2011 Paper

Evolution and Christianity

It all began with an explosion of enormous proportions, so big that it knocked the world into existence; it was what we call the big bang.  Over time the gases mixed and formed in different ways until finally planets were formed.  After another long while Amino Acids were somehow formed.  Then those Amino Acids randomly came together and formed a simple single celled life form.  From there through the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest that life form was transformed from over several billions years into every living thing that we see today.  That is the tale that Evolution tells to explain why there is life, thought, morals, etc.  Those who subscribe to this view say that it is based upon science, and that it is undeniable.

The Christian explanation of how the world came into existence is quite different.  It claims that this isn’t a world of chance, but that instead it was created by a purposeful God over six 24 hour days, and that this God has revealed Himself to us through the Bible and through the world around us.  The Bible claims in Psalm 19:1 that: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork.”

Both Evolution and Christianity make the claim that the world around us supports their theory, but because these two views are utterly antithetical in nature both cannot be confirmed by the world around us.  One of them must in fact be false.  Thus, it is important to determine through an application of critical thinking which of these two worldviews is more factual.  After several years of research I can conclusively say that despite claims to the contrary Evolution cannot explain modern biology, archeology, or the fossil record while Christianity is amply confirmed by them.

Evidence for Christianity

The amount of Evidence that exists in defense of Christianity is utterly astonishing, and we cannot begin to state all of them here.  Instead, we are going to look at the two most significant pieces of Evidence.  First, we will see that the Bible is the most historically verified document in all of history.  Then we will look at some of the vast evidence in favor of a Global Flood about 6000 years ago.

The Historicity of the Bible

In Archeology any a document claims to be historically accurate it undergoes three tests: The bibliographic, the external, and the internal.  The bibliographic test “measures the time between the copy and original as well as the number of copies made by different people” (Wile 115).  The internal test checks to see if the document is at all in contradiction with itself, or if it is internally consistent.  Finally, the external test checks to see if it agrees with outside sources such as archeological finds and other documents already considered reliable.  If the document passes those tests it is considered historically accurate and reliable.  This raises the question: ‘does the Bible pass these tests?’

First, does the Bible pass the bibliographic test?  Any good work of history needs to be based on eyewitness accounts or close to it, but virtually every ancient document that we have is only a copy of the original eyewitness account.  To solve this dilemma we must in some way determine if the copy is accurate to the original.  We do this by asking two questions: first, how many years passed between the original transcription and the first copy, and second, how many copies were made (Wile 123)?  The Bible passes the bibliography test better then any other ancient document.  The New Testament alone has more than 20,000 copies (McDowell 48) the first of which was written 25 years after the original (Wile 123).  Compare that to the Iliad which has 643 copies the first of which was written 300 years after the original, and it is considered to be the second most reliable book from antiquity, after the Bible (McDowell 47-48).  The fact of the matter is that most books that are considered reliable have less then ten copies the first of which is usually written more 1200 years after the original.  Thus, it is nonsense to say that the Bible is all myths and fables invented by men far removed from that time.

Next, we must ask if it passes the internal test.  Many claim that the Bible is riddled with contradictions, but the fact of the matter is that every said contradiction can be explained when we look at the culture and language.  However, despite the fact that very reasonable explanations have been given for each seeming contradiction, the Bible is still considered by many to be contradictory because we cannot conclusively prove that it is not contradictory, but neither can we prove that it is.  The truth is that no ancient document would pass the internal test, and that is why we follow what is called Aristotle’s dictum: “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself” (Wile 114).  In other words as John Montgomery said: “One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assume fraud” (McDowell 49).  Furthermore, the Bible actually has less internal ‘difficulties’ (as they are labeled) then any other ancient document (Wile 118).

Finally, it must then pass the external test.  The purpose of the external test is to see whether or not the document is accurate with outside sources such as other documents and archeology.  As it turns out the Bible accurate to the minutest detail, and portions of it that we for years thought to be false are now being discover through archeology that confirm the Bible.  For instance the anti-Christian historian Flavius Josephus says this:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man…. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross … those who had loved him from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day…. And even now, the race of Christians, so named for him has not died out (qtd. in Wile 120).

This is just one of many such external confirmations of the Bible, and literally hundreds more could be named.  Dr. Jay Wile points out that many
non-Christian historians including Tacitus, Thallus, and Phlegon very clearly confirm the Bible is accurate (120).

