The Evolution of a Creationist

[Soldier4Christ]

The   Evolution of a  Creationist

by Dr. Jobe Martin

A LAYMEN'S GUIDE

to the conflict between

THE BIBLE AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Biblical Discipleship Publishers   Rockwall, Texas

  NOTICE: The goal of this book is to provide the reader with easily accessible information on the creation versus evolution controversy. Any part of this book may be reproduced for personal or classroom use as long as it is not sold for profit. Please note that there are quotations in this book from copyrighted materials which may reserve all of their legal rights.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power: For thou hast created all things, and For thy pleasure they are and were created  (Revelation 4:11).

This book is dedicated to my Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.  To God alone be the glory.

  Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But unto Thy name give glory, For Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake  (Psalm 115:1).

  All who gave of their time and talents in producing this book did so by God's grace and for His eternal glory, for our sufficiency comes from God

(2 Corinthians 3:5),

and without Him we can do nothing.

(John 15:5b).

This book is a condensation and simplification of more than twenty years of studies that moved me from unquestioning belief in Darwinian evolution to undoubting trust in the special six-day creation by God as presented in the Biblical account. It is my conviction that a simple discussion of the major questions in the creation/evolution controversy is needed for those men and women who have little or no background in science. Thus, I have attempted to address pertinent issues as simply as possible—fully recognizing that those who have studied intensively in specialized areas of science may accuse this book of being too simplistic.

  The book touches on the evolution of a creationist (me) but emphasizes the inherent conflicts between evolutionary theory and the Bible. This work is a compilation of thoughts and writings that God used to change my belief system.

It is my conviction that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are God's inspired, infallible, inerrant Word. The Bible is to be interpreted in the normal, historical, grammatical, literal fashion. Yes, the Bible uses figures of speech, but they are evident when used. The King James Version of the Bible is quoted throughout because of its universal acceptance.

When I use the term “evolution” I am referring to the idea that after the earth was formed it took millions of years to produce organic molecules and then many more millions of years of evolutionary processes and “survival of the fittest” to produce people (the molecules-to-man theory).

For those of you who read with extreme concentration, never missing a word or a thought, please overlook the repetitions. Some of us need repetition so that we can better understand a concept.

Finally, when speaking about origins (Where did I come from?), we are dealing with a system of faith. It may be faith in eternal God or faith in eternal matter and energy. This book will attempt to help the reader discern which system of thought about our beginnings he or she believes. Is it the impersonal, plus chance, plus billions of years? Or is there an infinite Creator/Designer capable of creating the universe and all it contains in six 24 hour days?

I would encourage parents and young people to start building a personal library of good creationist literature. Helpful creationist books and organizations have been included here for your reference. Many high school and college students are writing reports from a creationist perspective and Professors can appreciate their excellently documented scholarship even when they disagree with the creationist's position.

My  personal thanks to all of the courageous authors who have influenced me and suffered for the sake of righteousness in their endeavors to glorify our Lord through their writings. The first book that I read on this subject (in 1971) impacted me greatly. It was The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. The second book was written by Dr. Bolton Davidheizer and is entitled Evolution and the Christian Faith. These two books played a significant role in my evolution out of evolutionary thinking.

I know that apart from God's Spirit working within people's hearts to convict them of truth, mere human efforts to make an apologetic and change people's minds are futile. I also believe that the "Battle is the Lord's" (II Chronicles 20:15) and yet He somehow delights to use His saints in the battles—for His ultimate eternal glory. I humbly bow before my Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and am trusting Him to use His Word to speak to your heart. He is faithful (II Tim. 2:13) and His Word is true (John 17:17) and living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). His truth will ultimately prevail—eternally!

THE

At the end of each chapter a “Marvel of God's Creation” will be inserted to display the uniqueness of certain creatures in God's creation. Evolutionary belief is based on the premise that plants and animals don't evolve something new until it is needed. For example, textbooks talk about fossil turtles and fossil cockroaches being several hundred million years old. These fossil creatures look exactly like living turtles and cockroaches look today. So why have they not changed over millions of years? “They were perfectly suited for their niche in nature and did not need to change.”

Evolution simply cannot explain the origin of the unique animals discussed in this book. There is no way their existence could have happened apart from special creation. They would have “died in process” trying to evolve the necessary equipment and functions to maintain life. Brilliant men have spent lifetimes attempting to prove creatures evolved. That job has yet to be accomplished!

AN ADMONITION

  If you have time to read

this book today, but have not

taken the time to read your Bible,

then you do not have time

to read this book!   

[Soldier4Christ]

The Lord

By wisdom hath founded the earth;

  By understanding hath He established the heavens.

    By His knowledge the depths are broken up,

            And the clouds drop down the dew

                                         (Proverbs 3:19,20).

  1 THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST

Frustration was not an adequate word to describe my feelings! Which was true—evolution and billions of years, or creation in six 24-hour days? Two of my students at Baylor College of Dentistry had challenged me to investigate the possibility that the God of the Bible had created everything in six 24-hour days, as described in the first chapter of Genesis. My first reaction was, “Only an ignorant fool would believe in those ancient myths of the Book of Genesis.”

I was an evolutionist. My years as a biology major at Bucknell University and a dental major at the University of Pittsburgh had convinced me that we are here because of evolutionary processes—all very logical and explainable through the Scientific Method. This was A.D. 1971! We were living in the days of modern, hi-tech-science which had “proven” evolution to be true. And yet, these two dental students were brilliant young men. They held advanced degrees in the sciences. Surely, there must be a simple way to prove that their six-day view of creation was wrong. One of the questions those two dental students asked me was this: “Doctor Martin, have you ever heard of the concept of God creating things with the appearance of age?” At that point in my pilgrimage, I certainly had not, but it sparked a desire to learn more. And thus the frustration began.

FLASHBACK

The seed of my frustration was planted in September of 1966. I was attending USAF Basic Medical Training at Wichita Falls, Texas. It was the height of the Vietnam War, and I had been given orders to report in at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., upon completion of Basic Training. I was to be one of five dentists to serve the pilots and crews of President Johnson's presidential fleet—the 89th Military Airlift Wing.

The seed was a brief prayer. As I sat at the Officer's Club that September night, I decided to clear things up with the God of the Bible (if He was really there). If He could part the Red Sea, turn water into wine, and raise the dead, He could answer a simple prayer. This was my prayer: “God, if you are up there, you have two choices. Either you can show me the girl I am going to marry, or you will see the wildest Air Force officer you have ever seen.” I instantly thought, “Whew, nobody heard that prayer, I'm going out and live it up!”

Except God did hear that prayer. I met my wife-to-be that very day! We had a date the next night, and I told Jenna Dee that I was going to marry her. I knew I would. The God of the Bible had answered my specific prayer on the day that I uttered it to Him.

Upon my arrival to Washington, D.C., I decided to go to church and learn more about God. As I left church that first Sunday, the pastor shook my hand and asked if there was anything he could do to help me spiritually. I told him that anything he could do would help me spiritually, because at that point I was a big zero. Pastor Charlie Warford asked me to get up on Monday mornings at 6:00 a.m. and read the Bible with him. I used to like to argue with people about the Bible, but I'd never really read it. So we read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and we were in John, chapter 3, verse 16, when God got my attention. This verse said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” It was the first phrase that got my attention. I was part of the world, had a heavy commitment to the world, and I knew it. That verse said to my heart that God loved me! I got on my knees with Pastor Warford and committed my life to the Lord Jesus Christ. The seed had been planted and was beginning to sprout.

At the point in time I came to faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior, my sins were all forgiven, and I was given everlasting life. But something else happened which I was only later to realize. I had gone from being an “agnostic evolutionist” to being a “theistic evolutionist.” That meant that now I believed in God and that He used evolution over billions of years to create the universe and everything in it. I honestly believed that evolution was the only scientifically accurate option for how we got here. It was the “Big Bang,” plus time, plus chance. Or, in other words, “nothing plus no one equals everything.”

