Creationists Go Round And Round

[Schumikonen 2]

It was a rough date - they are *old*....

No that's not quite what I meant. My point was that the text has been fiddled with. Its the meaning that it important - we've already discussed this and think we agree that it is the meaning that matters.

Yes, but most people are working from texts that have been translated/interpreted, changing their meaning.

Yes there are gaps, BUT what I struggle with creation-wise is where excuses are made which defy common-sense. e.g. the fossil debate. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive - what is wrong with believing, for example the God created the Universe - but that he also created dinosaurs and maybe, just maybe that the earth is a bit older than 6,000 years?

I know!

I don't know why but I love all theses answers specially the in bold one, i know I already said this but I believe thoses six days that Genesis talk about are really very long periods of time, just look at the order of the events, God created light, then he made the sun and the moon, thoses events are related from the point of view of someone in the earth, and we all know that as science say the was a very dense clouds covering the whole earth as thoses clouds were becoming thin the light made it to the earth but at that point was impossible to see the sun because of thoses clouds but one day thoses clouds were thin enough to see the sun and the moon, the bible and science talk about vegetation in the earth before animals, amimals before man, so there is common ground on the bible and on science, but the language of the bible could be difficult for a scientist and science language could be very difficult for a christian who have been tough that bible is literal on all its part. why bible was written like that I am almost sure that it was because that was the only way for everybody from all ages could understand it or at least have an idea of God's work, but it is like you say is what man take out the bible what is causing trouble not what the bible says.

[Ash1 0]

To everybody that is Christian, this is a must read. It's cut and paste, lengthy, but I have not read anything more true. It's the most beautiful sermon I've heard about the subject.

Creation: Believe It or Not, Pt. 1

Well tonight, as you know if you were here this morning, I'm going to begin a new series that I've been sort of working on for a long time, a series on origins. And I don't know how long this series is going to run exactly, I do know that I'm going to spend a little time on an introduction and then we're going to launch right into Genesis 1:1 and take the whole account of creation verse by verse, phrase by phrase and let the Lord unfold its significance to us.

Now I want to begin with a few sort of disclaimers, if I can, a few things that maybe you need to keep in mind. First of all, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim to be a scientist. Any teacher in my past whoever taught me science could stand up and testify to that fact. I am a theologian, I am a Bible teacher, I am a part-time philosopher, but I am not a scientist. And so, when it comes to those matters which are scientific, I have to basically move to somebody else and trust them as an authority where I am not an authority. This will not largely be of scientific study, in fact that's not our intent at all but it will be a study of the Scripture, a study of theology with a little bit of rationality thrown into it.

Secondly, I will not answer every question tonight. I know that what I don't say tonight is going to create questions, I will get to those questions as we move through the text of Scripture. I will deal with things like theistic evolution. I will deal with things like day-age theory, deal with viewpoints like progressive creationism as we go along, but we'll not be able to deal with all of that tonight. And I really do believe that you're going to find the answer to your questions about origins primarily from the text of Scripture. The issues such as progressive creationism, theistic evolution are really answered by the text itself. And so we're going to find our way through the text of Genesis chapter 1 into chapter 2 and therein we're going to secure the great answers to the questions that arise about origins.

But to begin with tonight I...I want to address the concept, I want to sort of set the picture in your mind as to the debate. This is critical for...for all of us and it is most critical for those who are students. If you are a junior-high student, if you are a high-school student, if you are a college or university student in any other than a distinctively Christian school, you are going to be given this indoctrination about evolution as if it were fact and you're going to find that what I'm going to be saying to you is contrary to just about everything you hear. We'll set the stage for that contrast tonight, and then we'll get into the text of Scripture and see how Scripture itself addresses popular evolutionary theory.

It is also important to all of us because understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, that God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires.

So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life.

Now there basically are only two options. You can either believe what Genesis says or not. And that is no over-simplification. Frankly, believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible rational explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose and for destiny.

Now the divine equation given in the Bible in contrast to nobody times nothing equals everything, the divine equation is found in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I don't know how it could be said any more simply or more straightforwardly than that. Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act.

So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance.

Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century.

Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

This is more than just a secondary issue. Someone wrote a letter to the president of the Promise Keepers, and I'm not particularly singling them out except that the illustration is so clear because of the response they wrote, asking them about their stand on the creation issue. The assistant to the president responded with this statement, quote: "You need to know that the ministry of Promise Keepers takes no stand on issues like this. In fact we specifically try to avoid such debates. Our efforts are designed to bring men together based on the historically essential doctrines of orthodox Christianity as represented by our Statement of Faith, or to focus on things that unite the body of Christ instead of those which tend to divide it. Since different churches and individual Christians hold varying views about creation, it is one of those things we believe falls under the category of secondary doctrines, secondary doctrines such as spiritual gifts, eternal security and the Rapture, etc. In short, when it comes to subjects like creation, we believe Christians need to extend grace to each other as summed up in the statement in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty,in all things charity," end quote.

Now that's a pretty aggressive statement about the secondary nature of a belief in the Genesis account, isn't it? It doesn't address the issue that if you don't believe the book of Genesis you're not believing the Bible. I'm not trying to throw aspersions on that organization but simply to say that this is what is generally the view of the majority of Christian people. Whether the world was created by God or evolved by chance without cause has been debated a long time. It's been debated since Darwin. But the debate comes down to this, either you believe the Bible or you don't. Either you believe the book of Genesis or you don't. And if you don't believe the book of Genesis, then what do you believe? Well in most cases you believe in naturalistic evolution. There would be some who would be theistic evolutionists who would say well God sort of launched it all, but then evolution took over and they would deny that the Genesis account is accurate in saying that God created in six twenty-four days. Progressive creationists would essentially say the same thing that creation is not...did not occur as Genesis says but rather it was over long ages and God sort of progressively injecting Himself into the process did some creative work alongside the evolutionary process.

Those views, theistic evolution, progressive creationism, also deny the straightforward text of the book of Genesis. So I say again, you either believe Genesis or you don't. If you don't, you have some options. You can be a theistic evolutionist or you can be a naturalistic evolutionist. Among Christians there are some who are theistic evolutionists but among those who make up the unbelieving world they are naturalistic evolutionists. And so they are left with the incredible notion that nobody times nothing equals everything.

Douglas Kelley(?) who has written on this subject with great insight says, "There is no doubt that the biblical vision of man as God's creature whom He made in His own image has had the most powerful effect on human dignity, on liberty, on the expansion of the rights of the individual, on political systems, on the development of medicine, on every other area of culture. How different...he writes...from the humanistic viewpoint of man as merely an evolved creature, not made in God's image because there is no God. Such a premise has enabled the Marxist Totalitarian States conveniently to liquidate millions of their citizens because of the assumption that there is no transcendent person in whose image those citizens are created, no being to give those citizens a dignity and a right to exist beyond what the state determines," end quote.

This point has been explored at length by Baron Erik Von Kuehnelt Leddhin of Austria who may be the century's greatest scholar on questions of liberty and totalitarianism. He has written a very important book called Leftism Revisited From Dessau(?) and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot which deals with those issues. And in it he shows that apart from the belief that mankind is created in the image of a transcendent God, the divinely derived dignity and liberty of human beings completely disappears. He says, "For the genuine materialists there is no fundamental, only a gradual evolutionary difference between a man and a pest, a noxious insect," end quote. And his conclusion is the issue is between man created in the image of God and the termite in human form.

He's right. We have two options. Either we evolved out of the slime and can be explained only in a materialistic sense, meaning that we are made of nothing but the material, or we have been created by God and made in His image in a heavenly pattern. And the debate is not just biological, that's what I'm trying to say, it's not just biological, it's moral and it's spiritual. The debate gets to questions about man's dignity, about man's nature in the image of the heavenly pattern, the image of God. It asks questions about the issue of control, who is sovereign in the universe, who is in control. It asks, "Is there a universal judge? Is there a universal moral law? Is there a lawgiver? Are to people to live according to God's standard? Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live? Is there a final judgment?"

You see, these are the questions that evolution was invented to avoid. Evolution was invented to kill the God of the Bible not because evolutionists and materialists and naturalists didn't like God as creator, but because they didn't want God as judge. Evolution was invented in order to kill the God of the Bible, to eliminate the lawgiver, to eliminate the inviolability of His law, the binding standard for human thought and conduct. Evolution was invented to do away from universal morality and universal guilt and universal accountability. Evolution was invented to eliminate the judge and leave people free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.

I mean, if we just kind of summed up these two alternatives, the materialistic view would say, "Ultimate reality is impersonal matter. No God exists."

The Christian view says, "Ultimate reality is an infinite, personal, loving God."

The materialistic view says, "The universe is created by chance, without any ultimate purpose."

The Christian view says, "The universe was lovingly created by God for a specific purpose."

The materialistic view says, "Man is the product of impersonal time, plus chance, plus matter. As a result, no man has eternal value or dignity nor any meaning other than that which is subjectively derived."

The Christian view says, "Man was created by God in His image and is loved by God. Because of this all men are endowed with eternal value and dignity. Their value is not derived ultimately from themselves, but from the source transcending themselves, God Himself."

The materialistic view of morality says, "Morality is defined by every individual according to his own views and interests. Morality is ultimately relative because every person is the final authority for his own views."

The Christian view says, "Morality is defined by God and immutable because it is based on God's unchanging, holy character."

The materialistic view says about the afterlife, "The afterlife brings eternal annihilation, or personal extinction for everyone."

The Christian view says, "The afterlife involves either eternal life with God, or eternal separation from Him. Either the glories of heaven, or the terrors of hell."

Now, folks, let me tell you something. Which of those views you take is not a secondary issue, it is a primary issue not only for science but for theology. How in the world can Christianity view those as secondary issues? This is the foundation of all truth.

Francis Schaeffer the apologist said, "If he had an hour to spend with a person on an airplane, a person who didn't know the Lord, he would spend the first 55 minutes talking about man being created in the image of God. And the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation that could restore man to that original intended image."

Christianity does not begin with accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Christianity begins in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth for purpose and destiny which He Himself had determined. Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, listen carefully, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.

People say, "Well, the book of Genesis is myth and legend and fantasy and allegory and tradition, doesn't really speak about real facts to the real world." Yes it does. The Word of God is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world on any and every subject. If we avoid dealing with what the Bible says about the creation of the material universe, then there is a tendency for our religion to be disconnected from the real world. There's a tendency to put Scripture in to some mystical category, to put Christianity in to some stained-glass closet, as Douglas Kelley puts it, that doesn't impact the space/time world.

You start out with the book of Genesis, tampering with the literal nature of that text and you have created a mystical approach to Scripture at the very launch point. The Scottish theologian James Denney(?) made this point in the late 1890's, I quote, "The separation of the religious and the scientific means in the end, the separation of the religious and the true, and this means religion dies among true men." You can't pick up the book of Genesis, take chapter 1 and say this is a fairy story, this is not real history, this is not reality, this does not reflect a real understanding of the real world in real space and real time without severe implications to the rest of the message of Scripture. The doctrine of creation as identified in the book of Genesis is foundational, it is where God starts His story. And you can't change the beginning without impacting the rest of the story and the ending. In the Bible God speaks and He speaks in Genesis 1:1 and says He created the heavens and the earth. He is the one who spoke in Genesis 1:1 and who speaks right through Scripture till its very end.

When you tamper with Genesis 1 you are tampering with the Word of the living God and you are taking the divine account of real creation in real space and real time and you're saying...It is not accurate, it is not legitimate, it is not the truth. That is a serious assault and it loosens up the Scripture from reality and divorces religion, the true religion, from reality. That is severe.

So evolution would love to do that. It would love to ungod God, it would love to strip Scripture of its veracity. It wants to reject God as lawgiver, judge, Savior. It wants to destroy the dignity of man as created in the image of God. And it gets pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? According to evolution man is quantitatively better than the animals, that is he has some features that animals don't have, but qualitatively he's not better. He has a bigger brain quantitatively but qualitatively he was not created in God's image. Therefore it is ethically wrong to violate the rights of other animals who are our literal brothers, evolutionarily speaking.

And we hear all that today, don't we, all the time? That infamous organization called PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, their national director, Ingrid Neukirk(?) made this famous statement, "A rat is a pig is a boy...A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." No difference. All higher forms of life, a rat being a higher form of life in her view, are to be considered equal.

We have a funny organization called The Church of Euthanasia, believes that animal rights are superior to human rights. A representative from that organization, he told a TV audience, a national audience, and I quote: "If we're going to kill off species, let's kill humanity first because humans are only a minor species with a minor role to play in the overall diversity of nature," end quote.

And you've read it all. I've read animal rights groups that maintain eating meat is murder. Man is the tyrant species. ling cows is murder. And there was one who said that killing chickens is equal to the holocaust, perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews. This kind of idiocy comes because these people really do believe that man is simply the end of an evolutionary series of chance occurrences that has no purpose and has no destiny and is not made in the image of God. He is not bearing any dignity beyond any other along the line in that evolutionary process.

And you know what? If evolution is true, you can't argue with them. We're just animals. We have just evolved. And their argument may be pretty valid. All of these animal rights advocates, writes Marvin Lubenno(?), who have expressed themselves publicly on the subject are evolutionists. According to evolution it's merely the luck of the draw that man has evolved the big brain had certain mutations not happened in our ancestors and instead happened in the ancestors of the chimpanzees we might be where they are, in the zoo, and they might be where we are. Hence..."I have no ethical right to use my superiority achieved purely by chance to violate the rights of other animals who through no fault of their on didn't evolve the same abilities."

