News and views that Americans should think about but are not reported on or discussed by the American mainstream media.
The "theory" of evolution.
Theory. Definition: an idea or belief formed by speculation.
Have you ever seen a mechanism evolve?
In the case of evolution, the ideas (theories) are formed based on what Darwin speculated may have happened a long time ago. Many scientists try to make similar speculations when they observe things in the world today and speculate about what happened long ago. No matter how much people "want" the theory of evolution to be true, the fact is that it is still just a theory - an idea - a speculation. The scientists were not there. They don't know for certain. I will grant that to the person who does not believe in a God Creator, creation is a theory also. None of us were alive during creation, so I can see how it can be considered speculation too. However, I would hope that one would be open minded enough to at least acknowledge that both could be considered theories and both are unprovable by the evidence that is left nowadays... no one was there... unless, of course, you believe that God was there and recorded it for us. But, let us assume that we have no record for now and examine the evidence that we do know about.
I am a mechanical engineer and I know a lot about the design of things. I have designed many mechanical mechanisms throughout my career - some simple, some complex. I can honestly attest to the fact that I have never seen a mechanical mechanism "evolve". I have never seen a mechanism that has not been designed by someone who has at least some rudimentary intelligence. I have never seen a mechanism evolve from a piece of steel or plastic.
An evolved watch?
If we are walking on the beach and see a watch in the sand that appeared to wash up on the shore from the ocean. Do we assume that the watch has evolved into a watch out there in the ocean somewhere or do we assume that someone had designed and assembled the watch? We assume that someone has designed it and assembled it and that it was probably lost by the owner.
An evolved comb?
A simple comb
Let's go even simpler, if we see a comb wash up on the beach, do we assume that it evolved out in the ocean somewhere? Of course not, we attribute the design and manufacture of the comb to an intelligence - in this case, man. What is a comb or a watch compared to the complex design of life - even the life of a bacteria not to mention the vastly complex design of an eye which is only a part of an even more vastly complex design called man.
Has man created even simple life?
Even though man has designed these remarkable machines and assembled them, has man ever created a living organism? Has man ever been able to design and assemble a biological mechanism? Has man ever designed such a complex biological design such as the human eye or brain? Obviously not. Man has put together previously designed living organisms (like manipulating existing tissue to make it grow), but man is far from actually creating a living organism from a soup of dirt and water. Just because biological design is different than mechanical design, why do many believe that mechanical mechanisms are designed by intelligence (not evolved) and the much more complex biological design happened by chance (evolved) when they would never consider the much simpler design of a comb as having evolved? Biological design is obviously magnitudes more complex since we have not been able to design or make biological life yet, but we can relatively easily design and make a mechanical/electrical object.
A random number generator is at the core of the "Theory" of evolution.
Belief in evolution requires belief that time and chance created life. Has "chance" or "time" ever designed anything or created anything? Can a random number generator create? I have never seen "chance" design an automobile or blender. I have never seen "time" design nor assemble a watch. An airplane may look like it is alive because it moves and appears to have intelligence to an unknowing tribal resident who has never seen one, but we all know that the life and intelligence comes from a created living being(s) that make it move and direct it so that it looks intelligent, but the airplane itself is as dead as a lifeless stone. The lowest bacteria on the planet is obviously far more complicated than the airplane to create - otherwise, man would have created life by now.
Is chance smarter than man?
If "chance" could create life while basically being a blind and dumb random number generator, don't you think that thinking mankind could have created life by now? If man has been here thousands of years and has had the advanced technology that he has had for the past 200 or so years, don't you think that thinking mankind could have out-thought a random number generator by now and created life? Aren't we smarter than a random number generator?
Which is really harder to believe?
That dumb and blind chance/time created life, a design magnitudes more complex than the space shuttle or that God (infinitely smarter than man) created the complex design of not only life, but the huge variety and complexity that we see in all of creation. As one who is smarter than chance/time, I can only conclude that God did it.
Behold the cardinal.
Just now a cardinal came to the feeder outside of my window. The cardinal is one of the most beautiful birds around. How could evolution come up with the red color and the black mask? How could anyone think that the appearance of this bird is not designed by someone? What need would there ever be in the "evolutionary process" for a beautiful red color and a black mask? Obviously no need, but for the pleasure of the Creator.
Who taught the cardinal how to fly?
I could spend my lifetime flapping my arms trying to fly and never get any closer to flying like a cardinal. My son and grandson and his grandson could do the same all resulting in not getting any closer to being able to fly than I am today. What would make me even want to do such a thing since it is clearly impossible that I am ever going to be able to fly in my lifetime. Yet, some scientists want you to believe that some bird in the form of something between the fish that came out of water that "evolved" into living on land and this pre-bird thing that ran around flapping its arms (or "natural selection mutated appendage") trying to fly for eons and eventually developed wings to fly. My question is: why would a pre-bird thing start to flap his arms (or appendage mutation) in the first place knowing that he could never gain flight. Maybe he was a visionary who could see that eons from now, his hard word would pay off - really???
