I can recall attending elementary school and being handed a large and heavy science book. It was full of charts and illustrations of amoebas, protozoan, skeletons, and anatomy transparencies. I recall the emotional rush and spiritual collision when I turned the page and saw the color fold out of the famous Ape, missing link, to the Neanderthal man, to the Java man, to the Piltdown man, to the caveman, to the modern man. I mentally tried to reconcile the apparent scientific depiction of evolution with my families rearing me as a believer in the Bible.
The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells therein. The science book appeared to teach me that species evolved (unfolding process; change. gradual development). Is science and the Bibles teaching of creation in opposition? The answer to this question is pivotal in determining the integrity of either. Many persons who claim to be secular humanist, atheist, skeptics, agnostics suggest that intellect and science discredit the creationist position. Many skeptics and humanist hang their academic hats on the premise that biology and science has truncated creation, and therefore disproved GOD!
Our goal at BARC is to present truths that will allow the reader to arrive at a rational conclusion concerning our origin. To that end we at BARC will chart our course towards our destination.
We will reveal for examination:
1.What has God said about creation in the Bible?
2.Is the Bible reliable?
3.What are the primary sources that perpetuate evolution?
4.What is science, and what is its source?
5. What has science and scientist said about creation?
6. What concepts and facts support creation?
The Christian when they are initially exposed to the Bible open the first page in (Genesis 1:1) and it reads; "God created (to cause to come into existence; to originate; to make) the heavens and the earth." In the same chapter it reads in 1:27, "God created man in his image." In verse 31 it goes on to say;" God saw everything he made (created) and said it was good."
(Psalms 8; reminds us that the heavens were the work of Gods fingers, the moon, stars, were established by God (sorry Carl Sagan).
(Job 38); speaks of God asking Job, Where was he when God laid the foundation of the earth? Where was he when He made the seas or made clouds and lightening?
(Psalms 24); informs us that The earth is Gods, and all that dwells therein.
(Psalms 146:6); tells us God made the heavens and earth, sea and all that is in them.
(Ecclesiastes 12:1) says; Remember also your CREATOR, you are not your own.
(Isaiah 40:28) says God is the Creator of the ends of the earth.
(Romans 1:20) testifies that men served the creature more than the Creator.
(Revelation 1:14) says that Jesus was the beginning and Author of Gods creation.
With so many text stating that mankind, the earth and universe was created by God, the question arises, is the Bible a reliable or authentic inspired manuscript or document? If you are unsure please read the section 'Inerrancy of Scripture.'
One of the most controversial and earth shaking events took place in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his notable book 'Origin of the Species.' Within the content of this book, it was assumed evidence was presented that disproved creation, God, and the Bible. We will look at the claims of Darwin and let the facts draw its conclusion. The inspiration of Darwin in writing his book was the writings of atheist Karl Marx. Without presenting an exhaustive exposition on the 'Origin of the Species' we will focus on the central shortcomings of the theory of evolution. To help you understand the shortcomings of evolution we will discuss the paradigms of science and biology. Are they compatible with scripture and creation?
The 'Origin of the Species' is not the central component of our discussion but the position that many hold that there is no God. We use the classic term 'atheist' to describe those who don't believe in God. The vast majority of those who classify themselves as atheist embrace or hold to the findings and doctrine of Darwin. We at BARC must mention a few problems with the atheist view that there is no God.
To factually demonstrate there is no God, one must possess attributes well beyond human ability. Let me provide an analogy. If I didn't believe there was a single diamond in California, I'd have to know information that a man couldn't know in his human ability. I'd have to know what was under the ground, beneath the rivers, lakes and in every storage port, within every rock, drawer, container, on every finger, ear, or hanging around every neck. I could disbelieve in the existence of diamonds in California, but I would have to possess the characteristic of omniscience, or have 'all knowledge' to factually know that there are no diamonds in California.