If man is only a animal, an accident of nature, a collection of chance mutations, then where is his meaning? Where is his dignity? Where is his absolute value? What is his purpose? Obviously he has none.

Now what evolution basically says is that over time by chance matter evolved into the entire universe. Jacques Monod won the...this is unthinkable...the Nobel Prize for biology and in his book Chance and Necessity he says this, "Man is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity out of which he emerged by chance." That's the Nobel winning biologist. Chance alone is the source of every innovation. Chance alone is the source of all creation in the biosphere. He writes, "Pure chance absolutely free but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution." So Monod says it's just chance.

Noted evolutionist J.W. Burrow writes in his introduction to The Origin of Species, "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle and man, a lonely intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance. To some the sense of loss was irrevocable. It was as if an umbilical cord had been cut and men found themselves part of a cold passionless universe. Unlike nature as conceived by the Greeks, the enlightenment and the rationalist Christian tradition, Darwinian nature held no clues for human conduct and no answers to human moral dilemmas," end quote. I mean, man was just cut loose from any meaning whatsoever. He is a lonely intelligent mutation produced out of chance. He is protoplasm waiting to become manure. Now that is a far cry from being created in the image of God. This evolutionary idea not only strips man of his dignity and his meaning, this is more than just stupid, it is more than irrational, it is more than depressing, it is more than humiliating, it is more even then immoral. This evolutionary idea is deadly. And in our history, our recent history in western civilization, no one demonstrated the deadly character of this evolutionary idea better than Adolph Hitler and he was followed up by Joseph Stalin and all of those who massacred and masses of people, millions of people, and committed genocide. At the bottom, at the base of their belief system and philosophy was evolution.

For example, Hitler saw in evolutionary theory the scientific justification for his personal view just the same as social Darwinists of the nineteenth century did for their terrible abuses. There's no question that evolution was behind all Nazi thought from beginning to the end. And yet few people were aware of that and Hitler even sucked up a quasi Christian commitment from the church of the state of his day. Eric Fromme wrote, "The religion of social Darwinism belongs to the most dangerous elements within the thoughts of the last century. It aides the propagation of ruthless national and racial egoism by establishing it as a moral norm. If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties." How does that work? Evolution is the survival of...what?...the fittest. Hitler was just playing out the evolutionary role. He was the fittest and so he massacred everybody else under the evolutionary thesis that he was perpetuating the strongest and he was aiding in the development of the super race. That was all born out of evolutionary theory. In the biological theory of Darwin Hitler found his most powerful weapon against traditional, against religious and Christian values. He singled out the idea of biological evolution as the greatest weapon he had against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution. He hated Christianity. In fact he said, and I quote Hitler, "I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed." And Mein Kamf, My Struggle, was basically Hitler's evolutionary theory working its way out politically and was the justification for the destruction of the masses who threatened the continued evolution of the super race. In Mein Kamph Hitler wrote, "He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life has not the right to exist. I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature. Nature likes b#####ds only a little," And finally he said, "All that is not of pure race in this world is trash." And so he destroyed the Jews, he destroyed the blacks, he destroyed the Gypsies and he was aiding natural selection and fulfilling the evolutionary biological dream.

The head of the Nazi Labor Front said that Hitler's massacres expressed, and I quote, "The highest and best in manhood." Julian Huxley, a biologist and evolutionist wrote Essays of a Humanist in 1964, said, "Evolution is the most powerful, most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth." And you know what? He's right. It is the single, greatest, satanic lie the world has ever known cause it eliminates the need for a creator. People can avoid God all together, particularly the biblical God.

Darwin didn't care if you wanted to worship another god. I don't think Hitler cared if you wanted to worship another god, just not the God of the Bible, just not the God who created. When Darwin first published his Origin of the Species it was largely rejected by the scientific world of his day because they universally held to a belief in divine creation. There was no other rational explanation, you have effect, you have to have a cause. When he wrote Origin of the Species, of course it had critical reviews from the very outset. The scientific world was almost wholly against it. In later years, Thomas Huxley speaking of the year 1860 described the situation by saying, and I quote, "The supporters of Mr. Darwin's views were numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that if a general council of the church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority."

It was a hard sell. Even Darwin had a hard time with it. If you read anything of Darwin's you find he's continually filling all his writings with tremendous doubts. For example, he says in the sixth chapter of his Origin of the Species, "Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered." In his chapter on instinct he conceded such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. And to think he said that "The eye could evolve by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." In his chapter on imperfections in the geological record he complained that the complete lack of fossil intermediates in all geological records was perhaps, quote, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." In other words, he was at least honest enough to admit that the thing didn't make any sense.

Darwin wrote that he was deeply conscious of his own ignorance. In his personal letters he wrote about having awful misgivings, of having deluded myself and devoted myself to a fantasy. But Darwin was determined to escape from a personal God at all costs. He said that. "I am determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs." To the end of his life he was in that war, trying as he would to escape from God he never really could. And finally his emotional life atrophied under the strain of the battle, religious feelings disappeared and with it everything else, the world became cold and dead. And in the end Darwin apparently received a taste of his own medicine. He had deprived the universe of God and all meaning and so he had deprived himself of all meaning.

James Moore wrote a biography of Darwin called The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. In some of his letters Darwin referred to his theory, quote, "As the devil's gospel." And even after he had sort of won the day because he did liberate men from the God of the Bible, he did free people to enjoy their sin without the thought of a judge, he had begun to win the battle but his psychological suffering was so profound, his physical symptoms continued. He was literally not only killing God for himself but killing God for everybody else. One writer says, "His life was one long attempt to escape from the church and to escape from God. It is this that explains so much that would otherwise be incongruous in his life and character."

So, let's just get the record straight here. This is all about getting rid of God...the God of the Bible, the authority of Scripture with its moral implications. And even Christian people who want to go to Genesis I don't believe have the liberty to tell us that Genesis 1 doesn't mean what it says. Why would we want to join forces with those whose effort is directly against the authority of the God of Scripture? Just...I just need to put that in perspective.

Now, for a few minutes I want to get a little philosophical. I think you'll enjoy this. In the end the evolutionist, the naturalistic evolutionist says, and even the theistic evolutionist says that things happen by chance...chance. We get rid of the God of the Bible, we get rid of the God of Genesis, we get rid of the Creator and then we've got chance. Now this is a pretty interesting thing to think about. I have read this word "chance" over and over and over again in reading the writings of these people and the myth that drives the whole evolutionary process, this entire unbiblical, irrational, immoral idea of evolution, the myth that drives it is the myth of chance...chance. Chance is the cause. In contemporary science, chance takes on new meaning. They don't want God to be the cause, but something has to be the cause so the cause is chance.

Now when I say the word "chance" we take it back to its etymology, it once was largely restricted to describing mathematical probability. Where we could say, "Well, if I go over there there's a chance I might see her because she may be coming this way." Or, "If I put this money in this account there's a chance this might happen and I'll make this amount of money." "If I...if I move into that community and begin to meet some people there's a chance there that I might develop some interest in my business." There's a mathematical probability. That's what chance basically used to mean. And then it kind of got broadened a little bit and it took on broader application to include any unpredictable event, any sort of probability no matter how remote or any coincidence no matter how seemingly impossible.

But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist, it's nothing...it's nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person, you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern evolution its been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality.

I mean, this is so fraught with problems from a rational or philosophical viewpoint you hardly know where to begin. How do you get the initial matter upon which chance operates? Where does that come? You would have to say, "Well, chance made it appear." You know what? This sounds so ridiculous and yet this is the undergirding philosophy behind evolution. It is completely incoherent and irrational. But the new evolutionary paradigm is chance. And it's the opposite of logic.

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild. And as one writer said, "Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on." Arthur Kessler said, "As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism." If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.

If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungoded...if there's such a word. The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there's not. If chance exists, it destroys God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, then He's not God. If He's not God, then there is no God and chance rules. That's frightening.

But chance is not a force. Chance can't make anything happen. Chance isn't anything, it doesn't exist. It has no power to do anything because it isn't anything. Its impotent because it's nothing. It has no power because it doesn't exist. Are you getting it? Since chance doesn't exist, it can't produce anything. It can't be the cause of any effect. Yet modern evolutionists talk about chance all the time. It's just nothing but hocus-pocus. It's the oldest and most inviolable law of science, logic and reason. Any of you who ever took debate or studied any of the rational philosophers remember the statement, "Ex nihilo, nihilo fit(?)," out of nothing, nothing comes...and chance is nothing. This is rational suicide.

So when scientists attribute instrumental power to chance, listen carefully, they have left the domain of reason, they have left the domain of science. They have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats. They have turned to fantasy. And then all scientific investigation becomes chaotic and absurd because it can't really yield what it should yield because they won't allow it to. Today the absurdity of evolution goes largely unchallenged and all these universities and colleges, they keep pounding on this stuff. Every time I pick up a Newsweek or a Time magazine, I get another one of these wild kind of evolutionary articles, particularly because I read National Geographic, I'm exposed to that as well, and they keep trying to make us believe that chance exists as a force. That everything by chance spontaneously generated. Nobel laureate, George Wald, brilliant man, I quote him, "One has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable actually certain," end quote. What in the world is that? That is just double talk. That is absolutely meaningless. Self-creation is absurd no matter how much time because chance does not exist...it doesn't exist.

There's no explanation of the universe without God. I'll give you one little scientific illustration. Have you ever heard of quantum theory? Well, you've heard about a quantum leap. People say, "Somebody made a quantum leap." Let me tell you where that comes from. Quantum theory goes back to a scientist Max Planck who in 1900 presented the theory that energy comes in discreet units called quanta. I'm not going to take you too deep here cause I can't go too deep myself. But energy can be broken down into units and he said these units, these units, identifiable units are called quanta. In 1927 Werner Heisenberg(?), a German physicist, found that when a photon strikes an atom it boosts an electron into a higher orbit. And when that occurs the electron moves from the lower to the upper orbit, listen to this, simultaneously without having transversed the intervening space. That's a quantum leap. Let me say that again. When a photon hits an atom it boosts an electron to a higher orbit from the lower orbit simultaneously but it never transverses the space in between. What happens is the electron ceases to exist at one point and simultaneously comes into existence at the other point. This is the famous quantum leap. It goes out of existence and comes into existence simultaneously.

All the time...all the time in all the atoms all the time through all of created history it keeps doing that. By chance? To say it's a quantum leap doesn't explain it. There's only one thing that explains it and that is the ongoing creative power of God. He sustains the universe and its creation by keeping up all the necessary creative acts, even down to the level of an electron in an atom. He upholds all things, Hebrews 1, by the Word of His power.

I'm going to give you one more closing thought here. Well, I'll tell you what, I'll save it till next time. I'll save it till next time cause I don't want to get into it and then leave you somewhere between the lower and the upper. Now...I mean, I realize that some of this stuff is stretching your brain, and that's good, that's okay. We're going to do this one more time next Sunday night and then I'm going to explain how this has implications in the gospel and then we'll get into the actual text of the book of Genesis. Join me in prayer.

Father, as we contemplate these thoughts, as we endeavor to use the minds that You've given us which are evidence of the image of God in which we were made, we...we just pray that You would guide us so that we might understand just exactly how we are to think by using the Scripture and the reason that You've given to us. Protect us from any thought or any belief that would equivocate with Scripture, that would deny its straightforward statements. Protect us from any absurdity, any irrationality, any failure to use the minds that You've given us. And by Your Holy Spirit prompt us so that we might think as we ought to think. We grieve, O God, that man has sought to destroy you, sought to eliminate You as the Creator, such a dishonor to You is tragic, such a disgrace to those who do it is tragic and has eternal consequences and we grieve over the lostness of those who believe in evolution, we grieve over the meaninglessness, the emptiness of life that belongs to those who want to live any way they would like to live without guilt, without responsibility, without having to answer to a judge, without having a standard established for them. We grieve, Lord, because the consequence of such life, the consequence of such sin is eternal damnation. We would have no part with those who deny the Word, we would have no part with those who equivocate on Scripture but we want to take Your Word as You have given it to us, believing that what You said is exactly what You meant to say. And so, lead us, Father, as we contemplate these things to have a strong and a firm foundation in Your Word, to know You as our great Creator as well as our Redeemer. We'll thank You for the opportunity to know You better as our Creator and thus worship You as You should be worshiped. And we pray in Christ's name. Amen.

Creation: Believe It or Not, Pt. 2

Selected Scriptures

Well, I'm glad tonight for a little bit of extra time because I have much on my heart that I want to say along the line of our series on origins. Last Sunday night I began to talk to you about the issue of origins and tonight I want to continue in Part 2 on the issue of creation and the gospel.

As I said last time, the issue of origins is absolutely critical to all human thinking, human behavior and human life. It is the foundation of our existence. It is the foundation of our purpose. It is the foundation of our destiny. Without a right understanding of origins there's no way to comprehend ourselves. There's no way to understand our earth, our universe or the ultimate meaning of anything.

And there are only two options when it comes to origins. The two options are: there is a Creator God, or there is not. Those are the only two options. There either is a Creator God or there is not. If there is not, then everything is an impossible, implausible, irrational result of chance. And the equation that I gave you last week is "nobody times nothing equals everything."

