Darwin’s Legacy-A Look at the Evidence and the Conclusion (part 3)

Recap: Part 1 was basically an overview of how Naturalism, started through Darwin, has affected every facet of our modern science and culture. Also the consequences to such a view were looked at in minor detail. Part 2 delved into the Authority of the Bible and asked the question: does the Bible leave any room for evolution? The conclusion was made that, as great text-critics, thinkers, and theologians expounded, there was truly no fit for evolution in the Bible nor in the thinking of a Christian man. This section, being the last, will delve (not in great detail) into the evidence in order to see if the Bible’s old story can stand the test of time (and the test of modern science) and still be applicable today. I think you will be surprised by the overwhelming conclusion, taking in consideration the rest of the essay as well.

Charles Darwin said that the decisive factor in his theory was based upon the fossil record. He said that if his theory was true the “number of intermediate varieties (what we call “missing links”) which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous” but that if this was found to be false it “is the most obviously and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (Ham, The New Answers Book 292). Darwin himself had very, very few fossils available to him; today we have millions. How many missing links have been found, are they “truly enormous”? The missing links in the world can almost be named on one hand: the Nebraska Man, P. Erectus, Piltdown Man, Lucy, and a few questionable others. Many of these have officially been called a fraud, most notably the Nebraska Man—a single tooth, which unquestionably turned out to be one of a wild pig, was creatively turned into a missing link (Hanegraaff 31). All the others listed have also been proven completely false, except with the current “Lucy,” for now. But even if one were to grant these four missing links as true it still sets up the fossil record as one of the most truly embarrassing points used to prove evolution. For this fact alone the theory should have been abolished a century ago.

From a tooth?

The Nebraska Man and his mom--from a tooth?!

Next, a look at the First Law of Thermodynamics by Lord W. Kelvin must be taken. It states, empirically, that “[energy] can neither be created nor annihilated” (Hanegraaff 61) . Isaac Asimov considered it “the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have been able to make” (61). This statement alone should make every evolutionist shudder. If there is ever a fact in science, it is this—energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If naturalistic evolution is taken to its logical conclusion then the question must be asked: Where did the energy come from? Darwin claimed to write a book on The Origin of Species, but he left out the most important part—the actual origin, the starting force, the source of energy and matter. No logically thinking scientist can avoid this question and answer it correctly without attributing the source and force to an outside designer.
“While the law of energy conservation is a blow to the theory of evolution,” writes Hanegraaff,
“the law of entropy is a bullet to its head. Not only is the universe dying of heat loss, but according to entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—everything runs inexorably from order to disorder and from complexity to decay” (63, emphasis added). A rule that evolution must constantly follow if it is to survive is that the earth is progressively getting better—from here comes the popular idea of utopia. But the Bible says that this is wrong in Isaiah 51:6, in conjunction to the Law of Entropy: “…Look at the earth beneath; for the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment…” Romans 8:21 speaks of the same, that when Christ returns “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay…” If this does not convince, listen to the renowned mathematician, Sir A. Eddington, who warns that if one’s “theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in the deepest humiliation” (64).

It can be clearly seen that unlike the claim, there is factual and empirical evidence to strongly contradict and question the Theory of Evolution. As a Christian, if these are not conclusive enough reasons to begin to doubt evolution, one must look at the consequences of believing such a worldview.

Now another issue must be discussed: the metaphysical and theological issue of pain. Dr. Hugh Ross, an old-Earth Creationist, says this: “While the sin we humans commit causes us all to react negatively to decay, work, physical death, pain and suffering…there is nothing in Scripture that compels us to conclude that none of these entities existed before Adam’s first act of rebellion against God” (Sarfati 203). If one is to say God created using the process of evolution, than this is the logical conclusion—God had to allow pain and death before Adam. But this calls God a liar! When God said his creation was “good” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) which literally interpreted means perfect—how could God create anything less? After God created Adam, he pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

In fact it was this very problem that caused men like Darwin and Templeton to leave their Christian faith. Darwin could not explain why there was suffering when his daughter died, so he created the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest.’ Templeton became an atheist because he couldn’t understand animal suffering: “Surely it would not be beyond the competence of an omniscient deity to create an animal world that could be sustained and perpetuated without suffering and death” (Sarfati 218-20).

Darwin's Beloved Daughter

Darwin's Beloved Daughter

The answer lies in Romans 5:12, yet only the young Earth Creationist can use such Scripture with no logical consequences. Paul states: “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Sin entered the world because of man. Otherwise one would have to say that God created evil. We may assert that God uses evil for his purposes, that he hates evil, and that man is full of it, but we cannot ever blame God as the creator of sin—that is heresy. To this John clearly attests, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (I John 1:5). For God to have created evil, he would have to be evil.