[Soldier4Christ]

EVERYONE BELIEVES BY FAITH

My university science professors had not told me that I was making some significant assumptions by believing in the Big Bang model. The “Big Bang” is the belief that the universe and all it contains is the result of matter, so dense that the matter was invisible, suddenly exploding in a mega-explosion labelled by evolutionary scientists as the “Big Bang.”[1] Many scientists believe that this explosion occurred between eight and twenty billion years ago. To accept the Big Bang, one must assume the existence of matter and energy to be eternal. The Big Bang model only attempts to explain the ordering of matter and energy, not their origin. Matter had to be eternally present before the Big Bang or there would have been nothing there to go BOOM! We discover here that everyone on earth believes in something eternal by faith. It is either faith in eternal matter and energy or faith in eternal God.

Why is this belief by faith? Because it is beyond the reach of science to test. There are no experiments that can test who or what was here when the universe began. Consequently, when we speak of origins, neither the creation model nor the evolution model can be tested or verified by reproducible scientific experiments. This takes both models of origins out of the realm of science and into the arena of faith.

God in His infinite genius has designed His creation so that, no matter which view of origins you believe, you are face to face with God. If matter and energy were eternal, they would be—by the time of the Big Bang—in a state of equilibrium. That means everything would be equal and non-reactive. A car is like that. The car sits there in neutral and doesn't do anything until it is turned on. Starting the engine explodes the gasoline which gives the power to move the car. Science tells us that when matter is somewhere for a long enough time (eternity past), it will eventually stop doing anything and just sit there in neutral like a car. This is a part of the second law of Thermodynamics and is called Zeroeth Entropy. Before the Big Bang, all matter and energy, if eternal, would be in neutral. It's like the car when it is turned off and in park on a flat driveway. It will not move until someone starts it up.

So, if everything was in neutral before the Big Bang, what made the Big Bang go BOOM? If you believe in the Big Bang and eternal matter and energy, you believe by faith that an outside “force” acted on this matter-in-neutral to supply the energy necessary to explode it into action. In reality, you are face to face with God. “In the beginning, God!” The question becomes either, “Do I believe by faith in eternal matter and energy?” (This gives me the problem of how did the Big Bang go BOOM?) or “Do I believe by faith in eternal God?” Everyone believes by faith in something eternal.

Philip E. Johnson, a First Amendment attorney who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley, believes that the media all too often presents creationists as if they do not use or understand science. Johnson writes:

In fact, there is a great deal more to the creation/evolution controversy than meets the eye, or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media stereotype of “creationists” as Bible-quoting know-nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many things, but they have at least one very important point to argue, a point that has been thoroughly obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's flood and other side issues. What science educators propose to teach as “evolution,” and label as fact, is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence (scientifically proven facts, ed.), but upon a highly controversial philosophical presupposition. The controversy over evolution is therefore not going to go away as people become better educated on the subject. On the contrary, the more people learn about the philosophical content of what scientists are calling the “fact of evolution,” the less they are going to like it.[2]

Like many of us, Johnson is concerned that public school science teachers and university professors have moved out of the realm of “science” and into the sphere of religious teaching (faith) when they address the evolution of molecules to man as if it were scientific fact. In my years as a science major at Bucknell University and the University of Pittsburgh, I was taught that science and fossils prove evolution to be true—that the important transitional steps in the evolution of one creature into another “occurred within its gaps.” I now agree with Johnson when he questions current evolutionary theory and its adherents. The evolutionary model's “...mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they (evolutionists) cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of Nature.” [3] The political correctness of the day in which we live also dictates the abhorrence of any credibility or reality to a literal God who is, in fact, greater than science, because He is the Creator of all.

GOD, THE CREATOR

Though the idea of Creator God outside the world of nature is unacceptable to the majority of evolutionists, the Bible teaches that eternal God created the universe and He did so by and through and for His only eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The eternal Son was there in the beginning of creation as can be seen in the plural pronouns of Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” That He, the Son, was instrumental in the creation of all things is taught in the Gospel of John:

 

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men (John 1:1-4).

These verses of John verify that Jesus is the Creator, and that all things were made by Him. The book of Hebrews is another testimony that Jesus is the Creator of the world: “God..., Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;...” (Hebrews 1:1-2). The letter to the Colossians also refers to the Lord Jesus as the Creator of all things, and it goes on to name Him as the One Who “holds all things together” (Colossians 1:15-17).

Scientists say, “We have a problem. There are not enough stars and moons and asteroids to hold the universe together.” This is called the “Missing Mass” problem. Everything should be flying apart, but it is staying together. A creationist can say, “I know what holds the universe together in spite of the ‘Missing Mass’ problem—the Lord Jesus, the Creator holds it all together by His great power (Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1).” When the Bible refers to science, it may not be exhaustive, but it is accurate. We can trust it.

The Scriptures tell us that the world came into being, not as a result of cosmic chance, but as a special creation with a unique purpose. God desired someone who would bring glory to Himself and with whom He could have fellowship. Ultimately, the Creator would step into time and His creation to become the Savior. But more about that later.

In the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament a word is repeated to emphasize it. For example, Isaiah 6:3 uses repetition to tell us that God is infinitely holy: “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory.” You cannot get any holier than God. The Hebrew language uses the same word three times to show the total absolute holiness of God. In a similar way, Genesis emphasizes the fact of creation. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, writes:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (Genesis 5:1-2 emphasis added).

[Soldier4Christ]

MAN, THE CREATED

Man was created, created, created! You cannot get any more emphatic than that.  The Bible does not say man evolved, evolved, evolved. If God wanted to indicate that man had come about through ages of evolutionary changes, He surely could have. But His Word is Truth and the Truth says man was created.

Not only was man created by the Lord Jesus, but he was created in God's own image. Did God, who “spoke the creation into existence,” have to use millions of years of evolutionary mistakes to finally achieve His own image in man? Of course not!

If people really did evolve from monkey-like creatures, then the question arises, “What about the Virgin Mary? Was Mary, the human mother of the Lord Jesus, composed of made-over monkey genes?” If Mary was a highly evolved, distant relative of monkeys, then is our Lord also genetically related to the primates? Mary was created in the image of God, not in the lineage of monkeys.

The Bible tells us that God created man in His own image as an instant creation (Genesis 1:27). Jesus, the Creator, verifies this in Mark 10:6. He states: “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” The context of Mark 10:6 is divorce. We all know that cockroaches, rabbits and rats do not get divorces. The creator is talking about people. People get divorces. The Creator of one-man/one-woman-'til-death-do-us-part marriage tells us that divorce is not His solution to problems of pride and selfishness in marriage. (If you would like to read some of what the Bible says about this please refer to Malachi 2:13-16; Deuteronomy 24:1-5; Matthew 5:31,32; Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:10-16). People, created instantly in God's image, were there in the beginning.[4]

If we believe what the Bible says (and this book will argue that there is no “scientific” proof not to), Mark 10:6 alone destroys all evolutionary teaching. There were male and female people on earth from the beginning. The Creator says so. That leaves no room at all for billions of years of transitional animal forms (missing links) gradually evolving from a single cell through monkey-like creatures to man.

MAN CREATED FULLY MATURE

If it is true that there were people here as male and female people from the very beginning, then God created them as instant adults. He created Adam, a full-grown (totally mature) adult who was only one second old. From Adam's rib (taken during the first general anesthetic!), God created instantly the first woman, Eve, complete and mature. Adam woke up and did not see a baby girl. He was introduced to Eve, his fully grown wife.