If on the other hand there is a creative intelligence, if there is a Creator God, then creation is understandable. It is possible, it is plausible, it is rational. And even the scientists who have left their mark on the scientific world, those who think honestly and make honest confessions about origins will tell you that there must be a creative intelligence. Even Einstein said that.

Recently the well-known scientist who teaches at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania has written a book called Darwin's Black Box. He is a scientist. He is not a Christian. But he says, in effect...Guys, the jig's up. The ruse is over. There is no explanation for this universe apart from an intelligent creator.

That's the only thing that makes any sense. Darwin explained the universe purely on the basis of external appearance, but the deeper science goes the more it is forced to the conclusion of a creator God. Behind this complex universe is an incomprehensibly intelligent and powerful eternal being who made everything. That is the only thing that makes sense. In fact, evolution in any form doesn't make sense.

Now the question is, if this universe is the product of a creator God with an infinite amount of intelligence and power, how can we know anything about this God? How can we know who He is and how He created?

Well, there's only one answer and that is we can only know about Him and how He created if He chose to tell us. That's the only way we can ever know. Has He? Yes He has. In fact, He has revealed an entire 66 books of personal self-disclosure. And included in that revelation in which God has revealed Himself is very clear instruction about how He created the universe.

For example, in Psalm 19 the psalmist writes these familiar words, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day-to-day pours forth speech and night-to-night reveals knowledge." In other words, day and night everything in the universe speaks of a creator God. "There is no speech nor are there words, their voice is not heard." In other words, it's a silent revelation but it's a revelation that's unmistakable. Just look at the creation, look at the universe, look at the heavens and their expanse and everything that He's created in the day and in the night and it's clear. He says, "The line has gone out through all the earth, their utterances to the end of the world." Everyone on the globe can look out and see the creative evidence of a creator God.

The psalmist goes on to talk about the fact that He has made the created universe a tent for the sun which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber. It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of heaven and its circuit to the other end of them and there is nothing hidden from its heat. He picks that one body, that one celestial body out of the great expanse of the universe, that one celestial body that most dominates our life, the one that is closest to us in terms of a star, the one that has the greatest impact on us, the one that effects us, the sun, the unmistakable one. And he says about the sun that the sun runs its circuit from one end of heaven to the other so that nowhere in the created universe is its heat not felt. That's one of the things that science has discovered in modern times is that the sun is in orbit. We talk about the sun as the center of our solar system and everything orbiting around it, but you need to know that science has discovered that the sun itself has an orbit and this orbit goes from one end of the infinite space to the other. The sun is moving and dragging our entire solar system with it. It is not fixed anymore than the things that revolve around it are fixed. So the psalmist says you can look up and you can look at the universe and look at the creation and it gives you loud testimony to the glory of God, to the majesty of His intelligence, to the massive character of His power to create all of this.

In Hebrews chapter 1, going to the other end of the Bible, we read that God who spoke long ago to the fathers and the prophets in many portions, in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us, His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things through whom also He made the world. Hebrews 1 says that God made the world. Psalm 19 says He made the universe. Hebrews 1:3 says He made the world.

The only way we're going to know that is if God tells us that. We are natural. God is supernatural. The natural cannot comprehend the supernatural. So on our own we can't find God, we can't discover God. We're locked in a time/space world, we can't crawl outside of it into eternity and comprehend what is incomprehensible. The only things we know about God are those things which He has told us and that's why He gave us the Bible.

First Timothy 3...2 Timothy 3, I'm sorry, says familiar, familiar words to us, "All Scripture is inspired by God," 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God." God breathed it out so that it is His Word. Second Peter 1, "Know this first of all that no prophecy of Scripture is of matter of one's own interpretation. No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The only source of knowledge we have about God is the Bible and the external evidence of God in creation. We can know about God by creation, we cannot know God except through Scripture. We can know that He created, as we look at the creation around us. It's reasonable to assume there was a creator. But we cannot know how He created unless He reveals it to us. So we can know some things through what theologians call natural revelation, but in order to really know God and how He created and how He operates and how He saves we have to have special revelation which is the Bible and the Bible alone.

Now with that in mind, go back to Genesis chapter 1. When God began the Bible as His self-revelation, He began at the beginning. He began with an account of origins. He began by telling how He created the universe. Verse 1 of Genesis 1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And then He goes on into chapter 2 and verse 4 with a description of precisely and exactly how He created the universe.

Now this is where Genesis begins. But it doesn't end there. Genesis is a book of origins. To show you how important Genesis is, let me tell you the range of origins that are found in the revelation of this one book.

Now the word "Genesis," by the way, means origins, beginnings. And in the book of Genesis you find many beginnings, many origins. First of all, and we just noted that, you find the origin of the universe. Genesis 1:1 is unique in all literature, all science and all philosophy. Every other system of cosmogony explaining the universe, whether in ancient religious myths or modern scientific models, starts with eternal matter, or eternal energy in some form. Only the book of Genesis starts with eternal God. Genesis then is the book of the origin of the universe.

Secondly, in Genesis we find the origin of order and complexity. Man's universal observation of his world is that it is...it is an orderly world. It functions on fixed rules and it is profoundly complex. Order and complexity never arise spontaneously. They are always generated by a prior cause programmed to produce order and complexity simultaneously. And in the book of Genesis we meet God who programmed order and complexity into His universe.

We also find in Genesis the origin of the solar system. In the midst of this vast limitless universe God created a solar system. The earth as well as the sun and moon, the planets, all the stars of heaven were brought into existence by the Creator and we're told that He created them all.

Fourthly, the book of Genesis tells us about the origin of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. The earth is uniquely equipped with a great body of liquid water and an extensive blanket of oxygen, nitrogen, gaseous mixture both of which are necessary for life and are accounted for only by special creation by God to provide an environment for human life.

We also find in Genesis the origin of life, the marvels of the reproductive process. The almost infinite complexity programmed into the genetic system of plants and animals are inexplicable apart from special creation by a great supernatural powerful intelligence.

Sixthly and certainly centrally, Genesis tells us about the origin of man. Man is the most highly organized and complex entity in the universe. Man is the supreme illustration of order and complexity. He possesses not only innumerable intricate physical chemical structures in the marvelous capacities of life and reproduction, but beyond that sort of physical part of man there is a nature which can contemplate abstract entities of beauty and love and worship and which is capable of understanding and thinking about its own meaning. It is self-awareness that singularly identifies and separates man from the rest of the created order. The true record of man's creation is given only in Genesis.

In Genesis you also find the origin of marriage. The remarkable universal and stable institution of marriage and the home, a monogamous, patriarchal, social culture is defined and described in Genesis as having been ordained by the Creator and polygamy and infanticide and matriarchy and promiscuity and divorce and abortion and homosexuality and all the corruptions developed later after the Fall corrupting God's initial order.

You also find in the book of Genesis the origin of evil. The origin of physical and moral evil in the universe is explained in Genesis as a kind of temporary intrusion into God's perfect world, allowed by God as a concession to the principle of human freedom and responsibility and also to manifest Himself as Redeemer of sinners as well as Creator.

You find number nine in the book of Genesis the origin of judgment on evil. All the forms of God's wrath are set in motion and illustrated in Genesis.

Also number ten in the book of Genesis you find the origin of salvation by grace through God's mercy and a substitute. That's all in Genesis and it starts to show as God is merciful to Adam and Eve and doesn't kill them, even though they deserved to die for their sin. And then God develops a system of animal sacrifice which pictures a substitute who will take the place of sinners which is an act of mercy and grace on God's part. The plan of redemption leading to Christ is even referred to when the book of Genesis talks about the seed of the woman, that being the seed planted by God in Mary, the Messiah, the Savior.

It is in the book of Genesis that we find he origin of language. You know, one of the things that evolutionists gag on all the time, and I was reading it in Newsweek this week, is how you go from apes to man not just making some physical transition, but developing language. How you go from grunting and making unintelligible noises to human speech. Newsweek was trying to present an article to answer that and it was just bizarre and pointless and unbelievable. The gulf between the mindless instinctive chattering of animals and the intelligent abstract symbolic communication of man is absolutely and completely unbridgeable by any evolutionary process.

And the book of Genesis not only accounts for the origin of language in general, that is God is a communicating God and He created someone in His own image who thereby could communicate, but Genesis also tells us not only how man was given by God the ability to communicate but how so many languages occurred from the judgment of God at the Tower of Babel. That's in Genesis, too. You find in Genesis number 12 the origin of government, the development of organized systems of human government for the maintenance of orderly social structures through systems of law and punishment. You find in Genesis the origin of culture. You find here such things as urbanization, the development of metallurgy, music, agriculture, animal husbandry, writing, education, navigation, textiles and ceramics, all of that starts in the book of Genesis. You find in Genesis the origin of nations and that is related, of course, again to the Tower of Babel as God takes one race and scatters them all over the world. That is the only source you'll ever find of how we have so many different peoples scattered all over the earth with different languages and cultures.

You find in the book of Genesis the origin of religion. Both the true religion and false religions appear, first of all, in the book of Genesis. Organized systems of worship and conduct. The origin of man's unique characteristic of man's own consciousness and his ability to comprehend a God and to structure a system of response to the God he believes exists. That all appears in Genesis.

You find also significantly, number 16 in my list, the origin of the chosen people Israel who were the conduit for God's revelation to all of the world. It was Israel that was God's people through whom He gave His revelation and through whom His saving covenant came in Genesis 12 to Abraham.

Now when you talk about origins you're going to have to go back to Genesis. This is a book of origins. And let me put it again on the line where I put it last Lord's day. Either you believe Genesis or you don't. It's that simple. Either you believe what Genesis says about all of those origins or you don't. And that would include either you believe the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 or you don't. And if you don't believe the Genesis account, then I just...I have to tell you, you have no hope of coming to the truth. You're not going to discover it. Unconverted scientists aren't going to discover it. You either believe Genesis or you don't.

And what is really intolerable is to say you believe the Bible but not just the Genesis creation account. You believe Genesis, you believe about the origin of sin, you believe chapter 3 on maybe. Or maybe you're not sure about that because you don't really believe there was an actual Adam and an actual Eve. You've got a small problem because, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," and there was a real Christ, so you can be sure there was a real Adam. But just in case you don't believe in a real Adam, maybe you don't sign on until chapter 6, maybe you just believe the Flood. Well, maybe you don't believe that, maybe you believe when the Tower of Babel is described later on in chapter 11, or maybe you don't believe that. Maybe you don't check in until Abraham shows up in chapter 12. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Who are you to be sitting in judgment on Scripture?

You know, I'm never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science. I'm just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation. As you will see, it will do that.

All you can know about how God created is what He said. That's all you can know. And if you don't believe what He said about creation, what kind of precedent have you established for the rest of the Bible?

And what about the end? Do you know how all of redemptive history ends? You know how the whole story of humanity ends? It ends according to 2 Peter when the Lord uncreates the universe, I like to use that word. The elements melt with fervent heat. There's some kind of a...literally an implosion as the nuclear structure, the atomic structure of the universe literally is totally turned against its existence and takes it right back out of existence when He uncreates, when the elements melt as with a fervent heat in that kind of nuclear holocaust that ends human history.

And immediately after that it says in Revelation that He creates a...what? A new heaven and a new earth. Let me ask you this, do you believe He can do that? Or is that going to be another umpteen billion years of evolutionary process to get the new heaven and the new earth cranked up? Is it going to take billions of years to evolve the new heaven and the new earth, or do you really believe God might be able to do that just by fiat, just by making the statement and calling it into existence? If you believe that, then what's your problem in Genesis?

If God can wipe the entire universe out in a split second, if He can dissolve the whole thing, if He can send it reeling in the time of the Tribulation and refurbish it during the time of the Kingdom and then totally uncreate it at the end of the thousand years, if He can do all of that then I don't know why you have a problem with Him creating it all in six days. You see, the implications of rejecting the account of Genesis are profound.

And listen to me because what I'm going to say is very important. It is not necessary to reject the six-day creation. It is not necessary. We have yielded up territory to evolution without cause. Science knows nothing. Science proves nothing that contradicts a six-day creation...nothing. In fact, science as it keeps advancing makes its own claims to evolution ridiculous, more ridiculous all the time.

You know, and having a perspective on this is very important. We've caved in to the scientists too long and it's time to stop. If you want to do some reading on this, get Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial, it just devastates the scientific perspectives. Christian people literally accepting the scientific descriptions of origins and come out of an evolutionary bias as if somehow they've been proven and somehow the Bible is going to have to give at that point because a six-day creation is not scientifically possible. That is just not true. But the results are staggering.

Master's College, for example, is a member of the Christian College Coalition. It's a coalition of Christian colleges across America of which there are about 110 colleges. Of the 110 Christian colleges in the coalition, six that we know of believe in the creation account in Genesis. Six out of 110 Christian colleges, that's a small, small fraction. And most Christian leaders and most Christian educators have allowed the teachings of evolution to one degree or another to be added to the Bible. They sort of stuff evolution in between the verses in Genesis. Most Christian leaders have accepted the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Yet clearly from the words of Scripture, God created the universe in six literal days. And Christian leaders can't deny that that's what it says cause that's what it says. You can translate it any way you want, it all comes out...the word yom means day and you have six of them.