This is the problem that faces the atheist. One can easily say 'I don't believe in God' meaning there is no God. But to prove there is no God is quite a different dynamic. To factually prove there is no God, one would have to have superhuman ability, such as knowing all things. The other side of the coin is, one can easily know diamonds exist by the personal experience of seeing, wearing, feeling and owning gemologist certified diamonds. The believer in God has a supernatural document entitled the 'Bible' and the personal experience of a relationship with their Savior.
The 'Burden of Proof' lies with the atheist, skeptic, and agnostic. What we have consistently discovered is the 'proof' is conspicuous by it's absence. BARC embraces the creation, and engages the proofs that support creation.
To more accurately understand creationism, one must comprehend the genre of Cosmology; which says that every effect has an adequate cause. The universe is an 'effect.' Reason demands that whatsoever caused the universe must be greater than the universe. That cause is God (who is Himself the uncaused First cause). As Hebrews 3:4 puts it' "Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."
The concept of Teleology says; there is an obvious purposeful intricate design in the world. If we found a watch in the sand, the assumption would have to be that someone created the watch. Because of its intricate design, it is obvious that all the parts of the watch couldn't have just jumped together to cause itself. Similarly, the perfect design of the universe demands a designer, and the designer is God.
Let us explore a few facts that buttress the teleological idea. Lets look at the earth. It is the perfect size. Has the perfect axis, and is the perfect distance from he Sun. If the earth was any smaller its gravitational field would be too weak to hold our atmosphere and we would not have air, clouds or rain. We would be extinct today if it was any smaller. If our planet was any bigger our gravitational field would be so strong that it would pull our ionosphere, stratosphere to the surface. We would have a murky and labored existence. We would have no external shield from dangerous gamma and beta rays from the Sun.
We would also be extinct. If we were any closer to the Sun we would experience the boiling of our oceans and seas. Without ice there is nothing that grinds the volcanic ash that produces soil. With no soil, there is no eatable vegetation and if there is no eatable vegetation, there would be no animal life, and we would starve. If our oceans boiled, plankton that supplies 80% of our oxygen would die, and we would suffocate and become extinct. If we were any further away from the Sun, we freeze. No food, no water, no breathable air. We are extinct !
The incident is recorded when twentieth century Bible Scholar D L Moody was confronting a renowned atheist in a debate in Chicago. After a hearty and charged debate the combatants ironically were traveling on the same train leaving Chicago. Moody had shared the biblical concepts of creation, but the atheist resisted the idea of intelligent design claiming, the universe, "just happened." As they began to position and settle their baggage for the long train ride, Moody revealed a box with a fancy globe inside. The atheist was so impressed by the quality, and detail of the globe, he asked where did Moody get it? Moody told him it was a gift. The atheist could tell it was a unique, one of a kind handmade globe. He said, "come on, where did you get it? Who made it for you? I'd love to have one."
Moody replied, "NO ONE MADE IT, IT JUST HAPPENED !!!!"
But we see design in every aspect of the earth and the universe. Have you ever considered how water from a cloud can fall and at 32 degrees, freeze and land on your hand in the form of a snowflake, it looks like Van Gogh, Michelangelo, and the finest architects designed it? It has triangles, quadrilaterals, and perfect symmetries. During a small snow flurry you will have billions of such snowflakes, and not one is the same. The only person who can't see design in a snowflake is Stevie Wonder. Listen to what the Bible says about the snowflake in Job 37:10; it tells us,' By the breath of God frost is given', Psalms 147:16 claims that 'God gives snow like a wool blanket.'
We live in a world where there has arisen several philosophical constructs such as Agnosticism, Rationalism, Fideism, Experientialism, Evidentialism, Pragmatism, Atheism. Much of what we will discuss will be effected by our understanding these constructs.
AGNOSTICISM; literally means; No knowledge, the opposite of (Gnostic) knowledge . This concept was popularized by skeptic David Hume who held to an epistemology (theory of knowledge) that all our empiricisms were derived from sensations. He held that they were based on subjective data not fact. In essence, God can't be known or proven, we have no knowable proof of Him. Agnostics claim God does not reveal Himself in the world. This concept is self defeating, it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge about reality. Agnosticism is negative dogmatism, every negative assumes a positive. It is self defeating and self-deifying. Only an omniscient mind could be totally agnostic, and finite men do not possess omniscience. Thus it is not a true test for Truth.
