Books - The Catholic Church & Science
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
and Darwin's DilemmaPosted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Creationism or Evolution?
by Sebastian R. Fama
Is it possible to know that God exists even though we cannot see or touch Him? Well, we believe that radio waves exist and we can’t see or touch them. And we believe it because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. We turn on a television and we see and hear someone who is many miles away. Adjusting the antenna changes the quality of the picture. Disconnect the antenna, and there is no picture. Obviously the television is receiving the pictures and sound from the air. Thus we can know that radio waves exist even if we cannot see or touch them.
Similarly, we can know that God exists because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. For instance, the fact that we exist is an indication that God exists. But, you might ask, what about the theory of evolution? Couldn’t that explain our existence? No, not at all. A look at the evidence will show us why.
Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science. It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process. Creationists claim that a look at the facts rules out the theory of evolution. Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses. Thus, this would exclude God. However, it would also exclude radio waves. As we saw earlier, radio waves are not observable by the senses - their effects are. Likewise, God is not observable by the senses, but His effects are. Thus we can know that God exists even if we cannot see or touch Him.
The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature. The mass exploded (the Big Bang) and over millions of years this mother of all chaotic events formed an orderly solar system with planets and stars. After our own planet cooled down, a variety of complex and delicately balanced ecosystems consisting of tens of thousands of species of animals, fish, plants, and bacteria were formed by chance. All of this supposedly evolved from a burnt rock, which is all the earth would have been after cooling down. Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory with deliberate actions, millions of dollars and the brightest minds?
But what about the fossil record, isn’t that evidence of evolution? Hardly! Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy. But more important is the fact that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution. No transitional forms means no evolution!
What is a transitional form? Imagine that you are watching a cartoon illustrate how a fish evolved into an amphibian. At the beginning you would see a fish. As the cartoon progresses, the fish’s fins begin to shrink and change shape until they have formed legs. Each frame of the cartoon would be a transitional form. If evolution takes millions of years, then there should be billions of transitional forms for each evolved group. But we find no such thing in the fossil record. Even in the earliest fossil layers we find completed, complex life forms, such as clams, snails, jellyfish, sponges, worms, etc. No one has been able to find fossilized ancestors for a single one of them.
Another problem arises when we realize that even the so-called "simple" life forms are not really simple. Today we know that a cell is one of the most complex structures known to man. In a book titled "The Evidence for Creation" by Dr. G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland and Larry McLean, we find the following on page 113:
"The cell has turned out to be a micro universe containing trillions of molecules. These molecules are the structural building blocks for countless complex structures performing chains of complex biochemical reactions with precision… a single cell surrounded by a cellular membrane exhibits the same degree of complexity as a city with all of its systems of operation, communication and government. There are power plants that generate the cell’s energy, factories that produce enzymes and hormones essential for life, complex transportation systems that guide specific chemicals from one location to another and membrane proteins that act as barricades controlling the import and export of materials across the cellular membrane."
In the nucleus of every cell is the DNA. DNA contains millions of bits of coded information – information necessary for the building and development of our bodies. The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s. Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?
Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.
But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.
Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.
Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.
Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?
Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
For Further Study
Early Church Fathers on Creation out of Nothing (Free)
Books - The Catholic Church & Science by Benjamin Wiker and Creation Rediscovered
by Gerard J Keane and Science and Evidence For Design in the Universe
by Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer.
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
Their extreme bias against supernaturalism and immaterialism causes them to have an irrational skepticism of all the testimonies of individuals who have personal experiences of God's saving power in their lives.
No.
" How does a book written thousands of years ago and full of arbitrary claims become the standard by which science is judged?"
It's not just another book; its unique accuracy is demonstrated in many different ways. Some of those include scientific accuracy, in which some of the principles of modern science were recorded and described (though not in technical language we know today, of course), and its singular historical accuracy. This is a quote from Dr. Nelson Glueck, an expert on Israeli archaeology:
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, is the fact that many prophecies have been specifically fulfilled----300 Old Testament prophecies alone were fulfilled when Christ came. Another example is the rebirth of the nation of Israel. The Jews are the only ancient people to have been scattered throughout the world and yet gathered together again as a nation, after thousands of years. This was all clearly foretold in Scripture.
albionin, I took a glance at your posting history (hope you don't mind; I often do that, and I don't mind at all when folks check mine). I see you believe that there's enough evidence to believe in UFOS. If that's your view, then certainly it would be a wise thing to take into account the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is true.