But they believe somehow that scientists have proved that the age of the earth must be billions and billions and billions of years old. So they believe you've got to go back to Genesis and fix it. And in so doing they have allowed the authority of the Bible to be undermined, right? It's serious stuff.

If the words of the Bible means six days, and you conclude...but so-called science says that's not true...then science is right and the Bible is wrong. Now if you can't trust the words of Genesis, when do you start trusting the Bible? It's a sad indictment of the church, isn't it? And the humanists even use the compromising the Christian leaders to further their cause to undermine Christianity. And what we have is a kind of Christianity today that loses its absolutes in Genesis 1. That's sad.

Christian leaders might not sign on, of course, to humanistic evolution. They would say, "Yes, there's a God and somehow God's involved in the evolutionary process," that's called theistic evolution, sometimes called progressive creationism, a term developed by Russell Mixter(?) in the science department of Wheaten College a number of years ago. But they would say, "No, there is a God and God is...sort of injects Himself at points at theistic evolution." Says, "God launched it and started it." Progressive creationism says, "He jumps in along the way but it still took millions and millions and billions of years for it to happen." These people call themselves believers in God. They probably would say they believe the Scripture. But they don't want to allow for a six-day creation. This poses immense problems...immense problems.

Here's one of them, I'm not going to give you all, but here's one...just strikes me as a serious problem. If man is created at the end of the evolutionary process, whether it's a naturalistic evolutionary process, or it's a theistic evolutionary process launched by God which some Christians think they have to affirm in order to pay homage to science, or if it's a progressive creationists view where God injects Himself along the way, the problem you've got is evolution is a process...listen carefully...evolution is a process by nature of death. It's a process known as the survival of...what?...the fittest. It's a process of violence. It's a process of bloodshed. It's a process of suffering. It's a process of disease. It's a process of death as the order rises higher and higher and higher until it gets to man.

Now here's a serious problem. You don't have man until billions of years and when man appears he is perfect and he is sinless and there's no such thing as death. Death doesn't even come in to the picture until man does...what?...sins. How can you have death before the Fall? You don't even have a cursed earth. The whole...the whole of the Genesis record is stood on its head. If there's been all kinds of death in this billions of years of evolutionary processing, then what did sin do to the world that hadn't already been done? And how could God who looked over this whole evolutionary deal when it finally reached its completion in man and said, "He saw it and He looked at it and He said it is good." How could God say that?

You see, then the sin of Adam and the curse of death is meaningless because there's been death for millennia and for billions of years, just convolutes all of the biblical record. Cause what you have in Genesis is a perfect world until Adam is confronted by the serpent and falls into sin and God curses the universe and then comes death and disease and suffering and violence and bloodshed and not before. Evolution makes no sense in that perspective.

You know, I...Christians will get out there, you know, and they'll say, "Boy, we're against abortion and we're against homosexuality and we're against Jack Kivorkian(?) because he's murdering people and we're against euthanasia and we're against genocide and, you know, we're against the moral evils of our society, etc., etc., etc.

Why are we against those things? Can you tell me why? Why are we against those things? Give me one reason. Here it is, because they're forbidden in Scripture, is that not true? The only reason we're against abortion is because God's against it. How do we know that? Because it's in the Word of God. The reason we're against homosexuality, adultery, etc., etc., is because of the Bible. You see, we stand on the Scripture.

But the problem is we don't want to stand on the Scripture in Genesis. So we equivocate on whether or not the Bible is an authority at all. What do you think the watching world thinks about our commitment to Scripture? Pretty selective, isn't it? And again I say, such capitulation to evolution is completely unnecessary. Nothing requires evolution. In fact, evolution cannot happen...it can't happen.

Let me tell you why. Now again I want to give a disclaimer, I'm not scientist and I've got to tell you, I work really hard to try to understand this stuff. I'm going to do my best to make it comprehensible to you.

I read a couple of books by a man named Dr. A.E. Wilder(?)-Smith who has a whole long list of letters after his name. He's a scientist. Now, just to tell you how far I've gone in this reading, I read his book from cover to cover called, The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Now this is a very technical book and I don't recommend that you go try to find it because you'll not really enjoy reading it, you just have to kind of do it, just an exercise that you're sort of forced to do if you're going to do what I'm going to do. But let me distill it to you, the thesis of the book.

A.E. Wilder(?)-Smith in this book demonstrates the absurdity of evolution on the basis of one great reality and that one great reality is the encoded information in the DNA of living organisms. Did you get that? Every living organism has in it DNA. DNA is genetic material and on that genetic material in every living thing is a code and that is an operative code and that living organism, whether you're talking about a cell or whether you're talking about a large man and everything in between, all of that operation of every living thing is dependent on that encoded information. And listen to this, every different living thing has a completely different code.

Darwin had no clue about that. There was no genetic study when he wrote his Origin of the Species. He didn't know anything about DNA. He didn't know anything about chromosomes. He didn't know anything about genetics. It didn't exist as a science, he was just describing what he thought he was seeing. It was all according to appearance and nothing more. If Darwin had been alive today and try to sell his deal today, it never would fly, he wouldn't even believe it. He barely believed his own view, he certainly wouldn't have believed it in a day like ours when we have this incredible ability to go with electron microscope into the DNA and see the coded information in living organisms.

The entire realm of genetics, Wilder-Smith points out, is all about information, storage and retrieval was totally unknown to Darwin. Every living thing, if you're talking about before these flowers were cut, they were living thing...this one is blue, this one is pink, and this one is orange, etc., because there's information...there's information in the DNA in the genetics that causes that to happen. That's a code of information in every living thing.

It has been discovered in recent years that the genetic programs of say higher biological organisms consist of about one-thousand-million bits of information. One-thousand-million bits of information in one living organism. And that information that is encoded in that living organism determines the nature, the growth, the development and the death of billions of cells in that living organism.

Now who, frankly, in his right mind could ever believe that such supremely complex machines, which is what living organisms are, storing and retrieving the precise information to service thousand million cells, diagnose defects and repair them and reproduce all developed at random by chance out of nothing? It's absolutely idiotic.

The big issue, the issue that is bringing down evolution is the study of the origin of information, it's called information theory. Where did the information come from? Where did the code come from? A monkey has a monkey code and the DNA and the chromosomes and the genetics just keep making the monkey behave like a monkey. There's no code in there to turn the monkey into a man. There's no such thing as jumping out of your species.

Well they got all excited in science, Wilder-Smith talks about this as do some other writers I read, when they got in to polymers and they were looking at some things saying, "Well, maybe those polymers are the transitional things, they look a little unusual, they're a little out of the normal. Maybe they were the transitions." And the longer they studied those, the more they realized those were just elements of the encoded information doing repair work because there was some reason to repair. That's why it was a little unusual because it was repairing damage to that living organism. And after all, polymers weren't transitional forms at all, they were just encoded information in the DNA that you didn't see until there was a need to repair something. It's incredible.

Where did this genetic information come from? Where did it come from? It couldn't evolve out of nowhere. It's too precise. Wilder-Smith says this, "Darwin's so-called gradualism postulated in the last analysis, all forms of biology were derived from a single, simple cell which by an unbroken series of small gradualistic changes gave rise to an unbroken chain of steps from the original cell up to man himself and biology was strictly continuous." This is just unbelievable and only a man i Darwin's time who didn't know genetics would ever come up with such a statement because if a one-celled thing, listen to this, developed into a man, then all the encoded information necessary to run that one-cell thing and to run everything from then on all the way up, including the man, had to be in the original cell. And if it wasn't in the original cell, then where did it come from? That's the question. It's ridiculous. They know that all of the encoded information to run every living thing in the universe is not contained in a one-celled amoeba. What is contained in a one-celled amoeba is the code for a one-celled amoeba.

Wilder-Smith goes on and says, "There was one great aspect of reality about which Darwin and indeed everyone of his epic knew nothing, I'm referring to the modern science of information theory, for if a primeval kind of amoeba is to develop up to a primate, that primeval cell will have to gather all sorts of new information on how to make kidneys, livers, four-chamber hearts, cerebra and cerebella" It's just going to have to...as this one-celled thing goes it's just going to have to collect information from where?

If the law of entropy is true, and it is, that matter is breaking down, things are getting worse, how can things be getting more complex and more ordered simultaneously? Wilder-Smith says, "For the synthesis of such reduced entropy systems, as for example a primate brain, requires all kinds of solid, actual information which neither the matter of which the primeval amoeba consisted, nor the intact amoeba cell contained. Similarly inorganic matter will have to assemble huge numbers of bits of holistic information before it can synthesis an amoeba."

So he says whatever it was that started the first amoeba, whatever inanimate thing started the first amoeba would have to have collected information to make that happen. I'll give you an illustration, maybe help you a little bit. Have you been reading about the fact they've cloned rabbits and then they cloned sheep? You say, "Does this...is this an evolutionary triumph?" No, you know what this proves? This proves that it takes an outside intelligence to do this. You can have a sheep and put him in a pen and say, "Ummm...mutate!" You can put...you can put the sheep in there and say, you know, you can..."Please, have a clone." But that sheep's not going to have a cloned sheep unless an intelligence, a higher intelligence, in this case a human brain, understanding genetics, works from the outside to produce that. That is a classic illustration of why evolution can't happen. It's classic. Whenever we want to create something that is in the least sense out of the natural order, it takes an intelligent human brain to invade that level of life. It has to come from the outside because the information isn't in the code system.

That's exactly how God operates. You can't have evolution. First Corinthians 15 says, "There's a flesh of animals and there's a flesh of birds, and there's a flesh of man," and that's how it is and it's all determined by the genetic code and they don't criss-cross and jump over those bounds.

Wilder-Smith further writes, "Assuming that original primeval form of life was kind of an amoeba, a kind of amoeba, where did it obtain the almost infinite number of bits of information required to be stored in its DNA storage and retrieval system? In order to transform the amoeba-type of cell to a mammal, a primate, an octopus or a bee, new bits of holistic information are required. Neither the primeval amoeba-type of cell nor the inorganic matter of which it is constructed contains such highly specialized holistic information which is necessary to trans from the alleged amoeba into say an anthropoid ape. Is it legitimate to assume that such incredible amounts of information arose spontaneously out of thin air by pure chance?" Absolutely ridiculous.

I mentioned this morning, went down to the Sonoran Desert this week to spend a little time with my Dad and my sister decided to cart us out to the desert there and to go out with some naturalists and poke around under rocks and look at cactus and things like that. And I'm always kind of fascinated by the creation of God and I've seen the desert a lot in my life cause I've always lived in the west, or most always. And..but I was introduced to some things that were really amazing by these naturalists. You know, they turned over a rock and out came a little gecko and they gave me the whole ecology of how they operate. And out from another rock with a little pair of tweezers came a scorpion and I...I learned more about a scorpion than I ever cared to know or could use in about five minutes, but I did learn one thing, that they survive by cannibalizing other scorpions and that's how they survive. And it talked about how their sting operates and how...they talked about all the details.

Then we went over to see a saguaro cactus and a saguaro cactus...there's a whole ecology in one of those things that's incredible. They think they live 800 years, they don't know for sure because no botanist lives long enough to see one live and then die. So, you know, it's sort of a guess. But they go through these incredible...this thing is incredible. Its needles criss-cross like this because there's high winds in that...there the only place in the world it grows in the Sonoran Desert, and the needles that row out of them as they do in cacti criss-cross each other and that defuses the wind so it doesn't blow them over, doesn't snap them off. It's a marvelous ecology. There's legend, too, in fact one of the legend...you ever see a saguaro cactus some of the arms go up and like this...and they say the main stem of a saguaro cactus is representative of the man and the other branches are representative of his wives..and if they grow upward, he had a very ordered life and dutiful wives, but if they go all directions, the poor guy had a really tough time. Well, I mean that's legend. But apart from the legend, as they began to define the ecology of this thing, the complexity of this thing, how it retains water and how it creates these ribs, how it produces an incredibly gorgeous flower at the peak of each branch once a year, and it dies burned in the sun. They took us over to a paloverde tree, the tree with the smallest leaves of any tree on the face of the earth, and it desperately needs water, and they have found them, get this, with a one main root 300 feet below the surface of the ground though the tree is only six-feet high. Amazing ecology, amazing complexity in all these forms of life.

And they were going through all of this...and all this. Then I jumped in and said, "May I say something?" And I gave them this speech basically that I'm giving you, you know, that every one of these living organisms in the universe has its own code. How did it get that code? Where did it come from? It had to come from a divine mind who made everything.

Listen to this, when God created, He created everything and encoded everything. Just get a grip on the vastness of His intelligence. Staggering...staggering. Everything demonstrates the imprint of God.

And then Wilder-Smith in his books...book likes to talk about a guy named Van Noimen(?), Von Noimen(?), actually, German scientist. Von Noimen defined these living machines...machine referring to an organism that's alive, and he said, "The amazing thing about living organisms...get this...is they are self-producing, self-sustaining and self-repairing." That is what's known as a Von Noimen machine, self-producing, self...or self-reproducing, self-sustaining, and self-repairing. And he points out in his book that we've never been able to build a machine like that.

Do you know any machine like that? Do you know any computer that has little computers? Do you know a computer that sustains its own life and repairs itself? How about a car? Do you know a car that does that? Von Noimen pointed out if we could make a machine complex enough to reproduce itself and sustain itself, it would always be in disrepair because of its complexity. So it couldn't keep up with the self-repairing respons...we've never created a machine like that, yet every single living organism is just that, self-producing, self-sustaining, self-repairing. Is that incredible? This is the mind of God. Don't tell me this is chance. Blind devotion to chance is an act of defiance against reason and more importantly against revelation and more importantly against God Himself.

