Creationism or Evolution?
Is it possible to know that God exists even though we cannot see or touch Him? We believe that radio waves exist despite being unable to see or touch them. The evidence for their existence is compelling. We turn on a television and see and hear someone many miles away. Adjusting the antenna changes the quality of the picture, and disconnecting it results in no picture at all. Obviously, the television is receiving the pictures and sound from the air. Consequently, we 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, our existence indicates that God exists. But, you might ask, what about the theory of evolution? Couldn’t 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 merely a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves through 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, which 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 can’t see or touch Him.
The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago, the elements making up the universe were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature. The mass exploded (the Big Bang), and over millions of years, this chaotic event formed an orderly solar system with planets and stars. After our 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 can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory with deliberate actions, millions of dollars, and the brightest minds?
What about the fossil record? Isn’t 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 just important to evolution—they are evolution. No transitional forms mean no evolution!
What is a transitional form?
Imagine you are watching a cartoon illustrating how a fish evolved into an amphibian. At the beginning, you would see a fish. As the cartoon progresses, the fish’s fins begin to shrink and change shape until they form 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.
“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 cell’s 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 DNA. DNA contains millions of bits of coded information necessary for the building and development of our bodies. The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s. 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, meaning systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles resembling the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested but narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, which would kill us 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 what about the alleged ape-men? No one has ever found a fossil indicating 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, and 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 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, and within the same quarry, a broken lower jawbone was found among many other types of bones. 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 that refute such an idea. For instance, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we can infer:
(1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder
(2) The simple will never produce the complex
(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, no matter how far back in time 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?