no “scientist” has proven that something complex can autonomously arise from nothingness and randomness.
Sadly, as pointed out, facts and logical deduction aren’t the deciding factor. People who don’t want to believe in Creation and a personal God therefore must deny the facts. They will hold on to the unproven and the foolish.
We see that supposedly learned people don’t heed facts. Such foundational observations of science as the first and second laws of thermodynamics can also be ignored. Why? Because much of the thinking in this field of Evolutionism is driven by a priori adherence to atheism and/or a denial of Biblical Creation. And that is not all. For some reason, this branch of so-called scientific inquiry feels itself above the requirement of proofs and observation to elevate its beliefs as fact. They must do so dishonestly (and to be kind, ignorantly). It is tragic that most people do not see the folly.
Will you believe that there is a God? Will you believe the facts and the Truth? Do you believe that God created you? It is wonderful to ponder on the truth that God created you and knows you to be a special individual. You are known to him. He wants to have a relationship with us and wishes that none of His human creations would go lost (2 Peter 3:9). He therefore sent his son Jesus Christ, and promised that whosoever would believe that he was his Son, that they would have eternal life (John 3:16).
1. F. Hoyle & C. Wickramasinghe (1981), “Evolution From Space”, J.M. Dent & Sons: London p. 24.
2. Ibid. pp. 141, 144, 130