Douglas Kelly says, "Very least one can note that the whole edifice of evolutionary theory is increasingly seen as a faith rather than objective, empirical science and its foundations are shaky," end quote.

According to Michael Denton, he's written a book called A Theory in Crisis. He says, "There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive efforts, biologists have failed to validate it in any significance sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured." In fact...that's end quote...in fact, it's just the opposite. The more science learns about astonishing complexity, the more science learns about harmony, the more science learns about design, the more science learns about the intelligence of the universe, the more science must confess there has to be an intelligent creator.

And again Douglas Kelly says, "Now in the nature of the case, we are dealing here with a unique situation, the bringing into being of the space/time universe by a transcendent source who according to the scriptures...listen to this...spoke it into existence out of nothing but the word of His own power." Humm, what power, what complexity, what order, what intelligence!

You know, reasonable science, reasonable science should suggest that an intelligent and powerful supernatural creator had to be out there and still is. But although science should recognize that because it's the only reasonable explanation, to know who He is and to know how He created, science must bow its knee to the Scripture and the God of Scripture.

Our sole source of knowledge is the Bible...the Bible. Evolution is an act of faith, irrational faith. Creation is an act of faith, revelational faith. I don't know about you, but I believe the Bible and I believe the Word of God. Evolution is a twentieth-century religious sect that denies reason and denies revelation. Creation is the worship of the true God in perfect accord with reason and revelation.

So I go back to where I've started. Either you believe in an eternal God or you believe in eternal matter, or eternal energy, or eternal amoeba...nothing in between...nothing in between. You were either a materialist who believes in the eternality of matter, or you are a supernaturalist who believes in the eternality of God. That's the only two choices there are.

What happens to a world that rejects the creator and replaces Him with material? What happens to a world that replaces the Creator God with faceless time, chance, matter, energy? What happens?

William Provine(?) of Cornell University stated it clearly, quote: "The implications of modern science are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No inherent...listen to this...moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life," end quote.

That's right. If we're just the result of chance, nothing matters. There is no moral standard, there is no ethical standard, all you're left with is tragedy and despair. If this universe is the result of impersonal forces, if this universe is faceless, if it's pitch dark out there because nobody's there, that makes a tremendous difference in my life. But if there is a creator and if that creator showed His face in human form in Jesus, and if He is a loving, saving, blessing God who stands behind this creation, that makes all the difference in my life.

And you know, the Bible...I'm so glad...the Bible doesn't start like this, "I know you guys are going to find this hard to believe but in the beginning, God." It doesn't do that. It just says, "In the beginning, God..." There has to be something in the beginning. The evolutionist would say, "In the beginning, amoeba...in the beginning, matter...in the beginning, energy." The Bible says, "In the beginning, God..." And in John 1, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made by Him. And without Him...this says it...without Him was not anything made that was made." That's another way of saying nothing evolved.

Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God," not by evolution. "The worlds were framed by the Word of God." This is repeating...it's in Genesis, it's in John, it's in Hebrews. And as I said at the beginning, either you believe it or your don't.

We can conclude then that evolution is a false religion. And why in the world would we want to bring it into the Bible? Why would we want to borrow from the false religion of evolution and impose it upon the straightforward account of Genesis? For what? That's an assault on the revelation of God.

The Bible tells us how energy got here, it came from God. It tells us how matter got here, it came from God. It tells us how the heavens and the earth were formed, God did it. That's all we need to know. Nothing could be more logical than that. An intelligent creator God made it. And here come the evolutionists with all their lies and their disregard of Genesis and why in the world do we buy into that and try to impose that on the Scripture?

Evolution is a false religion. Here are the principles its based on, just to give you another perspective.

One, evolution is pure science. That's what the evolutionists would like you to believe. It's pure science, it's a closed system founded on reality not on the illusion of a God.

And secondly the evolutionists would say that evolution is equal to rationality because it excludes miracles and the supernatural. But, friends, there comes a point in which the supernatural is the only rational thing.

Thirdly, and this has been adapted from Philip Johnson's wonderful book, Reason in the Balance, thirdly, evolution is liberating because it eliminates God and His commands which restrict free sexual behavior.

Fourthly, the evolutionist says his religion is democratic because every man is his own source of moral judgment, since there is no God, no moral judge, no law.

Fifthly, evolution is broad because it allows a believe in God just not the biblical God.

That's the religion. You want to know what the tenets of the religion of evolution?

One, evolution is pure science, they say, it's a closed system founded on reality not the illusion of a God.

Two, it is equal to rationality because it excludes irrational miracles and supernatural interference.

Three, evolution is liberating because it eliminates God and His commands which restrict free sexual behavior. And, folks, I want to tell you, that's what drives the whole thing. They love their sin.

Fourth, evolution, they say, is democratic because every man can be his own source of moral judgment.

And fifth, evolution is broad because it allows belief in God whatever you want Him to be except the God of the Bible.

Amazing, isn't it? People fighting reason, embracing absurdity to avoid accountability to the eternal judge.

Let me close tonight by taking you over to Romans 1. And this is just a pertinent statement from God that addresses those who reject Him. Romans 1 verse 18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...listen to this...who suppress the truth because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so that they are without...what?...excuse, for even though they knew God they didn't honor Him as God or give thanks, they became futile in their speculations, their foolish heart was darkened, professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man, birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures." And it all starts in verse 18, the wrath of God is unleased on these people who replace the supernatural with the natural, who replaced God with creatures. This is God's judgment on them.

Now two weeks from tonight, next week is a baptism on Easter Sunday, but two weeks from tonight I want to go back and start in Romans 1(I think he meant Genesis 1) because I want to unfold this passage to you a little bit. Then we'll go to a number of passages in the New Testament that show you why you have to have a creationist view or you impact negatively the gospel, okay? So, that will be two weeks from tonight. Let's pray.

Our Father, this is so important for us to have our faith again encouraged. We don't need to be caving in to the supposed wisdom of the world, those who know you not. Give us a firm and resolute, strong confidence that Your Word is true, that every Word of God is pure as Scripture says, that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, that no scripture comes by private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by t he Holy Spirit. Remind us that You created the world in the way that You said, that there wasn't anything in this universe created that You didn't create. By You the worlds were framed. Father help us to know You as the creator, to know that the worlds were framed by Your Word and You did it so marvelously and magnificently in six days as it's outlined in the book of Genesis. Strengthen our faith in the God who created, the God who redeems sinners. We are overwhelmed at Your greatness, the vastness of Your intelligence and Your power and the sweetness of Your mercy toward us, and we thank You for it in our Savior's name. And everybody said...Amen.

[pumpdoc 2]

Good gracious my eyes hurt and I got just to the 1st paragraph, what a waste of bandwidth

[Ash1 0]

If you're not gonna read the whole thing, they might as well remove you as moderator. Anyway, you were not invited

[Max Mosley 2]

This article is the third in a series discussing evolution and creationism. Part I introduced the subject by defining evolution and creationism and discussing some typical tactics creationists use to promote their viewpoint. Part II considered science and whether evolution and creationism are scientific. This article can be read without reading the previous two but it is recommended that you read them first.

This article focuses on the evidence and usefulness of evolution and creationism. Creationists will frequently claim that there is no evidence of evolution (common descent).We will begin by considering what the evidence is for common descent. Following that we can look at how useful evolution is in the sciences. Finally we will see whether there is evidence for creationism and the usefulness of creationism as a theory of origins.

Evolution is a complex subject that draws from many sciences. There is an incredible amount of information relating to the evidence and use of evolution. We will only barely scratch the surface of the subject in this article. The goal, however, is to provide a high level overview of the topics - with a few examples - in a manner that shows how they relate to one another and makes the case that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, that evolution is extremely useful and important as a concept, and that creationism is not supported by the evidence.

1. What kinds of evidence support evolution?

If you are at all familiar with the debates between evolution and creationism, then you have undoubtedly heard the creationists' cry for "proof" of evolution (common descent). As should be clear from previous discussion, science doesn't deal in absolute proofs. Scientific theories are provisional and are supported by evidence or data. Proof in science is not the same as proof in mathematics.

Creationists also seem to be demanding direct observational evidence that evolution happened. Obviously, without time travel, this is not possible. Does this mean we can't reasonably conclude that common descent is, in fact, the case? No - no more than a jury can't come to a judgment in a court case without a direct observation of the crime. In fact, "proving" common descent is much like proving a case in a court of law. Suppose you are part of a jury for a murder trial and the evidence presented to you is that:

* the suspect is a large male and the victim is a small female,

* the suspect was found holding a smoking gun and standing over the victim's body,

* the gun is owned by the suspect,

* there were no fingerprints but the suspect's on the gun,

* there were no other weapons found at the scene of the crime,

* the bullet that killed the victim has been shown to have come from the suspect's gun,

* the suspect was seen arguing with the victim before the shooting,

* the suspect had a known hatred of the victim and had threatened the victim in the past,

* the suspect had a history of violent activity that had been directly witnessed (although not at the level of murder),

* gun shots were heard just before the suspect was discovered standing over the victim,

* the suspect and victim were seen running down a dead-end alley right before the shooting,

* and no one else was seen in the vicinity.

However, there was no witness to the actual shooting. Would it be reasonable to find the suspect guilty of murder even though no one directly witnessed the crime? Most people would probably say the answer is yes. Just so with evolution.

While we don't have direct observational evidence of past evolution in action, we do have an abundance of evidence that all support the actuality of common descent. We have the "smoking gun." While you can philosophically argue that the evidence isn't complete, this ignores the fact that, when it comes to the real world, the evidence is never complete. There is always something that can be called into question. Holes in the evidence should not be ignored - indeed, we should try to fill them. But the idea that the huge amount of evidence that supports evolution means nothing if there are missing pieces is ridiculous. There is as much evidential support for the general theory of evolution as there is for any other scientific theory; more than some. So what is the evidence for common descent?

The evidence for common descent comes from a variety of sources and there are a number of ways it could be organized. One productive method is to note that there are two basic types of evidence: direct and inferential. Direct evidence consists of observations of actual evolution and knowledge of the principles involved therein. Inferential evidence is evidence that does not involve direct observation of evolution but from which we can infer that evolution has actually taken place.

The following sections will lay out the evidence for evolution with some commentary on how it relates to evolutionary and creationist ideas. There are literally millions of pieces of evidence and it is not possible to catalogue them all. Instead, you will find here a general overview of the main types of evidence with a few examples. Those interested in exploring the subject in more detail can consult the literature references provided, as well as the links to sites with more information which have been included in the bibliography.

2. What is the direct evidence for evolution?

As mentioned previously there are two basic categories of direct evidence that support the idea of common descent. The first is an understanding of the genetic principles that make evolution possible. The second is observed instances of evolution.

The direct evidence for common descent supports evolution because:

* we understand the basic mechanisms by which change can take place,

* we have actually seen change take place,

* there is no known reason why large-scale changes couldn't take place over successive generations,

* there have been billions of years for evolution to work, and

* there has been a huge number of organisms on which evolution could operate throughout history.

Given these facts alone, it seems reasonable to think that evolution would have taken place. If you consider the fluidity of species demonstrated by ring species (discussed later), the case for evolution on a large scale is even more compelling. When you add in natural selection and the likelihood of many environmental changes over time, it becomes even more probable that large scale evolution has taken place.

These are enabling evidences. They demonstrate that common descent is possible and maybe even likely. However, they don't conclusively show that common descent occurred, because no one was actually there to observe it over such a long period of time (remember our lack of an eyewitness from the murder trial). For that, we will have to turn to the inferential evidence. However, first we should examine the direct evidence for evolution more closely in the next three sections, starting with how an understanding of genetics supports the idea of evolution.

3. How does genetics provide evidence for evolution?

The basic definition of evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population of organisms over time. All of evolution is based on genetic change. While scientists still have a lot to learn about the workings of genetic code science has built up a large volume of knowledge about how the genetic material of living organisms works. While there are a lot of details still to be learned we have a pretty good understanding of what DNA does in general and, equally important to evolution, how DNA changes.

The foundation of evolution is not just working DNA but changing DNA. The primary mechanism of significant change in DNA is mutation. That DNA is subject to mutation is a fact. This has been directly observed. In addition, many of the mechanisms of mutation are understood including mutations that can lead to drastic changes in an organism. So, there are understood mechanisms by which change can be affected.

All living organisms have in common that they posses genetic material that is subject to these mechanisms of change. What's more, we understand that the characteristics an organism possesses are determined by its genetic code. Its genes are largely what makes an organism what it is. These facts, that 1) DNA determines the nature of an organism and that 2) there are mechanisms through which DNA can be modified, are the basis of evolution. It is through these facts that evolution happens.

Now, given that DNA makes the organism what it is and DNA is subject to change it seems reasonable that, through successive changes that are passed to successive offspring that large-scale changes in genetic code can take place over time. The only way this would not make sense is if some mechanism were identified which would prevent such accumulation of changes from happening. No such mechanism is known.

So, we have a mechanism for encoding the characteristics of a life form, a mechanism for this code to be changed, no known mechanism to definitively limit the amount of changes that can take place, and lots of time for changes to take place. The very basis of evolution, genetics, supports the idea that common descent is at least possible.