Some would probably say that birds are dependents from flying reptiles. Feathers and going from cold blooded to warm blooded are certainly huge issues, but let us give them the benefit of the doubt for now. The same problem exists with reptiles that wanted to fly. THey could spend their whole lifetime flapping arms/legs and get nowhere. It is complete nonsense.
The land fish fossil. I recently heard about a fossil discovery where an fish like creature had "evolving" appendages that looked more like arms than fins. The head of this skeleton was closer to a crocodile than a fish. It was claimed that this fossil was clear evidence of a creature that was "evolving" from the sea to land. It was stated that the purpose of the crocodile like head was so that this creature could catch prey on land. Big question: if these were the first creatures moving from sea to land - what prey would there be on land to pursue? Obviously they weren't after plants with teeth like that and you wouldn't need a crocodile head to go after insects (if they were around by then). The obvious answer is that there was no prey on land because this creature was the first to move from sea to land. It is exceedingly difficult to take the logic of evolution seriously when their underlying assumptions contradict their theories in such an open way.
What about the young earth theory that creation relies upon.
Many have reservations about a relatively young earth based on some of the items listed below. I had the same reservations before I thought about them:
- What about all the stars and galaxies billions of light years away? Scientists tell us that there are billions of stars that are billions of light years away. I have never tried to understand the accuracy of this measurement nor how it is measured. It may be inaccurate to assume that they are accurate to begin with. However, let us assume they are accurate for now and if creation did happen as it is recorded in the Bible and an all powerful God did create the earth, the sun, the galaxies out of nothing, wouldn't creating light beams be a very small task? If we are receiving the light from these distant stars and creation was only thousands of years ago, is it possible that while God threw the stars up into the heavens, couldn't He have also thrown the light from them up too?
As a matter of fact, if you believe the account of creation in Genesis 1 is real and chronological as it says it is, then the text actually says that God made light before He made the stars:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
He did not specifically reveal the source of light - only that He made it. It wasn't until the forth day that He made the sun, moon, and stars. What is clear is that God made light before He actually made the sources of light.
Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
Gen 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
- What about the dinosaur? There is nothing wrong that assuming that dinosaur existed. The earth doesn't necessarily have to be old to believe that. Scientists that try to date them back millions of years are assuming that carbon dating is accurate and applicable for millions of years. The big word in that last sentence is "assuming". An assumption means that you believe it to be true, therefore, for the sake of your argument, you are saying that it is true. Again, the problem is that no one has been around for millions of years. The Bible does give us a clue though. At least one global catastrophic event in history has been recorded and has never been repeated since: The flood of Noah's time. The earth and nature have not continued on as it always has. Scientists who study short term phenomenon (perhaps like carbon dating) observe it for a short period of time where everything is at a relatively steady state and then apply it for a very long distance of time. They assume that they can extrapolate what they have observed in 20,30,40 years and extrapolate it out to millions of years. It is like looking at an hour on the stock market and assuming that it will behave like that hour for thousands of years. Huh? Things fluctuate. Life is not always steady state and neither is this world. The ice age that happened relatively recently in history is a prime example of this. If we look at data for the past 50 years, could we ever have predicted that an ice age ever occurred? In the same way, couldn't the global flood and ice ages have had an impact on the "steady state" assumption? Coming from an engineer's background who is familiar with the limitations of assumptions, I answer that with an emphatic yes!
But, even if we assume that the dinosaur fossils are showing carbon dating that dates them back millions of years ago and assume that the steady state assumption is correct, is it really that difficult for a God who has created the earth, stars and galaxies to have made rocks that look like dinosaur fossils, made impressions that looked like footprints and create carbon dating in those rocks that indicated that they could be assumed to be millions of years old? Man is assuming that God cannot do any of this because they are assuming that there is no God. If one actually believes that there is a God and He created all, then it would not be anything for Him to have created rocks that look like dinosaur bones (even though He may have never created them - but only created the rocks), put them in the earth, and watch mankind discover them. Who knows, He may have put them there just to "test" man to see if he would be faithful to believe in Him still.
By now, you may have thought that I have gone off the deep end.
I probably have gone a bit overboard, but what I am trying to illustrate is that a lot of scientists, atheists, philosophers, and others have set the rules for the debate about creationism. They come with the assumption that there is no god and ask for proof. Christians are abiding by their rules and get mired down by them. Instead, Christians should abide by the rules that a creator God is assumed and the burden of proof is on those who say that He doesn't. When they assume that He is not, they put our thinking into a box where we think that God is limited to their rules when in fact, He created everything. If He has the power to create everything, couldn't He have created EVERYTHING - including the "evidence" that the scientist actually studies? If He really is all powerful, can't He create life from death, a birth from a virgin, light from darkness, fossils from rocks, or anything that pleased Him and for His purposes and not ours? Of course, He can if He is The Creator, He can do anything that He wants to. We just have to have the faith to believe!