But this is not the worst crime of the old-Earth Creation philosophy. If Adam did not bring sin into the whole created realm, then the story of Redemption is false at its foundation (Morris). The liberal Bishop J.S. Spong has this to say: “The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion…Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation…Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries” and he says that if Darwin is right, the Gospel becomes inoperable and void (Ham, The New Answers Book 36). To add to this, it is impossible to understand Paul’s full argument in the book of Romans along with the need for the cross unless one understands the gravity of the Fall. “By the first Adam came death, but by the second comes resurrection from the dead. Without Adam’s fall into sin and death, why does Christ have to die?” (Ham, Answers in Genesis).

Evolution, and theistic evolution as well, teaches that man is not fallen, but is a ‘risen ape’ and that death and pain have always existed—there was no Garden of Eden, man did not walk with God in perfection, Adam never lived, the Fall can be completely thrown out, and thus Christ died for no one.

How can one explain, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)? But here the logic breaks down and all Christians explain the Gospel in the same way. If the Gospel is true, then man has to be fallen, and when an old-Earth Creationist agrees with this he is being inconsistent with his own view. These ideas are mutually and theologically incompatible.

Old Rugged Cross

"...stained with blood so Divine"

So here one stands at the crossroads: to take Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or to take God’s Word as God’s Word. And simply because people in the church are not asking themselves this question doesn’t mean it is not important. The crux of this issue comes down to one thing: God’s truthfulness.

The words, “In the beginning God…” should send a cold shiver up our spine (Genesis 1:1). This is the oldest story known to man and before it was even underway, God already knew the end of it all. When God wrote on the stone tablet and handed it down to Moses that he had created all things in six days, this was absolute truth. God knew what he said and did not need science to interpret it. Let Scripture interpret science, always. But far be it from any man to let science interpret Scripture! The old, old story, written 3,500 years ago by God through the hand of man is still the very best explanation for the origin of man. Philosophies and ideologies have come and gone, but man has yet to question God’s Word and get away with it.

It can be attested that the evidence behind a six-day creation is strong, but for a believer it should not be necessary. Also, before long the empire of evolution may very-well fall apart, as Hanegraaff attests: “While insiders in the evolutionary community are aware of their theory’s desperate condition, the general public is as yet in the dark. That is where you and I come in. We have the inestimable privilege to share in the good news that nothing could be more compelling in an age of scientific enlightenment than: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (80).

In light of God’s Word we must be pro-active as Gilbertson warns: “The passion for creationism is fueled by something else, namely, the sense that contemporary America is ‘slouching towards Gomorrah,’ literally going to hell […] Creationists [must] link acceptance of evolution with moral decay” (Gilbertson 105). The news to be shared truly is beautiful—God has shown his love for this fallen world by restoring ‘paradise lost’ through his Son, Jesus Christ. The remaining option is quite the unbearable: the bitter end of evolution is nihilism and atheism—Satan’s greatest lies to date.

Ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah by Dead Sea

Ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah by Dead Sea

Truly there is no way to explain the world and all its intricacies without forming a worldview around the solidarity of the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. If Genesis 1-11 is right then the Christian has the absolute freedom to explain, logically, how the world was created ex-nihilo, how sin entered the world, the importance of man’s need for Redemption and ultimately restoration to God. With this the Christian can also explain the fossil record (through Noah’s Flood), classify miracles (as supernatural events done by God), and firmly attest to the inerrancy of the Scripture.

What Gamaliel said in Acts proved to be right, the ideologies of man will soon rot and decay, but truth stands forever. So if the Bible is inerrant, one must conclude that a six-day creation is an absolute fact—an empirical piece of history. If not, then God is called a liar, he is the author of evil, and his Redemption is futile. Evolution is falling apart for a lack of so called evidence; it is collapsing from the inside, like a modern Rome. Truly the wisest man to ever live, Solomon, is always being proven as such:

A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever […] What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun […] I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. That which is, already has been. (Ecclesiastes 1:4, 9; 3:14-15)

God will prove himself truthful and holy. We have no need to defend God, instead we must protect ourselves from forgetting who he is and from letting the world and its philosophy turn us away from him. God is perfect, he does not lie, or deceive, or create evil. In six days God created everything in the whole world, as the Bible attests—and that is the source of the ultimate authority. In this he proves himself powerful ‘so that people fear before him.’ Truly all things are upheld by an awesome God!

Doves

Earth and Moon

Child Worshiping GodGod by Michelangelo

Man Praying--Ruth Mabee

Works Cited

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. August 2008. 25 September 2009 <http://dissentfromdarwin.org&gt;.

