The Ultimate Question

Whether God exists or not is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. There are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we were created by some supreme being, or life came to be on its own through purely naturalistic processes. Nobel prize winning scientist Dr. George Wald put it this way over seventy years ago:

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons), therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."(1)

From this quote alone you get a quick understanding of how personal bias affects scientific inquiry. Creation scientists are honest about their personal beliefs and views, but do not let those views affect the integrity of their work. Very few evolutionary scientists are as honest as Dr Wald.

Prior to the mid-1800’s, most people on earth believed that all living things were directly created by God. All of that changed in 1859 with Charles Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species. In his book Darwin is actually presenting two related but quite distinct theories. The first, which has sometimes been called the “special theory,” is relatively conservative and restricted in scope. It merely proposes that new species (the lowest taxonomic level) arise in nature by the agency of natural selection. The second theory, which is often called the “general theory”, is far more radical. It makes the claim that the “special theory” applies universally and hence that the appearance of all the diversity of life on Earth can be explained by simple extrapolation of the special theory over huge periods of time. This “general theory” is what most people think of when they refer to evolution theory.

Darwin’s notion that life and our universe could be described without the need of a supernatural Creator was very appealing to many scientists. Within 50 years, most of the scientific community, and in fact most of the western world, had confidence in his theory.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution

At this point it is important to understand the terms microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution can be defined as evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes within a species. These variations occur within each class and no member of any defined class could stray beyond the confines of its type in terms of its basic, defined characteristics. This type of minor variation is what is expected by Darwin’s special theory and is not disputed by creationists.

Macroevolution can be defined as evolution on a large scale resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups and the crossing of the immutable barriers described by typologists before the advent of Darwinism (refer to Biochemistry page for more info on typology). Macroevolution is what is expected with Darwin’s general theory. It is the extrapolation of the conservative changes seen in microevolution into major changes if given huge amounts of time. Darwin stated, and most evolutionists today admit, that the length of time necessary for this supposed macroevolution by natural selection to occur would have to be very, very great.

It is important to note that evolutionists today, when asked for proof of evolution, continue to produce evidence for microevolution. When they do so, they try to pile on as much of this microevolutionary evidence as possible, usually with a condescending tone, to imply that you must be ignorant if you try to dispute all the evidence.

But as I have stated, creationists do not dispute that microevolution does take place. Why would we be surprised that God created living beings with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to better survive? The problem is the assumed extrapolation to macroevolution, for which there is absolutely zero evidence. This is the basis for the belief that all creatures evolved from some primitive life form, and the foundation of evolutionary theory. Yet it is only an assumption for which there is no evidence, and actually very much contradictory evidence, as we shall see.

There is no doubt that as far as his “general theory” and its macroevolutionary claims were concerned, Darwin’s central problem in the Origin lay in the fact that he had absolutely no direct empirical evidence. He could produce no clear-cut intermediates to show that evolution on a major scale had ever occurred and that any of the major divisions of nature had been crossed gradually through a sequence of transitional forms. Not only was he unable to provide empirical evidence in the existence of intermediate forms, there was, and is, a real difficulty in even imagining the hypothetical pathways through which evolution may have occurred.

The only explanation Darwin was able to offer in the Origin for the lack of intermediates was his appeal to the ‘extreme imperfection’ of the fossil record, a subject we will cover in the Fossil Record page. But this was largely a circular argument because the only significant evidence he was able to provide for its ‘extreme imperfection’ was the very absence of the intermediates that he sought to explain. And as we will see in the fossil chapter, in the 160+ years since Darwin, and with a huge number of discovered fossils in all that time, nothing has changed !

Evidence for Evolution ??

It is important to note that none of Darwin’s claims received any direct experimental support until nearly a century had elapsed. Biology had to wait until the early 1950s and the work of the Oxford zoologist Bernard Kettlewell for apparent evidence that natural selection may actually operate in nature. Kettlewell’s research on the peppered moth supposedly was an observation of natural selection in action. Even though text books continue to tout his research as evidence for evolution (macro), it was simply microevolution. Nothing happened physiologically to the moths. There was no change in the genes and no change in the species. There were, in fact, no actual biological changes. They were still moths !! There was merely a shift in populations due to a change in the environment. One type was simply better able to hide itself from predators better than the other. Yet this was touted, and in some cases still touted, as proof of evolution !!

The evolutionist assumes that the accumulation of many such minor changes like this eventually could result in a new basic type and in increasing complexity, but this is an incredible stretch with zero evidence. Scientific theories require experimental evidence, or, lacking that, hard fossil evidence, or historical evidence that basic changes of this type actually did take place. As we will see, that evidence does not exist and will not be forthcoming.

According to a strict definition, evolution does not even qualify as a scientific theory. For a theory to qualify as a scientific theory it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be repeatedly observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. An additional limitation usually imposed is that the theory must be capable of falsification. That is, it must be possible to conceive of some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.

It is on the basis of such criteria that most evolutionists dismiss creation as an explanation for origins. Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is non-falsifiable. However, the general theory of evolution also fails to meet all three of these criteria. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed. Even committed evolutionists affirm this.

Overview

In the following pages we will examine the many scientific evidences in the debate between creation and evolution. In the next page, Physics and Evolution, we will look at the evidence from the laws of physics. The laws of thermodynamics effectively eliminate the possibility of evolution.

We will then follow with a look at the enormous problem of the supposed spontaneous origin of the first life form. All the other time and effort spent looking at the supposed evolutionary processes are meaningless if it can be shown that the leap from inorganic chemicals to the first life form is a leap beyond all possibility and reason. The evidence in these next two chapters will make all other evidence academic. But in the interests of thoroughness I will cover the many other lines of evidence, and effectively shoot down all aspects of Darwin’s “molecule to man” vision of evolution.

My purpose is to provide enough evidence so that any person with a semblance of an open mind will at least consider that there is a God and that we were created.. The evidence for the existence of a Special Creator is great. The evidence that this universe and all life in it came about by purely naturalistic mechanisms and processes simply is not there and is wishful thinking.

Once this point is established, I will go on to discuss the evidence supporting the possibility of creation, who the Creator might be. I call this the Ultimate Question because where we stand on this point affects our eternal fates. If there is no God, then none of this matters. But if there is a God I would think most people would want to know who He is and what He expects from us !!

CLEARING THE PATH