I cannot do justice to the subject of evolutionary genetics in this article and I have had to make very broad, sweeping statements to keep to a reasonable scope. To really understand these ideas you need to do some reading on genetics. The important aspect to keep in mind is that genetic change is possible and there is no known mechanism that would prevent successive changes from accumulating over time resulting in large-scale changes.

4. Aren't mutations always harmful?

The key area of disagreement between creationists and evolutionists regarding genetic operation is that the former claim that genetic change cannot go beyond a certain point. Usually there is no support offered for this position, but sometimes a case is made that mutations are generally detrimental to an organism, and that if too much change took place over time, the organism would not be viable.

The question is open as to what percentage of mutations which actually affect the organism are likely to be detrimental or beneficial. The vast majority of mutations are likely to be neutral or may even have no effect at all. However, it seems quite certain that both detrimental and beneficial changes can take place. Furthermore, there are a variety of ways in which the effects of detrimental mutations can be mitigated: sexual reproduction is one, and there are certainly others.

Ultimately it is rather subjective, as both sides are speaking theoretically. The creationist side theorizes that changes over time must result in inviability of an organism (or sometimes that survival is so unlikely as to be equivalent to being impossible). This is the "magic line" which cannot be crossed. Yet there is no evidence for this absolute statement and no analytical model to support it.

Evolutionists theorize that, despite the possibility or even likelihood of mutations being detrimental, there are mechanisms which would allow organisms to thrive. Several such mechanisms have been identified.

First, severely detrimental mutations would kill an organism or prevent it from passing on its genes. Second, currently living organisms do carry genes with detrimental mutations, and yet these organisms thrive. Given that evolution has had billions of years and many billions of organisms to work on (which would tend to weed out large-scale detrimental mutations), the "unlikely" survival of organisms with mutations doesn't seem so unlikely any more.

Thus while the conclusion that extensive changes have occurred over time is based on a subjective interpretation of the data, the evolution side has some evidence to support the idea that it is possible, while the creationist side has none to demonstrate it is not possible. It is worth mentioning that anyone claiming that something is impossible has a much higher hurdle to jump. In any case, what is important here is that there is an established mechanism of change which makes evolution possible.

5. Has evolution ever been observed?

In addition to understanding the basic mechanisms, there is another major piece of direct evidence for evolution. Specifically, evolution has been observed numerous times: not high-order changes, but significant changes within species as well as speciation (changes leading to descendant organisms being classified as different species).

So, it is not just theory that changes in organisms can occur over time - it has been directly observed. Given this, it is logical to think that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.

What's more, the observed instances of evolution demonstrate that the idea of natural selection is a workable one. The environment can exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature. The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we woiuld expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

There is also a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale. To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

As before, there is not enough space here to do justice to the documented instances of evolution, but the information is there for those who want to find it. The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection.

6. What is the inferential evidence for evolution?

Essentially, there are three main kinds of inferential evidence for common descent:

* homologies among currently existing living organisms,

* biogeography and

* the fossil record.

Evidence from the fossil record also relies on the idea of homology, so we need to examine what homology means first before we delve into either type of evidence.

First, it is important to understand that there is actually more than one meaning of homology. Homology has a specific meaning within the realm of evolution, but we will not be using that meaning in an effort to avoid circular reasoning. After all, we can't "prove" evolution using terms that assume evolution. Instead, we will be using a more general meaning for homology. Homology refers to similarities between species that are not functionally necessary.

In pre-evolutionary terms, the alternative type of similarity would be an analogous similarity. As an example, the wings of birds and bats are somewhat similar in structure and function. However, their similarity can be explained by the similarity of their function. This is an analogous similarity. In a homologous similarity or homology, the similarity cannot be easily explained or explained at all functionally. The next several sections deal with homologies among living species.

7. What are anatomical homologies?

There are an enormous number of homologies between living species, and it is not possible to list more than a tiny fraction of the examples here. However, you will get a general overview of the types of homologies with a few examples of each. There are basically three categories into which the homology evidence falls:

* anatomical,

* embryonic and

* biochemical.

Despite some overlap between the categories, these three are a reasonable way to separate the evidence. The embryonic is mostly a subset of the anatomical but is nevertheless a special case and bears some discussion on its own. There is also an overarching theme to all of these homologies - hierarchies - that provides some of the strongest evidence for common descent. But the first things to consider are the actual homologies themselves; later we will look at how they fall into hierarchies and the significance of this fact.

Most of the traditional evidences for the idea of common descent came from comparative anatomy. It is still a powerful category of evidence with a wealth of examples that support the idea of evolution. The basic concept of anatomical homologies is that different species show many morphological or physiological similarities which don't make sense from a functional perspective.

If species actually arose independently (naturally or through a divine act) one would think that each organism would have characteristics that were uniquely suited to its nature and environment. That is, an organism's anatomy would function in a manner most suited to its particular way of life. And yet virtually all organisms have anatomical similarities with other very different species which, based on our knowledge of biology, biochemistry and biophysics, don't make any sense functionally.

There are countless examples of these kinds of homologies. One frequently cited example is the pentadactyl (five digit) limb of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). When you consider the vastly different functions of the various limbs of all of these creatures (grasping, walking, digging, flying, swimming, etc.) there is no functional reason for all of these limbs to have the same basic structure. Why do humans, cats, birds and whales all have the same basic five digit limb structure? (Note: adult birds actually have three digit limbs, but embryonically these digits develop from a five digit precursor.)

The only idea that makes sense is if all of these creatures developed from a common ancestor that happened to have five digit limbs. This idea is further supported if you examine the fossil evidence. Fossils from the Devonian time period, when tetrapods are thought to have developed, show examples of six, seven and eight digit limbs - so it is not as if there were some limitation to five digit limbs. Four limbed creatures with different numbers of digits on their limbs did exist. Again, the only explanation that makes any sense is that all of the tetrapods developed from a common ancestor that happened to have five digit limbs.

In many homologies, the similarity between species is not actively disadvantageous in any apparent way. It may not make sense from a functional perspective, but it doesn't appear to actually harm the organism. On the other hand, some homologies do indeed appear to be positively disadvantageous.

One example is a cranial nerve that goes from the brain to the larynx via a tube near the heart. In fish, this path is a direct route. What is interesting is that this nerve follows the same route in all species that have the homologous nerve. This means that in an animal like the giraffe, this nerve must make a ridiculous detour down the neck from the brain and then back up the neck to the larynx area.

So, the giraffe has to grow an extra 10-15 feet of nerve compared to a direct connection. This recurrent laryngeal nerve, as it is called, is clearly inefficient. It is easy to explain why the nerve takes this circuitous route if we accept that giraffes evolved from fish-like ancestors.Another example would be the human knee. Rearward articulating knees are much better if a creature spends most of its time walking on the ground. Of course, forward articulating knees are great if you spend a lot of time climbing trees.

Why giraffes and humans would have such poor configurations if they originated independently is something that remains for creationists to explain. The most common creationist rebuttal to homologies of any kind is frequently of the "God created all creatures according to some pattern which is why different species show similarities" variety. Ignoring the point that we would have to consider God an extremely poor designer if this were the case, this explanation isn't really an explanation at all. If creationists are going to claim that some plan exists, it is up to them to explain the plan. To do otherwise is just an argument from ignorance and is equivalent to saying things are the way they are "just because." Given the evidence, the evolutionary explanation makes more sense.

8. What are vestigal organs?

Many of the bones and organs found in various species show homologies similar to those described previously. A particular type of homology of interest is what is called a vestigial organ or structure. There is some confusion or controversy over this term. Vestigial does not mean useless or nonfunctional (although vestigial organs could possibly be such, it is difficult if not impossible to prove that any particular structure is actually functionless). The term "vestigial" is used in the sense of an organ no longer or not being used as it is in most other animals. There are homologous structures in various animals that can be identified as being the same basic structure but, in some cases, that structure will be used in a very different or odd manner compared to most of the organisms that have it.

An example of such a structure is the pelvis of whales. All tetrapods (including whales) have pelvic bones. In most animals the pelvic bones are needed in order to be able to move the lower or rear set of limbs for the purpose of locomotion. In some species, such as whales, these limbs don't exist for the most part - although vestiges of them may remain.

Despite this lack of any need for them, whales still have pelvic bones. They are quite small compared to their counterparts in other animals, but they exist. Perhaps they serve some function such as helping to support the whales reproductive anatomy, but there are many different types of structures which would be better suited to such a task.

The question is, why would a whale, which basically lacks lower limbs and doesn't need pelvic bones to move, have pelvic bones that are homologous to creatures that do need pelvic bones to move? Similar homologies exist for snakes and legless lizards. Once again, the only explanation that makes sense is if these creatures evolved from a common ancestor along with all the other tetrapods.

Another common (and frequently misunderstood) example is the appendix. In humans, the appendix has little apparent function, although it now appears that it may store some immune cells. However, the analogous organ in many other species does have obvious function. Moreover, the human appendix is positively disadvantageous in the sense that it is subject to nasty infections that can be fatal. The appendix is a vestigial organ since it does not serve a function like the homologous organs in other animals. So, the question becomes, why do humans have an appendix? (Or why does the human appendix not function like the homologous organ in other animals?) Evolution, the idea that we all have common ancestors, provides a meaningful answer. Creationism does not.

Summary of Anatomical Homologies

In the preceeding two sections you have seen several examples of anatomical homologies - similarities with no apparent functional explanation, between significantly different species. There are numerous other examples that can be found in just about any decent biology textbook. Some homologies can be shown to be positively disadvantageous for the organism that possesses them. Some homologies exist for vestigial structures. (Vestigial structures can also be found at the molecular level as well as the anatomical.) Evolution provides a meaningful explanation for why these homologies exist.

9. What do embryos tell us about evolution?

There is no need to spend much time on embryology, but embryonic homologies deserve a little extra explanation. What is interesting about the development of animals is that the embryos of animals will show many interesting features that are not seen in the fully developed animal.

As the embryo develops it goes through a variety of stages, many of which show homologies between different species. One example has already been given: bird limbs. Birds are tetrapods and, as previously mentioned, tetrapods all have five-digit limbs. However, an adult bird appears to have a three-digit limb in its wings. This might appear to be a problem until you examine birds' embryos, and then you will find that this limb develops from a five-digit precursor. Another example is teeth in some toothless whales. Some toothless whales develop teeth as embryos that are absorbed later in embryonic development.

Embryology provides a strong source of homologies that need to be explained. Why should a toothless whale develop teeth that are later absorbed? Why should organisms which are so different as adults have so many similarities as embryos? If life forms developed independently, one would think that their embryonic development would be distinct and reflect what the organism will look like when it is fully developed. Why should a bird's three-digit limb develop from a five-digit limb? It makes no sense if organisms developed independently.

The evolutionary answer is that evolution is conservative - it makes use of what has gone before. From the point of view of a natural process with limited resources, developing something new is much more difficult than modifying what already exists. The embryological similarities are explainable by common ancestry. Whales develop teeth embryonically because they evolved from ancestors which had teeth. Birds develop their three-digit limbs as embryos from five-digit limbs because they evolved from five-digited ancestors. Such development makes sense in light of evolution.

10. What can biochemistry tell us about evolution?

We are moving progressively smaller in terms of the size of the structures whose homologies we're considering. Advances in the understanding of the biochemical processes of life have provided a wealth of evidence in support of evolution. Biochemical homologies provide some of the strongest evidence for evolution - partly because of the level of detail they provide, and partly because the nature of some of the homologies makes any explanation other than evolution seem even more farfetched than with the larger-scale homologies. There are a variety of different avenues of biochemical evidence for evolution, but most of them are either examinations of genetics or of proteins. First we'll look at general issues then move on to specific examples.

Protein Homologies

There is no need to spend much time on protein homologies because proteins are coded by genes, so in a sense, they are reflective of genetic homologies. However, they are being considered independently because there has been a lot of work done on examining proteins. The understanding of genetics is a relatively newer science, and while more and more data is becoming available regularly, at this point in time proteins may have been studied more than genes.

A protein is a string of amino acids. Proteins range in size from around 50 amino acids to thousands. Proteins are among the most important chemicals in life: in addition to making up a good chunk of the structure of many organisms, proteins are involved in regulating or controling many of the functions of a living organism. The characteristics of a protein are determined by the sequence of amino acids of which it is constructed.

There is a homology between all livings things regarding amino acids because the same twenty amino acids are found in most kinds of living things. These twenty are a small subset of the amino acids that occur naturally (~250) and there is no known reason why these particular twenty amino acids need to be used over some other subset of amino acids. If different life forms originated independently, there is no reason to think that the same twenty amino acids would be found in most of life. However, it does make sense if all life evolved from a common ancestor that happened to use these twenty amino acids.

Homologies can be found not only among the constituents of proteins but also among proteins themselves. One important point to note about proteins is that, in many cases, smalls changes in some of the amino acids that make up a protein do not appear to have much if any effect on the functioning of the protein. Thus we can have a set of proteins that do essentially the same thing but are not identical.

For some proteins it is estimated that changes in a significant number of the amino acids from which it is constructed will not affect its function. Hemoglobins are such an example because there are actually several types, all of which serve the function of binding oxygen in the blood and yet differ in their amino acid sequences. Hemoglobins are found in a wide variety of life forms and they are all very similar in structure. Given that there are so many different sequences of amino acids that could make a functional hemoglobin molecule, we can ask why the various hemoglobins among vastly different creatures are so similar. Evolution provides a meaningful answer.

