So I usually stick to political issues on this blog, but I ran across an old paper today and thought I’d share it. It is from junior year of high school, so it’s not going to win any writing awards, but I think it’s a valid (though undeveloped) critique of evolution. I have no hesitation in declaring my belief in Intelligent Design, and in the Biblical God, over the god of “science” evolution and atheism has created.
On a side note, I apologize in advance for citing Wikipedia, but this was before it had been completely discredited as a source!
Sooo…. here it is:
On a recent trip to Washington D.C., a friend and I stumbled upon a book of quotations entitled something along the lines of The Stupidest Things Democrats Have Ever Said. I was enjoying the book and its many humorous quotes, until I cam across a particularly intelligent quote that someone must have mistakenly included in this compilation. “All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching of evolution. It would be better to destroy every book ever written and save just the first three verses of Genesis.” The quote was from William Jennings Bryan, the famous prosecutor for the legendary Scopes Trial in 1925. The fact that this particular quote was included in this book, and labeled as “stupid” shows exactly the depth at which the creationism vs. evolutionism battle really wages. This battle crosses more than merely political and educational boundaries; it threatens the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. Both are accepted by faith, and cannot be scientifically proven, and neither one can survive as fact until the other one is no longer in the memory of man. It is my opinion that the theory of evolution is a shaky one at best, and can be disproved easily using Biblical knowledge and common sense.
The History of Evolution
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting but undeserved fame by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution and proposing the theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.
Darwin developed an interest in natural history while studying medicine, and then theology. Darwin’s five-year voyage on the Beagle, and subsequent writings about his voyage and the varied animal life he encountered on the Galapagos Islands brought him eminence as a geologist, and fame as a popular author. His biological observations led him to study the transmutation of species and to develop his theory of natural selection in 1838 (Wikipedia).
Darwin popularized the theory of evolution when he published The Origin of Species in 1859. In his book, Darwin proposed that all life forms on earth, including man, evolved, or came into being by a sequence of mutations caused by natural processes.
According to some theories, a “big bang” occurred. For this to be true, then it must be as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati explained in his book Refuting Evolution, “non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave to rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligence and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, and man’s yearning gave rise to religions” (47).
An incredulous thought at the least, the proposal of a big bang goes against a number of established scientific laws, including the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of matter. So why is such a completely unbelievable theory acknowledged? According to Professor D.M.S. Watson, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation is clearly incredible” (qtd. in Sarfati 16).
The Real Deal
“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). How much more simple than that can you get? It’s all there: God created the earth, God created the plants, God created the moon and the stars, God created the animals, and God created humans. The Bible has repeatedly been found to reveal scientific truths before humans even consider the possibility of their existence, and the Bible has in no way been contradicted by proven science, or recorded history. The only reasoning that is keeping science from accepting the Bible is their unfaltering evolutionary preconception (Ham 8).
Many scientists believe that the carbon-14 method of dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history (Creation Evidence Museum Staff). The problem with this however, is that the ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere has not always been constant. The ratio was higher before the beginning of the industrial era, when the massive amounts of fossil fuels burned, released tons of carbon dioxide that was depleted in the C14 (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland). Other potential factors, such as the heavily debated presence of a water canopy in Biblical times, might have significantly lowered the quantity of C14 in the pre-flood world, causing fossils from that time period to test older than they truly are (CEM Staff). The strength of the earth’s magnetic field could also alter the ratio, because it affects the amount of cosmic rays allowed through the earth’s atmosphere. The more cosmic rays allowed the more C14 in the atmosphere. In recent years the earth’s magnetic field has greatly weakened, causing more C14 to be the atmosphere now than in the past. This can cause some fossils to appear older than they truly are (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland). Even recent times the faultiness of carbon-14 dating methods have been shown, such as when the shells of living snails were dated to show that the snails had died 27,000 years ago (CME Staff). Scientists have used carbon dating to illustrate fossils to be millions of years old, in order to prove their theory of an old, slowly evolving earth. But in reality, C14 has a half life of 5,730 years. According to that data, any organism over about 50,000 years old should have no detectable C14 left, thus disproving the “old, slowly evolving earth” theory, due to the fact that all organisms, living or dead currently on record contain C14 The carbon-14 theory actually supports the Biblical notion of a young earth, rather than the evolutionary viewpoint (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).
If everything evolutionists say is true, many fossils of birds with fins, mammals with wings and fish with arms and legs, would be found on a regular basis, representing the transitional organisms in-between evolutionary stages. But have never been found, despite evolutionary supporters many attempts to manufacture counterfeit “links” out of ordinary fossils.
One example of such a “link” is the Archaeopteryx, an alleged “feathery reptile” that lived approximately 150 million years ago. But Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disproves that claim stating that, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird” (qtd. in Sarfati 58).
