Nepaug Bible Church - - Pastor's Prayer Meeting Lesson Notes -

Part III: Examining The Scientific Credibility Of Evolution And Creation Views
  1. Introduction
    1. Since we have seen that either the Creation view or the Evolution view of origins are the major views running, we now examine data outside of Special Revelation, the Bible, to test both views.
    2. We have God's sanction through Psalm 19:1-6 to use this Natural Revelation to do this.
  2. Examining The Scientific Credibility Of Evolution And Creation Views
    1. Since by way of empiricism (knowledge by the senses), we cannot prove how the universe began because we cannot repeat the universe's origin under controlled circumstances, we must consider which view, Pure Creationism or Evolutionism is the most probable or realistic by way of the data.
    2. We examine the suggested evidences offered by evolutionists in support of the theory of evolution:
      1. The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy - Evolutionists have suggested similarities in body parts of different animals types show common ancestral roots in these animals. However, noted comparative anatomist, Alfred S. Romer of Harvard Univ. admits pushing comparative anatomy can lead one to view chimpanzees and gorillas are more closely related to certain fish than they are to each other! (Romer, Man and Vertebrates, p. 139 as cited in Davidheiser, Evolution & the Christian Faith, p. 234)
      2. The Evidence from Vestigial, Rudimentary or Atavistic Structures - Evolutionists have said similarities in body parts different life forms argue for similar evolutionary origins. Thus, the similarity of man's appendix with that of the rabbit's suggests similar evolutionary roots. Yet, Romer argues man's appendix is full of lymphoid material to fight infection in his early years, making man's appendix not a rudimentary organ! (Romer, The Vertebrate Body, p. 363 as cited in Davidheiser, op. cit., p. 236) As this case of man's and the rabbit's appendix has been used as a classic by evolutionists, the whole argument of rudimentary structures to certify evolutionism is suspect to say the leas, Ibid, Davidheiser.
      3. The Evidence from Embryonic Recapitulation - Evolutionists have taught various forms a fetus takes in a given life form that mimic similar fetal forms in other life forms argue for similar evolutionary roots. Thus as a pig's fetus at one stage allegedly looks like a human's, pigs and humans are claimed to have had a common evolutionary ancestor. However, Dr. Libbie Hyman, American Museum of Natural History in NYC has admitted, "The law of recapitulation has been severely criticized in many quarters . . . and has been rejected altogether by a number of present-day embryologists." (Hyman, The Invertebrates, Protozoa through Ctenophora, p. 248 as cited in Davidheiser, op. cit., p. 244)
      4. Evidence from Taxonomy, or Classification - Evolutionists have long argued the Genesis 1 statements of each original life form reproducing exactly after its own kind is ludicrous in light of evolutionary alleged changes in species over time! However, the evolutionist has trouble defining what is a species himself, so the basis of his argument here is invalid. Professor Hooton of Harvard said, "I am convinced that a zoological classificationist may be as dissolute and irresponsible as a lightning-rod salesman." (Hooton, Apes, Men and Morons, p. 115 as cited in Davidheiser, op. cit., p. 260)
      5. The Evidence from Genetics - Evolutionists used to try giving evidences from genetics in favor of evolution until Mendel discovered the laws of genetic inheritance. He found inheritance characteristics are stable, and may even skip several generations before showing up again. This runs contrary to evolutionary progression, Ibid., Davidheiser, p. 270.
      6. The Evidence from Ecology - Evolutionists have tried to use the learned behavior of complex life forms in a community with other life forms as evidence of how life forms have become fit in evolutionary processes to survive over less-fit life forms. However, the ant is an exception! Only neuter ants work and possibly "learn" where reproductive ants lead sheltered, pampered, non-working lives! They cannot pass on learned characteristics, cf. Davidheiser, op. cit., p. 271.
      7. The Evidence from Serology Testing - Evolutionists have suggested similarities in blood types among differing animal groups argues for common evolutionary ancestry. However, following this line of reasoning would lead one to conclude pigs are more closely related to cats than dogs are to cats though dogs and cats are in the same order! (Nuttal, Blood Immunity and Blood Relationships, p. 166b as cited in Davidheiser, op. cit., p. 273-274) Serology testing can not prove evolution is true.