As was stated before, there are lots of examples of protein homologies between different organisms, but genetic homologies are more interesting because genes code proteins (somewhat of an oversimplification but accurate enough), so they represent a more basic form of homology. It is to these which we will turn next.

11. What are genetic homologies?

Genetic homologies are similarities between the genetic codes of different living organisms which cannot be explained simply by functionality. There are an abundance of particular examples, but the biggest example is the common genetic mechanism itself: Why should all living creatures share the same basic genetic structure? It is not chemically determined. It has been shown scientifically that there are (probably many) other alternatives that would work for coding proteins (which is essentially what DNA/genes do). For instance, DNA uses only four bases out of the many naturally occurring bases (>80). It has been shown that other base codings are possible. Why does all of life use DNA with the same four bases?

Why should every single life form on the planet share the same basic genetic mechanisms? It actually goes beyond just the genetics since there are other biochemical aspects which are shared by all life: for example, the common use of ATP as an energy storing molecule. There are other alternatives to this molecule, some of which are even more efficient at storing energy.

If individual life forms arose independently, why would all life share these basic characteristics? The shared biochemical mechanisms are among the widest shared homologies in life. Most of the homologies described in previous sections are shared by some subset of living organisms, but when we get down to the molecular level, we find homologies that cut across all living organisms. Once again, if life forms arose independently, there is no reason to think they would all share these characteristics, especially given that alternatives are known to exist. These homologies argue strongly for common ancestry to all life.

As previously noted, the primary creationist argument against biochemical homologies is some sort of "divine" plan - and the same rebuttal applies. There is no coherent, scientific argument that would explain this evidence other than the theory of common descent. Non-scientific explanations are, of course, possible and creationist arguments generally fall into this category. However, they do nothing to detract from the evidential support for evolution since evolution operates within the realm of science.

12. What is "junk DNA?"

Among many examples of genetic homologies, the most interesting are in what is frequently termed junk DNA. Junk DNA are basically pieces of DNA that have no function (or in some cases, such as introns, they produce no protein but may be involved in regulation of the gene). When the DNA is transcribed, these pieces of DNA either do not get transcribed at all or are only partially transcribed, with no final result (i.e., a functional protein) being produced. You can cut out or modify most of this junk DNA without affecting the organism.

There are several varieties of junk DNA including pseudogenes, introns, transposons and retroposons. In many organisms (such as human beings) the vast majority of their DNA is of the junk variety. As an example, in humans there is one particular family of junk DNA called Alu sequences that are repeated some million times or so, and this one family alone accounts for about 5% of our DNA. There are numerous other examples.

What's more, with much of this junk DNA we can make pretty good guesses as to how it came to be. A lot of it (such as pseudogenes) appears to be copies of other pieces of DNA that have mutated such that they are no longer functional. There are a variety of mutations that can result in non-functional genetic code, so junk DNA essentially represents errors in our DNA.

Why is junk DNA so interesting? An analogy from the courts may prove useful here. Proving that someone has copied copyrighted material can sometimes be difficult, as in some cases you would expect the material to be similar since it covers the same topic or comes from the same sources. For example, phone number databases would be expected to be very similar since they contain the same basic information.

However, one excellent way to determine whether something has been copied is if the errors in the source have been copied as well. While you could argue that, even if highly unlikely, the material is similar because it has similar function, it is very hard to explain why some material would have exactly the same errors as some other material if it were not copied. Companies that sell products such as phone lists or maps routinely insert fake listings to protect themselves from copyright violations.

The same can be said of DNA. It is hard enough to explain (if you don't accept evolution) why some functional pieces of DNA show great similarities. It is pretty much impossible to rationally explain why nonfunctional DNA, erroneous DNA, would be very similar between different species. Why would genetic code that doesn't do anything and which clearly appears to be the result of mutations be similar, or in many cases identical, between different organisms? The only explanation that makes any sense is if this DNA was inherited from a common ancestor. Homologies between junk DNA are probably the most powerful of the homology evidence for common descent, as common descent is the only rational explanation for them.

There are many examples of homologies between junk DNA, a number of which can be found in Zeus Thibault's Proof of Macroevolution series. We will address but a few of them here.

Pseudogene equivalents are genes which are identifiable as some functional gene in another organism but which have a mutation which has rendered them nonfunctional. There are three sets of genes found in many species that have pseudogene equivalents in primates, including humans. They are:

* several odorant receptor genes,

* the RT6 protein gene, and

* the galatosyl transferase gene.

The mutations which made these genes inoperable are shared among the primates. It is important to keep firmly in mind that there are numerous mutations that can render a gene nonfunctional. Yet not only do primates have pseudogene versions of these genes that are functional in other creatures, but these pseudogenes have been made nonfunctional by the same mutations - they have the exact same errors in the genes. This makes perfect sense if this genetic material was inherited from a common ancestor. Creationists have yet to come up with a rational alternative explanation.

Summary of Biochemical Homologies

The biochemical homologies offer some of the strongest homology evidence for common descent. This is due the universal existence of some homologies across all life forms, as well as the large number of possible biochemical alternatives that life forms could have used, but didn't. While all homologies support the idea of common descent, some biochemical homologies such as those in junk DNA provide especially strong evidence, since their very nature makes it exceedingly unlikely that they would exist for any functional reason. Common descent offers a meaningful explanation for these homologies.

13. What is the "Hierarchy of Life?"

The many homologies between living organisms offer powerful evidence for evolution in and of themselves. However, there is another way of looking at the data that ties the various homologies together into an even more powerful form of evidence, the hierarchy of life. If common descent actually happened, the general theory of evolution predicts that:

1. All of life should be groupable into a hierarchical, nested tree of organisms which shows the closeness of their relationships to each other; and

2. No matter what metric you use to develop the tree, you should get very similartrees.

To recognize what a powerful prediction this is, you have to consider a few key points. First, outside of evolutionary theory, there is no reason for species to fit into nice nested trees at all. In fact, you would expect that they would not form such trees, since many of the characteristics they would be based on would be independent variables. You would expect to find contradictions that would prevent you from organizing life into a hierarchical, nested tree which has, by definition, a "root" or common origin point. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. The vertical direction is time and the horizontal is change of characteristics of life forms. (a) Common descent; ( Transformationism. Note that species can change significantly but that they have independent starting points. No common ancestry.; ©, (d) and (e) Creationism. (d) and (e) are creationist explantions for extinctions and/or appearance of new species over time such as are shown in the fossil record. Note that while the creationist paradigms are drawn as stright lines some minor variation might be allowed (i.e. within " kinds quot;.)

With a small number of attributes you might be able to make some subtrees just by chance even if life forms arose independently. However, it would be incredibly improbable for you to form a consistent set of trees from different, essentially independent characteristics. Given the number of species to group and the number of possible characteristics, there are an enormous number of possible trees that could be formed. Many times the number of atoms we would expect in the universe.

The improbability of forming fairly consistent hierarchies from characteristics of lifeforms which arose independently makes the creationist claims about the improbability of abiogenesis or the spontaneous origin of the universe seem incredibly likely by comparison. (Of course, creationist claims about abiogenesis and cosmic origins are largely flawed or irrelevant as well but, that's another article.) If we just consider large groupings of organisms, for example the 29 major taxa, there are over 1036 possible ways to arrange the classes into a tree.

Possibly the most compelling evidence for common descent is that, not only do life forms fall into nice hierarchies based on just about any set of characteristics you would like to look at, but every set of characteristics you choose to group by yields trees that are very similar! The same basic phylogenetic tree (courtesy of Zeus Thibault) can be arrived at by independently looking at similarities of anatomy, proteins, DNA, or other biochemical characteristics. The only rational explanation for this is if all life originated from a common ancestor.

You would expect life forms to fall into nested trees of similarity if all life arose from a common ancestor. The fact that life forms do form these sorts of consistent trees is an amazing verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and a powerful piece of evidence that it is correct. As more genetic codes are decoded and more comparisons are made, they continue to fall into place. With the amount of work on decoding the genomes of various organisms that is going on today, new pieces of evidence for evolution are arriving regularly. The general theory of evolution has withstood the test of all the data.

Summary of Homology Evidence

The homologies among life forms offer incredible support for the general theory of evolution. These homologies come from several different sources including anatomy, embryology, and biochemistry, and include special homologies among junk DNA that only make sense from an evolutionary perspective.

All of science is provisional, so there is always room for doubt where science is concerned. However, given the lack of a functional explanation for these homologies, the similarities in nonfunctional and even detrimental characteristics, the large number of alternatives available, and the consistent set of hierarchies formed when organisms are grouped by these characteristics, any doubt moves from "barely reasonable doubt" to "unreasonable doubt." What's amazing is, we haven't even gotten to the fossil evidence yet! Evolution is extremely well supported without even considering the fossil evidence. In the next sections, we'll briefly look at biogeographical evidence and then move on to examine the fossil evidence.

14. How does geography inform us about evolution?

Biogeography (the distribution of life forms over geographical areas) is another piece of evidence that supports evolution. If evolution were in fact the case, you would generally expect species that are closely related to be found near each other unless there were a good reason for them not to be, such as great mobility (for example, sea animals, birds, and animals distributed by humans, or, over longer time frames, plate tectonics).

In general, the biogeographic distribution of species supports evolution. Species are distributed around the globe largely in relation to their relationships to one another, with some understood exceptions. For example, marsupials are found almost exclusively in Australia, whereas placental mammals (not counting those brought there by humans) are very rare in Australia. The few exceptions are explainable by continental drift (remember that South America, Australia and Antarctica were once part of one continent).

There are many other examples of such expected biogeographical distributions. If life forms arose independently, it would make as much if not more sense for them to exist wherever an environment could support them, as opposed to being distributed according to their apparent relationship to other life forms. Biogeographical distribution according to biological relationship makes perfect sense if organisms evolved.

15. What does the fossil record tell us about evolution?

When you hear talk of evidence for evolution, the first thing that frequently comes to mind for most people are fossils. So why place the fossil record at the end of the list of evidence? The main reason is to demonstrate that there is an incredible amount of evidence for evolution without even looking at a single fossil. Our modern wealth of knowledge about anatomy, embryology, biochemistry and biogeography provides ample evidence for evolution on its own.

But the fossil record does have a unique characteristic that none of the other evidence does: it is our only actual glimpse into the past where common descent is proposed to have taken place. As such it provides a valuable - or perhaps invaluable - piece of evidence if it supports common descent. The second reason for discussing the fossil record last is to tie it in with the other evidence already addressed.

The history of life, as represented by the fossil record, generally supports the theory of evolution without considering other evidence. If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that is suggestive of incremental development. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms. Thus, this succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is suggestive of evolution. There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurances, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall impression one gets from the fossil record is one of incremental development.

The fossil record is not suggestive of the idea of sudden generation of all life as it appears now, nor does it support transformationism. That the fossil record in general suggests evolution is certainly an important piece of evidence, but it becomes even more telling when it is combined with other evidence for evolution.

For example, the fossil record is consistent in terms of biogeography. We would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with present biogeography, the phylogenetic tree and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics. And so it is - in fact, some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent.

If evolution did happen, then you would expect not just that the fossil record would show a succession of organisms as described above, but that the succession seen in the record would be compatible with that derived by looking at currently living creatures. For example, when examining the anatomy and biochemistry of living species, it appears that the general order of development for the major types of vertebrate animals was fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals. If current species developed as a result of common descent then the fossil record should show the same order of development.

In fact, the fossil record does show the same order of development. In general, the fossil record is consistent with the developmental order suggested by looking at the characteristics of living species. As such it represents another independent piece of evidence for common descent, and a very significant one since the fossil record is a window to the past.

We should also be able to make some predictions and retrodictions as to what we would expect to see in the fossil record. If common descent occurred, then the organisms found in the fossil record should generally conform to the phylogenetic tree we constructed as described previously.

The nodes on the tree at which a split occurs represent common ancestors of the organisms on the new branches of the tree. We would predict that we could find organisms in the fossil record showing characteristics that are intermediate in nature between the different organisms that evolved from it and from the organisms from which it evolved. For example, the standard tree suggests that birds are most closely related to reptiles, so we would predict that we could find fossils which show a mix of bird and reptile characteristics. Fossilized organisms that posses intermediate characteristics are called transitional fossils.

Exactly these sort of fossils have been found.

We would also expect that we would not find fossils showing intermediate characteristics between organisms that are not closely related. For example, we would not expect to see fossils that appear to be intermediates between birds and mammals or between fish and mammals. Again, the record is consistent.

16. What are "transitional fossils?"

Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are generally called transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution.

There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.

Mention transitional fossils to a creationist and you will most likely get a dirty look. Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms.

Creationists will critique transitional fossils in a variety of ways. They might claim that a transitional fossil is not proof of an evolutionary relationship since you can't prove that it is, in fact, an ancestor of any later organism. They are right. We can't prove that. As has been explained, transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship - they are not proof of it. Once again we run into problems with creationists looking for proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence.

Without actually going back in time and watching the birth/hatching/etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, we can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. Even if you accept evolution, you can't be sure some organism is actually an ancestor of existing species - it might be a side-branch on the evolutionary tree that died out.