Other than missing “links”, there is still the problem of many species that are still around, despite the fact that according to the theory of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, they should have died out as the evolutionary process of man progressed. If evolution was true, wouldn’t it stand to reason, that as new species evolved, the species it from, would die out due to the “survival of the fittest” rule? The newly evolved creature would seize control of the environment, forcing the older creatures into extinction. If this did not take place, then evolution would be meaningless.
Another kink in the tangled chain of evolution is spontaneous generation, or the belief that something can come from nothing. This is yet one more example of the preposterous fallacies evolutionist support. According to the laws of the conservation of matter, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nevertheless, matter exists. But how can that be possible, save the existence of a supreme being, such as God, having brought the said matter into existence? This belief also goes against the laws of thermodynamics, which states that the natural tendency of all things is towards disorder. To put it in a bit more straightforward terminology, it means that everything in the universe is getting worse as time progresses. New matter is not being created, and the matter we have at the present is getting older by the second. This is a direct contradiction to every evolutionary theory, particularly those theories which show evolution as organisms altering themselves through mutations as times progress for the better.
The Educational Battlefield
In a poll of American voters, 55% believe that God created man just as we are now, while only 13% believe that God had nothing to do with our creation (CBS News). Yet for years, people have fought to keep evolution in schools. In his media-evangelism seminar, Dr. Kent Hovind reads an excerpt from a first grade science book that refers to evolution on earth. If we are teaching our children such fallacy at such an early and impressible age, and we then continue to reinforce it throughout their lives as fact, what other alternative do they have but to acknowledge it as such? According to CBS News, the support for evolution is much more highly concentrated among those Americans with the most education. This is not altogether a surprising piece of information, taking into consideration that evolution is all we teach students in our current school system. It is not difficult to comprehend then, that the more education one receives, the more evolutionary ideas have a chance to reinforced.
Creationism was forced out of the classroom so that it would not impose religion on any person who did not have the inclination to believe that God created the earth and everything in it. Evolution however, is centered on the same basic thought pattern as creation, belief. As Kent Hovind puts it, “You have to believe there is no God.” So if believing there is a God makes you religious, should it not as well be considered religious to not believe in a God? After all, both stances necessitate that you believe something (Ham 21).
If we take that line of thought even further, it is not incredibly difficult to wonder why if creationism cannot be taught in our schools, for fear that it may be offensive to someone who does not believe in God, then how is it that evolutionism can still be taught, regardless of that fact that it directly offends all those who do believe in God. For this predicament to be solved, one of two things must take place.
The first option is that evolution ought to be dropped from every public school curriculum due to the fact that is of a religious and extremely offensive nature. It should be removed from all science books and teachers ought to be reprimanded for even mentioning it in their classrooms, just as they are when it comes to creation.
The second option is that teachers ought to be required to teach students both evolution and creationism together. They ought to present the arguments for each side in a clear manner, give all the evidentiary support for both sides, therefore allowing the students to arrive at their own informed conclusions pertaining to what it is they chose to accept as true about their origins.
Either one of the previous options is preferable to our existing method, which is the teaching of an unproved, inadequate, imperfect, anti-Christian theory, that today’s educators present to our young people as factual information. In fact, the same poll mentioned earlier shows results that state 65% of Americans think that creationism should be taught alongside evolutionism in our public school system, and that 37% of Americans think that creation, and only creation should be taught in schools (CBS).
On the whole, I tend agree with William Jennings Bryan in his belief that the moral foundation of America has been destroyed by the teaching of evolution. If one believes in evolution, then as a consequence, one cannot believe in God. Without God to judge man, there would be no accountability. Without accountability to God, man is free to do whatever it is he wishes whether that be thieving, murder, rape, racial discrimination, genocide, infidelity, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, or drugs (Ham 83-89). Without God, the moral fabric of society will completely unravel. Unfortunately, this unraveling has already begun thanks to teachers planting seeds of ungodliness in the hearts of impressionable first graders who will believe anything you tell them (Hovind).
In the end, if you truly believe in God, then there is only one conclusion you can possibly come to, and that is that evolution has far too many contradictions and imperfections to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, much less to be taught to children and young people as truth, and should be dismissed.
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:15).
Creation Evidence Museum Staff. Carbon Dating. May 11, 2006 <http://www.creation
Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1987
Ham, Sarfati and Wieland. What about Carbon Dating? May 11, 2006. <http://www.
Hovind, Kent. Creationism vs. Evolutionism. In Windows Media format.
Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999
“Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.” Cbsnews.com. November 22, 2004. CBS News Service. May 11, 2006 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/
The Holy Bible, KJV. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1979.
Wikipedia Staff. Charles Darwin. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin>.