If Adam had asked, “Eve, how old are you?” she would have answered, “One minute old, Adam.” She was created with the appearance of age. She looked perhaps 25 years old, but she had to wait a whole year to celebrate her first birthday. If Eve said, “Adam, I'm hungry,” he could have reached out and picked a ripe peach, though its tree was only three days old. God also created fully mature trees. They looked old, and bore ripe fruit, but they were only three days old. These three-day-old trees were growing in soil that was created fully developed. In this soil, ferns were thriving and flowers blooming. Huge, minutes to hours-old dinosaurs were walking the earth with Adam and Eve. (Fortunately, they ate plants and not people at this point. See Genesis 1:30.) Even the light beams from the stars could have been created at the instant God created the stars. It might appear to scientists that light from the farthest stars took millions of years to get to earth, but if God created fully mature systems then that light beam may only be as old as the star itself. (For further discussion of this subject, see Chapter 10, Light From The Farthest Stars.)

When I am addressing the issue of creation with maturity (or the appearance of age) with a class of college students, invariably a hand will go up at that point of the discussion. The student will say, “Then God is a liar. He created something that is not what it appears to be if He created Adam, Eve, and dinosaurs full grown. They looked old, but were not old.” No, God is not a liar. He told us exactly what He did in Genesis l and 2. Our problem is that we do not think we can believe it. Instead of believing the Bible, we have accepted the speculative theories of evolution.

Remember that in Hebrews 1, Colossians 1 and John 1, God tells us that Jesus is the Creator. Is it outside of the ability of God to create with the appearance of age? The Creator stepped into space-time-history as the Savior. He performed His first miracle during the wedding feast at Cana as recorded in John 2.

JESUS CREATED AGED WINE

Decades before Jesus and the Apostle John walked the streets of Cana, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is called the LXX or the Septuagint. As John wrote the first two chapters of his gospel, he seemingly had in mind the first two chapters of the Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek). Not only is the use of the Greek language similar, but John 1 and Genesis 1 talk about the beginning of the world and John 2 and Genesis 2 deal with a man and a woman moving into marriage.

   As recorded in John 2 the marriage party at Cana had run out of wine. There were six stone waterpots full of water, which Jesus turned into wine. The servants took some of this new wine to the headwaiter. After tasting it he said, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10).

How is good wine produced? It must be aged. How old was this wine? Only a minute or two. The Creator steps into time and performs His first miracle to “manifest forth His glory” (John 2:11). He wants His disciples to make no mistake as to who He is. In doing so, He creates something (wine) with the appearance of age. The seconds-old wine tasted like aged wine. How many water pots does the Biblical account of John record? Six! How many days did God work in the creation week? Six! As John writes his Gospel he could be thinking about Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis, God created the universe with the appearance of age in six days. In John 2, God created wine with the appearance of age in six water pots.

Scripture has one interpretation; however, it can have many applications. One of the applications of John 2 is that the Creator does not need time. He can create whatever He wants to create and make it appear to "have some years" on it. Creations that are new can appear to have gone through a process that required time—but there was no time. Jesus manifested His glory as He performed His earthly miracles, without the use of time, just as He had created each aspect of the universe, instantly complete and fully functional.

 PETER AIMS TO KILL

When Judas Iscariot came with a mob to betray Jesus, Peter grabbed a sword and aimed it at the head of one of them. The person ducked, and Peter succeeded in cutting off only the mobster's ear. Did Jesus pick up the ear, get out His suture kit, sew the ear back on and say, “Come back in two weeks and we'll take out your stitches?” Of course not! He put the ear back on the person—no stitches, no healing process, no time involved. You see, the God of the Bible does not need time. There is no way to reattach an ear without the process of days of healing…unless you are God. Our Creator does not need time to do what we humans (limited and finite) would dogmatically say requires time!

[Soldier4Christ]

GOD CREATED TIME

 God created time. He is not subject to it, since He is eternal and time is temporary. That is the message of II Peter 3:8, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” II Peter 3:8 does not teach that each day of the creation week was 1,000 years or a longer period of time or vice versa (1,000 years as a day), but rather it shows that God is above time. The context of II Peter 3:8,9 is that time means nothing to God as He waits for us to come to repentance!

All of the miracles of our Creator, with the exception, perhaps, of walking on water, appear to have needed time! Our Lord did not need time for His miracles, and He did not need time to create the universe. For us to believe that God created the universe in a literal six-day, 24-hour/day week (as recorded in Genesis), we must assume that He can and will create things with the appearance of age. His miracles tell us that this is consistent with His power and His character. We can believe the Bible in the normal historical and grammatical sense of its meaning. As we will see in the chapters ahead, there is no scientific reason not to believe the Holy Scriptures as they are written. Of course, I did not know these things back in 1971, and twenty-three years later I am still learning. As I talked with those Baylor students, I began to realize that evolutionary theory and the Biblical creation account cannot be merged. Even the belief that God used evolutionary processes over extended periods of time to change primitive molecules into you and me (Theistic Evolution) is inadequate. It portrays a vicious, stupid God who needed millions of years (of ferocious animals eating animals or “survival of the fittest”), to produce something He considered perfect enough to announce that man was finally in His own image. Evolution destroys God, His infinite power and His image. Furthermore, evolution enslaves God to the restrictive boundaries of time.

Could it be that molecules-to-man evolution is not based on true science, but upon many unprovable assumptions? We will consider this in Chapter Two but one more thought first. The first verse of the Bible (Genesis 1:1) says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew word for “God” is a plural word, and the same word is sometimes translated “gods.” The verb created, is third person singular, “He Created” in the Hebrew. Did God make a grammatical mistake in the very first verse of the Bible by putting a plural noun with a singular verb? Not at all! God is telling us, in His first written words to us, that He is a plurality and at the same time a singularity. He is the one true God in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the Almighty Trinitarian God of the Bible, the three-in-one!

God’s universe speaks of His attributes. The universe is composed of three elements: space, time and matter (which includes energy). “In the beginning”—time, “God created the heavens”—space, “and the earth”—matter. The universe is a trinity. Space is a trinity composed of width, depth and height. Time is a trinity of past, present and future. Matter is a trinity of solid, liquid and gas! In one short verse (Genesis 1:1), the God of the Bible describes His universe.

 

[1] “The universe began as a particle that was infinitely dense and occupied no space.” Robert Augros and George Stanciu, The New Story of Science (Lake Bluff, Illinois: Regnrey Gateway Pubs., 1984), pp. 54-64 (condensation and paraphrase).

[2] Philip E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism (Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 1,2.

[3] Ibid., p. 7 

[4] I heard this argument first on a tape dealing with the evolution/creation controversy by Floyd Jones Ministries, 8222 Glencliffe Lane, Houston, Tx 77070.

[Soldier4Christ]

MARVEL OF GOD'S CREATION #1

The Bombardier Beetle

If there is any creature on earth that could not possibly have evolved, that creature is the Bombardier Beetle. It needed God to create it with all its systems fully functional.

...the bombardier (beetle) does appear to be unique in the animal kingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a tommy gun. When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explodes from its body at a boiling 212° F. What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a B-17's gun turret, to hit a hungry ant or frog with bull's eye accuracy.[1]

Evolutionary theory has big problems when attempting to explain the existence and complexity of the Bombardier. Each stage in the evolution of its special chemicals would have led to its destruction.

This one-half inch insect mixes chemicals which violently react to produce something similar to an explosion. How could the bombardier beetle have evolved this means of defense without killing itself in the process? This problem has the members of the evolutionary establishment scratching their heads. Evolutionary theory says that you do not evolve something until you know you need it. In other words a new enzyme or chemical or organ or fin or beak or bone will not evolve until the creature realizes it needs the new improvement. The bombardier beetle would not have known it needed a mechanism to prevent these chemicals from blowing it up until it mixed the chemicals and blew itself up. Naturally, it could not evolve after it was dead, so how did it get here? The evolutionists say, “We don't know.”