However, transitional fossils are just one more piece of evidence that is suggestive and supportive of evolution. Even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitionals fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory.

Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue.

In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real transitionals are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much.

Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists try to put forth the strawman that you need "absolute proof" of an evolutionary relationship to accept it, they insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another.

This is a useless and spurious criticism. I have already shown how we cannot say for certain that any particular fossilized organism was definitively in the evolutionary history of any other organism. But that doesn't matter. The fossil record is still extraodinarily suggestive of evolution in general, and specific fossils are suggestive of evolutionary relationships between specific organisms. We can make very well informed, provisional conclusions (this is science) as to the evolutionary history of many organisms. And these conclusions are supported by the evidence; in many cases by both fossil and nonfossil evidence.

Summary of Fossil Evidence

While the fossil record is certainly not "complete" (fossilization is a rare event, so this is to be expected), there is still a wealth of fossil information to be considered. If you examine the fossil evidence, you see that the fossil record uniformly supports the idea of common descent. The general order of the fossil record, the correspondence of the order of organisms found in the fossil record with the order suggested by examining living organisms, the correspondence of the fossil record to the phylogenetic tree (including transitional organisms), and the biogeography of the fossil record all support the idea of common descent. Since the fossil record is a record of historical organisms, it strongly suggests a process of evolution occurring throughout history.

17. How is evolution useful?

Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth century's most eminent evolutionary biologists, had it right when he said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Previous sections of this document should provide some idea as to why this is true. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the theory of evolution the biological sciences would be disjointed, and much within biology would not make any sense because evolution provides the explanatory framework.

Evolution explains the similarities in anatomy and biochemistry between different living organisms, including the vestigial components. Evolution explains why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism but then lose those characteristics in later development. Evolution explains why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function. Evolution explains ring species. Evolution explains drug resistant bacteria. Evolution explains biogeography. Evolution explains the fossil record. And evolution ties all these pieces of data together into a coherent whole.

The science of evolutionary biology is also of very practical use in addition to its power as an explanatory concept. In a 1995 article in Science, Douglas Futuyma listed several ways that evolutionary biology is being utilized:

* Biodiversity and conservation: Analysis of risk of extinction due to "inbreeding, reduced gene flow, specialization, and constraints on genetic and ecological responses to global change."

* Phenotypic expression in novel environments: Use of tools already in use in studies of natural systems, like "molecular markers of gene flow, gene geneaologies as evidence of gene exchange, analyses of phenotypic plasticity, and the 'costs' of adaptation".

* Novel processes and products: This includes production of antibiotics, flavors, pigments, biopolymers, and enzymes.

* Bioremediation: Production of tolerance to waste products as well as bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.

* Wildlife management: Identification of stocks by genetic analysis.

* Agriculture: Identification of disease resistance factors in related wild plants, pesticide resistance, management of pest adaptation to pesticide, pest resistant cultivation.

* Health sciences: Causes of senescence, treatment of fever, tracing origins of pathogens, evolution of virulence in viruses and other pathogens, measurement of genetic diversity in pathogens and hosts, mechanisms of drug resistance, evolutionary epidemiology.

The last item touches on the concept of "Darwinian medicine," an idea that is having a considerable impact on the way that some researchers think about the causes of diseases. If you consider how living organisms evolve over time and the impact that diseases have on the fitness of these organisms, it can lead to interesting thoughts on the causes of diseases. Also, some of the uses listed above can involve genetic engineering, which is intimately related to evolutionary biology.

Thus, in addition to being a powerful explanatory concept, evolution also has a great deal of practical use. If creationists got their wish and evolution were eliminated from the sciences, it would do irreparable damage to the life sciences and to the quality of life.

Creationists might argue that you could have some of these items without "macroevolutionary" concepts or common descent, but this can only be done if you accept their false dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution - remember that in evolutionary science there is no real difference between the two. It is simply a matter of degree, because there is no rational way you could deny the overwhelming evidence of macroevolution/common descent while keeping the idea of microevolution. To remove one is to cripple the other, and eliminating the idea of common descent would destroy the explanatory power as well as the productivity of evolution.

18. Is there evidence for Creationism?

Is there evidence that supports the "theory" of (fundamentalist) creationism? Not in any meaningful sense. As discussed in the previous section, because creation theory in general does not have specified boundaries, just about anything could be considered "evidence" for or against it.

Most of the creationists' evidence is of the god-of-the-gaps nature, meaning that creationists try to poke holes in science and then stuff their God into them. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: "Since we don't know how this happened, it must mean God did it." Yet ignorance is never an argument and cannot be considered evidence in any meaningful sense.

There are also some positive forms of evidence/arguments cited by creationists. Two currently popular ones are "Intelligent Design" and "Irreducible Complexity." Both focus on the apparent complexity of aspects of nature, insisting that such complexity could only arise through supernatural action.

Irreducible complexity is flawed in numerous ways and is also essentially an argument from ignorance: "I can't understand how these things could arise from natural processes, therefore they must not have."

Intelligent Design is similarly flawed but is too complicated to get into here - links have been provided here and in the bibliography section to sites that argue for and against these claims.

In general, these arguments aren't particularly meaningful here since neither of them exclusively supports the fundamentalist creationism. Even if you accepted both of these concepts, you could still argue that the deity of your choice was guiding evolution such that the characteristics we see came to be. So, even if their flaws are ignored these arguments can at best be considered evidence for a general creationism as opposed to biblical creationism, and therefore do nothing to alleviate the tension between the latter and evolution that is the focus of these articles.

The only other types of "positive" evidence that creationists put forward are either so preposterous as to be almost unmentionable or demonstrably false. These include claims such as that Noah's ark has been found, flood geology, invalid dating techniques, or human bones or tracks found with dinosaur bones or tracks.

All of the claims remain unsupported and/or have been debunked numerous times, yet still they persist despite the best attempts of reason and evidence to stamp them out. Few serious, intelligent creationists put forward these types of arguments. Most creationist "evidence" consists of an effort to refute evolution as if doing so would render their "theory" somehow more believable. This is a false dichotomy, but it is rather irrelevant in any case - unfortunately for them, evolution is as strong as it's ever been.

19. What can we conclude?

Several key points have been made in this article:

1. The general theory of evolution (common descent) is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

2. Fundamentalist creationism is not indicated by the evidence in any meaningful fashion.

3. Creationist critiques of evolution are generally invalid since they rely on misunderstandings of the science or theory involved.

4. Evolution is a useful science and a powerful conceptual paradigm without which the life sciences would not make sense.

Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by an enormous quantity and variety of evidence. This evidence includes anatomical, embryological and biochemical homologies, the hierarchical relationships of living organisms, the fossil record and biogeographical evidence. The evidence is, at best, not supportive of and generally inconsistent with the idea of independent creation of life forms. Evolution is the unifying principle of the life sciences - "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

So, does all of this mean that evolution is necessarily true and creationism is wrong? No, it doesn't. Remember that all science is provisional and evolution is science. Creationist critiques of evolution as not being science are wrong, but there are some points to keep in mind. As we previously pointed out, fundamentalist creationism generally falls outside the bounds of science. Evolution is the only scientific theory of the origin of modern life forms (as opposed to the actual origin of life itself for which there are competing scientific theories, such as several theories of abiogenesis and the theory of panspermia [life from outer space]). In terms of explaining the current diversity of life forms, evolution is the only scientific game in town. Not only is evolution science, but the creationists are just flat out wrong when they say the evidence does not support evolution. Evolution is as well supported a scientific theory as there is.

So, the point is not that evolution is an absolute truth, but rather that evolution is a good scientific theory which is supported by the evidence. If new evidence comes to light, evolution is as subject to change or rejection as any other scientific theory. Since creationism deals with the supernatural it is outside the bounds of science.

Creationism could be right, and the world could have been created by a trickster god who wanted to make it look like evolution happened even though it didn't. Of course, in such an environment anything is possible - the universe might actually be thirty seconds old and we were all created with false memories to make us think it is older. This is just as plausible as creationism - in fact it is a form of creationism. This is why such ideas are not part of science: they are untestable and essentially useless.

However, despite the fact that evolution is good science and is supported by the evidence, creationism has been and continues to be an influence on society. In the next and final article of this series, we will look at how evolution and creationism have played out in society through history to the present and address the issue of what should be taught in public schools.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evol...on_evidence.htm

[Quiet One 15]

Next on this thread: I will post the complete phone list of all the Smiths in USA!

(j/k Muzza, I read a few lines of your post, seemed interesting enough to be worth reading back at home)

[Max Mosley 2]

It is actually interesting? Maybe I'll read it too then.

[monza gorilla 1]

Is there is or is there ain't? Neither can be proven unequivocably. End of thread.

[milly 0]

Is there is or is there ain't? Neither can be proven unequivocably. End of thread.

Really? Is it not true that you can prove something does exist, but not that is doesnt?

I'm just stirring

[monza gorilla 1]

Ah, but what of Descartes? Or Schrodinger's cat? Is it or isn't it?

Well stirred, by the way.

[AleHop 0]

Is it about copy&paste the largest chunk of text?

I said this thread should have been closed when it was still good.

[Ash1 0]

Is there is or is there ain't? Neither can be proven unequivocably. End of thread.

Strange you say that. Because this synopsis was not evident at the beginning of the thread.

[Ash1 0]

Is it about copy&paste the largest chunk of text?

I said this thread should have been closed when it was still good.

Nothing wrong with the truth, the whole truth ...every now and then.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Nothing wrong with the truth, the whole truth ...every now and then.

Well when you find the truth, feel free to cut and paste it up there

[pumpdoc 2]

Well when you find the truth, feel free to cut and paste it up there

Don't you dare

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Don't you dare

That's OK he has to find it first

[Ash1 0]

You can't handle the truth.

[cavallino 2]

Judging by the attitude of some on the forum, religion seems to be passed on by an attitude of smugness and arrogance. The way to convert someone is to beat them down by incessantly proclaiming your superiority simply because you know the truth and they don't. And it is the truth because you know it's the truth. Conversion seems to be a process of relentlessly telling people that they are wrong and you are right, that you know the truth and they don't, that they have seen the truth, and if you haven't, that's a reflection on you and you only - not on the absolute truth, not on the person proclaiming the absolute truth. Religion is like an infinite line of false prophets, promulgated through logical fallacies.

Yes, I jsut discovered indoctrination. Someone must have before me, there's already a word for it.

[pabloh20 1]

Judging by the attitude of some on the forum, religion seems to be passed on by an attitude of smugness and arrogance. The way to convert someone is to beat them down by incessantly proclaiming your superiority simply because you know the truth and they don't. And it is the truth because you know it's the truth. Conversion seems to be a process of relentlessly telling people that they are wrong and you are right, that you know the truth and they don't, that they have seen the truth, and if you haven't, that's a reflection on you and you only - not on the absolute truth, not on the person proclaiming the absolute truth. Religion is like an infinite line of false prophets, promulgated through logical fallacies.

Yes, I jsut discovered indoctrination. Someone must have before me, there's already a word for it.

You should feel right at home then, Cav

[Quiet One 15]

Judging by the attitude of some on the forum, religion seems to be passed on by an attitude of smugness and arrogance. The way to convert someone is to beat them down by incessantly proclaiming your superiority simply because you know the truth and they don't. And it is the truth because you know it's the truth. Conversion seems to be a process of relentlessly telling people that they are wrong and you are right, that you know the truth and they don't, that they have seen the truth, and if you haven't, that's a reflection on you and you only - not on the absolute truth, not on the person proclaiming the absolute truth. Religion is like an infinite line of false prophets, promulgated through logical fallacies.

Yes, I jsut discovered indoctrination. Someone must have before me, there's already a word for it.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

[Max Mosley 2]

A wise man once said "I only got to the first line and my eyes already hurt. What a waste of bandwidth".

[Ash1 0]

This is not difficult. You either believe there is a God or you don't. There are only two choices. But only one is right.

So why do so many believe in it? What is the real reason?

The explosion in scientific exploration is revealing more about our universe than we've ever known. And with the evidence clearly "telling out the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), we ought to be more certain than any of our forebears about the infinite power and wisdom of the Creator.

Science has uncovered whole wondrous worlds in nature that previous generations never knew existed. The more we see of creation, the more it reveals the order and the wisdom and the goodness of the One who designed it all and spoke it into existence.

But at the same time science is learning all of this, scientific theory is becoming increasingly atheistic. Incredibly, as the power, sophistication, and harmony of the universe come more and more to light, many modern scientists try all the more desperately to explain away the notion of a divine Creator who rules the universe. Why? Why do they suppose such an ordered, systematic creation is the result of mere chance?

Scripture has the answer. Romans one informs us that unbelievers will devise systems of thought to suppress the truth about God from their consciences.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18-22).

When men and women refuse God, they become enslaved to sin, enveloped in darkness, entrapped by futility. Forsaking God, they forsake truth, light, and eternal life. And so evolutionary atheism is nothing more than a product of their futile speculation, a weak attempt to deafen the din of an accusing conscience.

[Quiet One 15]

Oh, boy...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

This is not difficult. You either believe there is a God or you don't. There are only two choices. But only one is right.

So why do so many believe in it? What is the real reason?

Blah, blah, God, blah.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

You are wrong. The truth is: Nando is the best driver. Renault is the best team.

He said the truth, Andres, the truth....

...and anyway, how dare you bring F1 into this discussion - what do you think this is, an F1 forum?