RATIONALISM: Is characterized by it's stress on the innate or a priori (ability of human reason to know truth). Basically, rationalist hold that what is knowable or demonstrable by human reason is true. Rationalism emphasizes the mind in the knowing process, where empiricism stresses the senses as the process of knowing truth. Rationalism values deduction, logic and reasoning at arriving at conclusions of truth. Rationalism is an inadequate premise for establishing truth because, logic is only a negative test for truth. Logic can eliminate what is false, but it can't in and of it's self substantiate what is true. Logic or rationale can only demonstrate what is possibly real, but not what is actually real or true.
FIDEISM: Empiricism led to skepticism, and rationalism can't rationally demonstrate it's first principles. Fideism then became a more viable option for establishing truth. This concept implies 'Truth rest solely on faith.' Not on reasoning or empiricism. This ideology implies that faith in faith must supercede faith in reason. Rational proof for what's true is not necessary, for faith bridges the chasm of what may not be reasonable of proven. Fideism has it's problems however. First of all, fideists confuse epistemology and ontology. That is because they fail to distinguish order of knowing and the order of being. The Christian Fideist may very well be right about the fact that there is a God, but does not confirm how they KNOW there is a God. Fideism establishes fact of faith in, but does not establish fact that there is God or truth. Because there are so many conflicting subjective dimensions of truth in religion and life. unless there is some objective way to adjudicate the faith claims, the truth question can't be settled.
EXPERIENTIALISM: Fideism often involves an implicit appeal to experience as the test for the truth of it's belief. The difference in Fideism and Experientialism is the former offers no test in establishing truth but the latter does. Experientialism suggest that experience is the final court of appeal. The basic flaw in this premise is that experience is neither false nor true. Experience is something one has, truth is something one expresses about experience. Plainly, experience is a condition of persons, but truth is a characteristic of propositions or expressions a person makes. The basis for truth rest in the experience, but not the support of that truth. Truth finds its source in primary experience but not its substantiation. Therefore experience is a source but not a warrant for truth.
EVIDENTIALISM: Is the appeal to present or historical evidence for establishing truth. This is the most popular and widely used principle in Christianity. Apologetic arguments are built on its pillars. Here arguments such as Cosmological, Teleological are derived from Evidentialism. although Evidentialism has much merit but it is inadequate as a test for truth. Evidence gains its meaning only by its immediate and overall context. The world view in which it is defined is evolving and can diminish or buttress evidence. Evidence can be interpreted by culture, world view or established frameworks. Evidentialism is inadequate in that it is determinative of the framework, world view of facts. Truth must be objective and public, it requires a basis in FACT not interpretation, frameworks, worldviews or evolving experience.
PRAGMATISM: Is the concept that truth is established by what works. Pragmatist contend that one can't think or even feel truth, he must live it. It is defined as contingent belief. There is a difference between pragmatic theory of truth and pragmatic test for truth. Yes, truth must work in ones life. Faith in God is essential; "by their fruits you shall know them"; all this is good. Of course all truth must work. But everything that works is not true. Many things that work are true, however, there are many evil things that have worked for centuries that are false. People look at the apparent positive manifestation of materialism and conclude it works and must be a true dynamic. The error in the conclusion is, it only demonstrates positivity in a capitalistic carnal temporary realm. Ultimately it is not true from an eternal spiritual perspective.
ATHEISM: Claim there is no God. They claim there is no God in the world in a Pantheistic way or beyond the world in a Deistic way. Most don't claim to be anti-theist but non-theist. There are traditional atheist, mythological atheist, and dialectical atheist. As a world view, Atheism does not measure up. Its arguments are invalid and often self defeating. Many of its positions are reversible reasons to believe in God. It does not provide a solution to the universe, personality and actualization processes. Another problem for Atheist is they MUST BELIEVE SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING, also that potentials actualize themselves and that matter generated mind. It is more plausible to believe in a God who made something where there was nothing, who actualized the potentials that could not actualize themselves. and whose MIND formed matter. It is more viable to embrace the principle of 'THE UNCAUSED CAUSE.' The Theistic position is established by a truth test. Just what is that test for truth?
