Skip to comments.Creationism or Evolution?
Posted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Creationism or Evolution?
by Sebastian R. Fama
Is it possible to know that God exists even though we cannot see or touch Him? Well, we believe that radio waves exist and we cant see or touch them. And we believe it because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. We turn on a television and we see and hear someone who is many miles away. Adjusting the antenna changes the quality of the picture. Disconnect the antenna, and there is no picture. Obviously the television is receiving the pictures and sound from the air. Thus we can know that radio waves exist even if we cannot see or touch them.
Similarly, we can know that God exists because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. For instance, the fact that we exist is an indication that God exists. But, you might ask, what about the theory of evolution? Couldnt that explain our existence? No, not at all. A look at the evidence will show us why.
Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science. It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process. Creationists claim that a look at the facts rules out the theory of evolution. Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses. Thus, this would exclude God. However, it would also exclude radio waves. As we saw earlier, radio waves are not observable by the senses - their effects are. Likewise, God is not observable by the senses, but His effects are. Thus we can know that God exists even if we cannot see or touch Him.
The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature. The mass exploded (the Big Bang) and over millions of years this mother of all chaotic events formed an orderly solar system with planets and stars. After our own planet cooled down, a variety of complex and delicately balanced ecosystems consisting of tens of thousands of species of animals, fish, plants, and bacteria were formed by chance. All of this supposedly evolved from a burnt rock, which is all the earth would have been after cooling down. Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why cant the process be repeated in the laboratory with deliberate actions, millions of dollars and the brightest minds?
But what about the fossil record, isnt that evidence of evolution? Hardly! Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy. But more important is the fact that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution. No transitional forms means no evolution!
What is a transitional form? Imagine that you are watching a cartoon illustrate how a fish evolved into an amphibian. At the beginning you would see a fish. As the cartoon progresses, the fishs fins begin to shrink and change shape until they have formed legs. Each frame of the cartoon would be a transitional form. If evolution takes millions of years, then there should be billions of transitional forms for each evolved group. But we find no such thing in the fossil record. Even in the earliest fossil layers we find completed, complex life forms, such as clams, snails, jellyfish, sponges, worms, etc. No one has been able to find fossilized ancestors for a single one of them.
Another problem arises when we realize that even the so-called "simple" life forms are not really simple. Today we know that a cell is one of the most complex structures known to man. In a book titled "The Evidence for Creation" by Dr. G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland and Larry McLean, we find the following on page 113:
"The cell has turned out to be a micro universe containing trillions of molecules. These molecules are the structural building blocks for countless complex structures performing chains of complex biochemical reactions with precision a single cell surrounded by a cellular membrane exhibits the same degree of complexity as a city with all of its systems of operation, communication and government. There are power plants that generate the cells energy, factories that produce enzymes and hormones essential for life, complex transportation systems that guide specific chemicals from one location to another and membrane proteins that act as barricades controlling the import and export of materials across the cellular membrane."
In the nucleus of every cell is the DNA. DNA contains millions of bits of coded information information necessary for the building and development of our bodies. The function of DNA is more complex than a computers. Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?
Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.
But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.
Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.
Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.
Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?
Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
For Further Study
Early Church Fathers on Creation out of Nothing (Free)
Books - The Catholic Church & Science by Benjamin Wiker and Creation Rediscovered by Gerard J Keane and Science and Evidence For Design in the Universe by Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer.
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1 and Darwin's Dilemma
Prev. Essays Next
Why is it “Creationism” and not “Creation”?
Why is it “Evolution” and not “Evolutionism”?
Framing the argument the way the author did implies a bias.
Isn’t the most logical explanation that it is both
As I read the article, I realized the author believes that God created.
However, we who believe that God created must not succumb to the terminology of the evolutionists.
Creationists often slam evolution as being "only a theory." But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence, such as the theory of relativity or the atomic theory?
> Isnt the most logical explanation that it is both
The universe was created, and evolution is an ongoing process within that creation.
> an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence
With evidence, interpretation is everything.
Well, if I read the article right, it is stating there is no evidence for the "theory" in this case.
"Giving due weight to the data of faith and to scientific discoveries about the evolution of species, Catholic theology is not opposed to the idea that God could have infused a soul into an already-existing being, having previously prepared a body to suit it, thereby making it a 'man'. This way of explaining things is called 'moderate evolutionism'.
"In this connection, John Paul II, in his 22 October 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, after recalling the teachings of Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis, pointed out that recent advances in scholarship 'lead one no longer to regard the theory of evolution as a mere hypothesis'.
"But at the same time he said that there is not just one 'theory of evolution' but a number of such theories, and he indicated which ones are contrary to faith: 'The theories of evolution which, in line with the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit as something that emerges from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man'".
No. The theory of evolution is clearly contradicted by Scripture.
The Bible teaches that suffering and death came about as a result of sin, and the fall of man. Evolution teaches that bloodshed, pain, and death existed for millions of years before mankind showed up.
Humans are a relatively recent arrival on the evolutionary timetable. But in the book of Matthew (19:4-6), these are the words of Jesus:
Havent you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.
If both, which came first? While I semi-agree with you, it also lends itself to the chicken-egg type arguments - every living things needs a way to reproduce before it can endure/evolve else it would expire during the first generation. For evolution without creation, the odds against a grand accidental mixing of heat and chemicals grows substantially in that life would have had to have arisen from the mixture with the built-in ability to reproduce.
Given also the fact that every living thing goes through the same process (seed to germinaton to plant, and etc), it's hard to believe that evolution is not a fact.
Just because stars form through natural processes doesn’t mean that God did not create those stars. The author of this is a small minded blind fool setting up propaganda and straw men arguments because his faith is a small and weak pitiful thing that demands that God did things the way he can easily imagine.
False dichotomy, or reason?
I think you went off the map. I didn't see any thing of the kind.
I think this author makes a lot of unsupported assumption. The example of the microvilli is an example. Isn’t it possible that the humans with the closer spaced microvilli survived and the ones with further spaced ones died out. Also new bacteria are evolving all the time and the intestines are not the only way they can enter the body. When a new strain of bacteria develops it is sometimes more lethal and then it changes to be less lethal otherwise it would kill all of its hosts. And those people who’s immune systems are unable to fight it off die while those with better immune systems survive to pass on their genes.
As for there being no transitional fossils, I saved this from another thread on this subject when someone else provided it.
I don’t see why it has to be either/ or. Many people see evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence and there is also lots of evidence for the process of evolution. Why can’t both be true.
And maybe the scripture is wrong. Will you consider that? How does a book written thousands of years ago and full of arbitrary claims become the standard by which science is judged?
But isn't that a natural fixed process whereby each species produces its kind, where do we see the fish produce or evolve into bird or whatnot?