Creation and Evolution Defined
The Media Influence
Doubting Darwin
The True Nature of Evolution
Evolution Versus Minor Variation
Old Mother Earth?
The Fossil Record
The Dinosaur Dilemma
The Missing Link is Still Missing
The Genesis Flood
The Ark of Noah
The Importance of Truth
The two most common views which dominate the thinking of people today are, of course, creation and evolution. In this opening Chapter, we discuss these two popular concepts to see which one conforms best with the physical evidence in our world today.
Creation and Evolution Defined
To refresh our thinking, let's define the concept of modern evolution. The following statements are included in the basic tenets of the evolutionary model:
Natural selection is a process whereby mutational changes that are advantageous to the organism and increase its chance of survival will be passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a greater adaptability to the environment.
The other commonly accepted explanation for the origin of life is that of "special creation." This idea implies that a supreme being is responsibie for intelligently planning and designing the entire universe and for creating man to dwell upon the earth. Creation tells us that life is not accidental but has a devine purpose. The first two chapters of the book of Genesis contain a detailed record of the creation account.
There is obviously a considerable degree of contradiction between the concepts of creation and evolution. Unfortunately, most people have formed their opinion about origins based upon the statements and observations of others, rather than by carefully considering the evidence for themselves.
The Media Influence
During these days of modern communicaiton, the media has had a profound impact upon our lives. Television, radio, magazines, books, and newspapers are presenting ideals that strongly influence the thoughts and opinions of young and old alike.
It is indeed unfortunate that the media channels of our world today have succeeded in establishing the concept of evolution as a widely acceped scientific fact. It is continually offered as the only possible explanation for the origin of life as we know it today. Textbooks, magazines, and even nature films offer this ideology as factual either by direct statements or through subtle inference.
According to Webster, a fact is a bit of information presented as having objective reality. In other words, it can be proven to be truthful and accurate. Since the concept of evolution has never been proven, we can quickly eliminate it from the category of scientific fact.
It appears that the people who control the media are by and large evolutionist in their thinking, since the public rarely sees material supportive of any other point of view. The statements and theories related through the media are generally accepted without question by the silent majority. The media has such a profound influence upon our lives that we must be careful about accepting suspicious reports that are delivered to us as fact.
There are some questionable ideas which have been presented to the public over the years. They received wide public acceptance even through their validity has not been seriously challenged.
For example, geologists tell us that the earth is at least five billion years old. Many scientists state that man evolved at least one million years ago. Anthropologists report that dinosours became extinct around 70-100 million years ago. They also claim to have accurage scientific methods of determining the age of fossils and even sedentimentary rock. They lead us to believe that our oil deposits are a result of the decay of prehistoric life forms from the far distant past. We are informed that fossilization has given us the historical record to substantiate the claims of the evolutionary model. The evolutionist is the first to deny the idea of a world-wide flood as recorded in the Bible. We are led to believe that Charles Darwin was confident that his observations were correct. By the age-long process of mutation and natural selection, we are expected to believe that one species evolved into another. Finally, the idea of evolution is presented to us as a bonafide scientific theory.
Many, if not all, of these ideas are printed as fact in various magazines and textbooks and they are accepted with little hesitation by most people today. The universal acceptance of these statements has done a great deal to mold and shape the thinking of public opinion in favor of the evolutionary model.
If we allow ourselves to become indoctrinated by the popular opinions of society without examining the real evidence, we permit ourselves to be led around like a bull by the nose.
Those who favor the creation concept are apparently not influential enough to make a substantial public impact through the media. However, in the interest of truth, we owe it to ourselves to consider the evidence in our world so that we might clearly understand how life began.
A correct understanding of origins is very important because what a person believes about the past will ultime\ately shape his attitude about life's purpose and future destiny.
Doubting Darwin
Although many other philosophers hinted at the idea of evolution, Charles Darwin is commonly considered to be the founding father of this popular concept. In his two books, The Origin of Species and The Decent of Man, Darwin presented the ideas shaping the evolutionary model that is widely accepted today. Even though he indented to submit his conclusions only as a possible explanation, his work received such wide acclaim that it became misrepresented over the years. Many people would have us believe that Darwin was very dogmatic about his proposed ideas. However, after a look at some of his statements, you will have to agree that he was actually rather uncertain and careful not to overstate his intentions.