However, confirmation of the Bible doesn’t stop at other documents.  It is also strongly confirmed by archeological evidence.  Even secular archeologists agree with this.  According to Institute for Creation Research two of the greatest archeologists of the 20^th century, William Albright and Nelson Glueck both believed that the Bible was the single most accurate document in ancient history (icr.org/bible-history).  The Bible is full of facts that we only knew from the Bible, but which have recently been confirmed as true by archeological findings.  One example is that of Genesis 14 which gives account of a war with four kings one side and five on the other in which Lot, Abraham’s nephew, gets captured.  In 1918 William Albright made the claim that this account couldn’t have happened, but by 1948 he had to reverse his statement and admit
that due to new archeological findings Genesis 14 and the rest of the Bible were historically accurate (Wile 121). Dr. Clark H Pinnock once said of the Bible: “There exists no document from the ancient world… offering so superb an array of historical data…. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias” (qtd. in McDowell 57).

The Genesis Flood

Few things more clearly situate Christianity as the only possible answer to the question of life more then the evidence that exists for an absolute worldwide flood.  We have geological, archeological, paleontological, documentary, linguistic, and even biological evidence for a flood that wiped almost the whole world out.  The amount of evidence in support of the Flood described in Genesis is overwhelming, and only a very small portion of it can be covered here.

One piece of evidence that is utterly unexplainable is fossil graveyards.  A fossil graveyard is an area that is full of fossils.  One of the largest fossil graveyards in the world is the Karoo beds in Africa.  Paleontologists estimate that there are as much as 800 billion fossils in this one graveyard (Wile 203).  How can such a massive gathering of fossils in one place be understood unless some massive and catastrophic event not only killed, but buried these animals?  In this way fossil graveyards thoroughly support the fact that there really was a worldwide flood.  However, such graveyards have another even more conclusive tendency: they often have animals from every corner of the globe.  For instance the Karoo beds have animals from all across Africa and far into the oceans in any direction.  Another example is the CumberlandBoneCave in Maryland about which Dr. Jay Wile says this:

In this one cave [the CumberlandBoneCave], paleontologists have found fossils of wolverines and grizzly bears, both of which are found in very cold climates.  In addition, they have found fossils of peccaries (a form of pig) and antelopes, which are found in warm, wet climates.  They have found fossils of ground hogs, rabbits, and coyotes, which are found in temperate, dry prairies.  Finally, they have found fossils of water-loving creatures such as beavers and muskrats.

Apart from a worldwide flood that could fling fossils across the world such a cave as this could never be explained.  It can only be explained by a worldwide flood.

Another thing that can only be explained in the Evolutionary world is the vast amount of fossils that were obviously killed instantaneously and by some terribly powerful force on par with a worldwide flood.  For example, in Northern Greenland in 1991 scientists discovered a perfectly preserved Wooly Mammoth with its dinner of tropical vegetation still in its belly (Grant).  What caused this massive beast to be frozen faster then its stomach acids could digest the food?  The only reasonable answer is that it was covered by water and exposed to a massive change in temperature.  There are many more examples of fossils that were obviously killed and buried in an instant.  For instance, Dr. Joachim Vetter has collected over the years a large number of fish in the process of eating each other.  For this to happen both fish have to have been killed at the same moment and buried an instant later (Wile 205).  How can such fossils be explained apart from the Flood?  The short answer is that they can’t.

Evidence for the Impossibility of Evolution

Carl Sagan once said: “Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record and by contemporary molecular biology” (qtd in “The Truth Project”).  Is there any truth to this statement?  Well we have already seen that the fossil record, at least impart, confirms Creation and the Flood rather then the Bang and Evolution, but we most certainly didn’t cover everything that the fossil record has.  Thus, we need to look and see first if “contemporary molecular biology” demonstrates Evolution, then we will look at the fossil record to see if it demonstrates Evolution.