TEST FOR TRUTH
If the forgoing test for truth were exhaustive, the epistemological consequences would be disastrous. If no test for truth is sufficient then truth can't be established and executed. If truth can't be established then Christian Apologist are defunct and futile. Fortunately, this is not the case. There is a test for truth. We propose UNDENIABILITY is the test for truth of a world view and unaffirmability is the test for the falsity of a world view. By unaffirmability we mean, although some things can be said or stated does not imply its affirmed. One can state, 'there are square triangles' or 'red sure does smell great.' It can be stated, but not necessarily affirmed.
Undeniability test for truth. What is unaffirmable is self defeating and false. Conversely what is undeniable is true. One might ask, if there is anything that in actual practice is undeniable? And if there is, it must not be more than purely definitional. thus we have undeniability existential (relating to existence or reality) and theoretical or definitional (relating to possible realities). The affirmation that 'triangles have three sides' is undeniably true. But this does not mean there is in fact any such thing as a triangle. It only means that if there was such a thing as a triangle it would have three sides.
Other examples could added, such as 'all wives are married' or 'circles are round', 'the whole is greater than its parts.' All of these are mathematical or theoretical. As such they are empty tautologies and no definitional statement tells us anything about the real world.
EXISTENTIAL UNDENIABILITY
An affirmative answer is demanded of the forgoing question. Existence, at least my existence is actually undeniable. I must exist to make the denial. Non existents do not affirm or deny; they are not, and speak not. If it is demonstrated that all nontheistic views engage in unaffirmable statements germane to those views, so we are forced to reject them as false. If theism is the only affirmable view or is undeniable, then it can be established as truth. The undeniability that this is an theistic universe, confirms that theism in some worldview is viable and affirmed. It is BARCs contention that the biblical account of creation and theology is the most systematically coherent theistic view of the three views. It therefore provides consistency, empirical, adequacy, and experiential relevance.
We will enlarge on these concepts, but now we will examine the field of science and answer the question, is science the adversary or ally of Truth (revelation knowledge, Christ or the Bible)? For if science is an ally, then the atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, and skeptic has no grounds to defy the claims of Jesus Christ and the Bible. If it is the adversary of the Bible, then we must critique its findings and acknowledge its evidences.
AN INVENTED INSTITUTION
The most curious aspect of the scientific world is that it exist at all; according to scientific writer Loren Eiseley. "Westerners often unconsciously assume a doctrine of Inexorable Progress, as though the passage of time leads inevitably to increased knowledge as surely as an acorn becomes an oak. Yet the archaeologist would be forced to tell us that several great civilizations have arisen and vanished without the benefit of a scientific philosophy. The type of thinking known today as science, with its experiments mathematical formulas arose from only one culture-Western Europe."
Science, Eiseley concludes, is not "natural" to mankind at all. Science is an invented cultural institution and philosophy. It has rules that must be learned, and practices and techniques which must be transmitted to generation to generation. It does not derive from human instinct, it demands some kind of unique soil in which to flourish. Deprived of that soil, it is capable of decay and death as any other human activity, such as a religion or system of government.
Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) a French physicist and philosopher whose works inspired other historians to probe the various ways Christianity provided intellectual environment conducive to scientific endeavor. He was instrumental in the turnaround in thinking science and religion were in conflict. Phrases such as the war between science and religion are so familiar today, people don't even challenge them. The facts show that the relationship between faith and science can best be described as an alliance. The so called war according to scientist Colin Russell is a recent invention. In the late nineteenth century, a small group of scientist and scholars organized under Thomas Huxley aimed at overthrowing the cultural dominance of Christianity. Their goal was to secularize society, replacing the Christian worldview with scientific naturalism, a worldview that recognizes the existence of nature only!
