Reflections on the Holy Scripture

The study of the origin of life and the universe is one that has intrigued people for centuries. This area of study was brought to the forefront of science when Charles Darwin introduced his Theory of Evolution when he published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859.12 The Theory of Evolution is now one of the most famous theories in modern science. However, evolution is not always in line with what the Bible says about the origin of the universe. Furthermore, studies on evolution have falsified many aspects of this theory.

The Creation in Detail

The Biblical account of the creation can be found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. According to this account, God created the entire universe, including Earth and everything on it, in six literal days.

  • On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth, and light was separated from darkness.
  • On the second day, God created the sky.
  • Dry land was created on the third day. On this land, God created plant life.
  • On the fourth day, God created the sun, the moon, and the stars as light sources and as a means of measuring time.
  • God created water-dwelling animals and birds on the fifth day.
  • On the sixth day, God created land animals. He then created Adam and Eve in His own image to rule over the rest of His creation.
  • On the seventh day, God rested and declared the seventh day holy.

Chapter 2 goes into much more detail on the creation of the Garden of Eden and Adam. Adam also names every living creature he comes across. After this, God puts Adam in a deep sleep and removed one of his ribs. Using this rib, He created Eve.

Evolutionary Theory in Detail

Evolution in biology is simply "descent with modification".8 In other words, As species reproduce, over time, the frequency of different genes changes, which results in a change in the species as a whole. Central to biological evolution is the idea that all life forms that have ever existed descended from a single common ancestor.

Natural Selection

Natural Selection
Image Unavailable
The green frogs have a much better chance of surviving, so over time, their numbers increase.
Image Courtesy: 18

Lets say that in a population1 of frogs, equal numbers of red, blue, and green frogs exist. The red frogs are more noticeable to predators, so most of them are eaten. The green frogs blend into their environment the best and are least likely to be eaten. Since the green frogs survived the most often, there are mostly green frogs the next generation. It is likely that after some time, the red and blue frogs will die out. Natural selection is a process that favors genes that benefit survival, allowing the "selected" genes to become more frequent.

Source: 18

Microevolution

Natural selection is just one process of microevolution. Microevolution refers to changes in the gene pool2 of a single population. This creates different varieties of species. Microevolution can occur by means of gene mutation, migration (where a member of one population moves to another population), and genetic drift (the random chance of gene frequency when reproduction occurs), in addition to natural selection.

Source: 8

Macroevolution

Macroevolution is evolution that changes a population into a different species. According to the Theory of Evolution, enough microevolutionary changes result in speciation, where one species evolves into two or more different species. Extinction leaves a gap in an ecosystem that speciation should eventually fill over time. In short, speciation is supposed to be the driving force of macroevolution, and by extension, evolution itself. What this means is that macroevolution should, according to the theory, increase the complexity of organisms over time. After all, mammals are far more complicated that single-celled organisms.

Source: 3

What Is Wrong with Evolution?

Within the last century, several new species have evolved.3 Evolutionists believe that this closes their case, and evolution can be regarded as fact. There is a glaring issue with this belief, as well as many other aspects of evolution that ultimately falsify the idea that evolution could possibly be the basis of all life on earth.

The Fundamental Problem

This is the single most important fallacy of evolution: scientists have never observed a way for evolution to cause species to get more complicated. Whenever speciation occurs, the gene pools of the new species are smaller than the gene pool of their ancestor. Evolution requires species to acquire more variation and more complexity. Otherwise, the only living things on earth would be single-celled organisms. Besides, scientists know that things go from high complexity to low complexity without intelligent input, according to the second law of Thermodynamics.

Genetic mutations should be the source of this increased complexity. Unfortunately for the theory, mutations have harmful effects far more often than beneficial ones. The few existing beneficial mutations only succeed in destroying information, exactly the opposite of what evolution requires.

Source: 10

The Stanley Miller Experiment

One of the most-cited "evidences" of evolution is the Stanley Miller experiment, which sought to show the validity of The theory that stands alongside evolution by attempting to show how life could arise without God — that is, from abiotic, or lifeless, chemicals. See Creation and Evolution. abiogenesis. Miller's objective was to show that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins necessary for life, could have formed by chance by simulating what was commonly believed to be the conditions of the earth's atmosphere billions of years ago. The gasses he used were ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor (which represented the early earth's ocean). In order to get these gasses to react, Miller sent an electric current, which represented lightning, through the gasses in his special apparatus after they had been heated at 100oC for a week. Sure enough, Miller found that he had synthesized numerous amino acids.