If it took God seven days to create Earth and the universe, wouldn’t you call that an evolutionary process?
If you didn't see it it was because you didn't want to see it. This guy, if he is a Catholic, should listen to what the Pope has to say on the subject - the Pope is much more educated and smarter than he is, as well as being a much better writer.
You're talking about a fetus growing into an infant, then an adult, all of the same species. That isn't evolution, it is growth. The fertilized human egg will grow into an adult human every time. An antelope fetus grows into an antelope, not a giraffe.
Oh, now. Explain the cargo cult known as "dark matter" under the auspices of such high-minded physics, then.
It's the modern equivalent of the old "There they be dragons" at the end of the flat world map.
Creation doesn’t explain new species evolution doesn’t explain the moon maybe someday God will tell me otherwise until then I’ll believe in both
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:2-4
The passage goes on to include the angels, verse 7.
Atheistic and Theistic Evolutionists think they know all about it. The latter claim God did it by evolution. Just a theory, they weren't there. The passage includes the angels, did God create them by evolution also? Little baby angels growing into full grown angels? No, of course not. Same with Adam and Eve. Same with the trees in the garden. Trees have growth rings. They were created supernaturally by a supernatural God bypassing natural process. He doesn't need natural processes to create. The problem with Theistic Evolution, though they claim to believe in God, they really don't.
Excellent point!
That's right, and humans alone are supposedly predestined to live on after something like crossing the Styx to Hades.
God decreed that all animals would reproduce after their own kind, and so they have. One kind cannot change into another; changes over time are a result of variations within their God-created kind, which stays the same. This is not evolution.
Interestingly, and as an aside, evolution cannot be a fact because it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Simply put, it says that everything falls apart and disintegrates over time....left to themselves, chemical compounds break down; they do not become more complex. This natural law would have to be completely disregarded and/or disproven for one to believe in evolution.
"doesn’t explain the moon"
Not sure what you mean by that?
" maybe someday God will tell me otherwise until then I’ll believe in both"
He already has; it's right there in Scripture for you. To believe in evolution means that Jesus lied when He said man and woman were created in the beginning, and we know He doesn't lie.
Creationism would have it that it is Angels holding the universe together? Is that preferable to your way of thinking than a material physical provisional explanation subject to experimental evidence and refinement?
There they be dragons. Magic dragons. Or turtles. Yep, that’s it, turtles. All the way down.
That's the point at which I realized this article wasn't going to have anything useful to offer. Anyone who can say that a theory is by definition "not a science" doesn't know what he's talking about. And that's a fact, not a theory.
AGREE. The author has no idea what the scientific definition of theory is.
Evolution is a fact. We are evolving even now. In fact we are participating in and directing in our own evolution right now.
Prosthetic limbs, gene manipulation, cloning, are all part of the evolutionary process. GOOGLE “transhumanism” and see what the future holds for future generations.
Everything changes. We conservatives can only hold back the tide for a few decades. But change will come for good or ill and we will all be long gone just ssh our ancestors are long gone.
Prosthetic limbs are evolution? People have been wearing hats and shoes for many thousands of years, yet nobody is born with them. I'd say the same for prosthetics.
Just Google transhumanism. You’ll see what I am talking about.
I think “both” is a possible position. (We have to still be careful what we mean by evolution since the field has a wide range of theorists and some go far afield in their conclusions.)
It could be both in that evolution is the God implemented creation. As, I believe, Galileo said mathematics is the language of God (in nature) regarding his astronomy; mutation may be the language of God in species.
No one suggests pure chaos in natural science and there are close to an infinity of possible survivable niches, so positing a direction is not ruled out by the science of evolution. So far as we observe, the universe “evolves” self-conscious beings.
It could therefore, and also, be both in the manner of world views. The facts on the ground (so to speak) would be the same whether the large is the accretion of the small or whether the small is the result of the large. The first being the non-Creationist view, the latter being the Creationist view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.