Ashton, John F. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books, Inc., 2001.

Creation Studies. 22 September 2009 <http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/fallacies.html&gt;.

Ham, Ken. Answers in Genesis. 22 September 2009 <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp&gt;.

—. The New Answers Book. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books, 2006.

Hanegraaff, Hank. Fatal Flaws. Nashville, TN: Zondervan, 2003.

Isaak, Mark. The TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. 2004. 27 September 2009 <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602_1.html&gt;.

Karl W. Gilbertson, Donald A.Yerxa. Species of Origens. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002.

MacArthur, John. The Battle for the Beginning. W Publishing Group, 2001.

Morris, Henry. Institute for Creation Research. 2009. 22 September 2009 <http://www.icr.org&gt;.

Olasky, Marvin. World Magazine. 9 May 2009. 22 September 2009 <http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15306&gt;.

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books, 2004.

Sire, James W. Why Good Arguments Often Fail. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, USA, 2006.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Darwin’s Legacy-A Look at the Evidence and the Conclusion (part 3)

  1. Awesome research. Great piece with much information if people would only consider it. Great food for thought that I hope many skeptics will read and consider.

    I would take care not to make too much of the secondary issues such as young earth vs. old earth creationism. Even the letter to the Hebrews makes reference to the seventh day and says we are still in the seventh day.

    If the seventh day can be thousands of years old with respect to its beginning (God’s cessation of creation) and the then-current writing of the letter (2nd half of the first century), then we may suppose that the use of “day” in the Creation Hymn may not be intended as a literal 24-hour period “day” (Hebrew “yom”) as reckoned by the earth’s revolution around the sun.

    I had a conversation with someone once — a skeptic — who argued that God could have used evolution to create if He wanted to. It was difficult for Him to see God creating the timespace continuum and everything in it in only 6 days. Only thing wrong with that is that, if God is God, he can do whatever He wants however He wants. But that argument works both ways.

    Old-earth creationism does not need Gap Theory or Darwinian Evolution to work and finds support in the observable universe. Likewise young-earth creationism actually does hold its own according to some very intriguing scientific discoveries also in the observable universe. It’s interesting to see, regardless of which position you hold, God still comes to the fore. And its also intersting to see there may even be possibilities that go beyond old-earth and young-earth that completely ignore time altogether. Time has no effect on God, so it would not be surprising to me to find that were the case. His creation is fascinating. HE is fascinating.

    In the end, it comes down to this…

    Old-earth/young-earth is an “in-house” debate among Christians.

    No single view should be used as a test of orthodoxy.

    Bible studies for “twenty-four hour days” appear solid, especially when used with numerals and ordinals, but are not absolute — the “seventh day” is not twenty-four hours in Hebrews.

    Millions or billions of years does not help the case of Darwinian evolution

    We must preserve the historicity of the creation as well as the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture.

  2. Penitenagon,

    Good points and thanks for reading it over.

    As for Hebrews, while your argument is valid, it is based on silence. That argument “in that day” can go both ways. It is inconclusive and while it leaves the position open for an old-earth Creation, Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 as well as multiple NT quotes narrow it down and leave us no choice but to accept a 6 day Creation. I quoted Dr. Barr likely the top critic on the OT Hebrew (teaches at Oxford) and he said that if the OT writing leave no room for anything but a 6 day Creation and a worldwide flood.

    In my research I found this to be conclusive with other authors. But I will agree with you, this should be more of an “in house” discussion. Yet I am sure you will agree with me on this point–there is only one answer to our question of Origens. I am either right or wrong. Can God do anything he wants? Of course. But when he does do, it is only in one way.

    This should be a cause for serious consideration within the church–an opportunity to find the truth and to come to a united decision on it. I have my friends who are old-earth Creationists and the arguments are always the say, as to the use of “day”, yet I found conclusively that the Bible leaves no other althernative than that the earth was created in 6 literal days. There is simply no way around it.

    So what should are response be? Test nature to see if it is true. There is an appearance of age in the earth, yet there are also very good arguments to see youth in the earth as well. Let us test it and come to a conclusion, because if we can’t come together on this, we can never oppose Evolution in schools.

    I have brothers and sisters in Christ who believe in old-earth. Not a problem. Will I try to convince them otherwise? Yes. Why? Because I believe it makes God most glorified when we find out the truth about him, and are able to share this with others. But overall the issue is secondary to Bible Inerrancy, to Salvation through Christ, and the basic tennets. But I also believe we are loosing a large battle to Darwinian Evolution by not calling a spade a spade and calling them on their 150 year bluff.

    Thanks for looking it over and for your comments.

  3. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to
    say that I have truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts.

    In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s