Molecular Biology

In order to see if Evolution is in fact demonstrated by molecular biology we first need to understand what is called irreducible complexity.  Irreducible complexity is a term coined by Michael Behe.  It implies that some systems require every part to function, and that if any part is missing the system will not work.  Take for instance a simple mouse trap.  It has 5 distinct parts, and with any one of them missing the trap wouldn’t work.  That is what irreducible complexity when applied to a molecular scale (“Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”).  Why is this important?  Because if there are systems that are irreducibly complex then natural selection could never have formed them because if they are missing any of the parts they are useless, and natural selection only keeps what is useful, and eliminates everything else.  Thus, unless a system is useable in some way without any piece then natural selection couldn’t have formed it.  In other words for a mouse trap to have been formed by natural selection it would have had to have been useable with only one piece, and then the second piece would have to make it a little more effective, and the same for the third, forth, and fifth.  Even Charles Darwin agreed that such a system would make natural selection, and as a result Evolution, impossible.  He said this in the Origin of Species: “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” (159).  The question then is: ‘do such systems exist?’  The short answer is yes many do, but let’s examine just two: the bacterial flagellar motor and blood clotting.

The bacterial flagellar motor is the machine that allows a bacterial flagellum to move.  This motor is composed of 40 distinct parts, 30 of which are found nowhere else in Creation.  Each and every one of these 40 parts is absolutely required for the motor to function and if the motor doesn’t function then bacterial flagellum is immobile and unable to survive.  Thus, if even one piece of these parts is missing then the motor doesn’t work and the flagellum doesn’t survive (“Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”).  The end result is that the flagellar motor is just one
pristine example of a complex organ which by Darwin’s own admission absolutely breaks down his theory.

Another such example is that of blood clotting.  In the blood here are literally hundreds of different proteins that play a role in blood clotting, but primary it is a protein called fibrinogen that causes the clot, and everything else controls the timing and placement of the fibrinogen causing the clot.  However, if anyone of the other hundreds of proteins were missing then either the blood wouldn’t clot at all, or it would clot in the wrong place.  Either way without any one of these proteins in our blood we would not be able to survive: we would either bleed to death, or we would die when the blood clotted and stopped flowing through our body (Behe 79-88).  Thus, blood clotting couldn’t possibly have risen from natural selection.

Beyond the fact there are numerous systems that we know today that are absolutely irreducibly complex we now know that Evolution has failed in the realm of molecular biology in another way.  Dr. Stephen Meyer points out that when Darwin published the Origin of Species the cell was believed to be a simple blob, but since the discovery of DNA in 1953 we have discovered the cell to be far more complex then that.  Dr. Meyer goes on to say that up until recently the scientific world believed that there were two fundamental realities: matter and energy, but what we are now discovering is that there is a third reality: information (“Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”).  Dr. Del Tackett adds this: “the information that is found within the ameba to provide all of the DNA structure would fill a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannicas” (qtd in “The Truth Project”).  If this is so how can we ever believe that the cell came about by random chance?  We would all laugh if someone said to us that they believe that the Encyclopedia Britannica had come about just by randomly flicking paint on a page for a couple billion years, but how much more complicated is a single cell then the Encyclopedia Britannica!  Thus, after even this brief look into molecular biology we can see that Sagan was quite wrong to say that molecular biology amply demonstrates Evolution.  In fact, the opposite is true because instead of seeing a realm of random chance we see a realm that is designed.

The Fossil Record

However, Sagan also said that evolution has been amply demonstrated by the fossil record.  As we have already seen the fossil record points, at least impart, to the flood, but let’s look and see if the fossil record really does demonstrate evolution at all.

If Evolution were true then what would we expect to find in the fossil record?  We would expect to find numerous intermediate species, between say a cat and a dog.  According to Dr. David Berlinski at the very minimum at least 50,000 changes would have to take place for any one animal to another.  If as a bare bone minimum 50,000 changes are required and we have only 2 members of that sequence then where are the other 49,998 (“The Truth Project”)?  Recognizing how few intermediate fossils there where in his day Darwin said this:

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. (227)

In other words what Darwin is saying is that the lack of intermediate link is a grave objection to his theory, but that he believes it is only a problem because of the imperfection of the geological record by which he means that we just haven’t dug up enough fossils.  In the years since Darwin wrote those words we have dug up thousands and even millions of fossils.  Have we, as a result, discovered more intermediate fossils?  David Raup, an Evolutionist and director of Field Museum of Natural History (which contains one of the largest collections of fossils in the world), said this in regard to the question:

We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much [since Darwin]. The record is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition then we had in Darwin’s time.  (qtd. in “The Truth Project”)

Even those few fossils which are claimed to be transitional, aren’t necessarily so.  They could just as easily be another species that we haven’t seen before.  Colin Patterson, another Evolutionist and well known paleontologist of the London Museum of Natural History, said: “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument” (qtd. in “The Truth Project”).