      8. The Evidence from Animal Distribution - Evolutionists have long argued that were there to have been a supernatural creation, we should expect to see a given species living everywhere where that species could survive well. However, this is not the case, and the fact that the rabbit which is not native to Australia lives well there is given as a case in point, Davidheiser, op. cit., p. 279. However, Biblical creationists point to a worldwide flood where the current animal distribution is explained as coming from Mount Ararat in Turkey, thus diffusing the evolutionist's argument. Animal distribution since the Noahic Flood can not be used to prove anything by way of the origin of animal life! (Ibid., p. 280)
      9. The Evidence from the Fossil Record - Evolutionists have pointed to the way fossils are laid down with the older alleged fossils on the bottom and the alleged younger fossils on top as evidence favoring long ages of evolution. However, some strata show reverse orders, with alleged old fossils on the top and newer ones on the bottom! This can be explained in terms of massive hydraulic dynamics in a worldwide, cataclysmic flood, but the fossil record can not prove evolution is true, Ibid., p. 286.
      10. The Evidence from Radioactivity Dating - Various radioactive dating methods (Carbon 14, lead age, rubidium and potassium) have been used by evolutionists to date objects to provide long ages of time needed to support evolution. Yet, Whitcomb & Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 331-344 show results of these test methods have been so uneven the vast majority have been discarded. The authors explain the two major assumptions behind such testings are the problem, i.e., that (1) the isotope measured in each case is derived from the parent entity only by radioactive disintegration, and (2) that the rate of disintegration of the isotope is always constant. Since many exceptions to these assumptions can be found in nature, such radioactivity dating methods are incapable of proving evolution as valid. To illustrate, the June-August issue of Creation, the Answers in Genesis magazine, p. 25 reports how Dr. Steven Austin, a geologist with the organization had a sample of dacite from the lava dome of Mt. St. Helens, Washington tested in 1992. This lava had formed following the gigantic eruption of the mountain in 1980. The sample was sent to the Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA with explicit instructions that the sample was from dacite "and that low argon' should be expected" in keeping with the relatively recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The results sent back claimed the sample was between 340,000 and 2,800,000 years old! This reveals the inaccuracy of the potassium method!
      11. The Evidence from All the Data Above - Since there are contradictions to each category of evidence above that evolutionists have used to support evolutionism as true, we find evolution to be unfounded.
    3. We examine the suggested evidences offered by creationists to support creation as the source of origins:
      1. The Evidences From the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics - Henry Morris, Ph. D. and former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, writes, "[the first law of thermodynamics is that] the totality of mass-plus-energy is always conserved in any isolated system, neither being created or annihilated. (This implies that) all that exists must . . . have been created at some point in the past by processes not operational in the present . . . (The second law of thermodynamics) states that entropy . . . the measure of disorganization, always increases in any isolated functioning system . . . everything was wound up' sometime in the past and is now running down . . . these two laws of science are the best-proved, most universally applicable laws known to scientists. No exception to either has ever been observed, except in the case of true miracles." (Henry Morris, The God Who Is Real, p. 41-42)
      2. The Evidence of Testimony From A Hostile Authority - Isaac Asimov, an avowed atheist who has authored over 300 books on various fields of science, and who was president of the American Humanist Association in 1988, said, "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist." (Cited from Paul Kurtz, "An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible," Free Inquiry 2 (Spring 1982):8 as cited in Morris, op cit., p. 22)
      3. The Evidence From the Data Above - The consistent evidence from the first two laws of thermodynamics except in cases of true miracles taken along with Isaac Asimov's revealing admission he could not disprove God exists, and that as an atheist of renowned scholarship, in concert with observations of Natural Revelation in nature in accord with Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18ff, cause us to conclude that supernatural creation is the way the universe began.
Lesson: We quote Henry Morris, "The Logic of Bible Creation," The Biblical Evangelist, 2/1/91, p. 1, 16: " . . . there is no evidence at all that evolution is occurring today . . . there is no evidence at all that evolution took place in the past either . . . If evolution did not occur in the past, and does not occur at present, then it is entirely imaginary -- not part of the real world at all . . . Again we are driven to the logical necessity of a primal creation -- a creation that was accomplished not by present natural processes, but by past supernatural processes . . ." >