From the very outset of his major work, The Origin of Species, it is obvious that Mr. Darwin himself had serious doubts about the validity of his proposals. He frequently used words of conjecture, thus setting a tone of uncertainty about his conclusions.
In the opening remarks of his first book, Darwin states, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."(1) Darwin knew that his proposals could not be tested for accuracy. Therefore, he was careful to convey the true nature of his conclusions as supposition.
Darwin's uncertainty compared to the dogmatic attitude of modern thinkers leads to the conclusion that evolutionists are rather careless in their public approach to the question of origins.
From his observations, Darwin concluded that, if a variation or mutation occurred in a species that would improve its chance of survival, the resulting trait would take precedence over less desirable physical qualities. By this process known as "variation of species", Darwin concluded that over millions of years these minor changes would cause one species to evolve into another. His doubt about the accuracy of this prediction is apparent when we consider his own words in the following statements. "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?(2) But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"(3)
The absence of so-called transitional forms (commonly known as missing links) is a constant source of confusion to the modern evolutionist. Most scientists assume these intermediate forms did exist despite the overwhelming lack of evidence in the fossil record.
Darwin's awareness of the unimpressive fossil record prompted him to remark thus: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."(4)
After observing animals in the process of reproduction, Darwin was admitedly puzzled by certain unexpected results. In response to account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterild offspring, whearas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"(2)
He was asking why, for example, the mating of a horse and a donkey produces a sterile offspring. This observation alone is pretty good evidence that one species could not have changed into another.
Obviously, the doubts that Charles Darwin expressed in his own conclusions have been forsaken by people today who wish to convey evolution as a scientific reality.
The True Nature of Evolution
Science is defined as knowledge of the physical universe derived from observation. Even though evolution is commonly discussed in many scientific circles, it is really not scientific because it has never been observed.
Consider the comments of Dr. Dujane T. Gish, a well known authority on the fossil record. He states. "It is obvious, for example, that no one observed the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the conversion of a fish into an amphibian, or an ape into a man. No one, as a matter of fact, hs even observed the origin of a species by naturally occurring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed."(5)
Thus far we established that the concept of evolution cannot be considered a scientific fact since it cannot be subjected to serious investigation. Furthermore, it is also inappropriate to label evolution as a bonafide theory. We always hear it referred to as the modern "theory of evolution." Although a theory has an element of uncertainty about it, it is a scientifically acceptable principle based upon an abundance of scientific evidence. Therefore, a theory must be confirmed by observation. Since no one has observed this process working in nature, we are forced to conclude, by the obvious lack of evidence, that the concept of evolution does not qualify as a valid scientific theory.
Well then, can evolution at least be considered an hypothesis? By definition an hypothesis is a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. In other words, an hypothesis must be testable because it is based on data derived from scientific experimentation. By virtue of the fact that millions of years are required for evolution to occur, it is non-testable and therefore does not qualify under the category of scientific hypothesis.
If the concept of evolution is not a scientific fact, theory, or hypothesis, then what is it? The truth is that evolution is nothing more than a belief! It is simply a philosophy that requires faith to maintain and many evolutionists will admit to this. Evolution is a concept that people adopt out of choice, not necessarily because the evidence favors this point of view but rather because it is a popular position-one that people want to believe. The humanistic attitude demands a natural explanation for everything. Therefore, creation is rejected simply because it is unnatural and beyond human comprehension.
To give you an idea of how careless evolutionists are in overstating the true nature of their position, allow me to present a couple of examples. About ten years ago, Reader's Digest printed a condensed version of the book entitled, The Naked Ape. In the first paragraph of the article, Dr. Desmond Morris states rather plainly that is a fact that man evolved from ancestors of ape-like intelligence.(6)
Time magazine, probably the most widely read news magazine in the world, recently printed a cover story on the subject, "How Man Became Man." The article makes it clear, in a subtle tone, that evolution is responsible for the origin of human life. Yet, throughout the article, lack of convincing evidence forces anthropologists to use phrases of conjecture such as we believe, we theorize, and we speculate. This tells us that a lot of educated guesswork has gone into the present scientific thought on the origin of man.
Toward the end of the article, the following statement is made: "Still, doubts about the sequence of man's emergence remain. Scientists concede that even their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments, and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."(7) This statement confirms the fact that evolution has little evidence upon which to stand.
Now that we've examined the true nature of evolution, let us consider some more specific evidence with regard to the validity of this popular belief.