This brand of science became a religion of itself, the natural "church scientific." It should not be surprising that Christianity was an important ally of the scientific enterprise. Modern science arose from a culture saturated with Christian faith. Science focuses primarily on nature. Christianity teaches that the world or nature has great value as God's creation. God said it was good, so Christians must embrace the material world. In Biblical teaching, nature is good, but is not a god. It is merely a creature. Nature is the component that manifest the character and nature of an orderly God. How many times have you tuned to the Discovery channel or watched 'Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom' and seen the balance and order of nature?
Ancient chemist Van Helmont said "I believe that Nature is the command of God, whereby a thing is that which it is, and doth that which it is commanded to do or act."
Isaac Newton the worlds foremost scientist said "The world might have been otherwise than it is, twas not necessary [to be other than it is] but it is a voluntary and free determination that it be thus"
Scientist Barbour said: "The world is orderly and dependable because God is trustworthy and not capricious, but the details of the world must be found by observation rather than deduction because God is free and did not have to create any particular kind of universe."
Copernicus argued that there can be many centers of gravity because "gravity is bestowed on the parts of bodies by the Creator."
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) is widely used as the peg upon which to hang the beginning of the scientific revolution. he adopted the neo -Platonist concept that "God was real and that God's creative ability was symbolized by the sun."
Aristotle was not only a philosopher but a biologist, Aristotle analyzed all processes of change in organisms. He confirmed that "living organisms must be directed by some internal pattern that ensures that acorns always grow into oaks, not maples, and that chicks always grow into hens, not horses. He said all forms of motion or change are directed by a built in goal or purpose-a so called final cause."
Werner von Braun: "The idea of creation is inconceivable without God."
Albert Einstein is regarded as the most prolific modern scientist, his theory of relativity (E=Mc2) has been confused with the secular concept of relativism. He has expressed his disdain for the confusion and harm resulting from people thinking he supports or is involved in relativism. Many secularist and atheist point at Einstein and his scientific theories as support for their focus on nature only. But let's look at what Einstein believed and what his research revealed to our world view.
The central effect of Einstein's theory was to make time and motion relative. What does that mean? Imagine if you were sitting in a subway train looking across the tracks at another train, when yours begin to move. But wait- is it really moving? Or is it the other train? If the other accelerates gently enough, you may not be sure for a moment. You can't answer for sure by looking at the trains themselves. All you can determine is that they are moving relative to each other (relative motion). The only way that you can determine which train is really moving is by looking at the station platform. The train that's really moving is the one leaving the station.
Yet as Einstein might point out, the station itself is also moving. It's anchored to the earth, to be sure, but remember that the earth is moving relative to the sun. And the sun is moving relative to the Milky Way galaxy. In short, all motion is relative to some other reference point. Where is the reference point that is absolutely at rest? Newton thought that motion and time spoke of God's omnipresence and and absolute time spoke of Gods eternality. Einstein did not. He saw light as the absolute. Einstein's theory is that lights velocity remains constant in every reference point.
Einstein's special theory of relativity showed that time and space are relative to the observer's frame of reference, which destroyed the concept of of absolute time and space. Einstein's theory applies to inertial states or uniform motion. He did not consider forces such as acceleration or G (gravity) forces as things swerve. The theory of relativity reveals scientifically that energy has mass. He modified a few Newtonian formulas to get.... E (the energy moving particle) plus mc2. Even if a particle is at rest it still has energy, thus E=mc2. Energy is developed by light traveling at 186,000(squared). So in essence Einstein scientifically surmised that Light traveling at 34,596,000,000 miles per second would produce energy which is mass or matter.
So time and space and light in motion are responsible for matter. When you consider creation, it was diagrammed by Einstein. I marvel that Einstein scientifically formatted what God already taught us in scripture. Let's look at it closer. God said in (Hebrews 11:3); The things that are seen are made by the things which do not appear. What data has God added to our equation? Material things or matter/energy derived or were birthed from the invisible or spiritual!! Science has also demonstrated that there is more space than solid in matter. While you are reading this, let me ask, what are you sitting on? You might say a chair. But the truth is, you are sitting on neutrons and protons traveling at the speed of light squared forming what we call a chair.