To prevent its own destruction the little bug manufactures another chemical, called an inhibitor, and mixes it in with the explosive chemicals. But with the inhibitor, it would not be able to use the explosion of hot, burning liquid and gases to discourage its enemies. A spider would eat it because the beetle has no solution to explode to protect itself. Again, we have a dead beetle. Dead bugs cannot evolve the next chemical needed to release the protective reaction. That chemical turns out to be an anti-inhibitor. When the anti-inhibitor is added to the other chemicals, an explosive reaction does occur and the beetle is able to defend itself. There is still another problem, however: the beetle must have an especially tough “combustion chamber” and that chamber must have an outlet for the violent reaction to release its energy, or once again we have a dead bug. Problem solved: this unique creature has the necessary equipment, including twin-tail tubes to “exhaust” its defensive reaction. These tubes can be aimed at enemies in a 180° arc from straight to the rear, to directly toward the front. Amazingly, it does not shoot friendly creatures but only its enemies! How does a one-half inch long insect know how to aim at and shoot only enemies? And, how did its incredibly complex nervous system and advanced chemical system evolve? There is nothing like the Bombardier beetle in the entire animal kingdom.

Is this an example of the “impersonal, plus time, plus chance” or is it an example of a special, intricate creation by a God who is intimately involved with His creatures? Which system of belief can best explain the marvelous Bombardier Beetle: Evolution or Creation? [2]
 

[1] Natalie Angier reported by Rick Thompson/San Francisco, Time Magazine (February 25, 1985), p. 70

[2] Duane Gish, Ph.D., Dinosaurs Those Terrible Lizards (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers), pp. 50-55. These pages describe the Bombardier Beetle. This children's book is primarily about dinosaurs.

[Soldier4Christ]

2 ...AND THEN CAME ASSUMPTIONS

Many college science professors never tell their students that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on assumptions. What is an assumption? It is something taken for granted and supposed to be true.[1] As a six-day creationist, I believe God created the universe and everything in it fully mature (with the appearance of age). I cannot prove this with scientific experiments so this belief is called an assumption. I suppose it to be true. Evolutionists likewise have assumptions. They take many necessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. In other words, evolutionists assume that non-living chemicals gave rise to that first living cell which, in turn, evolved into ever and ever more complex forms of life. There are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules-to-man scenario.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic theories an evolutionist “takes for granted” or “supposes” to be true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these assumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a high school or college textbook.

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.[2]

  MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS ASSUMED

What Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giant Redwood trees is all an assumption.

Dr. Kerkut clearly states the evolutionary assumption that all life is related to that first cell. However, through the use of phase-electron microscopes scientists have discovered that there are consistent differences in cellular substance in various kinds of animals. When studied microscopically, the living things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all. I Corinthians 15:39 records: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another flesh of fishes, and another of birds." This was written 1900 years before scientists "discovered" the differences in the basic cellular components of the various kinds of living creatures. God created life and inspired His apostles and prophets to record details of His creation, which scientists are just beginning to discover. God says there are different types of flesh in the bodies of His earthly creatures. But there are also different types of heavenly bodies -- the stars are different from each other and not the same as the moon (I Cor. 15:41). Astronomers estimate there may be one trillion-trillion stars. The best English dictionaries have less than 800,000 words. Yet, the God of the Bible has a name and a number for each star, "...He calleth them all by names..."! (Isaiah 40:26) God is infinite in His power and wisdom.

From the biggest star to the smallest atom, the magnitude and complexity of the universe is unexplainable, except in terms of a creative designer who is infinitely above any "chance processes" or human technology.

Many scientists assume life came from non-living chemicals[3] and that this only happened once. They say that everything we see alive, whether plant or animal, came from that first, primordial, single cell. Most evolutionists do not believe that one kind of life began in the Amazon and another in Africa and another in Arizona. They believe non-life gave birth to life in one cell that became the ancestor of the entire plant and animal kingdoms.

Why do scientists such as Dr. Kerkut assume this startling event happened only once? Because the chances of life evolving from non-life are so astronomically high as to be impossible without an intelligent designer. Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker of the Institute for Creation Research have recorded the probability of the chance origin of life in their revised book, What is Creation Science? (pp. 269-276). If all the universe was crammed with electron particles, the maximum number of particles would be ten to the power of 130. If each particle could do one hundred billion-billion events (steps in ever onward and upward evolution) every second for 3,000 billion years (100 times older than anyone says the universe is), then in the span of history of the universe 10 to the one-hundred seventieth power events could possibly happen. But to get a series of even 1,500 events to happen in order [and without God's help] (events that might be moving from non-living chemicals to a living cell), there is only one chance in ten to the power of 450! This means that the probability of evolution even getting started is zero. There aren't enough electrons in the universe to, by chance, generate a single living cell of a single evolutionary scientist. And yet, these scientists who do not believe in God are here. How did they get here? Without belief in God, the only option these people have is the evolution of non-living chemicals over eons of time into a living cell and ultimately into man.

   For nearly 150 years some of the most brilliant scientists in the world have attempted to convert non-living chemicals into some form of reproducible life. No one has done it.

[Soldier4Christ]

A CELL IS NOT SIMPLE

A single reproducible cell is far from simple. Dr. Leon Long, of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, writes as an evolutionist:

"Among the first organisms were the lowly bacteria and blue-green algae. They are about as simple as a self-sufficient cell can be, which is none too simple, considering that a bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second! Cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes." [4]

Is it any wonder scientists claim that life from non-living chemicals only happened once? According to Dr. Long, the simplest forms of life can perform one million reactions per second! Something that complex obviously needs a designer, a Creator.

Scientists do not talk very much about the evolution of the cell membrane. The membrane that provides the outside wall (or skin) of the cell is highly complex. This membrane permits specific concentrations of certain chemicals and solutions into and out of the cell. If the concentrations of some of these chemicals vary by even 1/100%, the cell will die. At a microscopic spot in the universe, how did those chemicals all get together in the correct configurations and concentrations and at the same instant? In addition, how did the cell membrane form around them at just the right moment permitting only specific concentrations of chemicals in and out of the cell ("knowing", of course, what those chemicals must and must not be)? And how could all of this somehow know how to reproduce itself and not die in the process?

The God of the Bible said He created, created, created!  His creation defies the speculations of the evolutionist. Creation necessitates a designer. It demands fully functional life from the beginning. Biology acknowledges this with its most well-proven law, the law of Biogenesis: Life generates life. If something is alive, it is alive because something else alive produced it. The Bible tells us the living God is the Creator of life, and that statement agrees with what we see in biology. Life always comes from life.

And yet, evolutionary chemists construct laboratory experiments that attempt to display the means by which life began without God. Many of these experimenters believe that the atmosphere of primitive Earth was quite different than it is today. The atmosphere of the planet Jupiter is thought to resemble that of early Earth. Water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane were the supposed ingredients. In 1953, a chemist, Dr. Stanley Miller, placed these four ingredients into a glass jar which he heated and into which he sent sparks of electricity. He noticed a pink fluid coming off into his trap. This fluid contained some amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are very much a part of living tissue, but they are not life. The Miller-type experiments do not display chemicals marching ever onward and upward until reproducing life is generated, yet evolution in this manner is assumed to have happened. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence in the rocks of Earth or the present oceans that water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane ever existed in the concentrations necessary for Miller's experiments to accurately occur in nature.

The claim that chemical evolution is impossible, as presented in The Mystery of Life's Origin 8, has yet to be refuted. Random chemical reactions do not produce life! Dr. Stanley Miller and his followers did not produce anything with raw chemicals that even approaches life. Dennis Petersen in his informative book, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, quotes Dr. Henry Morris who says it this way:

"Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found...but could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an...
Unknown atmospheric composition..in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place."

Prove any of these unknowns of evolution with experimentally testable science and the Nobel Science prize will be yours!