Image Unavailable
Stanley Miller and his apparatus.
Image Courtesy: 14

Following the experiment, evolutionists were ecstatic. What they failed to do was analyze that experiment to see if the results were valid. Critics of the experiment eventually revealed numerous flaws in the experiment itself.

  • Miller used a mechanism called a "cold trap" to separate the amino acids from their environment the instant they formed so they could be observed. Without this "cold trap", the amino acids would have been destroyed by the produced oxygen the moment they were formed.
  • The atmosphere Miller simulated actually isn't at all like what earth's atmosphere would have been. Miller deliberately used gasses like methane and hydrogen that would give him the chemical reaction he was looking for. Scientists agreed in the 1980's that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in Miller's artificial environment instead of the gasses he used. When Miller's experiment was repeated by J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen using these gasses, they failed to form any amino acids.
  • Many of the amino acid formed in Miller's experiment was "right-handed", which means their chemical structure faced the right. Right-handed amino acids are useless for forming proteins, so even if the amino acids did not react with other chemicals and were not destroyed, they could not possibly bond with each other and make proteins by chance.

Today, Miller himself admits that his experiment is not nearly as noteworthy as he once assumed, and even Harold Urey, who organized Miler's experiment, said:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

Source: 2

Yet Miller's experiment is still used by modern biology textbooks as evidence for abiogenesis.

Sources: 14 20 15

Entropy and Evolution

One of the fundamental physical laws of the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It may sound complicated, but it is actually a relatively simple concept. Basically, the law says things lose order and expel heat3 when they are not interacting with their surroundings. This loss of order and dispersion of heat is known as entropy, and in terms of chemistry, this often results in decomposition reactions4. Evolution requires a significant increase in order since according to evolution, organisms have grown much more complex over time.

As some people are quick to point out, however, earth interacts with other systems, such as the sun. It is quite silly to claim that evolution is powered by the sun, which evolutionists tend not to do, though it is still suitable to explain why the sun cannot power evolution. Firstly, the only natural mechanism known to harness the power of the sun is the chloroplast, the plant structure responsible for photosynthesis. According to the evolutionist, the chloroplast must have arisen by evolution, so evolution could not be powered this way. Furthermore, adding heat to a system as the sun does to the earth causes entropy to increase more quickly when the energy is not being used to power something else.

This leaves the evolutionist one more option, which is commonly embraced today: geothermal energy. The center of the earth produces enough energy for life to exist even in the deepest parts of the ocean, which virtually no sunlight can penetrate. Even in this scenario, the evolutionist must still overcome the problem of entropy because this geothermal energy is unfocussed; it will not power the chemical reactions necessary to form proteins and other molecules needed for life, so it only serves to increase entropy when no life exists yet to use it. As shown in the refutation of Miller's experiment, these molecules certainly could not have formed in the first place.

Sources: 13 11

Information from Nothing?

Every living thing on earth, from amoebas to trees to people, is packed with information. This information is encoded in DNA, which serves as the blueprint for all organisms. According to the theory of evolution, this "code" of sorts had to arise naturally, then thousands of "letters" (each unit of DNA) had to arrange themselves in precisely the correct order—all by chance.

Image Unavailable
DNA contains all the information necessary for life to exist.
Image Courtesy: 5

This demands that three impossibilities must occur:

  1. All information has an intelligent source; it cannot come into existence by natural causes, which is what evolution requires.
  2. Even if the language of DNA was established, thousands of the four types of nucleotide5 would have to arrange themselves in the exactly the correct order. The odds of this happening are essentially one out of 41000,6 a ridiculously astronomical chance.
  3. Even if the above two events happened, it would be meaningless without a way to translate the DNA into the language of proteins (the numerous types of RNA) and a way to actually make the proteins (ribosomes), all of which would have to be contained in a microscopic membrane.

In short, evolution isn't just highly unlikely—it's absolutely impossible.