In Genesis 1:3; God said "let there be light !" Light is the energy that produced matter or energy! The spiritual or eternal produced things or matter. In( John 1:9) Jesus is called the true Light. So when you sum it up, Jesus the light came and made the worlds. Einstein developed an equation that confirmed what God taught us in scripture. Einstein did speak of God as a distinct being! Einstein wrote: God Himself could not have arranged those connections in any other way than that which actually exist. Einstein finally realized while analyzing atoms (the building blocks of matter) that "God does not play dice with our universe." Everything is held together by an orderly and unchanging God.
NOW BACK TO DARWIN
Darwin's basic theory was that simple cells became more complex and evolved into other species. He traveled to Galapagos Islands to study thousands of animals from a biological perspective. He concluded that single cell animals called protozoa were the foundation of all living things. The protozoa became more complex and became amoebas. The amoebas became plankton type creatures, and then evolved to become algae, which evolved into minnows, that evolved into salamanders. The salamanders became tadpoles, that became frogs. The frog type creatures became reptiles, and then some grew wings and became birds. Others became squirrels, then monkeys, that evolved to Big Foot, that evolved into Neanderthal, then to modern man. This is a novice and capsular overview of the Darwin theory, but systemically, this is the model.
Darwin himself had trouble with his own theory. He stated in 'Origin of the Species'; "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them imbedded in the crust of the earth? Geological research does not yield the infinitely fine graduations between past and present species REQUIRED FOR THE THEORY; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it (evolution)"
Many notable scientist and biologist have provided scathing rebuttals to the theory of evolution.
In that thick science book where it presented a fold out chart of the apes transforming into men, there was some vital missing information. Evolutionist failed to mention the scientific findings of the so-called evolving monkeys into man. We at BARC would like to present the truth about the fossil record of the so-called prehistoric men.
JAVA MAN: Many have looked at the fossil record to determine if the theory is supported by paleontology. The fossil record of Java Man, was discovered by Eugene Du Bois in 1893. The remains were found to be the recent remains of an arthritic man, Java Man's teeth were really that of an orangutan.
PILTDOWN MAN: Was another trophy of Darwinist and evolutionist that appeared to confirm man evolved from monkeys. The Piltdown man was the hero of the theory until it was uncovered to be a hoax! The skull of Piltdown man was found to be the skull of a medieval human only 620 years old. The jawbone was that of an orangutan only 500 years old. The teeth were that of an elephant, chimpanzee, and hippopotamus. So once again the cast of characters in the science book chart were all hoaxes. British Paleontologist Dawson, Woodard, Teilhard were responsible for the hoax. They got caught up in the hype and acclaim that accompanies new discoveries. They wanted to be famous discoverers, so they couldn't return to England empty handed and as failures. So they constructed fossils that they coined Piltdown Man.
One of the most deceptive concepts used to support evolution is the age of these fossils. Evolutionist claim that these fossils evolved over billions of years. They claim that the bones that Dr. Leaky found in Africa are older than the biblical record, thus proving that the Bible is erroneous.
In 1947, Dr. Libby was given a Nobel Prize when he invented a method of dating called C-14, or carbon dating. Plants get their carbon from the atmosphere, animals get theirs from eating the plants. The entire construct is based upon the exact measurement of C-14 in remains. All the factors are based on the STABLE amounts of nitrogen in remains. The large scale of evidence suggest that cosmic rays and our atmosphere are very unstable. So the amounts of nitrogen that carbon produces in fossils are unreliable to arrive at an age.