A PERSONAL DESIGNER CREATES LIFE

Let us not forget--the evolutionist says there was no God, no higher power, no designer, no person behind the beginning of life. It was the impersonal (no person), plus time, plus chance (or, no one plus nothing equals everything!) So, even if the Stanley Miller experiments did prove chemical evolution is possible, which they did not do, you still have a personal designer (Miller) making his creation. Does a personal designer-scientist, doing experiments in a carefully controlled laboratory, prove that the creation of life occurred without any creator designer (no God) in a totally random-chance primordial ooze? Of course not. Our God is worthy to receive the honor and the glory and the praise because He created all things (Rev. 4:11). We can trust God and His Word, the Bible. Nothing is too difficult for Him (Jeremiah 32:17).....He is the God of the impossible (Luke 1:37).

HAS ANYONE SEEN AN ELECTRON?

One of the greatest scientists of the space age, Dr. Werner von Braun stated:

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all...The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based...

To be forced to believe only one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance -- would violate the very objectivity of science itself...What random process could produce the brains of man or the system of the human eye? They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?...they say they cannot visualize a designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron?...What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?..." [5]

Ask any scientist if he believes in electrons. He will answer, "Certainly". Ask that same scientist if he or she has ever seen an electron, and they will say, "No". Scientists believe in electrons by faith as they observe the results of electron activity.

Is this not similar to faith in God? We do not see God, but we do "see" Him through His handiwork, the creation. Romans 1 explains that as we study the intricacies of the macro- and micro-universes, we should think about who designed them, who makes them work, and who holds them together.

FOOLISH SPECULATIONS

When scientists examine the largest stars and the smallest atoms and do not honor God as their Creator and give thanks to Him, they are reduced to foolish speculations (Romans 1:18-23). Could the evolution of man from a single cell be a foolish speculation? Dr. Harrison Matthews, the writer of the introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, states:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." [6]

Dr. Matthews, an evolutionist, says evolution has no scientific proof. It is a speculation of faith. Yet, Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard University, writes:

"Since Darwin, every knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. Today, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution." [7]

Omni Magazine promotes evolution. Dr. Mayr presents godless evolution as fact, even though the Creator says in Romans 1 that all men know better: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them (Romans 1:18-19)."  Romans 1:22 adds: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission agrees:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." [8]

Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan have presented evolution as no longer a theory, but a proven fact. They have done this without a single iota of fact. Evolutionist, D.M.S. Watson said it best:

[Soldier4Christ]

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because...no alternative explanation is credible.

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable.

...the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible." [9]

The clearly incredible Creator says in Psalm 19:1:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork."

 

[1] Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 133, G. & C. Meriam Company, Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A., 1981. 

[2] G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), chapter 2 p. 6.

[3] The Mystery of Life's Origin presents the scientific position that chemical evolution is impossible. This book by Doctors of Chemistry has not been answered by the evolutionists. Non-living chemicals will not ultimately generate reproducing life. The chemistry does not work that way. Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1984). 

 

[4] Leon E. Long, Geology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), p. 172. 

[5] Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Vol. 1 (El Cajon: Master Books, 1988), p. 63, as quoted from the Bible Science Newsletter, May, 1974, p.8 

[6] L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, "Introduction," Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971), p. xi, as quoted in The Revised Quote Book, ed. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. (Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, Calif. 92021), p. 2. For many more quotes that negate evolution from the literature of the evolutionary scientists, purchase The Quote Book. The cost is around $4.00 and well worth it. 

[7] Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February, 1983, p. 74. 

[8] Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959, as quoted in The Revised Quote Book, p. 5.
         

[9] D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, August 10, 1929, Vol. 124, #3119, pp. 231,233. 

[Soldier4Christ]

The Incubator Bird

The Megapode or "incubator bird" of Australia is unique among birds. This three to four pound bird resembles a chicken or a small turkey. Some native Australians call it the brush turkey.

The incubator birds are unlike all other birds. So, if they evolved, from what did they evolve? Or what are they evolving into? A recent Scientific American article[1] offers precious little by way of an evolutionary explanation for the origins of this strange bird.

All birds use body heat to incubate their eggs except the incubator bird. 

"Instead, they pile up great heaps of debris which serve as incubators; the warmth of the fermenting compost does the work. In one species, the scrub fowl, a mound 20 feet high and 50 feet wide has been reported." [2] 

Instead of using its own body heat to incubate its eggs (as does the chicken who sits on her eggs), the incubator bird uses fermentation heat or "...some use solar heat and others the heat produced by volcanic action." [3]

A bird that uses volcanic heat or the warmth of fermenting plant life to hatch its eggs: Incredible! If there are any creatures that could not possibly evolve, the Australian incubator bird joins the bombardier beetle as such a creature.

The female is responsible for two activities. First, she must test the nest to be sure it is adequate for incubating her eggs. What explanation can evolution offer for the ability of the hen to evaluate the suitability of a nest that may be dug three feet into the ground and extend 10 or more feet above ground and up to 50 feet across? And what would motivate a little three and one-half pound male bird to get busy constructing monstrous nest number two, should the hen reject his first effort?

After accepting the nest, the second responsibility of the female is performed. She lays 20 to 35 eggs at the rate of one egg every three days for up to seven months. "...As many as 16 eggs can exist in a normal mound at any one time." [4] Each egg weighs about a half a pound and is as large as an ostrich egg. That is a tremendous amount of work for a three to four pound hen. No wonder that upon completion of her laying task, she leaves the nest, never to return. She takes no part in the incubation and raising of her chicks. This is not your normal evolutionary way!

At this point the male begins to perform his God-given job of managing the incubation of the deeply buried eggs. For incubator bird chicks to survive they demand a precise temperature of 91°F. Yes, exactly 91°F. If the male bird wants the chicks to survive, he will not let the temperature vary more then one degree on either side of 91°F! How does the daddy bird maintain a consistent temperature of 91°F in a mound of decaying plants and dirt?

Scientists differ on the mechanism they think the bird uses to measure the temperature. Some think the bird's thermometer is in its beak. Others believe the tongue can distinguish 91°F and a few tenths of a percent above and below 91°F.

Here is the point: How could a bird evolve the ability to precisely measure temperatures with its beak or tongue? Evolution says nothing is evolved until it is needed. How would the incubator bird know it needed the ability to keep its eggs at 91°F? The chicks would get too hot or too cold and die before he figured it out. And dead creatures do not evolve into higher forms.

You may be asking, "Well, how does this bird keep those eggs at 91°F?" The male digs down into the nest and checks the temperature. On hot days, he may pile extra sand on top of the nest to shield it from the sun. He may even rearrange the entire pile of rotting leaves and grasses several times a day.

On cooler days, the male megapodes (which means big feet) will push material off the top of the nest to permit more sunlight to penetrate the decaying organic material. Or, to keep the humidity at 99.5% around the eggs, he may dig conical holes toward the eggs to get more moisture deeper into the nest. Keeping temperature and humidity just right is a big job. Concerning the precision needed for incubation temperature maintenance, Seymour writes:

"This process is very precise: one centimeter of fresh material added to the mound can increase core temperature about 1½°C." [5]

Not only must the eggs be kept at 91°F and 99.5% humidity, but the chick must get enough air to breathe. The father provides the fresh air for the chicks as he daily digs down to the eggs. But the chick must get the air inside the shell. The means to get air inside the shell was provided by the hen as she formed the shell. It has thousands of tiny holes (called pores) in it. These holes in the thick shell are shaped like conical ice cream cones with the narrowest part of the cone toward the chick. As the chick grows it cannot get enough air through the bottom of the cone so it begins to remove the inside layer of the shell. As it thins out the shell the holes get bigger (moving up the cone) and the chick can get more air. Amazing!

The way the chicks hatch is also unique among birds. Unlike other birds, they are ready to fly with full feathers as soon as they break out of the egg. Once they hatch, it takes up to three days for them to dig their way up out of the mound. How do they know they must dig their way out or else they die? They have not been instructed by either parent. Even so, they lie on their backs and dig up until they break out. Clearly, the God of the Bible is involved with all aspects of His creation!

