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
There is not one single cell of evidence for that mythical hot steaming pot of primordial soup. There is not even a shred of evidence it can be tested or recreated. Now the modern evolutionists claim through their screams that pot is not part of evolution. The pot has been relegated to a secret vault labeled abiogenesis... Well, without proof that hot steaming pot ever existed, the fairy tale/tail of evolution is a man made creation without evidence. Discoveries of similar functions and likeness in species does not equate to descent.
Evolution is a scientific theory. The creation myths are stories backed by no scientific evidence.
Interestingly, and as an aside, evolution cannot be a fact because it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
<><><><
Please amplify on this point. The 2nd law of thermodynamics relates to closed systems. Please provide your rationale for suggesting that the earth is a closed system.
Yeah, sure. Science has such a pristine record of perfection when it comes to creating theories. Some flesh beings will have to wait until their souls return to the Maker that created them and sent them to journey this flesh age to become educated.
OK, so we’ve established that the theory of evolution is a silly fairy tale. So which creation story should we choose? I kind of like the Iroquois belief that the universe was created on the back of a giant turtle.
If that floats your boat have at it. All souls created in the first heaven/earth age will get their one on one accounting to the Creator after this flesh age ends. Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages, and this is the flesh age, wherein the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God is to be born of woman into a flesh body. All souls return to the Maker that sent them, the good the bad and the independent. The Creator is the perfect judge, quite unlike flesh beings, as the Creator knows the mind/heart of each and every one of His children. As it is Written, all souls belong to Him.
… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Open systems go toward disorder/chaos just as closed systems, though there are exceptions. Crystallization is one of those, though crystals tend toward order while lacking complexity, and life is distinguished by its specified complexity.
Open systems exchange matter and complexity, but raw energy can't generate the specified complex information in living things, and undirected energy does nothing but speed up destruction.
I agree. The problem is not that evolutionary theory is a THEORY, it is that Evolutionists think that random mutation over time explains all evolutionary change. It is a theory that was developed before the discovery of DNA, and all the intricacies of molecular biology.There is an interesting dispute that’s been going on in evolutionary biology for the past several years because random mutation/natural selection over and over again does not adequately explain many things. The hard core evo devos create more and more complicated theories that are highly improbable or flat impossible. Most evolutionary biologists know this, even those who are unwilling to entertain ID.
The author's misuse of scientific terms is a certain sign of his scientific illiteracy.
This implies he is not making a scientific argument, but only expressing his religion-based opinions.
In fact: the broad term "science" includes
In short a confirmed theory is the highest form of scientific explanation, so saying "evolution is just a theory" is to misstate the science, and demonstrate the authors scientific illiteracy.
Fama's article: "Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses.
Thus, this would exclude God."
Some evolutionists are atheists and reject the idea of a Creator, but many are Christians, including leaders of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches.
Fama's article: "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)..."
Interesting to note that Fama considers astrophysics' cosmological "big bang theory" to be a sub-set of evolution theory.
Of course, Charles Darwin never intended any such thing.
Darwin made two very simple scientific observations: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
These had nothing to do with a "big bang" or even, necessarily, with some "primordial soup".
Fama's article: "Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory..."
Scientifically speaking, there are several hypotheses, but no confirmed theories, about how life first began on earth.
Of those hypotheses, abiogenesis and transpermia are just two.
Efforts to confirm abiogenesis by reproducing "life" in a laboratory have demonstrated that "life" is a matter of definition, but that primitive pre-life organic molecules can be produced under conditions similar to early earth.
But the notion that billions of years of early cellular evolution can be reproduced in a matter of months, even under the most controlled laboratory conditions, is inherently ridiculous.
So all "origin of life" ideas remain unconfirmed hypotheses.
Fama's article: "Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy."
No it isn't, not among real scientists.
The evolutionary time-line is well established and repeatedly confirmed through world-wide geological stratigraphy, dozens of radiometric dating techniques, DNA mutation rate analysis, and inputs from many other branches of science.
There is no scientific evidence challenging the accepted evolutionary time-line.
Fama's article: "...the fossil record contains no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution.
No transitional forms means no evolution!"
The question of "transitional forms" is a matter of perspective.
At its most basic level, every life, including you and me, is a "transitional form" between our ancestors and our descendants.
Research shows that every generation inherits a small number of more-or-less random DNA mutations, making the generation unique and "transitional" between ancestors and descendants.
Most DNA mutations are harmless, or get weeded-out by Natural Selection, and that is why species can live with little visible change for millions of years (the average is approx. one million years).
But when the environment changes (hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, new predators, etc.) and a species must either change or go extinct, then changes can be relatively rapid -- perhaps thousands instead of millions of generations.
As for the alleged absence of "transitional forms", in fact the fossil record is chock full of them, this being just one small example:
Fama's article: "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?"
By definition of the word "Christian", all Christians believe in an Intelligent Designer -- of the Universe, of its physical laws, of Earth itself, and of all life that has ever appeared here.
The scientific question is: what processes did God use to create everything we see?
The scientific answer, in part, is "evolution".
Christians and others who believe that God used evolution to create what we see are called "Theistic Evolutionists".
Theistic Evolutionism is the teaching of most Christian churches, including Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.
Fama's article: "Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems.
That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler."
This often repeated assertion is disproved by innumerable examples from both existing species and the fossil record.