Source: 16

What Makes Creation Believable?

With evolution refuted, where does that leave us? If Creation doesn't make any sense, there's no reason to believe it, either. However, there is plenty of evidence that supports Creation.

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity is an Intelligent Design is the scientific field that attempts to explain the origin and existence of life and the universe through a Designer. It is very much related to Creationism, though it allows some room for natural processes and does not identify the designer as a particular God. See Creation and Evolution Intelligent Design idea that says that certain parts or functions in an organism have several smaller parts that are all required for the part of function to work properly. The classic example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum, which was used by Dr. Michael J. Behe to introduce the idea in his work Darwin's Black Box. Dr. Dudley Eirich writes on Answers in Genesis:

The flagellum is a corkscrew-shaped, hair-like appendage attached to the cell surface, which acts like a propeller, allowing the bacterium to swim. The most interesting aspect of the flagellum is that it is attached to—and rotated by—a tiny, electrical motor made of different kinds of protein.

Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane.

Source: 7

According to the theory of evolution, any part that does not serve any function will deteriorate and eventually disappear from the species. Yet in order for the bacterial flagellum to be formed by evolution, several parts that serve no function would be formed before the whole motor system was even close to being fully established. So, it could never exist by any means other than by design. This holds true for many other organs, parts, and functions as well, including the eye, the circulatory system, and DNA replication (which is discussed here).

Source: 7

The Age of the Earth

If one uses the genealogies present in the Bible, it is possible to deduce that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. This is in direct contrast to the Theory of Evolution, which requires an Earth that is billions of years old. Evolutionists point to numerous findings that seem to hint at an billion-year old Earth. Many of these points, such as radiometric dating, are definitely invalid, however, and others can be explained by means other than evolution. One such means is Noah's Flood.

The Cell

The cell is one of the smallest things that make up life. If you where to be able to hold a cell in your hands, you would notice some common things between different cells from different organisms. All of the cells work together in some way, but we will look at a single cell right now.

The cell has a nucleus7 in the center. Within the nucleus, there is DNA. If you think about DNA like a zipper, you can pretty well visualize this next process. The DNA splits, like a zipper would, into two separate halves. Enzymes8 run along the DNA and construct a corresponding strand of RNA for one half of the DNA. This RNA is taken outside the nucleus and to a cell structure called a ribosome, which uses the RNA to make proteins.

The ribosome takes the RNA and feeds it like a tape player. The RNA goes through like the tape, and instead of sound coming out, proteins come out. There are many proteins that need to be created to sustain life. That is just one process of the cell.

This complicated process to form proteins, the very basic necessities of life, couldn't have occurred by random chance as Evolution implies. This process could only have spontaneously existed or else life wouldn't have ever continued. The only way for something like this to have been immediately assembled correctly is if it were created. Note the fact that the process of making proteins requires proteins to already exist. As discussed in the section about the Stanley Miller experiment, the amino acids needed for forming proteins would not have survived in the environment needed to form them. This simple fact strongly suggests that the whole system was created.

Evolution is incapable of explaining even the simplest life form. However, if God had created everything the way it was supposed to be, then all of life can be explained. The cell is one of the little things that cries out, "Hey! I was created!" All we have to do is listen.

Source: 4
Video: 6

Earth: The Most Delicate Balance in the Universe

You may not realize it, but the earth really is simply amazing. We just looked at things on the cellular level, but now let's look at things on a much bigger scale.

Gliese 581d
Image Unavailable
Artist rendition of a possible ocean planet.
Image Courtesy: 1

How about our Solar System? The earth is in a very crucial position to support life. If it were farther away from the sun, we would die from freezing to death or water freezing. If it were closer, we would die from overheating or vaporizing water. Earth lies in what is known as the habitual zone, or a region around a star in which the temperatures allow for liquid water to form.9 Water is a necessity for life. Without it, you and every other organism known to man would die. Water has a relatively narrow temperature range in order for it to exist as a liquid. Because of this, the habitual zone is relatively narrow as well. Most planets wouldn't be in the zone because of how narrow it is. Earth happens to be in the zone so that liquid water can exist. But of course, a small collection of other planets in other solar systems, such as Gliese 581d, also fall in the habitual zone so that they can support water and therefore life.17 However, this isn't the only factor that determines whether or not a planet supports life.