Once the chicks dig out of the nest, they are on their own. They are not fed or cared for by either parent. When they are mature, the male will build a huge nest as an incubator for his mate's eggs. He will build this huge, precise mound without any instruction from his parents. This is not learned behavior.! How does the brush turkey know the importance of 91°F?

Credentialed men and women have the audacity to say that this bird is the product of the impersonal plus time plus chance. But truly, how could the incubator bird even exist? Only if the God of the Bible lives and is involved with His creatures.
 

[1] Roger S. Seymour, "The Brush Turkey," Scientific American, Vol. 265, No. 6, December, 1991, pp. 108-114.

[2] Roger Tory Petersen, Life Nature Library: The Birds (New York: Time-Life Books, 1973), p. 140.

[3] The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990 edition), p. 1011.

[4] Ibid., Roger Seymour, p. 109.

[5] Ibid., Roger Seymour, p. 110.

[Soldier4Christ]

3      HAS GOD BEEN TOPPLED?

One day my two creationist dental students asked me to give them a scientific explanation for how evolution occurs. In other words, they wanted me to defend my evolutionary beliefs by telling them the scientific evidence I could present as proof of how one creature evolves into another and whether that evidence conflicts with the Bible. Darwin seemed like the logical place to start searching for my answer. I believed the evidence was there somewhere, but I'd never been asked to prove it before. Did I ever get a shock! Darwin had no idea how one species of animal could evolve into another. He wrote to a friend in 1863;:

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change." [1]

THE REALLY BIG QUESTION

Obviously, in 1863, four years after publishing Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin had no idea how one species might change into another. The only thing he thought he could prove was that "...no one species has changed." He could not even imagine what a "beneficial" change might look like. Scientists today remain as baffled as Darwin.

The world's leading evolutionary thinkers had a convention in Rome in 1981. They wanted to decide what makes one species evolve into another species, and how that change, from one animal or plant into another, might occur. Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard, writes:

"We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on the mechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely no idea what happens genetically during speciation. That's a damning statement, but it's the truth." [2]

These scientists in Rome in 1981 arrived at their conclusion, "We have no idea how evolution occurs"! Neither did Darwin in 1863! This, then, is the really big question of evolution: How does it happen? God says He created each thing "after its kind" (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Evolutionists say they do not know how "kinds" come into being. Which account do you believe? God's or the evolutionist's? My position is that God alone is worthy to be praised!

Scientists do not know how one species might change into another. They do not even know how a simple chemical compound might come about. Author and friend of evolution, Jeff Goldberg, records for us the thoughts of Hans Kosterlitz, one of the discoverers of the human body's natural pain killers, the enkephalins:

"It is a question almost of God. Working on the enkephalins you get -- without being religious -- a commitment. You start to admire and wonder, how could that come about -- that plants and animals share such structurally similar chemicals? How, even after a million years of evolution, could the earth, with all its plants and creatures, be so very simple and unified?" [3]

Kosterlitz looked at the enkephalins, and his study of the micro-universe made him think about God. But he quickly adds the disclaimer "without being religious," as if thinking about God is not religious when studying only a small part of His creation. Apparently Kosterlitz believes God has nothing to do with science. Yet, when scientists look at the creation, God has intended for it to make them realize that there must be a Designer-God behind it all. However, most add their disclaimers and refuse to honor Him as God. God's Word (i.e. Romans 1:18-22) declares that their thinking is thereby reduced to foolish speculations (evolution over millions of years, etc.).

Kosterlitz questioned how plants and animals could "...share such structurally similar chemicals". If we examine this sharing of chemicals from a creationist perspective, then God created life to fit in the common atmosphere of earth with a common food chain composed of certain basic chemicals. Similarities in creatures do not prove evolution, but more logically display the wisdom of God in creating plants and animals which, in all their diversity, can exist in a common environment. God designed all life to exist while using a few common basic chemicals in an atmosphere made mostly of oxygen and nitrogen. What genius the God of the Bible displays!

HAS GOD BEEN TOPPLED?

Jerry Adler, a science writer, reviews world class evolutionary thinker Stephen Jay Gould's book, Wonderful Life, with these words:

"Science, having toppled God the Creator and exalted Man, now wants to raise E. coli and the rest of the seething mass of terrestrial life up there alongside him. This view does not deny the uniqueness of Homo sapiens and its distinctive contribution to life, human consciousness. It asserts, however, that there is nothing inherent in the laws of nature that directed evolution toward the production of human beings. There is nothing predestined about our current pre-eminence among large terrestrial fauna; we are the product of a whole series of contingent events in the history of our planet, any one of which could have been reversed to give rise to a different outcome.

We are, in short, like every other creature that ever walked or slithered across the earth, an accident....

The survivors...were lucky.

The story of life is one of periodic mass extinctions, which wiped out the majority of species on earth." [4]

Gould and Adler evidently believe that God has been "toppled", that science and man are exalted, and all of this is based on the "lucky survivors" of mass extinctions. So, evolution appears to be based upon death. Because of the death of the "unfit", the "fittest" survive. How might a scientist describe "unfit" life? Do evolutionists believe there is "unfit" life among us today? Did Hitler believe that? Hitler was an evolutionist and apparently thought he was speeding up the process of survival of the fittest. Evolution is not amoral. It is not neutral thinking. It promotes a value system that permits each individual to do what is right in his own eyes. Evolutionary thought encourages school curricular materials that force young minds to choose who is fit to survive, and who is unfit; who will be rescued in the lifeboat, and who will be left to die of exposure or drowning. No one but God is qualified to describe a certain life as fit or "unfit". Evolutionary thinking wrongly promotes man to the status of God. It forces people to make decisions (for instance about life and death, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide) that should remain with God alone.

WE SEE DEATH AND EXTINCTION, NOT EVOLUTION

Scientists are correct when they observe and publish the fact that mass extinctions have occurred in the past. In the present, extinctions are occurring on a daily basis. What science can prove with facts is that life is disappearing. Life of a wide variety of kinds of plants and animals is becoming extinct. Does this prove that new life forms are now evolving or ever did evolve? Science has conclusively proven that life is dying and the universe is running down. The fossils are a record of death and extinction. The "Cambrian Explosion" [5] is not an explosion of early life. It is a fossil record of the death of millions of complex organisms that, for the most part, no longer exist. So, therefore, when we look at nature, we do not see emerging new life forms but rather death and extinction ... entropy in action.

The Creator-God of the Bible is the source of life (John 5:26ff). Jesus said,

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:  and they that hear shall live.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."  (John 5:24-29)

God created life. Death came when the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, rebelled against their Creator and sinned. Romans 5:12 states:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

I Corinthians 15:21 continues this teaching:

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

If death came as a result of the sin of Adam, then sin, decay and death were non-existent until the Fall. What is the fossil record? It is a testimony of death. Could we have millions of years of death and fossil "man" leading up to Adam when the Scriptures plainly teach "for by man (referring to Adam) came death?" Fossils are a record of death. Without death, there can be no fossils. Do we believe the Bible or do we believe the speculations of scientists? Scientists believe death began millions of years before man evolved onto the scene. The Bible records that death began with Adam.