To confirm the validity of C-14 dating over 90 universities collaborated. Over 15,00 remains of what were once living beings were dated by C-14. The results were published in the annual magazine Radiocarbon. Here are some results; Neanderthal man dated 32,000 years old, another 40,000 years old. Coal once dated at 300,000,000 years old are now dated at 1680 years old. Rhodesian man was only 9,000 years old. Mammiferous bones found at the same site where Dr. Leakey found his 'hominid skull' which he claimed was 600,000 years old was dated at 10,000 years. Bones from the Omo valley of Ethiopia were said to be older than Leakey's, were found to be 15,000 years old
Darwin made claims that were easier to grasp with 1850 technology, but today it is easy to refute the errors of evolution. If man evolved from monkeys then there has to be remains of millions of animals that were 1/8th modern man then 1/5th modern man, then there has to be millions of remains that were 1/4th modern man. Where are the transitional species? Paleontologist have not found any!
Very few people are aware that Darwin wrote letters to his wife while he was away on the Galapagos Islands. One of his letters recalls the occasion when he observed a Peacock appear out of the bush. He told his wife that as he was trying to discredit design, he was overwhelmed by the appearance of the Peacock. It came out of the forest with colors that blended so evenly you couldn't tell when one ended and the other began. He spoke of the eyes that covered the majestic tail. He being from England, saw a crown on it's head that rivaled the Queen of England! He said he could not get the design in the Peacock out of his mind.
BARC's position is consistent with the Bible, in that we support microevolution (transitions within 'the kinds') We resist and disagree with macroevolution (amoebas evolving into apes and apes evolving into astronauts).
Darwin and evolution begins to sink when you incorporate the principles of modern genetics. Darwin didn't have atomic microscopes in the 1800's. He didn't have the modern findings of DNA. If he had those tools he would have probably called his book "God is the Origin of the Species."
The most damaging discovery was the blending of human technology with the biological is striking on the molecular level. During the 1800's when Darwin presented his theory, he by looking at a single cell protozoa considered it simple and basic. This was the basis of the theory.
A simple cell had to evolve to something more complex. If we could have let Darwin see a cell with today's technology (atomic microscopes) he could have it enlarged to a size where humans could walk around in it. Darwin would have seen inside of the cell something that resembled a modern factory or manufacturing plant. He would have seen a vast range of products and raw materials continually passing through conduits in an orderly fashion to various assembly plants. We would see robot like machines-tens of thousands of different kinds-in charge of production. These are the proteins. Some of them (enzymes) act as catalysts, regulating the cells processes like little robots with stopwatches. In fact, we would see analogues to nearly every feature of our own advanced machines. Much of the terminology needed to describe this fascinating molecular reality we would have to borrow from late twentieth century technology.
So, far from being simple, the single cell is one of the most complex components in the universe. Darwin couldn't see that, so he presented his theory on limited knowledge. God said in 'The Law of Genesis, 'He made everything after it's kind.' Everything reproduces after it's type! It is proven by the following important facts of science.
Nowhere does a scientific discovery refute evolution like deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. Our most prominent exposure to DNA is in our viewing criminal cases. We hear so much now about how the use of DNA positively identifies persons involved in court cases. The top rated television programs are CSI, (Crime Scene Investigation) and the DNA is always the crucial ingredient in identifying the murderer. What is so extraordinary about the DNA molecule? The DNA molecule was discovered in the 1960's. It has so revolutionized biology, it suggest new answers to such philosophical questions as: What is Life? How did life originate?
The story of DNA begins with protein. Before biologist discovered the role played by DNA, they were convinced that the hereditary material of the cell must be composed of proteins. Most fascinating among the proteins are enzymes, which act like tiny automated machines, cutting and splicing together the various products the cell needs for it's operation, functioning much like an assembly line factory. The secret to an enzymes remarkable abilities lies in it's shape. An enzyme consist of a long chain of amino acids curled up into a complex three-dimensional structure like a tangled ball of yarn. Each type of enzyme has its own distinctive structure dictated by the sequence of it's amino acid. This three-dimensional structure is what enables enzymes to recognize, by touch as it were, the particular atoms and molecules they are designed to work with.