Water is not the only necessary thing for life to exist. The climate of the planet must be stable as well. Earth's climate is quite stable in that it doesn't get overly hot or overly cold too quick. Also, the earth doesn't build up heat as fast. Tectonic movement on the earth actually contributes to this moderation. As the plates on earth move, various gasses, most importantly carbon-based gasses, are pulled into the rocks. These gasses, if not properly moderated by tectonic movement, would quickly overheat the earth. Too much tectonic movement would destroy any life due to forming land, volcanoes, and even the release of dangerous gasses.

The tectonic movement is triggered by the core of the earth, but the Sun also contributes. The Sun is the correct mass and the earth is the correct distance so that the tectonic plate movement is not too much or too little. Mars, which is a little farther from the Sun, doesn't have enough tectonic movement because of the distance. Jupiter has a moon named Io which has a large amount of volcanic and tectonic activity because it is too close to Jupiter. Likewise, a planet too close to the star would have massive tectonic movement too much so for life to exist.

The habitual zone has just become more complicated. Now the planet must be the correct distance from the star to support water and at the correct distance for tectonic movement to be just right. For this too happen, the star must also be the correct mass. Considering the other planet, Gliese 581d, it is too close to its parent star. Tectonic movement would destroy life. Gliese 581d is no longer a candidate because it doesn't meet the requirements.

Source: 19

Earth is located in the exact right spot for life to exist. Water can form and the climate can remain stable. The chances of another planet meeting the requirements are very slim making life practically impossible unless God was there to set up the whole thing. Life is very delicate; even the slightest wrong thing can terminate it.

Bibliography
1. Astroprof. "Gliese 581d." Astroprof. WordPress, 16 June 2007. Web. <http://astroprofspage.com/archives/996>.
2. Bird, W. R. The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991. 325. Print.
3. Colby, Chris. "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology." The TalkOrigins Archive. 7 Jan. 1996. Web. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html>.
6. DNA Replication. YouTube, 12 Feb. 2008. Web. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtmOZaIvS0&NR=1>.
7. Eirich, Dudley. "The Amazing Cell." Answers in Genesis. Web. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp>.
8. Frankel, Josh. "Evolution 101." Understanding Evolution for Teachers. University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2006. Web. <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml>.
9. Greene, Nick. "Habitable Zone." About.com. The New York Times Company. Web. <http://space.about.com/od/glossaries/g/habitablezone.htm>.
10. Hodge, Bodie. "Are Mutations Part of the "Engine" of Evolution?" Answers in Genesis. 18 Feb. 2010. Web. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution>.
11. Lambert, Frank. "A Student's Approach to the Second Law and Entropy." Entropy Sites. Occidental College, 2008. Web. <http://entropysite.oxy.edu/students_approach.html>.
12. Landry, Peter. "Charles Darwin." Blupete. Web. <http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm>.
13. McIntosh, Andy. "Just Add Energy…" Answers in Genesis. 12 Feb. 2007. Web. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/12/just-add-energy>.
14. Oktar, Adnan. "Miller's Experiment." Darwinism Refuted. Web. <http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html>.
15. Oktar, Adnan. "Four Facts that Invalidate Miller's Experiment." Darwinism Refuted. Web. <http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html>.
16. Oktar, Adnan. "DNA Cannot Be Explained by Non-Design." Darwinism Refuted. Web. <http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_15.html>.
17. Ravilious, Kate. "Most Earthlike Planet Yet Found May Have Liquid Oceans." National Geographic. 21 Apr. 2009. Web. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html>.
18. Russel, Randy. "Changes to the Gene Pool: Microevolution." Windows to the Universe. National Earth Science Teachers Association, 25 Feb. 2008. Web. <http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/genetics_microevolution.html>.
19. University of Washington. "New Definition Could Further Limit Habitable Zones Around Distant Suns." ScienceDaily. 11 June 2009. Web. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610124831.htm>.
20. Taylor, Paul. "Ar We "children of God's Divine Evolution"?" Answers in Genesis. 17 Apr. 2006. Web. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0421.asp>.

Fix IE