Furthermore, there is another way in which the fossil record is detrimental to Evolution.  Evolution requires that the fossil record must be in a sequential order.  Meaning that things that lived 500 million years ago should always be found below things that lived 100 million years ago, and they should never be found together.  Is this what we find?  Think back to the frozen Wooly Mammoth with its dinner still in its belly. There was one other thing about that they discover.  Between the toes of this beast was found a perfectly preserved trilobite (Grant).  Trilobites are supposed to have been extinct for more then 250 million years and the last Wooly Mammoth is thought to have died about 3500 years ago maybe less.  How could these two have been frozen together if Evolution really is true?  They were supposed to have been separated by nearly 250 million years, and yet here we have found them killed and frozen at the same instant.  This is just one of many examples of fossils that totally mess up the Evolutionary timeline.

Carl Sagan reached the conclusion that Evolution is amply demonstrated by the fossil record not by an analysis of the facts, but by preconceived bias because when the facts are examined this is not at all the case.  In fact, it is the opposite that is true: Evolution has been amply disproven by the fossil record and by modern molecular biology.

Demolishing the Icons of Evolution

Thus far we have looked at two areas that prove Christianity and two areas that disprove Evolution.  What we need to do next is look at the claims to proof that evolution makes, what Jonathan Wells calls the icons of Evolution.  Briefly let’s look at several of these icons and see if they really are proof or if they are just made out to be.

Darwin’s Finches

One of the most common claims to proof of Evolution is Darwin’s Finches.  It was the discovery and study of these finches that is claimed to have started Darwin down the process of writing the Origin of Species.  Darwin’s Finches are a group of 14 finches in the Galapagos Islands that are only distinguishable from one another in beak size and shape.  More importantly the beak sizes are known to change within species as a result of drought or plenty.  Evolutionists claim that this is an example of Evolution at work.  The problem is that as we have observed these birds for years, and we have found that yes the beak sizes do change in size and shape, but that they never change permanently.  Instead the change is cyclical, meaning that it changes with the seasons and weather patterns (“The Truth Project”).  Beyond that Jonathan Wells makes the point that instead of diverging and creating new species as Darwin conceived, the finches are actually merging and creating new hybrid species.  This in the end will cause the fusion of the species into one type of bird, not the opposite (170).  Thus, the Finches are an example of change within a species, but not of one species becoming another.

Haeckel’s Embryos

Haeckel’s Embryos we have all seen the pictures claiming that Embryos looked basically the same at conception and from there begin to look dissimilar.  Darwin believed that if his theory where true this would absolutely have to be seen.  It is nearly impossible to read any biology textbook that doesn’t contain some version of this icon because if it where true it would be powerful evidence in favor of Evolution.  There is only one little problem with it: “Biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look similar as he made them out to be” (Wells 82).  The truth of the matter is that one of the greatest pieces of information that Evolutionists tout in favor of Evolution is nothing but a lie, and what is more they know it to be a lie!

Conclusion

According the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary science is: “the comprehension or understanding of truth.”  By distorting the truth to defend their theory Evolutionists are extremely unscientific.  The fact of the matter is it is not for any scientific reason that Evolutionist believe as they do.  On the contrary, Evolution as we have seen is a clearly unscientific system, and one that should long ago have been thrown out as unscientific.  Soren Lovtrup once said: “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.  When this happens many people will pos the question: How did this happen” (“The Truth Project”)?  Why did this happen?  How have we gotten to the point were we will ignore truth?  It has happened because they don’t want to recognize the fact that the only possible explanation to this world is the God of the Bible, and they are unwilling to accept that because then they would be accountable for their
actions.  A statement by George Wald makes this exceedingly clear:

Most Modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.  I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.  (Emphasis added) (qtd in “The Truth Project”)

Willing to believe anything, say anything, do anything, deny anything, and, as we saw, lie about anything as long as they don’t have to acknowledge that God does exist and is the only possible answer.  Paul in the first Chapter of his letter to the Romans said it best they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness…” and “professing to be wise they became fools.” Despite what people would like to believe, the world, from the smallest atom to the vastness of space, points to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.