[Soldier4Christ]

THE BIBLE AND EVOLUTION IN CONFLICT

As God's creatures, we do not subject the Bible to science, we subject science to the Bible. The challenge whether to believe God and His Word or to believe science is presented by Scott Huse, a brilliant Christian thinker, in his excellent book, The Collapse of Evolution. The conflict of evolutionary theory against the Holy Scripture is impossible to reconcile. Huse lists 24 contrasts between the Bible and evolutionary thinking:


         Bible                                                                                 Evolution
God is the creator of all things.                                        Natural chance processes can account for
                                                                                      the existence of all things.
World created in six literal days (Genesis 1).                    World evolved over eons. 
Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3).                               Creative processes continuing. 
Ocean before land (Genesis 1:2).                                     Land before oceans. 
Atmosphere between two hydrospheres (Genesis 1:7).   Contiguous atmosphere and hydrosphere. 
First life on land (Genesis 1:11).                                         Life began in the oceans. 
First life was land plants (Genesis 1:11).                             Marine organisms evolved first. 
Earth before sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19).                  Sun and stars before earth. 
Fruit trees before fishes (Genesis 1:11).                             Fishes before fruit trees
All stars made on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16)                Stars evolved at various times. 
Birds and fishes created on the fifth day                            Fishes evolved hundreds of millions of years
        (Genesis 1:20, 21).                                                    before birds appeared.
                                                             
Birds before insects (Genesis 1:20, 21).                             Insects before birds. 
Whales before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31).                          Reptiles before whales. 
Birds before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31).                              Reptiles before birds.
Man before rain (Genesis 2:5).                                           Rain before man. 
Man before woman (Genesis 2:21-22).                              Woman before man (by genetics). 
Light before the sun (Genesis 1:3-19).                               Sun before any light.
Plants before the sun (Genesis 1:11-19).                            Sun before any plants. 
Abundance and variety of marine life all at once                  Marine life gradually developed from a
      (Genesis 1:20, 21).                                                          primitive organic blob.      
Man's body from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7)          Man evolved from monkeys. 
Man exercised dominion over all organism                          Most organisms extinct before man existed. 
        (Genesis 1:28).      
Man originally a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29).                         Man originally a meat eater. 
Fixed and distinct kinds (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25;       Life forms in a continual state of flux
         I Corinthians 15:38-39).      . 
Man's sin the cause of death (Romans 5:12).                     Struggle and death existent long before the                       
                                                                                         evolution of man.
           Bible                                                                             Evolution

 

[Soldier4Christ]

In addition to these specific direct contradictions, there are stark differences of general principle between atheistic evolution and Biblical Christianity. Jesus said:

 

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 KJV)

 

"The fruit of evolution has been all sorts of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice. It has served as an intellectual basis for Hitler's nazism and Marx's communism. It has prompted apostasy, atheism, secular humanism and libertinism, as well as establishing a basis for ethical relativism, which has spread through our society like a cancer. The mind and general welfare of mankind has suffered greatly as a result of this naturalistic philosophy.

   According to the Bible, man is a responsible creature. One day he will give an account for his life's actions and motives. But when man is viewed as the product of some vague purposeless evolutionary process, he is conveniently freed from all moral obligations and responsibility. After all, he is merely an accident of nature, an intelligent animal at best." [6]

Evolution or creation: you cannot have both! Scott Huse's list is brutally clear. Look again at #14, for example. The Bible says in Genesis 1:20-31 that birds came on the fifth day and reptiles on the sixth day. That means birds came before reptiles. Yet evolution teaches as fact that reptiles came before birds. The two views are mutually exclusive.  You either believe the Bible or you believe the speculations of men. Will you bow to science, or will you bow to your Creator? There are certain things in life that are black and white. We should have the integrity, especially as professing Christians, to choose God's Word and not the speculations of men.

You cannot be an evolutionist and believe the Bible as it is written. The plain word of Scripture is "God created". Therefore, evolution of molecules-to-man is a false speculation of man. Walter Brown reveals 57 irreconcilable differences between the Bible and "theistic" evolution in his book, In the Beginning, The Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, 1989, pp. 110-115.

MICRO VERSUS MACRO EVOLUTION

When speaking of evolution as a false speculation, we mean macroevolution -- one cell to man. What scientists call microevolution, obviously occurs. Microevolution is basically genetic variety within a certain kind of organism. For example, people are all different even though we come from one set of parents. How can five billion plus people vary so widely in appearance and abilities if we all come from the same set of parents? This is microevolution or adaptation or, preferably, genetic variation, or perhaps, genetic drift. Even microevolution is not true evolution (something becoming something else due to changes in the genes).  Different kinds of corn, dogs and mustard are still identified as corn, dogs and mustard. There is popcorn, sweet corn, and field corn; hounds, poodles and collies; many varieties of mustard. This does not prove evolution to be true. It only displays genetic differences within the families of corn, dogs, and mustard.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE

How might a creationist explain all the different races of people? God's record of the Tower of Babel incident in Genesis 11 provides the answer:

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

And they said one to another, "Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.

And they said, "Come, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 11:1-9)

      In the beginning, everyone spoke the same language. Therefore, they were able to pool their intellectual resources, since everyone could talk to everyone else. As a result, nothing was "impossible for them" or "restrained from them" (Genesis 11:6). They chose to violate God's command to scatter across the earth (Genesis 9:1), a violation which resulted in God creating the different basic languages. Only small populations of people isolated from other people groups could communicate with each other, and this would explain the "Cave Man" period as language restrictions and the chaos of the "scattering period" could certainly create some extremely isolated and primitive pockets of people. The language restrictions forced them to disperse across the earth and "in-breed" with relatives. Certain races of people emerged after several generations of this inbreeding. [(God eventually proclaimed inbreeding to be sin in the law of Moses. Cain and Seth took wives from among their sisters but this was not sin until the Law came. See Leviticus 18 below.)

"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.     

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover..." (Leviticus 18:5ff).]

Scientists tell us that all the races of mankind came from a single, female parent. On this point, Scripture does not negate "science". The races (variations within the human "kind") are most probably a result of the scattering of people around the globe by God after the Tower of Babel.

  LANGUAGES DON'T BEGIN WITH GRUNTS

   The study of language has developed into a complex field of scholarship. Linguists tell us that languages get more and more complex the farther back they trace them. The older ("more primitive") a language is, the more complex it appears to be. This is powerful evidence against evolution.

If evolution is true and man gradually evolved from more primitive creatures, language should get more and more simple the older it is said to be. Prehistoric man should have communicated first with grunts; then with single syllables; then with multi-syllabic words (ba-na-na); then, with sentence fragments, developing into sentences ("I want banana"), etc. What is found is just the opposite. Early languages such as Sumerian are so complex that only a handful of the most brilliant scholars can decipher them. The Tower of Babel incident explains the races and the problem of complex "primitive" languages. God created the languages instantly and fully mature. Evolution offers no good explanation for the complexity of the earliest known languages!

Linguistic researchers from around the world have published their ideas concerning the geographic location of our "primitive" mother tongue. Linguists call this language Proto-Indo-European. Two Russian experts, Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov, have offered evidence "...that Indo-European originated in an area known as Anatolia, which is now part of Turkey, and from there spread throughout Europe and the sub-continent." (see U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 5, 1990, page 62).

U.S. News and World Report was not the first publication to report that language can be traced back to Turkey. The Bible records for us that Noah and his family had their post-flood beginnings in Turkey:

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." (Genesis 8:4)

Scientists trace language back to a particular place on earth, the Bible would describe that place to be the mountains of Ararat in Turkey. The linguists agree!

[Soldier4Christ]

BABEL AND HI-TECH SCIENCE

Since the creation of languages at the Tower of Babel, the endeavors of generations of mankind have been limited (not able to do the impossible) by the language barrier. But now, for the first time since the Tower of Babel, our generation has a common international language -- the language of hi-tech computers. With computers, we can again pool our international research and knowledge and do the impossible (man on the moon, heart transplants, Concorde jet travel, etc.). God stepped into time to stop this situation in Genesis 11. What might He do in our generation as the teachings of evolution convince more and more people that God is not necessary for any part of our existence? We are rapidly becoming a people who believe the bottom line of William Henley's Invictus: "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." This was the attitude of Babylon, and the Creator was not pleased.