They grab onto the molecules and either slice them up into parts or else push them together until they react to form larger molecules. The functioning of a living cell depends crucially on the functioning of it's proteins-which in turn depends on their amino acid sequences. And what determines the amino acid sequences? In a very real sense says Nobel-prize winning biologist Jacques Monod. "it is at this level of chemical organization that the SECRET OF LIFE LIES." Biologist were convinced if they were able to pronounce a law by which they assemble, one could declare the secret penetrated, "the riddle of life solved."
Unfortunately for the biologist, there is no law! The DNA components have no uniformed law, but are governed by a code or instructions. Most people are familiar with the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. It may be pictured as a long ladder twisted into a spiral. The sides of the ladder are composed of sugar and phosphate molecules. It's rungs are composed of four bases-adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). During replication, the two sides of the ladder split, and each half attracts a new set of nucleotides from the surrounding cytoplasm in order to replace the missing half.
Geneticist have recently discovered that the four bases of DNA combine into groups of three, called - condons -which function as three letter words such as GUC, GUG, or GCA. Each word codes for a certain amino acid. The discovery of the DNA code has transformed our scientific understanding of the nature of the living cell. We now know that at the heart of life is a language, a code, a set of instructions.
Jeremy Campbell writes: "Evidently nature can no longer be seen as matter and energy alone. Nor can all her secrets be unlocked with the keys of chemistry and physics...." A third component is needed for any explanation of the world that claims to be complete. To the powerful theories of chemistry and physics must be added a late arrival, a theory of information. Nature must be interpreted as matter, energy, and information.
What have we learned? 1. Darwin didn't know that cells were more complex than anything he had encountered. 2.The design and information or code of a molecule or amino acid is input. 3. Information and instructions are the result of intelligence. 4. Intelligence is commensurate with personality. So within the root of life, it is saturated with instructions and information. The question arises, from where? The only extension of life's building blocks is the BUILDER!
To believe that the intricate instructions in a cell were arranged by chance, is like believing that an explosion in a printing press will settle and result as the Encyclopedia Britannica. The instructions and information in each cell of the DNA code will only allow it to manifest in a certain order. The instructions in the DNA of a fish won't permit it to change to another species. The condons won't allow it. We can end the research here, but there are a few other points that must be mentioned.
There is a term in science and biology entitled 'ENTROPY'. This means 'the tendency for an energy system to run down. The law of thermo dynamics makes evolution impossible!
Thermo 1 says; Matter or energy can never be destroyed.
Thermo 2 says; that transferred energy is always here, it is either kinetic or potential energy. The system of thermo dynamics and entropy confirms that things don't evolve into higher or more developed species. If you bite an apple and put it on a counter, it doesn't get fresher. It turns brown, then molds till it rots.
When we eat food we use the energy and dispose of it as waste. The food or energy is still present, but it was transferred into waste. We go jogging and as we run five miles we don't get fresher, we get tired. We run down! When things are left to themselves, they don't get better, they degrade!
Plant a garden and don't tend to it, weeds, bugs and weather will consume it. Go three days without any personal hygiene and you will not look or smell fresher. You will look like and smell like a bum! The sun is burning out, our universe is running down, that's the law of entropy.
Things don't evolve into more advanced and enhanced species. Darwin just didn't know this. There are only four possible explanations for our universe.
1.It came from nothing.
2. It developed itself by chance.
3. We just imagine it's here.
4. It was created.
We at BARC agree with the mountain of evidence in scripture, nature and science and conclude that empirical evidence clearly supports it was created.
We at BARC contend that what God said is true, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Science is just the natural confirmation of what God did spiritually. They are allies and give testimony to the wonder of creation.
Paul wrote in (2 Corinthians 10.5), "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ!"
Only a defiant and rebellious heart will deny the truth. Humble yourself, and surrender to truth. To continue to stand against the truth will lead to disaster. God loves you and created this wonderful universe and world to express His love for you. God is the 'origin of the species', He made you to live with Him in peace forever. If you are not 'Saved' take time to read the section 'Salvation Principles' to learn about God's wonderful plan to provide you eternal life, joy and peace.