In fact, every "modern" feature can be found in more primitive forms -- in living, fossils and/or embryonic development.
skipping down to Fama's conclusion: "Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing.
Which do you suppose is more likely?"
All Christians believe that God created everything out of nothing.
The question is whether He used evolution (as we understand it) to accomplish His purposes?
Those of us, including (if I understand correctly) recent Popes, who think God used evolution are known as theistic evolutionists.
+1
"raw energy"? "undirected energy"?
These words have nothing to do with the real questions, which involve the long-term effects, over billions of years, of conditions (sunlight, temperature, water, organic chemicals, etc.) which are ideal to sustain life-as-we-know-it.
Are these same conditions adequate to create simple life-as-we-define-it from complex organic pre-life chemistry?
Answer: hypothetically, yes, but this is not yet confirmed, and represents only one idea among several of how life originated on Earth.
Recommemded reading (if You haven't already) is Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones. It's a thoughtful, eye-opening, and modern update - chapter by chapter - of Darwin's original work.
The answer is no.
There is no such thing as "simple life"; even a single-celled amoeba is incredibly complex. It simply could not be produced by chance, no matter how much time nor how many elements were involved. Richard Dawkins, the atheist, admitted that one cell's DNA contains about 4000 books of 500 pages each of information. Put another way----if a modern hard drive were to have the same “data density” as a cell’s nucleus, one typical hard drive would be able to store almost 6.9 × 1013 GB of data. That’s the equivalent of all the data on the internet 140 times over.
Logic, and simple common sense, show us this is not chance, but the product of design.
That same idea can be found in Darwin's "Origin" and Steve Jones' "Darwin's ghost." Both books include four chapters (on geography) about our 4.5 billion year old planet.
Is your faith contingent upon scientists not being able to make simple life forms from raw elements and energy? So long as that bar has not been cleared you have faith, but when and if they ever do - your faith is shaken?
If the raw elements of the universe can produce replicating complex systems then once again I stand in awe of the laws of the universe set down by the ultimate law giver.
The complexity of life is just another gap in human knowledge that “god of the gaps” theologists want to fill with miraculous intervention. That hasn't had a very successful history and is rather shoddy theology.
But there are many forms of simpler "life", or "pre-life", or "not-quite-life" -- among which viruses, and that prion which may or may not cause mad cow disease, come to mind.
Physical evidence, from Canada and elsewhere shows earliest pre-life residue dating back over 4 billion years.
Evidence of the first simple cells comes from rocks a billion years younger.
Mulitcelled creatures came two billion years after that, etc.
So none of this happened overnight.
"Some evolutionists are atheists and reject the idea of a Creator, but many are Christians, including leaders of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches."
"Some" evolutionists are atheists? According to Discovery News, the National Academy of Science found that belief in God is as low as 5.5 percent among biologists, and as low as 7.5 percent among physicists and astronomers. These folks, obviously, must find a way to explain away the origin of life without bringing God into the equation. Clearly they will flit from hypothesis to hypothesis, untll one or another is disproved or doubted. Christians have the truth and should hold to it.
"No it isn't, not among real scientists."
::::Grin:::: "Real" scientists---meaning those who believe in evolution, I assume---the majority of whom are atheists. So, belief in God is okay, as long as you can find a way to fit it into atheistic dogma.
Nope.
"By definition of the word "Christian", all Christians believe in an Intelligent Designer -- of the Universe, of its physical laws, of Earth itself, and of all life that has ever appeared here. The scientific question is: what processes did God use to create everything we see? The scientific answer, in part, is "evolution". Christians and others who believe that God used evolution to create what we see are called "Theistic Evolutionists".
You're correct about the terminology, but a theistic evolutionist is the same as a straight homosexual. Regardless of how many popes or learned men identify themselves as such,the two are mutually exclusive. As I said before, evolution states man appeared recently, after millions of years of animals and other life-forms suffering, sickening, killing, bleeding, and dying. The Bible states that suffering, sickness, blood, and death entered the world at the start, after the fall of man. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved.
Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, and again in Mark 10:6, that God made male and female at the beginning. Evolution, as stated above, demands one believe that humans evolved lately. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved, and worse, Christians who say they are also evolutionists are, unwittingly (I hope), painting Jesus Christ as a liar.
There are other dangers inherent in theistic evolution.
We know that God is good, kind, loving, and perfect; theistic evolution misrepresents Him as a being who is the author of millions of years of suffering and death, by His own design.
We know that God is the Father and Maker of all things; theistic evolution reduces Him to a "God of the gaps", to whom credit is given only for those things man can't explain.
We know that we, as humans, are caught in sin, and the only way of redemption is through Jesus Christ. Evolution makes the original Fall, and the concept of sin meaningless----therefore there is no need for a Savior. Our very need for salvation is undermined.
The great majority of evolutionists regard Adam as a myth. Yet Jesus was a direct descendant of Adam. To accept the mythology of Adam puts one in danger of doing the same to Jesus and His redemptive work.
There are more, but it's abundantly clear that believing in evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. They contradict one another and cannot be resolved.
We were discussing “simple” life, per your earlier post. Now it’s “simpler” life?
The point concerning simple, or your more recent, “simpler” life stands. There’s no such thing. It’s far too complex to have evolved.
If that impresses you, so should this from Steve Jones:
"About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution."
Source: "Darwin's Ghost," page 284.
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.