One other thought to consider in Genesis 11 -- could the people of Babel have been building a water-proof tower? The biblical text states the use of specially fired bricks (hardened) and the use of water-proof tar (KJV "slime") for mortar. The flood judgment of Noah's day would have been fresh on the minds of these people. Could they have been shaking their fists at God (rebelling) with their pooled intellectual resources as they built a water-proof tower, thus making a statement? "God, you can't get us again with a flood! We will all come together in our water-proof tower that reaches into the sky. We will save our own lives in spite of You. We will control our destiny. We will take charge of our lives." How much of this attitude is like Lucifer -- "I will be like the Most High"? (Isaiah 14:13,14) The science of that day may have convinced the people that they could quite satisfactorily live apart from their Creator. Scientists today climb into their ivory towers and say in their hearts and in their papers: "There is no God. We can do quite well without Him. We are all gods and control our own destiny."

EVOLUTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Scientists often make proclamations and publish papers that elevate them to god-like status. Are we forced to believe that science and the scientific method have "toppled" God? From our earliest school days, we are taught that science is based on careful experimentation and disciplined thought. Science gives us facts. We can trust it. We are further educated by television programs and interviews with Ph.D.'s like Carl Sagan stating that "evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact". This is not the scientific method! Evolutionist, Hy Ruchlis, defines the scientific method:

"The Scientific Method is the basic set of procedures that scientists use for obtaining new knowledge about the universe in which we live." [7]

Making a proclamation that evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact is just that -- a proclamation. It is not testable science. It does not fit within the definition of the Scientific Method. Ruchlis continues:

"Unless the teachings of the authorities on a subject are based upon scientific method, error can be just as easily transmitted as fact...

The most important point to remember about the method of science is that it rests upon the attitude of open mind. In accordance with this attitude, one has the right to question any accepted fact. One who searches for truth has to learn to question deeply the things that are generally accepted as being "obviously true." [8]

How does evolution as a "scientific" explanation for origins measure up under Ruchlis' explanation of scientific method? It receives a failing grade. Could evolution be "error... transmitted as fact"? It certainly could. Do evolutionists present an "open mind"? Do they permit their classroom students to question evolution as perhaps not being "...obviously true"? On the contrary, evolutionists have amply demonstrated they want only one view taught in the classrooms of the world.

When a credentialed scientist who is a creationist presents hard evidence to support the Creator and His creation, he or she is accused of teaching religion.

But evolution from one cell to man is not based on the scientific method[9] and is therefore a faith system. That means it is just as "religious" as belief in special creation. The question is not, "is evolution, science and creation a religion?" but "which system of belief -- creation or evolution -- has the most factual science to back it up?"

David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland) have studied the scientific method and its relationship to the processes of evolution. Their studied opinion is that macroevolution is beyond the range of "testable hypothesis". In other words, it is not able to be proven factually true with the scientific method. The origin of the first living cell is scientifically "unknowable". In spite of this, evolutionists Green and Goldberger deny the existence of anything supernatural ("paraphysical").[10] Contrary to the thinking of these two scientists, evolution is not science: it is religion. Yet religious evolutionists are not willing to let religious creationists present their views in the public school system. In fact, as we all know, our courts here in America ("The land of the free and the home of the brave") will not allow an alternative view for the origin of man to be presented in our classrooms without some sort of objection. If creation is so obviously an absurd option for belief, one would certainly have to question why it is such a threatening concept to consider in the classrooms of our children. Surely, if evolution is true and as easily validated as scientists contend, there should be no threat at all in allowing it to be challenged by the option of creation.

It is interesting to note that a growing number of evolutionary scientists are realizing that there is a gross lack of scientific evidence to support the molecules-to-man evolution model. The gnawing reality is that, as one evolutionist has stated: "The creationists seem to have the better argument."

THE LORD WILL PREVAIL

When one religion is in competition with another religion, the true religion will ultimately prevail. The God of creation is already the victor. An anonymous writer, M.B., who works for the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) expressed it this way:

"God created the Heaven and the Earth. Quickly He was faced with a class action suit for failure to file an environmental impact statement. He was granted a temporary permit for the heavenly part of the project, but was stymied with a cease and desist order for the earthly part.

Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why He began His earthly project in the first place. He replied that He just liked to be creative!

Then God said, "Let there be light" and immediately the officials demanded to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire. God was granted permission to make light, assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire, and to conserve energy, the light would have to be out half of the time. God agreed and said He would call the light "Day" and the darkness, "Night". The officials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, "Let the Earth bring forth green herb and such as may seed." The Environmental Protection Agency agreed so long as native seed was used. Then God said, "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creatures having life; and the fowl that may fly over the Earth." Officials pointed out that this would require the approval of the Game and Fish Commission coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything was okay until God said He wanted to complete the project in six days. Officials said that it would take at least 100 days to review the application and impact statement. After that there would be a public hearing. Then there would be 10 to 12 months before...

At this point, God created hell!"

[Soldier4Christ]

Evolution may be winning some tactical skirmishes in teamwork with the world system, but let us never forget that our Lord will have the last word. The Creator tells us how everything will conclude in Philippians 2:10,11:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (emphasis added)

Our Lord, our Creator is the Victor! Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Ernst Mayr, and Stephen Jay Gould, as well as that evolutionist college professor or school teacher, will all bow down before their Savior and Creator, Jesus Christ the Lord. They will confess out loud with their own tongue, "Jesus Christ is Lord", to the glory of God the Father. They have examined the creation and have willfully chosen to believe a lie. Unless they come to the Lord Jesus in simple faith and confess their sinful rebellion against Him, they will "bow" and "confess" at the judgment to no avail. They will stand before God their Creator without excuse. Romans l:19-23 says:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things." (Romans 1:19-23)

The great evolutionary minds of the day have a tendency to elevate man and creature to the status of God. From chemicals to man, all is essentially equal. All is "One"! But is this wisdom or is it foolishness? God says:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)

True wisdom is belief in God the Creator. There is unity and there is diversity in His creation. Man might look like a monkey and even act like a monkey, but he cannot take a blood transfusion from a monkey. As professing Christians, when we fail to bow before God in recognition of His sovereignty and omnipotence, we open ourselves to being tainted with vain philosophies and the foolish speculations of this world system.  Have we so devoted ourselves to learning the ways of the world that we have neglected the ways of the Word? Do we stand condemned before our Creator because our true commitment lies with the imaginations and speculations of men rather than with the eternal truths of the Bible? Are we lacking faith because we have drifted into subjecting the Bible to science instead of subjecting science to the Bible? Truly "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death". (Proverbs 14:12) "O God, help us with our unbelief!
 

[1] The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Frances Darwin, Ed., N.Y.: Appleton & Co., 1898, Vol. 11, p. 210. (Darwin's letter to G. Benham, May 22, 1863).

[2] Dr. Ernst Mayr, Omni Magazine, February, 1983, p. 78. 

[3] Jeff Goldberg, Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery (N.Y.: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 211. 

[4] Jerry Adler, Newsweek, November 20, 1989, p. 68.

[5]Geologists tell us that Cambrian rocks are the oldest rocks that contain numerous life-forms as fossils. Many of these rocks display extremely complex creatures that supposedly existed 600,000,000 years ago. Because there are so many types and numbers of fossil creatures they are referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion of Life". The Genesis flood is a scientifically feasible explanation for this massive and rapid destruction of living creatures. This universal flood occurred about 5,000 years ago, not 600,000,000! 

[6] Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 122-124. 

[7] Hy Ruchlis, Discovering Scientific Method (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 7. 

[8] ibid: Ruchlis, pp. 7,8. 

[9] "The open mind is one important aspect of the scientific attitude which lies at the base of scientific method. A person who approaches a problem with a closed mind, unwilling to examine new facts, without any desire to make careful observations, and subject to the tyranny of certainty, has little or no chance of solving that problem properly. But a person with scientific attitudes, who knows now easy it is to be wrong, who examines new facts even if they seem to contradict his pet beliefs, who actually goes out hunting for such facts -- such a person has a head start along the road to the solution of any problem he faces." ibid: Ruchlis, p. 11. 

[10] "...the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were at work. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework for frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables." David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A.) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.), Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406-407, quoted from The Quote Book, p. 20.